Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
Status
of
Screening
Level
Review
Phase
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
Office
of
Water
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
December
2003
i
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ES­
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1­
1
2.0
SUGGESTIONS
FOR
IMPROVING
IMPLEMENTATION
AND
EFFICIENCY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
1
2.1
Summary
of
Suggested
Industry
Categories
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
2
2.2
Comments
on
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
2.2.1
Stakeholder
Input
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
6
2.2.2
Factor
4:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
2.2.3
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
7
2.2.4
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
2­
9
2.2.5
Pollutants
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
11
2.2.6
Evaluation
of
POTW
Performance
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
12
2.3
Comments
on
the
Proposed
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
13
2.3.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
13
2.3.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
2­
14
2.3.3
Pollutants
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
15
2.4
Previous
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
Suggestions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
16
2.4.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
16
2.4.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
2­
18
2.5
Consultations
with
Permitting
Authorities
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
21
2.5.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
22
2.5.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
.
.
.
.
2­
23
2.5.3
NPDES
Permit
Review
Process
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
29
2.6
Other
Governmental
Bodies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
30
2.6.1
AMSA
and
ASIWPCA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
30
2.6.2
FACAs
for
State
and
Local
Governments
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
32
2.6.3
Federally
Recognized
Indian
Tribes
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
33
2.7
Future
Information
Gathering
Efforts
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2­
34
3.0
VOLUNTARY
LOAD
REDUCTIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
1
3.1
Suggestions
From
Stakeholders
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
2
3.2
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
3
3.3
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
3
3.4
EPA
Programs
Encouraging
Voluntary
Reductions
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3­
4
ii
4.0
OTHER
EPA
OFFICES'
RANKINGS
&
LISTS
FOR
MULTI­
MEDIA
CONCERNS
.
.
.
.
4­
1
4.1
Office
of
Air's
Integrated
Urban
Air
Toxics
Strategy
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
2
4.2
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Sector
Notebooks
.
4­
5
4.3
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Multi­
media
Data
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
7
4.3.1
Sector
Facility
Indexing
Project
(
SFIP)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
7
4.3.2
Integrated
Data
for
Enforcement
Analysis
(
IDEA)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
9
4.3.3
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
(
ICIS)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
10
4.3.4
Enforcement
Compliance
History
Online
(
ECHO)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
10
4.4
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation's
Sector
Strategies
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
11
4.5
Office
of
Environmental
Information/
Office
of
Research
and
Development
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
13
4.6
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
Report:
Emerging
Challenges
and
Opportunities
for
EPA
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4­
14
5.0
POTENTIAL
ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.1
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards'
Innovative
Regulatory
Strategies
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
1
5.2
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation's
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
3
5.3
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics'
Design
for
the
Environment
Program
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
4
5.4
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response's
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
6
5.5
Pollutant
Trading
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
8
5.6
Other
Voluntary
Programs/
Pollution
Prevention
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
10
5.6.1
Environmental
Management
Systems
(
EMSs)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5­
10
6.0
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6­
1
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
ES­
1
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
In
November
2002,
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
announced
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations.
This
draft
Strategy
outlines
a
process
that
EPA
proposed
to
use
to
develop
biennial
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plans.
It
is
being
implemented
by
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
for
the
first
time
in
support
of
the
development
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
(
In
this
document,

analyses
prepared
to
support
the
2004/
2005
Plan
as
described
as
part
of
the
current
planning
cycle.
Future
planning
cycles
will
support
future
biennial
Plans.)

In
the
draft
Strategy,
EPA
identified
four
major
factors
 
based
on
section
304(
b)
 
that
the
Agency
would
examine,
in
the
course
of
its
annual
review,
to
determine
whether
it
would
be
necessary
and
appropriate
to
revise
an
existing
set
of
effluent
guidelines,
or
whether
to
develop
a
new
set
of
effluent
guidelines
for
a
newly
identified
industrial
category.
This
report
documents
the
efforts
made
and
discusses
the
status
of
screening
level
analysis
for
Factor
4,
Implementation
and
Efficiency.

Factor
4
considers
ways
to
eliminate
inefficiencies
or
impediments
to
implementing
existing
effluent
guidelines,
ways
to
promote
innovative
approaches
to
pollution
control,
and
alternative
controls
to
reduce
pollutant
discharges,
including
non­
regulatory
programs.

Information
for
this
analysis
was
gathered
through
outreach
to
a
variety
of
stakeholders
and
from
observations
provided
by
expert
staff
in
EPA
regions
and
headquarters,
all
of
whose
contributions
are
documented
in
this
report.

EPA
and
an
Agency
workgroup
supporting
the
development
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
have
identified
a
variety
of
tools
and
resources
which
provide
information
that
EAD
considered
in
the
current
planning
cycle.
A
preliminary
summary
of
these
results
are
discussed
below.
This
report
discusses
the
tools
and
resources
EPA
used
in
Section
2.0
of
this
report.
Other
tools
and
resources,
identified
through
a
variety
of
means,
are
discussed
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
ES­
2
here
in
preliminary
terms.
These
are
described
in
Sections
3.0,
4.0,
and
5.0
of
this
report.
While
they
were
not
available
for
the
screening
level
review
of
the
current
planning
cycle,
they
may
prove
useful
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
this
cycle
and
in
future
planning
cycles.

As
a
result
of
the
Factor
4
screening
level
analysis,
EAD
identified
two
lists
of
industry
categories
for
possible
consideration
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase:
(
1)
industry
categories
without
effluent
guidelines
recommended
by
stakeholders
and/
or
EPA
regional
and
headquarters
staff
for
regulatory
development,
and
(
2)
industry
categories
already
covered
by
effluent
guidelines
recommended
by
stakeholders
and/
or
EPA
regional
and
headquarters
staff
for
regulatory
revision.
These
recommendations
are
listed
below.

13
Suggested
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
Airport
Industrial
Discharges
Independent
and
Stand­
Alone
Laboratories
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Municipal
Storm
water
Runoff
Construction
and
Development
Ocean
Going
Vessels
(
cruise
ships,
(
storm
water
discharges)
ballast
and
bilge
water)
Dental
Facilities
Printing
and
Publishing
Drinking
Water
Supply
and
Treatment
Prisons
Food
Service
Establishments
Wastewater
Treatment
&
Sewerage
Systems
Groundwater
Remediation
Discharges
24
Suggested
Categories
with
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Vegetables
Processing
Mineral
Mining
and
Processing
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction:
coal
bed
methane
Coal
Mining
Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
hard
rock
mining)
Coil
Coating
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
&
Synthetic
Fibers,
Dairy
Products
Processing
including
chemical
formulators,
and
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
adhesives
and
sealants
Electroplating
Petroleum
Refining,
including
petroleum
bulk
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
stations
and
terminals
Hospitals
Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
Phases
1,
2,
and
3)
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Steam
Electric
Power
Generation
Meat
(
and
Poultry)
Products
Textile
Mills
Metal
Finishing
Timber
Products
Processing
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning:
industrial
container
&
drum
cleaning
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
ES­
3
Some
of
these
categories
may
not
fall
within
the
scope
of
section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
others
may
already
be
in
the
process
of
development
or
revision
by
EAD.
Those
determinations
are
made
during
the
next
step
of
the
planning
process.
For
a
discussion
of
how
EPA
integrated
these
results
with
those
of
the
other
factor
analyses,
see
the
memorandum
titled
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
CWA
304(
m)
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005"
(
DCN
00548).
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
1­
1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This
report
presents
the
status
of
the
screening
level
review
phase
for
Factor
4
of
the
draft
Strategy.
(
A
more
in­
depth
analysis
of
Factor
4
will
take
place
once
a
subset
of
candidate
industries
has
been
identified
upon
completion
of
the
screening
level
review
phase.)
This
factor
considers
implementation
and
efficiency
issues
concerning
existing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
new
source
performance
standards
(
abbreviated
in
this
document
as
"
effluent
guidelines").

It
considers
industry
categories
or
pollutants
specifically
identified
by
stakeholders
and
through
observations
provided
by
staff
in
EPA
regions
and
headquarters
as
potentially
causing
water
quality
problems
or
impeding
the
efficiency
of
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs).

Other
reasons
for
the
nomination
of
categories
or
pollutants
include
industry
changes
that
render
existing
effluent
guidelines
inappropriate
or
inadequate;
and
inefficiencies
or
impediments
to
regulatory
implementation,
compliance/
enforcement,
or
technological
innovation.

Factor
4
also
includes
efforts
to
determine
1)
whether
a
pollutant
source
is
already
being
addressed
by
another
regulatory
program,
such
as
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs),
2)
the
availability
and
appropriateness
of
other,
non­
regulatory
initiatives,
such
as
programs
to
voluntarily
reduce
pollutant
loadings,
and
3)
whether
alternatives
to
regulatory
action,
such
as
water
quality
trading,
may
be
appropriate
means
to
address
concerns
identified
under
Factor
1
(
Human
Health
and
Environmental
Impacts).

In
short,
this
aspect
of
Factor
4
attempts
to
identify
whether
effluent
guidelines
development
or
revision
is
the
most
appropriate
tool
to
reduce
risk,
and
to
identify
what
other
tools
may
be
more
efficient
to
achieve
clean
water
goals.
This
Factor
will
be
addressed
both
during
the
screening
level
review
phase
(
documented
here)
and
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
later
in
the
process.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
1­
2
EPA's
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
EAD)
organized
its
preliminary
data
collection,

review,
and
analysis
for
Factor
4
into
four
areas:
1)
stakeholder
input
and
observations
from
expert
staff
in
EPA
Regions
and
headquarters,
2)
information
on
voluntary
load
reductions,
3)

other
EPA
Offices'
rankings
and
lists
for
multi­
media
concerns,
and
4)
potential
alternative
approaches.
This
report
discusses
each
of
these
data
sources
and
their
use
in
the
Factor
4
preliminary
analysis.

EAD
was
able
to
utilize
the
information
described
in
Section
2.0
of
this
report
for
the
current
planning
cycle
(
preparing
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005).

The
tools,
information,
and
programs
described
in
Sections
3.0,
4.0,
and
5.0
were
not
sufficiently
developed
or
adapted
to
the
planning
process
to
be
useful
in
the
screening
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.
EAD
may
use
them
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
cycle,
and
they
may
be
considered
in
the
screening
phase
in
future
planning
cycles.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
1
2.0
SUGGESTIONS
FOR
IMPROVING
IMPLEMENTATION
AND
EFFICIENCY
EPA's
planning
process
for
the
effluent
guidelines
program
has
historically
included
the
consideration
of
information
provided
by
stakeholders
and
from
observations
provided
by
staff
in
EPA
regions
and
headquarters
both
through
the
formal
comment
process
and
through
informal
channels.
In
this
section
of
the
report,
EAD
discusses
the
input
it
has
received
pertinent
to
Factor
4
through
both
formal
and
informal
mechanisms.

The
formal
process
always
includes
the
comment
period
for
previous
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plans
(
discussed
in
Sections
2.3
and
2.4).
In
the
current
planning
cycle,
EPA
also
considered
comments
on
the
draft
Strategy
(
discussed
in
Section
2.2).

These
formal
dialogues
are
complemented
by
informal
discussions
with
EPA
headquarters
staff,
EPA
Regional
staff,
and
State
staff
charged
with
the
task
of
implementing
effluent
guidelines.
Traditional
sources
of
this
information
include
managers
and
staff
in
the
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
(
OWM),
permit
writers
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES),
pretreatment
coordinators,
and
coordinators
for
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
program
in
the
Regions
(
discussed
in
Section
2.5).

The
informal
dialogue
also
engages
in
ongoing
contact
with
associations
such
as
the
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies
(
AMSA)
and
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Administrators
(
ASIWPCA)
(
discussed
in
Section
2.6).

During
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
planning
process,
EAD
intends
to
contact
stakeholders
and
staff
in
EPA's
Regions
and
headquarters
for
additional
information
and
data
to
support
their
recommendations.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
2
2.1
Summary
of
Suggested
Industry
Categories
The
following
two
tables
summarize
the
recommendations
from
stakeholders
and
EPA
Regions
and
headquarters
that
are
discussed
in
this
section.
Table
1
below
lists
the
13
discharge
categories
without
effluent
guidelines
that
stakeholders
and/
or
EPA
Regions
recommended
EPA
consider
for
new
guidelines.
Table
2
lists
the
24
existing
effluent
guidelines
that
stakeholders
and/
or
EPA
Regions
recommended
EPA
consider
revising.
It
is
worth
noting
that
there
are
several
discharge
categories
which
were
recommended
by
more
than
one
group,
and
that
many
of
the
reasons
for
their
recommendations
are
similar.
For
purposes
of
clarity
and
documentation,

these
explanations
have
been
maintained
in
separate
sections
of
this
chapter,
and
the
appropriate
sections
are
identified
in
the
tables.

In
both
tables,
each
column
refers
to
a
separate
group
of
sources,
organized
by
the
process
through
which
they
provided
their
suggestions.
The
first
column
reflects
comments
received
from
stakeholders
on
the
draft
Strategy,
announced
in
November
2002.
The
second
column
indicates
suggestions
received
from
stakeholders
on
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003,
proposed
in
June
2002.
The
"
Previous
Suggestions"
column
reflects
comments
received
from
stakeholders
and
EPA
Regions
during
planning
efforts
conducted
in
1999
and
2001.

The
final
two
columns
reflect
information
received
during
the
initial
implementation
of
the
draft
Strategy.
The
column
titled
"
Permitting
Authorities"
indicates
suggestions
received
during
the
past
year
from
permit
writers,
pretreatment
coordinators,
and
coordinators
for
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
program
in
EPA
Regions.
The
final
column
reflects
recent
suggestions
received
from
members
of
the
Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies
(
AMSA)
and
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Authorities
(
ASIWPCA).
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
3
Table
1:
13
Suggested
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
Industry
Formal
Comment
Process
Previous
Suggestions
(
Sec.
2.4)
Draft
Strategy
Outreach
Comments
on
Draft
Strategy
(
Sec.
2.2)
Comments
on
2002/
2003
Plan
(
Sec.
2.3)
Permitting
Authorities
(
Sec.
2.5)
AMSA
&

ASIWPCA
(
Sec.
2.6)

Airport
Industrial
Discharges

Aquatic
Animal
Production


Construction
and
Development
(
storm
water
discharges)

Dental
Facilities



Drinking
Water
Supply
and
Treatment

Food
Service
Establishments

Groundwater
Remediation
Discharges

Independent
and
Stand­
Alone
Laboratories

Municipal
Storm
Water
Runoff



Ocean
Going
Vessels
(
cruise
ships,
ballast
and
bilge
water)


Printing
and
Publishing

Prisons


Wastewater
Treatment
and
Sewerage
Systems
(
POTWs
and
municipal
treatment
plants)

Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
4
Table
2:
24
Suggested
Categories
with
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Industry
Formal
Comment
Process
Previous
Suggestions
(
Sec.
2.4)
Draft
Strategy
Outreach
Comments
on
Draft
Strategy
(
Sec.
2.2)
Comments
on
2002/
2003
Plan
(
Sec.
2.3)
Permitting
Authorities
(
Sec.
2.5)
AMSA
&
ASIWPCA
(
Sec.
2.6)

Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Vegetable
Processing


Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood



Coal
Mining



Coil
Coating

Dairy
Products
Processing

Electrical
and
Electronic
Components

Electroplating

Fertilizer
Manufacturing


Hospitals
(&
Related
Health
Care
Facilities)



Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing

Meat
(
and
Poultry)
Products



Metal
Finishing




Metal
Molding
and
Casting




Metal
Products
and
Machinery

Mineral
Mining
and
Processing

Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
(
specifically
coal
bed
methane
development
as
new
subcategory)



Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
hard
rock
mining)



Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
&
Synthetic
Fibers

Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
Table
2:
24
Suggested
Categories
with
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Industry
Formal
Comment
Process
Previous
Suggestions
(
Sec.
2.4)
Draft
Strategy
Outreach
Comments
on
Draft
Strategy
(
Sec.
2.2)
Comments
on
2002/
2003
Plan
(
Sec.
2.3)
Permitting
Authorities
(
Sec.
2.5)
AMSA
&
ASIWPCA
(
Sec.
2.6)

2­
5
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
&
Synthetic
Fibers:
chemical
formulators,
including
adhesives
and
sealants,
as
new
subcategory


Petroleum
Refining



Petroleum
Refining:
petroleum
bulk
stations
and
terminals
as
new
subcategory

Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
Phases
1,
2,
and
3)


Steam
Electric
Power
Generation


Textile
Mills


Timber
Products
Processing

Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning
(
specifically
industrial
container
&
drum
cleaning)

Note
that
several
of
the
discharge
categories
listed
here
may
have
been
recently
addressed
by
effluent
guidelines
or
are
being
addressed
in
effluent
guidelines
currently
being
revised
or
developed.
This
is
noted
in
the
discussions
presented
in
the
following
sections,
and
was
taken
into
consideration
during
the
ranking
process
that
follows
the
screening
level
review.
(
This
is
documented
in
the
memo
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
CWA
304(
m)
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005"
(
DCN
00548).)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
6
2.2
Comments
on
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations
In
November
2002,
EPA
published
a
notice
announcing
the
draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations,
which
outlines
a
process
that
EPA
proposed
to
use
to
develop
biennial
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plans.
The
comment
period
on
the
draft
Strategy
ended
on
February
27,
2003,
and
EPA
received
comments
from
26
commenters.
A
summary
of
those
comments
can
be
found
in
"
Comments
on
the
Draft
Strategy
for
National
Clean
Water
Industrial
Regulations"
(
DCN
00585).
The
comments
themselves
are
available
for
review
in
EPA
docket
OW­
2002­
0020,
available
on­
line
at
EPA's
EDOCKET
under
e­
docket
numbers
0036
through
0069.
The
internet
address
for
the
EDOCKET
home
page
is
cascade.
epa.
gov/
RightSite/
dk_
public_
home.
htm.

Most
of
the
comments
came
from
municipal
wastewater
agencies
or
treatment
authorities
(
10),
and
industry
trade
associations
(
7).
EPA
also
received
four
comments
from
state
or
city
environmental
departments,
four
comments
from
individual
companies,
and
one
comment
from
an
environmental
group.
The
discussion
below
summarizes
the
comments
as
they
pertain
to
stakeholder
input,
Factor
4
in
general,
and
discharge
categories
for
which
revisions
to
existing
guidelines
or
development
of
new
guidelines
were
recommended.

2.2.1
Stakeholder
Input
In
total,
twelve
commenters
specifically
mentioned
stakeholder
involvement
with
the
planning
process.
Nine
of
these
commenters
generally
endorse
the
stakeholder
involvement
described
in
the
draft
Strategy.
Three
others
agree
with
the
Strategy,
but
also
provide
suggestions
for
ways
EPA
may
more
effectively
involve
stakeholders:
1)
work
with
control
authorities
at
the
local
level
as
a
supplement/
alternative
to
regulations;
2)
form
a
broad­
based
panel
of
stakeholders
to
work
more
closely
with
EPA
(
2
commenters),
and
3)
develop
data
gathering
tools.
None
of
the
commenters
disagree
with
this
aspect
of
the
Strategy.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
7
2.2.2
Factor
4:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Seven
commenters
addressed
factor
4
specifically.
Two
of
these
commenters
support
this
factor,
both
in
its
consideration
of
other
EPA
programs
and
in
its
inclusion
of
stakeholder
input.

Another
four
commenters
agree
with
this
factor
in
general,
but
suggest
that
EPA
expand
it
to:
1)

also
seek
information
on
emerging
technologies
from
ORD,
OECA,
and
Regions;
2)
also
consult
with
Commerce,
Patent
Office,
and
wastewater
treatment
manufacturers
to
identify
emerging
technologies;
3)
also
consider
whether
permit
writers
have
been
requesting
modifications
to
existing
effluent
guidelines
and
whether
those
changes
require
revision
of
the
existing
effluent
guidelines.
The
seventh
commenter
contends
that
this
factor
is
not
allowed
under
the
CWA.

2.2.3
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
Five
commenters
made
specific
recommendations
regarding
categories
which
do
not
have
effluent
guidelines.
Four
of
these
commenters
identify
four
specific
discharge
categories
that
could
warrant
development
of
new
effluent
guidelines
under
Section
304(
m).
These
are
listed
below.

Additional
comments
on
unregulated
categories
are
discussed
at
the
end
of
this
list.

Dental
facilities:
Several
stakeholders
asserted
that
discharges
from
dental
facilities
are
a
significant
source
of
mercury
to
sewage
treatment
systems.
Stakeholders
state
that
strategies
for
reducing
mercury
discharges
from
dental
facilities
can
involve
both
source
reduction
through
Best
Management
Practices,
and
the
use
of
effective
and
affordable
devices
known
as
"
separators"
to
remove
mercury
from
dental
wastewater.
One
stakeholder
recommends
that
effluent
guidelines
for
dental
facilities
would
need
to
include
pollution
prevention
and
source
reduction,
and
believes
that
EPA's
proposed
criteria
would
allow
for
such
a
strategy.
Another
stakeholder
notes
that
there
are
water
quality
standards
for
mercury,
requirements
to
develop
local
limits
that
consider
water
quality
standards,
and
resultant
non­
detect
limits.
They
state
that
the
most
efficient
approach
is
probably
a
ban
on
mercury
in
products
rather
than
tracking
it
down
and
regulating
it
up
the
pipe.

Two
stakeholders
asserts
that
traditional
pretreatment
standards
for
dental
facilities
will
pose
an
undue
burden
on
Control
Authorities
for
several
reasons:
1)
very
low
volume
flows,
2)
high
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
8
number
of
facilities,
and
3)
often
located
in
professional
buildings
with
no
distinct
sewer
lateral
or
sampling
location
for
their
discharge.
These
stakeholders
encourage
EPA
to
consider
voluntary
programs
as
a
way
to
reduce
these
discharges.

Food
service
establishments:
A
stakeholder
asserts
that
grease
from
food
service
establishments
interfere
with
collection
systems
by
reducing
the
capacity
of
sewers
and
causing
overflows.
The
stakeholder
notes
that,
historically,
effluent
guidelines
have
addressed
toxic
pollutants
and
that
grease
itself
is
not
toxic.
However,
the
stakeholder
notes
that
EPA
recognizes
the
seriousness
of
Sanitary
Sewer
Overflows
(
SSOs)
and
Combined
Sewer
Overflows
(
CSOs)
and
urges
EPA
to
consider
effluent
guidelines
that
would
reduce
these
events.
The
stakeholder
recommends
the
development
of
Best
Management
Practices
and
sizing
and
cleaning
and
maintenance
criteria,

engaging
cities
and
health
departments
already
experienced
in
addressing
this
problem.

Independent
and
Stand­
Alone
Laboratories:
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
several
discharge
categories
listed
in
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G,
entitled
"
Effluent
Guidelines
Categories"
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.
Reilly,
89­
2980).
After
reviewing
the
lists
included
in
this
document,
EAD
concluded
that
the
laboratories
category
was
one
of
the
four
listed
in
that
Exhibit
which
had
not
yet
been
addressed.
Another
stakeholder
asserted
that
significant
discharges
or
mercury
come
from
laboratories.

Printing
and
publishing:
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
several
discharge
categories
listed
in
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G,
entitled
"
Effluent
Guidelines
Categories"
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.
Reilly,
89­
2980).
After
reviewing
the
lists
included
in
this
document,
EAD
concluded
that
printing
and
publishing
was
one
of
the
four
discharge
categories
in
that
Exhibit
which
had
not
yet
been
addressed.

One
of
the
four
commenters
suggested
that
the
304(
m)
Team
review
a
list
of
specific
discharge
categories
that
by
1988
had
been
identified
by
EPA
or
its
stakeholders
to
identify
those
that
to
date
had
not
yet
been
addressed.
After
a
review
of
the
referenced
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.
Reilly,
89­
2980),
EAD
identified
five
items
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
9
from
this
list
that
meet
that
criteria.
Of
these,
only
two
discharge
categories
have
not
yet
been
addressed
 
the
laboratories
point
source
category,
and
the
printing
and
publishing
point
source
category.
Both
of
these
are
included
in
the
list
above.

Of
the
remaining
three
unregulated
items
identified
in
Exhibit
G,
two
are
considered
part
of
a
currently
unregulated
subcategory
of
existing
effluent
guidelines
for
Organic
Chemicals.
Plastics,

and
Synthetic
Fibers
 
chemical
formulators,
including
adhesives
and
sealants.
This
subcategory
is
listed
in
section
2.1.4
below.
The
fifth
item
on
the
list
of
Exhibit
G
is
drum
reconditioning,
which
is
part
of
the
Industrial
Container
and
Drum
Cleaning
subcategory
of
the
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning
category.
This
unregulated
subcategory
is
also
listed
in
section
2.1.4
below.

One
of
these
commenters
also
argues
that
effluent
guidelines
should
be
developed
for
all
point
sources
that
discharge
more
than
trivial
amounts
of
toxic
or
nonconventional
pollutants.
The
fifth
commenter
reminds
EPA
that
a
finding
of
the
"
significant
amounts"
of
toxic
pollutants
is
a
mandated
prerequisite
for
identifying
new
categories.

2.2.4
Discharge
Categories
with
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Four
commenters
made
specific
recommendations
on
revising
existing
effluent
guidelines.

Two
commenters
identify
five
specific
categories:

Electroplating
(
40
CFR
413):
A
stakeholder
asserts
that,
if
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
effluent
guidelines
will
only
address
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
Oily
Waste
subcategory,

EPA
should
revise
the
Electroplating
effluent
guidelines,
and
consolidate
it
with
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines.
In
addition,
the
stakeholder
recommends
that
cyanide
sampling
should
be
performed
after
mixing
with
the
metal
bearing
waste
stream
(
this
reduces
the
burden
on
Control
Authorities
in
sampling
two
locations);
and
stand­
alone
iron
phosphate
operations
should
be
excluded
from
regulation.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
10
Hospitals
(
40
CFR
460):
Stakeholders
identified
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities
for
discharges
or
mercury.
One
stakeholder
asserted
that
significant
discharges
or
mercury
come
from
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities,
but
noted
that
for
many
hospitals,
a
pollution
prevention
strategy
that
emphasizes
product
testing,
substitution
and
source
reduction
can
effectively
and
substantially
reduce
mercury
discharges.
This
stakeholder
recommends
that
revised
effluent
guidelines
for
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities
would
need
to
include
pollution
prevention
and
source
reduction,
and
believes
that
EPA's
proposed
criteria
would
allow
for
such
a
strategy.

Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433):
A
stakeholder
asserts
that,
if
the
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
effluent
guidelines
will
only
address
direct
discharging
facilities
in
the
Oily
Waste
subcategory,

EPA
should
revise
the
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines,
and
consolidate
it
with
Electroplating
effluent
guidelines.
In
addition,
the
stakeholder
recommends
that
cyanide
sampling
should
be
performed
after
mixing
with
the
metal
bearing
waste
stream
(
this
reduces
the
burden
on
Control
Authorities
in
sampling
two
locations);
and
stand­
alone
iron
phosphate
operations
should
be
excluded
from
regulation.
The
stakeholder
also
asserts
that
the
effluent
guidelines
should
be
reevaluated
to
address
the
discrepancy
of
metals
limits
between
this
category
and
those
in
the
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
effluent
guidelines.
The
effluent
standards
for
the
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
category
are
production
based,
and
when
the
appropriate
values
are
applied
and
calculations
performed
to
convert
these
into
equivalent
concentration
limits,
the
resulting
discharge
limits
for
metals
are
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
the
Metal
Finishing
standards.
This
suggests
there
is
a
problem
either
with
the
Metal
Finishing
standards
(
which
have
been
recently
reviewed
in
the
MP&
M
development)
or
the
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
standards.

Metal
Molding
and
Casting
(
40
CFR
464):
A
stakeholder
asserts
that
the
effluent
guidelines
should
be
re­
evaluated
to
address
the
discrepancy
of
metals
limits
between
this
category
and
those
in
the
Metal
Finishing
effluent
guidelines.
The
effluent
standards
for
the
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
category
are
production
based,
and
when
the
appropriate
values
are
applied
and
calculations
performed
to
convert
these
into
equivalent
concentration
limits,
the
resulting
discharge
limits
for
metals
are
orders
of
magnitude
lower
than
the
Metal
Finishing
standards.
This
suggests
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
11
there
is
a
problem
either
with
the
Metal
Finishing
standards
(
which
have
been
recently
reviewed
in
the
MP&
M
development)
or
the
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
standards.

Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers,
40
CFR
414
 
Chemical
formulators
as
a
new
subcategory:
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
several
discharge
categories
listed
in
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G,
entitled
"
Effluent
Guidelines
Categories"
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.

Reilly,
89­
2980).
After
reviewing
the
lists
included
in
this
document,
EAD
concluded
that
chemical
formulators,
which
includes
the
adhesives
and
sealants
subcategory
also
listed
in
Exhibit
G,
is
an
unregulated
subcategory
under
the
existing
guidelines
for
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers.

Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning
(
40
CFR
442):
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
several
discharge
categories
listed
in
Plaintiff's
Exhibit
G,
entitled
"
Effluent
Guidelines
Categories"
(
submitted
to
the
federal
district
court
in
NRDC
v.
Reilly,
89­
2980).
After
reviewing
the
lists
included
in
this
document,
EAD
concluded
that
drum
reconditioning,
part
of
the
Industrial
Container
and
Drum
Cleaning
subcategory
of
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning,
is
one
of
the
four
listed
in
that
Exhibit
which
had
not
yet
been
addressed.

The
third
commenter
suggested
that
EPA
revise
all
effluent
guidelines
where
the
technologies
they
require
are
no
longer
Best
Available
Technology
(
BAT)
for
existing
sources
or
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
for
new
sources.
The
fourth
commenter
warns
EPA
that
no
revisions
to
effluent
guidelines
will
prove
cost
effective.

2.2.5
Pollutants
of
Concern
EPA
received
comments
on
the
following
pollutants
of
concern:

Bioengineered
Products
­
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
EPA's
top
priority
should
be
reducing
bioengineered
products,
which
are
among
the
pollutants
most
likely
to
cause
environmental
or
public
health
risks.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
12
Carcinogens
­
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
EPA's
top
priority
should
be
reducing
carcinogens,

which
are
among
the
pollutants
most
likely
to
cause
environmental
or
public
health
risks.

Endocrine
Disruptors
­
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
EPA's
top
priority
should
be
reducing
endocrine
disruptors,
which
are
among
the
pollutants
most
likely
to
cause
environmental
or
public
health
risks.
Another
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
should
evaluate
the
best
way
to
control
newer
pollutants
such
as
endocrine
disruptors,
warning
that
setting
limits
and
issuing
permits
to
large
dischargers
will
not
effectively
control
these
newer
pollutants.

Pharmaceutical
Residues
­
A
stakeholder
asserted
that
EPA's
top
priority
should
be
reducing
pharmaceutical
residues,
which
are
among
the
pollutants
most
likely
to
cause
environmental
or
public
health
risks.

2.2.6
Evaluation
of
POTW
performance
Three
commenters
specifically
suggested
that
EPA
update
its
interference/
pass­
through
analyses
("
The
Fate
of
Priority
Pollutants
in
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works",
1982,
referred
to
informally
as
the
"
50
POTW
Study"),
though
it
wasn't
a
topic
for
which
we
solicited
comments.

Commenters
state
that
the
technological
improvements
at
POTWs
have
resulted
in
substantially
better
removals
of
pollutants
generated
by
industrial
processes.
(
This
comment
was
also
received
in
response
to
the
proposed
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003.)

In
addition,
during
a
recent
rulemaking
effort
EPA
received
a
related
comment,
common
to
guidelines
rulemakings.
The
commenter
asserted:

"...
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
do
not
believe
that
additional
effluent
guidelines
are
needed
due
to
the
maturity
of
the
national
pretreatment
program.
We
acknowledge
that
there
might
be
handful
of
very
small
POTWs
that
are
experiencing
problems
(
political
or
otherwise),

but
generating
a
rule
of
this
magnitude
for
the
entire
nation
is
not
the
solution
to
these
problems.

This
is
especially
true
when
you
consider
that
categorically
regulated
industry
sectors
have
high
rates
of
compliance,
and
environmentally
derived
local
limits
must,
by
law,
provide
adequate
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
13
protection
against
pass­
through
and
interference,
and
ensure
the
high
quality
of
effluents
and
residual
biosolids."

Commenters
also
assert
that
expenditures
on
building
and
improving
POTWs
have
had
dramatic
effects
in
reducing
the
levels
of
pollutants
that
treatment
works
discharge
to
waters
of
the
U.
S.

Therefore,
commenters
assert
that
the
pollution
needed
to
justify
pretreatment
standards
do
not
exist.

Analytical
methods
are
now
capable
of
measuring
lower
levels
of
pollutants.
To
understand
the
impact
of
technological
and
measurement
improvements,
EPA
intends
to
collect
recent
data
from
POTWs
with
respect
to
pollutant
removal
rates,
efficiency
of
the
removals,
types
of
pollutants
removed,
and
conditions
leading
to
interferences
in
POTW
treatment
operations.

Because
of
time
constraints,
this
evaluation
will
not
occur
during
the
current
planning
cycle,
but
will
be
considered
for
use
in
future
planning
cycles.

2.3
Comments
on
the
Proposed
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
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
discharge
categories
for
which
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines
should
be
considered.
A
summary
of
those
comments
can
be
found
in
the
EPA
brief
"
Recommendations
from
Commenters
on
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003"
(
DCN
00215).
During
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
this
planning
cycle,
EAD
intends
to
contact
commenters
to
obtain
data
and
information
to
support
these
suggestions.

2.3.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
suggestions
that
effluent
guidelines
be
developed
for
the
following
discharge
categories
that
do
not
have
existing
guidelines:
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
14
Dental
Facilities:
The
commenter
asserted
that
dental
facilities
are
a
source
of
at
least
13
percent
of
mercury
discharged
to
treatment
works
under
their
authority.
The
commenter
further
asserts
and
provides
supporting
documentation
that
dental
facilities
are
a
major
nationwide
source
of
mercury
discharges
to
sewage
treatment
systems,
and
that
cost
effective
control
technologies
are
readily
available.

Ocean
Going
Vessels/
Cruise
Ships:
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
cruise
ships
industry
has
made
significant
adverse
impacts
on
water
quality.
These
impacts
are
caused
by
their
discharge
of
large
volumes
of
wastewater
and
graywater,
and
by
the
discharge
of
significant
hazardous
wastes
from
onboard
printing,
photo
processing,
and
dry
cleaning
operations.
The
commenter
urges
EPA
to
expedite
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
apply
these
limits
to
cruise
ship
discharges
in
all
U.
S.
waters.
(
Note:
EPA's
Office
of
Wetlands,
Oceans,
and
Watersheds
is
currently
taking
the
lead
on
evaluation
of
these
discharges.)

2.3.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
suggestions
to
revise
the
effluent
guidelines
already
in
place
for
the
following
discharge
categories:

Coal
Mining
(
40
CFR
434):
The
commenter
asserts
that
the
effluent
guidelines
for
the
coal
mining
point
source
category
require
revision
because
rainfall
exemptions
for
coal
mining
in
the
current
effluent
guidelines
allow
for
relaxation
of
limits
as
soon
as
it
rains.
Furthermore,
the
commenter
states
that
settlement
basins
used
as
primary
control
for
mine
drainage
do
not
work
very
well
when
it
rains.
(
Note:
EAD
recently
revised
these
effluent
guidelines,
with
revisions
promulgated
in
January
of
2002;
however,
the
revised
rule
did
not
reassess
the
effluent
limitations
for
precipitation
events.)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
15
Hospitals
(
40
CFR
460):
The
commenter
asserts
that
hospitals
and
related
health
care
facilities
are
significant
sources
of
mercury.
The
commenter
further
asserts
and
provides
supporting
data
and
documentation
that
significant
potential
exists
for
development
of
cost­
effective
pollution
prevention
strategies,
as
well
as
economically
feasible
treatment
options.
The
commenter
also
recommends
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
mercury
discharges.

Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
(
40
CFR
435):
The
commenter
asserted
that
coalbed
methane
development
industry
has
had
significant
water
quality
impacts
in
the
regions
in
which
it
is
prevalent.
The
commenter
states
that
while
EPA
Region
8
has
taken
action,
EPA
needs
to
develop
national
effluent
guidelines
that
cover
this
discharge
subcategory.
(
Note:
EAD
is
supporting
Region
8
work
in
evaluating
discharges
from
this
industry.)

Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
Hard
Rock
Mining)
(
40
CFR
440):
The
commenter
asserts
that
the
ore
mining
and
dressing
industry
has
significant
water
quality
impacts
in
the
regions
in
which
it
is
prevalent.
The
commenter
requests
that
EPA
reverse
its
decision
to
exclude
seepage
from
waste
dumps
from
the
Part
440
applicability
definition
of
`
mine
drainage,'
and
contends
that
EPA
has
the
data
and
resources
to
regulate
seepage
from
waste
dumps.

2.3.3
Pollutants
of
Concern
EPA
received
comments
on
the
following
pollutants
of
concern:

Persistent,
Bioaccumulative,
and
Toxic
(
PBT)
Compounds
­
Commenters
request
that
EPA's
new
Strategy
focus
its
efforts
particularly
on
sectors
that
are
known
sources
of
PBT
compounds,

particularly
mercury
and
lead.

Nutrients
and
Pathogens
­
The
commenter
requests
that
EPA
require
wastewater
treatment
plants
use
biological
nutrient
removal
as
best
available
technology
and
develop
pollutant
limitations
for
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
16
nutrients,
bacteria,
and
viruses
for
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs).
The
commenter
notes
that
States
will
soon
be
required
to
adopt
nutrient
and
bacteria
criteria,
and
effluent
guidelines
should
keep
pace
with
these
policy
decisions.
While
regulating
discharges
from
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
is
not
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
effluent
guidelines
program,

EAD
intends
to
consider
these
pollutants
and
their
treatment,
if
appropriate,
when
it
evaluates
wastewater
treatment
for
industry
categories.

2.4
Previous
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
Suggestions
EPA's
planning
process
for
the
effluent
guidelines
program
has
historically
included
the
consideration
of
information
provided
by
stakeholders
and
observations
of
staff
in
EPA
headquarters
and
Regions
both
through
the
formal
comment
process
and
through
informal
channels.
In
the
fall
of
1999
and
again
in
the
spring
of
2001,
EAD
requested
suggestions
from
headquarters,
regional,
and
state
staff
charged
with
the
task
of
implementing
effluent
guidelines
to
follow
up
on
concerns
and
to
gather
recommendations
regarding
which
effluent
guidelines
the
Agency
might
develop
or
revise.
The
industry
categories
which
were
identified
through
this
process
are
listed
below.
See
the
EPA
brief
"
Previous
Recommendations
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
Process"
(
DCN
00214)
for
more
information.

2.4.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
suggestions
that
effluent
guidelines
be
developed
for
the
following
discharge
categories
that
do
not
have
existing
guidelines:

Airport
Industrial
Discharges:
Responders
suggested
that
new
effluent
guidelines
be
developed
to
address
airport
deicing
activities
as
a
way
to
level
the
playing
field
between
airports.
Effluent
guidelines
were
also
seen
as
a
means
to
ease
the
burden
on
permit
writers,
for
whom
modeling
oxygen
demand
for
each
airport
is
very
time
consuming.
(
Note:
EAD
completed
a
study
on
this
discharge
category
in
1999.
At
that
time,
the
industry
was
initiating
activities
to
reduce
the
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
17
toxicity
of
deicing
fluids,
and
many
airports
were
still
in
the
process
of
upgrading
their
strategies
for
managing
deicing
runoff
to
meet
their
permit
requirements
for
the
year
2000.)

Aquatic
Animal
Production
(
Aquaculture):
Responders
to
EPA's
queries
identified
nutrients
(
including
ammonia),
medicinals,
and
formaldehyde
as
pollutants
of
concern.
(
Note:
EAD
is
developing
new
effluent
guidelines
for
this
discharge
category,
with
a
proposal
published
in
September
of
2002
and
final
effluent
guidelines
due
in
June
of
2004.)

Drinking
Water
Supply
and
Treatment:
Responders
noted
the
need
for
minimum
technologybased
effluent
guidelines,
especially
for
TDS,
TSS,
pH,
and
for
chemicals
used
by
these
facilities.

Concerns
were
also
raised
for
disposal
of
treatment
sludges
and
backwash
waters,
especially
when
those
discharges
are
sent
to
surface
water
reaches
already
impaired
for
sediment.

Municipal
Storm
Water
Runoff:
Responders
identified
oil
and
grease,
pesticides,
pathogens,

metals,
and
sediment
as
requiring
limitations.
The
concern
is
that
storm
water
regulators
cannot
use
water
quality
based
effluent
limits,
and
need
technology­
based
guidelines
to
supplement
reliance
on
best
management
practices.
Two
responders
recommended
defining
the
standard
as
"
reducing
pollutants
to
the
maximum
extent
possible."
(
Note:
EAD
is
currently
developing
effluent
guidelines
for
storm
water
discharges
from
construction
sites,
with
a
proposal
published
in
June
2002,
and
final
guidelines
due
in
March
2004.)

Ocean
Going
Vessels/
Ballast
and
Bilge
Water:
Responders
identified
oil
and
grease,
metals,
and
invasive
species
as
pollutants
of
concern
discharged
in
the
ballast
and
bilge
water
of
ocean­
going
vessels.

Prisons
(
Penitentiaries):
Responders
identified
prisons
as
a
source
of
problems
for
food
processing
discharges,
including
copper.

Wastewater
Treatment
and
Sewerage
Systems:
Responders
cited
the
need
for
new
effluent
guidelines
for
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
and
for
municipal
treatment
plants
that
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
18
would
set
technology­
based
controls
for
nutrients,
including
ammonia,
nitrate­
nitrite,
and
phosphorus.
Metals
were
also
identified
as
a
concern.
Responders
recommended
either
improved
secondary
treatment
or
tertiary
treatment
requirements.
At
issue
is
EPA's
legal
authority
to
promulgate
effluent
guidelines,
as
well
as
ongoing
efforts
within
EPA's
municipal
program.
(
Note:

Some
of
these
suggestions
appear
to
be
more
appropriately
addressed
by
programs
with
jurisdiction
for
direct
discharges
from
POTWs.
EAD
intends
to
consider
these
pollutants,

however,
as
part
of
its
evaluation
of
potential
revisions
to
categorical
pretreatment
regulations.)

2.4.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
suggestions
to
revise
the
effluent
guidelines
already
in
place
for
the
following
discharge
categories:

Coal
Mining
(
40
CFR
434):
Although
responders
recommended
coal
mining
for
revised
effluent
guidelines
development,
no
specific
concerns
were
noted.
(
Note:
EAD
revised
these
effluent
guidelines
in
January,
2002.)

Fertilizer
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
418):
Responders
noted
concerns
for
ammonia
discharges
from
this
point
source
category.

Food
Processing
including
Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Vegetables
Processing
(
40
CFR
407),
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
(
40
CFR
408),
and
Dairy
Products
Processing
(
40
CFR
405):
In
general,
responders
were
concerned
with
the
discharge
of
nutrients,
as
well
as
overloading
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
and
small
streams
(
for
direct
dischargers)

with
conventional
pollutants
such
as
BOD.
Responders
identified
several
specific
industries
as
having
such
characteristics,
including
seafood
processing,
dairies,
cheese
manufacturing,
and
vegetables
processing.
Other
issues
identified
include
a
concern
for
copper
in
relation
to
dairies,

and
non­
approved
pretreatment
processes
in
relation
to
juice
manufacturing
as
an
example.
One
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
19
respondent
identified
the
"
food
protein
technologies"
industry
as
a
subcategory
without
effluent
guidelines
which
potentially
need
them.

Meat
(
and
Poultry)
Products
(
40
CFR
432):
Responders
mentioned
the
need
to
revise
these
effluent
guidelines
to
address
concerns
for
nutrients,
specifically
the
need
for
limits
for
nitrogen
and
ammonia.
Additional
concerns
raised
were
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)

overloaded
by
conventional
pollutant
discharges
from
this
industry
and
unregulated
discharges
of
copper.
(
Note:
EAD
is
already
in
the
process
of
revising
these
effluent
guideline.
EPA
published
a
proposal
in
February,
2002;
and
final
effluent
guidelines
are
due
in
December,
2003.)

Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433):
Responders
suggested
that
the
effluent
guidelines
be
revised
to
remove
phosphaters
of
mild
steel
from
the
scope,
and
identified
activities
of
concern,
including
fastener
manufacturing,
job
shop
galvanizers,
and
jewelry
manufacturing.

Metal
Molding
and
Casting
(
40
CFR
464):
Specific
activities
of
concern
identified
by
responders
include
fastener
manufacturing,
job
shop
galvanizers,
and
jewelry
manufacturing.
Phenol
was
identified
as
a
pollutant
of
concern.

Mineral
Mining
and
Processing
(
40
CFR
436):
Responders
suggested
the
need
for
more
complete
effluent
guidelines,
including
the
addition
of
TSS
limits,
and
were
concerned
that
the
existing
guidelines
are
inconsistently
applied.

Oil
and
Gas
(
40
CFR
435)
 
coal
bed
methane
as
a
new
subcategory:
Responders
suggested
revising
the
oil
and
gas
effluent
guidelines
to
address
issues
arising
from
the
coalbed
methane
extraction
procedure.
Although
the
bulk
of
the
discharge
from
this
activity
is
water,
responders
identified
concerns
for
depleting
aquifers,
erosion,
sedimentation,
barium
concentrations
exceeded,

salinization
of
land,
adverse
impact
on
farmers
through
plugging
of
soils
which
decreases
infiltration,
and
the
loss
of
the
water's
return
to
groundwater.
Several
states
are
affected
by
these
activities,
including
Wyoming,
Colorado,
New
Mexico,
Alabama,
Montana,
and
Utah.
(
Note:

EAD
is
currently
supporting
EPA
staff
in
Region
8
to
evaluate
discharges
from
this
industry.)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
20
Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
Hard
Rock
Mining)
(
40
CFR
440):
Responders
suggested
revising
the
effluent
guidelines
because
available
treatment
technology
has
advanced
beyond
the
basis
considered
during
development
of
the
effluent
guidelines
as
promulgated
in
1988.
In
addition,
the
effluent
guidelines
could
be
revised
to
include
discharges
from
waste
rock,
spent
ore,
and
leach
material.
Issues
not
addressed
by
the
effluent
guidelines
include
closure/
financial
assurance
plans,

remediation,
and
a
definition
of
active
vs.
inactive
mines.
A
commenter
in
Region
8
suggested
revising
the
hard
rock
mining
effluent
guidelines,
and
recommended
consideration
of
the
recommendations
of
EPA's
National
Mining
Team,
which
include
water
budgets
and
closure
plans.

Petroleum
Refining
(
40
CFR
419):
Responders
identified
the
need
to
revise
these
effluent
guidelines
to
expand
the
list
of
regulated
pollutants
to
include:
(
1)
priority
pollutants
for
consistency
with
the
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
effluent
guidelines;
(
2)

metals,
especially
selenium;
and
(
3)
nutrients
(
ammonia),
biological
oxygen
demand
(
BOD),
and
chemical
oxygen
demand
(
COD).
Stakeholders
suggested
a
review
of
Best
Practicable
Technology
(
BPT),
Best
Available
Technology
(
BAT),
and
Best
Conventional
Pollutant
Control
Technology
(
BCT)
for
accuracy
and
relevance
as
the
current
effluent
guidelines
were
promulgated
in
1982.

Petroleum
Refining
(
40
CFR
419)
 
Petroleum
Bulk
Stations
and
Terminals
as
a
new
subcategory:
Responders
identified
concerns
that
due
to
the
absence
of
effluent
guidelines
for
this
subcategory,
permit
writers
must
depend
on
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ).
This
raises
consistency
issues,
as
well
as
resource
issues,
given
the
number
of
facilities
in
this
sector
for
which
permits
must
be
developed.
Discharges
may
be
primarily
from
collected
storm
water.

Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
40
CFR
430):
Responders
raised
concerns
about
discharges
into
smaller
water
bodies
and
difficulties
with
establishing
whole
effluent
toxicity
limits
(
Phases
1,
2,

and
3
subcategories).
Additional
concerns
include
discharge
of
dyes
and
dioxin
from
bleaching
at
secondary
mills
(
Phase
2
subcategories
include
secondary
fiber
mills
but
not
secondary
pulp
mills)

and
problems
regulating
chip
mills
(
covered
by
none
of
the
phases)
since
the
storm
water
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
21
regulations
are
not
stringent
enough.
(
Note:
EAD
is
currently
working
to
complete
Phase
3
of
these
effluent
guidelines;
however,
this
rule
will
not
address
secondary
pulp
mills
or
chip
mills.)

Steam
Electric
Power
Generation
(
40
CFR
423):
Responders
noted
applicability
concerns
for
cogeneration
units,
concerns
over
toxic
pollutants
in
coal
pile
runoff
(
including
mercury
and
selenium),
and
concerns
about
the
growing
use
of
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW)

effluent
as
cooling
water.
In
addition,
responders
suggested
revising
the
effluent
guidelines
to
expand
the
scope,
citing
exempt
facilities
that
should
not
be
exempt
and
many
newer
facilities
that
are
not
covered.
Permits
for
these
exempt
and
new
operations
must
rely
on
BPJ.
About
1,300
new
power
plants
are
expected,
and
such
changes
could
ease
the
permit
writing
process.

Textile
Mills
(
40
CFR
410):
A
respondent
identified
concerns
for
industrial
sludge
disposal.

2.5
Consultations
with
Permitting
Authorities
In
our
public
meetings
and
other
interactions,
a
recurring
recommendations
is
that
the
Agency
start
the
planning
process
by
consulting
with
people
who
are
responsible
for
implementing
the
effluent
guidelines.
This
includes
management
and
staff
in
the
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
(
OWM)
in
headquarters.
It
includes
EPA
regional
and
State
permit
writers
for
the
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES),
pretreatment
coordinators,
and
coordinators
for
the
Total
Maximum
Daily
Load
(
TMDL)
program.

These
EPA
staff
are
experts
in
the
issues
and
problems
associated
with
both
the
quality
of
our
nation's
waters
and
with
the
tools
available
to
address
these
problems.
See
"
Gathering
EPA
Experts'
Input
for
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005"
brief
(
DCN
00581)
for
more
detailed
background
and
the
written
responses
from
EPA
experts
both
in
Headquarters
and
the
Regions.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
22
EAD
intends
that
these
EPA
experts
will
play
a
vital
role
in
identifying
possibilities
for
increasing
efficiency
of
existing
effluent
guidelines
as
well
as
identifying
specific
categories
for
consideration
in
the
304(
m)
planning
process.
As
part
of
our
continuing
effort
to
engage
these
experts
in
our
planning
process,
EAD
attends
the
regular
monthly
meetings
of
permit
writers
and
regional
pretreatment
coordinators.
For
the
current
planning
cycle,
we
informed
attendees
about
the
planning
process
and
requested
their
suggestions.
They
supplied
us
with
the
following
feedback
either
during
the
teleconferences,
through
email,
in
telephone
calls,
or
in
responses
to
a
questionnaire
we
jointly
developed.

2.5.1
Discharge
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
suggestions
that
effluent
guidelines
be
developed
for
the
following
discharge
categories
that
do
not
have
existing
guidelines:

Aquatic
Animal
Production
(
Aquaculture):
EPA
experts
recommend
that
effluent
guidelines
be
developed
for
this
category
to
address
water
quality
concerns
and
permitting
issues.
(
Note:
EAD
is
developing
new
effluent
guidelines
for
this
discharge
category,
with
a
proposal
published
in
September
of
2002
and
final
effluent
guidelines
due
in
June
of
2004.)

Dental
Facilities:
EPA
experts
recommend
developing
effluent
guidelines
for
dental
facilities
to
address
discharges
of
mercury
from
dental
amalgam
to
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs).

EPA
experts
assert
that
studies
by
POTWs
identified
dental
facilities
as
the
largest
commercial
contributors
of
mercury
to
their
systems,
and
that
therefore
dental
offices
need
a
nationally
consistent
categorical
standard.
Based
on
the
toxicity
and
persistence
of
mercury,
it
appears
that
this
sector
is
at
least
contributing
to
pass
through
of
this
pollutant,
and
thus
to
fish
consumption
advisories
around
the
U.
S.
Amalgam
separators
have
proven
very
effective
at
removing
this
mercury,
with
the
American
Dental
Association's
comparison
study
showing
all
units
testing
achieving
removal
rates
of
greater
than
95%.
EPA
experts
note
that
a
major
issue
would
be
the
large
number
of
small
facilities
and
potential
impact
on
the
POTWs
and
other
Control
Authorities.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
23
Finally,
EPA
experts
assert
that
extensive
attempts
to
encourage
voluntary
actions
by
dentists
have
not
worked,
yielding
highly
inconsistent
results.

Groundwater
Remediation
Discharges:
EPA
experts
raised
concerns
for
handling
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs)
and
perchlorate
during
the
remediation
process.

Municipal
Storm
Water
Runoff:
EPA
experts
identified
a
gap
in
the
Agency's
storm
water
controls
and
suggested
developing
new
guidelines
to
define
Maximum
Extent
Practical
(
MEP)

determinations
for
BPJs
(
Best
Professional
Judgement)
for
municipal
storm
water
controls.

(
Note:
EAD
is
currently
developing
effluent
guidelines
for
storm
water
discharges
from
construction
sites,
with
a
proposal
published
in
June
2002,
and
final
guidelines
due
in
March
2004.)

Prisons:
EPA
experts
identified
prisons
as
a
source
of
problems
for
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
to
which
they
discharge.
Prisons
wastewater
discharge
typically
comes
from
a
mixture
of
domestic
and
industrial
wastewater,
stemming
from
operations
including
food
preparation,
industrial
laundries,
medical/
dental
clinics,
and
prison
industries.
Problems
at
POTWs
are
related
to
blockage,
trash
handling,
and
toxics.
In
addition,
EPA
Region
3
has
an
ongoing
multi­
media
initiative
to
address
some
of
the
common
environmental
problems
found
at
these
prisons,
including
overloaded
sewage
treatment
plants
and
inadequate
sampling,
analysis,

equipment,
maintenance,
and
training
at
those
plants.
(
For
more
information,
see
"
An
Investigation
and
Analysis
of
the
Environmental
Problems
at
Prisons"
(
DCN
00533).

2.5.2
Discharge
Categories
With
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
EPA
received
the
following
suggestions
to
revise
the
effluent
guidelines
already
in
place
for
the
following
discharge
categories:

Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Vegetables
Processing
(
40
CFR
407):
State
permitting
authorities
(
Washington)
suggest
updating
these
guidelines
for
both
direct
and
indirect
dischargers.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
24
Direct
dischargers
are
performing
well
below
the
limits,
and
permitting
authorities
have
found
it
difficult
to
address
that
gap
effectively
and
lower
discharges.
In
addition,
permitting
authorities
suggest
that
revising
these
guidelines
could
address
dissolved
oxygen
problems,
since
there
are
no
water
quality
criteria
for
BOD
(
biological
oxygen
demand)
and
no
equitable
way
to
determine
the
farfield
impacts
of
BOD.

Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
(
40
CFR
408):
EPA
experts
identify
concerns
for
the
discharge
of
conventional
pollutants
biochemical
oxygen
demand
(
BOD)
and
pathogens,
especially
fecal
coliform
during
seafood
processing.
State
permitting
authorities
(
Washington)
note
that
the
guidelines
are
out
of
date
(
originally
promulgated
in
1974)
and
need
to
be
updated.

Coil
Coating
(
and
Canmaking
Subcategory)
(
40
CFR
465):
EPA
experts
note
that
the
industry
has
changed
since
the
effluent
guidelines
were
promulgated
in
1983.
The
industry
is
using
completely
different
solvents
than
those
assessed
during
the
development
of
the
existing
guidelines.

EPA
experts
are
also
concerned
about
the
costs
associated
with
monitoring
requirements
for
pollutants
that
are
no
longer
in
use
by
the
industry.
In
addition,
applicability
issues
have
been
identified
by
EPA
experts
in
two
Regions
(
2
and
5),
and
stakeholders
in
the
States
(
Alabama
and
Tennessee),
with
questions
arising
for
facilities
with
multiple
processes
which
also
perform
coil
coating,
most
recently
aluminum
forming
facilities.

Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
(
40
CFR
469):
EPA
experts
suggest
that
these
guidelines
need
to
be
revised
due
to
significant
changes
since
the
guidelines
were
promulgated.
EPA
experts
also
suggest
that
the
semiconductor
manufacturing
portion
of
this
industry
be
looked
at
because
there
have
been
major
changes
in
the
industry.
There
are
two
new
circumstances
in
this
portion
of
the
industry
that
raise
concerns:
1)
the
industry
is
moving
from
aluminum
to
the
more
toxic
copper
to
build
internal
components;
and
2)
the
industry
is
increasingly
using
new
process
operations,
one
of
which
is
chemical­
mechanical
planarization
(
CMP),
which
generates
more
or
different
pollution
than
the
processes
considered
during
the
development
of
the
existing
standards.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
25
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
(
40
CFR
418):
EPA
experts
note
that
these
effluent
guidelines
are
very
old
and
do
not
seem
to
be
at
all
stringent.

Hospitals
(
40
CFR
460):
EPA
experts
identify
concerns
for
hospitals
because
they
and
related
health
care
facilities
discharge
chemicals
like
mercury
and
silver,
and
do
so
without
pretreatment
standards
or
other
controls.
Based
on
the
toxicity
and
persistence
of
mercury,
it
appears
that
this
sector
may
be
contributing
to
pass
through
of
this
pollutant,
and
thus
to
fish
consumption
advisories
around
the
U.
S.
EPA
experts
note
that
boiler
chemicals
also
pose
problems.

Inorganic
Chemicals
(
40
CFR
415):
EPA
experts
suggest
that
these
guidelines
need
to
be
reevaluated
to
determine
whether
the
"
no
discharge"
requirement
is
reasonable.
They
also
note
that
there
have
been
substantial
changes
to
this
discharge
category
since
the
effluent
guidelines
were
promulgated
in
1982.
They
express
concerns
for
the
chlor­
alkali
and
nitrous
oxide
manufacturing
subcategories.
EPA
experts
also
suggest
revising
the
potassium
manufacturing
subcategory
of
this
industry
to
address
interpretation
issues
for
new
sources
as
to
what
constitutes
process
wastewater.

Meat
(
and
Poultry)
Products
(
40
CFR
432):
EPA
experts
identify
concerns
for
discharges
from
poultry
processing,
especially
BOD,
ammonia,
and
TSS.
(
Note:
EAD
is
already
in
the
process
of
revising
these
effluent
guidelines.
EPA
published
a
proposal
in
February,
2002;
and
final
effluent
guidelines
are
due
in
December,
2003.)

Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433):
EPA
experts
suggest
revising
these
guidelines
to
address
unresolved
applicability
issues.
This
includes
clarifying
several
important
distinctions:
1)
between
phosphate
coating
and
phosphate
cleaning,
2)
between
acid
etching
and
acid
cleaning,
and
3)

between
metal
finishing
guidelines
and
other
guidelines
 
including
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing,

Electroplating,
and
Nonferrous
Metals
Manufacturing
 
especially
when
multiple
guidelines
address
facilities
performing
essentially
the
same
operation.
EPA
experts
note
that,
due
to
these
questions,
the
guidelines
have
been
applied
inconsistently
from
region
to
region.
They
also
note
that,
since
this
is
the
single
largest
category
of
industrial
users
in
the
pretreatment
program,
it
is
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
26
very
important
that
these
issues
be
resolved.
In
addition,
EPA
experts
identify
applicability
requirements
relative
to
core
activities.
Specifically,
the
structure
of
these
guidelines
present
ongoing
challenges
in
determining
whether
a
facility
performs
core
activities
or
only
ancillary
activities,
creating
technical
and
resource
issues
to
resolve.
EPA
experts
also
recommend
that
EPA
consider
expanding
the
list
of
core
operations.
Finally,
they
also
note
difficulties
encountered
in
determining
whether
new
processes
at
existing
electroplating
job
shops
are
subject
to
the
metal
finishing
guideline:
when
do
existing
operations
constitute
a
new
source?
EPA
experts
note
that
guidance
or
another
form
of
clarification
of
these
issues
may
be
an
alternative
to
revising
the
guidelines.

Metal
Molding
and
Casting
(
Foundries)
(
40
CFR
464):
EPA
experts
have
found
cyanide
to
be
an
issue
when
molten
slag
is
allowed
to
come
into
contact
with
the
quench
water
in
the
quenching
process.
EPA
experts
also
identified
concerns
with
implementing
the
guidelines
for
the
aluminum
die
casters
subcategory:
1)
the
applicability
language
is
confusing
and
incomplete:
only
part
of
the
casting
process
is
covered;
2)
the
need
to
allow
additional
fundamentally
different
factors
(
FDF)

determinations;
and
3)
the
problems
meeting
the
limits
they
receive
using
the
formulas
provided
in
the
guidelines,
specifically
for
total
phenols
and
for
oil
and
grease.
Expanding
on
this
last
item,

EPA
experts
explain
that
the
building
block
method
for
determining
allowances,
when
applied
to
small
facilities,
results
in
a
low
limit
on
total
phenols.
EPA
experts
assert
that
it
is
difficult
to
find
technology
to
meet
these
low
limits,
resulting
in
a
number
of
facilities
being
unable
to
meet
a
limit
that
was
neither
reasonable
nor
necessary
to
protect
the
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTW).

Although
protecting
POTWs
is
not
one
of
the
304(
m)
evaluation
criteria,
EPA
experts
note
that
the
resulting
noncompliance
forces
Control
Authorities
to
choose
between
escalating
enforcement
actions
for
a
relatively
minor
infraction
or
ignoring
the
violation
if
they
are
convinced
that
all
reasonable
efforts
have
been
made
to
meet
the
limits.
Possible
solutions
to
the
problem
could
include
1)
using
production
as
a
limiting
factor
to
provide
relief
to
smaller
facilities,
and
2)

allowing
Control
Authorities
to
apply
concentration
based
standards,
similar
to
the
approach
used
in
Porcelain
Enameling
(
40
CFR
466).
EPA
experts
also
asserted
that
EPA
removed
the
phenol
limits
from
the
pretreatment
standards
of
the
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
effluent
guidelines
(
40
CFR
414)
after
finding
that
phenol
did
not
pass
through
POTWs.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
27
Metal
Products
and
Machinery
(
40
CFR
438):
EPA
experts
identified
missile
and
rocket
producers'
wastewaters
as
contributing
radioactivity,
which
is
difficult
to
address
at
low
levels.

These
difficulties
are
illustrated
by
recent
(
ground
water)
problems
with
perchlorate.

Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
(
40
CFR
435)
 
Coal
bed
methane
as
a
new
subcategory:
EPA
experts
identify
a
problem
with
coalbed
methane
extraction,
where
discharged
pollutants
have
no
water
quality
criteria
or
standards,
and
recommend
that
new
guidelines
be
developed
for
this
subcategory.

Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
Hard
Rock
Mining)
(
40
CFR
440):
EPA
experts
note
that
runoff
from
waste
rock
and
overburden
piles
are
not
covered
by
the
guidelines,
and
are
currently
considered
industrial
storm
water.
Many
mine
sites
are
covered
only
by
the
multi­
sector
general
permit.

Preliminary
data
from
benchmark
monitoring
in
Region
9
reveals
significant
volumes
of
water
as
runoff,
and
high
concentrations
of
metals
in
both
active
and
inactive
mine
site
runoff
that
are
violating
water
quality
standards.
(
There
are
about
100
active
hard
rock
mines,
geographically
concentrated
in
the
western
states
and
Alaska.)
The
metals
include
arsenic,
copper,
mercury,
and
selenium;
acidity
(
pH)
is
also
a
problem.
Also,
the
current
guidelines
do
not
represent
the
best
technology,
and
numerous
mine
sites
have
installed
what
may
be
considered
BAT
(
reclamation
and
containment).

Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF)
(
40
CFR
414):
EPA
experts
assert
that
the
structure
and
limited
scope
of
these
guidelines
present
a
number
of
permitting
and
enforcement
challenges:
1)
difficulties
encountered
by
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)

and
OCPSF
facilities
in
correctly
calculating
and
establishing
flow­
based
limits;
2)
problems
obtaining
the
data
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
flow­
based
limits
 
deficiencies
in
permits
and
control
mechanisms
have
hindered
enforcement
actions
against
non­
compliant
facilities;
3)
challenges
encountered
in
determining
the
correct
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes
to
apply
to
facilities.
Therefore,
EPA
experts
recommend
reevaluating
these
guidelines
to
consider
more
general
coverage,
not
tied
to
SIC
codes.
They
also
recommend
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
28
switching
from
mass­
based
limits
to
concentration­
based
limits
due
to
difficulties
in
implementing
and
enforcing
mass­
based
limits.

Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers,
40
CFR
414
 
Chemical
formulators
as
a
new
subcategory:
In
addition
to
concerns
identified
for
the
existing
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
(
OCPSF)
effluent
guidelines
(
discussed
above),
EPA
experts
recommend
that
EPA
consider
the
Chemical
Formulators,
including
Adhesives
and
Sealants,
as
a
new
subcategory
to
these
guidelines,
since
the
discharges
from
chemical
formulators
are
similar
to
those
of
OCPSF
but
not
as
yet
regulated.

Petroleum
Refining
(
40
CFR
419):
EPA
experts
assert
that
this
category
is
very
outdated
relative
to
the
current
state
of
the
industry,
and
should
be
a
high
priority
for
revision.
They
argue
that,
not
only
have
the
technologies
changed
significantly
since
the
guidelines
were
first
issued
in
1982,
but
many
refineries
have
two
to
four
times
the
throughput
than
was
used
when
the
permits
were
first
issued
and
can
easily
meet
the
limits.
State
permitting
authorities
(
Washington)
note
that
since
refineries
are
performing
well
below
limits
derived
from
the
guidelines,
they
have
found
it
difficult
to
address
that
gap
effectively
and
lower
discharges.
In
addition,
the
guidelines
have
been
the
subject
of
controversy
and
litigation
over
the
past
seven
years.

Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
40
CFR
430):
EPA
experts
and
their
stakeholders
request
a
measurable
ELG
for
color
(
Phase
1,
2,
and
3
subcategories).
EPA
experts
also
support
the
Phase
2
rule,
due
to
concerns
for
the
number
of
pollutants
discharged
by
the
chemical
mechanical
and
fiber
deinking
subcategories.

Steam
Electric
Power
Generation
(
40
CFR
423):
EPA
experts
assert
that
these
guidelines
are
very
old
(
first
promulgated
in
1982)
and
do
not
represent
the
industry
well.
They
identified
a
number
of
concerns
about
the
effectiveness
of
the
current
guidelines:
1)
there
are
existing
problems
with
temperature
at
cooling
outfalls,
and
with
mercury
and
arsenic
at
ash
pond
outfalls,

2)
due
to
improvements
in
analytical
methods,
non­
detects
of
priority
pollutants
in
the
1970'
s
(
when
the
guidelines
were
being
developed)
are
now
quite
different
from
non­
detects
now;
3)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
29
there
have
been
changes
in
the
additives
in
use,
for
which
there
are
no
current
limits;
4)
the
footnotes
in
that
regulation
are
in
error;
and
5)
most
plants
that
have
been
built
in
the
last
decade
are
combined
cycle
plants,
which
the
guidelines
do
not
reflect
well,
and
may
not
actually
cover.

Textile
Mills
(
40
CFR
410):
EPA
experts
request
considering
the
development
and
promulgation
of
a
measurable
limit
for
color
and
for
copper.

Timber
Products
Processing
(
40
CFR
429):
State
permitting
authorities
(
Washington)
suggest
revising
these
guidelines
to
include
effluent
limits
for
storm
water
discharges
from
associated
log
yards.

2.5.3
NPDES
Permit
Review
Process
The
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
requires
that
facilities
obtain
permits
for
specific
discharges
to
surface
waters.
Both
the
EPA
Office
of
Inspector
General
and
the
EPA
Office
of
Wastewater
Management
have
conducted
reviews
of
the
permits
issued
under
the
NPDES
program
for
quality
control
purposes.
EAD
intends
to
review
both
results
of
those
reviews
and
the
permits
that
were
part
of
the
review
process,
to
evaluate
them
for
information
relevant
to
its
Factor
4
analysis.
Although
this
review
was
not
possible
in
time
for
the
current
planning
cycle,
it
will
be
considered
as
appropriate
in
future
planning
cycles.

In
addition,
EPA
recently
issued
its
"
Permitting
for
Environmental
Results
Strategy"
(
DCN
00486).
EPA
intends
to
work
closely
with
OWM
to
identify
concerns
identified
through
this
planning
process
to
assist
in
prioritizing
permitting
efforts
for
the
greatest
environmental
benefits.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
30
2.6
Other
Governmental
Bodies
EAD
wants
to
learn
from
the
expertise
of
stakeholders
in
other
governmental
agencies,
and
to
include
their
recommendations
in
the
planning
process.
Although
these
stakeholders
have
not
commented
to
date
on
either
EPA's
draft
Strategy
or
on
previous
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plans,
EAD
intends
to
seek
recommendations
from
these
stakeholders
when
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
is
proposed.
For
more
information,
see
the
brief
titled
"
FACAs
for
State
and
Local
Governments"
(
DCN
00587).

2.6.1
AMSA
and
ASIWPCA
EAD
has
a
long­
standing
relationship
with
two
water
pollution
control
associations:

Association
of
Metropolitan
Sewerage
Agencies
(
AMSA)
and
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Authorities
(
ASIWPCA).
EAD
attends
the
conferences
sponsored
regularly
by
both
groups,
both
to
share
information
about
the
planning
process
and
to
engage
members
in
productive
dialogue
about
it.
Both
of
these
associations
routinely
comment
on
proposed
effluent
guidelines.

EAD
met
with
representatives
of
both
of
these
organizations
when
the
draft
Strategy
was
announced
to
inform
them
of
the
issues
discussed
in
the
draft
Strategy
and
to
solicit
their
recommendations.

AMSA:
Representatives
from
AMSA
provided
comments
on
both
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2002/
2003
and
on
the
draft
Strategy.
These
comments
are
discussed
elsewhere
in
this
document,
but
can
be
viewed
in
Office
of
Water
docket
W­
01­
12.
An
EAD
representative
attended
the
technical
roundtable
session
AMSA
held
during
their
2003
policy
forum
this
spring.

During
that
roundtable,
several
recommendations
were
made,
including
the
following
specific
suggestion:
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
31
Metal
Finishing
(
40
CFR
433):
These
effluent
guidelines
affect
more
facilities
than
any
other.

Because
the
limits
are
concentration­
based,
it
discourages
water
efficiency.

ASIWPCA:
In
a
teleconference
on
June
5,
2003,
EAD
discussed
the
planning
process
with
members
of
ASIWPCA
and
representatives
from
six
states:
Alabama,
California,
Delaware,

Florida,
Louisiana,
and
West
Virginia.
For
more
information,
see
the
brief
titled
"
Teleconference
with
ASIWPCA
and
States:
Meeting
Synopsis"
(
DCN
00586).
During
that
teleconference,
EAD
listed
of
the
discharge
categories
without
effluent
guidelines
identified
by
other
stakeholders
as
possibly
warranting
effluent
guidelines.
In
response,
ASIWPCA
stakeholders
made
the
following
points:

Construction
and
Development
Storm
Water
Discharges:
Effluent
guidelines
developed
for
this
category
may
benefit
from
information
gained
in
developing
mining
regulations.
Best
Available
Technologies
(
BATs)
developed
to
address
acid­
base
accounting
may
be
transferable
to
BMPs.

(
Note:
EAD
is
currently
developing
effluent
guidelines
for
storm
water
discharges
from
construction
sites,
with
a
proposal
published
in
June
2002,
and
final
guidelines
due
in
March
2004.)

Dental
Facilities:
Stakeholders
reminded
EAD
that
effluent
guidelines
for
this
category
would
be
resource
intensive
to
implement,
given
the
large
number
of
small
operations.

Municipal
Storm
Water
Runoff:
Stakeholders
noted
that
storm
water
is
currently
addressed
by
best
management
practices
(
BMPs),
and
Total
Maximum
Daily
Loads
(
TMDLs).
There
are
also
issues
with
runoff
scouring
river
banks
in
areas
with
increased
development
 
the
sediment
washed
into
the
water
along
with
the
metals
and
other
components
of
the
soil
is
part
of
the
problem,
may
require
creative
approaches
to
minimize
scouring.
Problems
generated
by
precipitation­
based
runoff
include
specific
concerns
for
iron,
manganese,
aluminum,
and
soil
contributions.
(
Note:

EAD
is
currently
developing
effluent
guidelines
for
storm
water
discharges
from
construction
sites,

with
a
proposal
published
in
June
2002,
and
final
guidelines
due
in
March
2004.)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
32
EAD
also
listed
the
discharge
categories
with
existing
effluent
guidelines
identified
by
other
stakeholders
as
possibly
warranting
revision.
In
response,
ASIWPCA
stakeholders
made
several
points.

First,
a
number
of
existing
guidelines
do
not
regulate
pollutants
now
understood
to
cause
problems,
including:

°
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
(
40
CFR
408)
specifically,
and
other
food
processing
categories
in
general,
discharge
nutrients
and
fecal
coliform
for
which
there
are
no
limits.

°
Coal
Mining
(
40
CFR
434)
operations
discharge
manganese
which
is
generating
problems.

°
Industries
which
discharge
nutrients
do
not
have
limits
for
nitrates/
nitrites,
and
adding
these
could
be
a
means
to
address
nutrient
concerns
such
as
the
Gulf
of
Mexico
Hypoxia.

Second,
ASIWPCA
stakeholders
identified
several
effluent
guidelines
that
are
out
of
date
relative
to
available
technology:

°
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
(
40
CFR
408)
The
ELG
for
this
industry
currently
only
requires
screening
of
the
effluent.
The
available
technology
has
advanced
well
beyond
this
level.

°
Meat
Products
(
40
CFR
432)

°
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
(
40
CFR
464)

°
Petroleum
Refining
(
40
CFR
419)

EAD
anticipates
that
these
organizations
will
provide
data
for
the
detailed
investigation
phase,
and
EAD
intends
to
continue
seeking
the
input
of
these
key
stakeholder
groups.

2.6.2
FACAs
for
State
and
Local
Governments
Executive
Order
13132
Federalism
requires
that
EPA
communicate
with
elected
state
and
local
officials.
EPA's
Office
of
State
and
Local
Relations
oversees
communications
with
several
groups
under
the
Federal
Advisory
Committee
Act
(
FACA).
At
proposal
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005,
EAD
intends
to
contact
these
groups
to
alert
them
to
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
33
the
planning
process
and
invite
them
to
participate
in
the
process
of
developing
the
Plan.
Their
recommendations
will
be
considered
in
the
current
planning
process
as
well
as
future
cycles
of
the
process.

One
of
these
groups
is
referred
to
as
the
"
Big
7
(
Plus)
Associations"
and
includes
the
following
members:

°
Council
of
State
Governments
°
Environmental
Council
of
the
States
°
International
City/
County
Management
Association
°
National
Association
of
Counties
°
National
Association
of
Towns
and
Townships
°
National
Conference
of
Black
Mayors
°
National
Conference
of
State
Legislatures
°
National
Governors'
Association
°
National
League
of
Cities
°
U.
S.
Conference
of
Mayors
°
Western
Governors'
Association
Another
group
EAD
intends
to
notify
is
the
State
and
Local
Advisory
Group,
composed
of
28
members.
More
information
on
these
groups
is
available
in
the
brief,
"
FACAs
for
State
and
Local
Governments,"
August
20,
2003.

2.6.3
Federally
Recognized
Indian
Tribes
Executive
Order
13175,
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
requires
EPA
to
work
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
to
ensure
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.
At
proposal
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005,
EAD
intends
to
contact
these
governments
to
alert
them
to
the
planning
process
and
invite
them
to
participate
in
the
process
of
developing
the
final
Plan,
as
well
as
participating
in
future
planning
cycles.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
2­
1
2.7
Future
Information
Gathering
Efforts
Although
outreach
is
completed
for
the
current
planning
cycle,
there
are
ways
to
improve
our
effectiveness
in
future
cycles.
As
a
way
to
identify
current
or
emerging
issues,
EAD
intends
to
continue
attending
the
regular
meetings
and
conferences
held
by
stakeholders
and
EPA
experts
to
hear
about
the
issues
they
are
confronting.
In
addition,
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA)
has
been
working
on
implementing
a
pilot
project
for
their
new
problem
identification
process.
Through
the
pilot
process,
OECA
has
been
testing
a
new
process
for
nominating
and
evaluating
significant
environmental
and/
or
compliance
problems.
EAD
intends
to
consider
the
results
of
this
pilot
project
for
possible
applications
to
future
planning
cycles
of
the
304(
m)
planning
process.

In
addition
to
improving
ways
to
identify
issues,
EAD
intends
to
continue
its
efforts
to
incorporate
voluntary
loading
reductions
into
its
planning
cycle
analyses.
EAD
is
partnering
with
other
parts
of
the
Agency
that
are
leading
voluntary
initiatives
to
reduce
pollutant
discharges.

EPA
can
incorporate
information
generated
by
these
programs
about
industry
progress
in
voluntarily
reducing
pollutant
loadings
into
future
planning
cycles.
(
See
section
3.0
Voluntary
Load
Reductions
for
a
discussion
of
potential
approaches
EPA
has
considered.)
These
EPA
initiatives
are
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
program,
the
Design
for
the
Environment
program,
and
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
program.
Each
of
these
initiatives
are
discussed
in
section
5.0
Potential
Alternative
Approaches.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
3­
2
3.0
VOLUNTARY
LOAD
REDUCTIONS
Factor
4
includes
consideration
of
voluntary
loading
reductions.
This
subject
is
discussed
in
this
section,
but
due
to
the
amount
of
information
required,
EAD
was
unable
to
consider
such
reductions
during
the
screening
phase
of
this
initial
planning
cycle.
However,
EAD
may
be
able
to
consider
voluntary
loading
reductions
during
the
subsequent
detailed
investigation
phase.

One
of
the
participants
in
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Planning
Workshop
held
in
April
2001
(
see
Section
2.4:
Previous
Effluent
Guidelines
Suggestions)
suggested
that
EPA
consider
creating
an
incentive
to
encourage
dischargers
to
reduce
pollutant
loadings
on
their
own.
This
participant
suggested
that
EPA
give
lower
priority
for
regulation
to
dischargers
that
demonstrate
continual
improvement
through
voluntary
effluent
reductions.

EPA
agrees
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.
EPA
may
choose
not
to
revise
an
existing
effluent
guidelines
or
develop
new
effluent
guidelines
for
a
discharge
category
that
has
demonstrated
that
significant
progress
is
being
made
through
voluntary
industry
effort
to
reduce
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
EPA
would
consider
voluntary
load
reductions
by
industry
in
both
its
screening
level
review
phase
and
the
detailed
investigation
phase.
(
Even
with
significant
loading
reductions,
EAD
would
also
evaluate
potential
risk
from
ongoing
pollutant
discharges
to
water.)

EPA
has
not
yet
developed
a
method
to
identify
and
evaluate
voluntary
loading
reductions.

This
section
discusses
the
data
sources
and
approaches
EAD
may
consider
to
develop
such
a
method.
As
part
of
this
method,
EAD
would
consider
decreases
in
water
loadings
of
pollutants
relative
to
possible
increases
in
release
of
these
same
pollutants
to
other
environmental
media,
for
example
volatilization
to
air
or
land
disposal
of
sludge.
The
method
would
also
include
evaluation
of
loading
reductions
relative
to
changes
in
production
levels.
However,
given
the
amount
of
information
it
will
require,
this
analysis
is
likely
to
occur
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
3­
3
3.1
Suggestions
from
Stakeholders
The
November
2002
announcement
of
the
draft
Strategy
described
EPA's
consideration
of
an
incentive
for
discharge
categories
to
reduce
pollutant
loadings
through
voluntary
programs.

(
See
http://
epa.
gov/
guide/
strategy/)
Specifically,
EPA
proposed
that
source
categories
that
have
accomplished
voluntary
pollutant
discharge
reductions
should
be
considered
a
lower
priority
for
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines.

The
Notice
discussed
EPA's
consideration
of
whether
to
indicate
a
quantitative
voluntary
reduction
goal
that
source
categories
seeking
a
deferral
of
consideration
for
new
or
revised
effluent
guidelines
should
try
to
achieve.
For
example,
EPA
discussed
a
goal,
previously
suggested
by
a
stakeholder,
of
a
10
percent
reduction
in
total
load,
or
in
toxic­
equivalent
load
over
a
five­
year
period
(
the
standard
permit
term).
The
Agency
requested
comment
on
this
entire
issue
and
invited
comment
on
whether
a
different
general
goal,
such
as
a
25
percent
reduction
in
total
or
toxic
equivalent
load,
would
be
more
appropriate.

Sixteen
commenters
on
the
draft
Strategy
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Nine
of
the
sixteen
support
the
consideration
of
voluntary
efforts,
especially
where
there
has
been
significant
effort
and/
or
significant
reductions
in
discharges.
Only
two
of
these
nine
commenters
addressed
the
quantitative
goal
EPA
should
use.
One
commenter
agrees
that
the
10%
goal
is
a
good
starting
point,
while
the
other
commenter
stated
that
the
reduction
goal
should
be
no
lower
than
80%,

which
is
closer
to
the
typical
effluent
guidelines
loading
reductions
(
90%
to
99%).
Four
other
commenters
expressed
concerns
with
the
mechanics
of
evaluating
loading
reductions.
Their
suggestions
and
concerns
include
1)
offering
an
effective
incentive
(
i.
e.
a
tax
credit);
2)
addressing
caution
industry
feels
toward
voluntary
efforts;
3)
measuring
and
verifying
loading
reductions;
4)

coordinating
with
the
National
Watershed
Trading
Policy;
and
5)
reviewing
National
Metal
Finishing
Strategic
Goals
Program
components
(
specific
reductions
on
a
specific
time
line).
The
three
remaining
commenters
disagree
with
including
voluntary
efforts,
arguing
that
effluent
guidelines
are
a
more
equitable
approach
or
that
EPA
does
not
have
the
authority
to
consider/
include
voluntary
loading
reductions.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
3­
4
In
a
teleconference
on
June
5,
2003,
EAD
discussed
the
planning
process
with
members
of
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Authorities
(
ASIWPCA)
and
representatives
from
six
states:
Alabama,
California,
Delaware,
Florida,
Louisiana,
and
West
Virginia.
During
that
call,
stakeholders
confirmed
their
support
for
voluntary
programs.
They
referred
EAD
to
a
voluntary
program
already
included
in
pulp
and
paper
guidelines,
and
suggested
that
one
approach
could
be
to
offer
a
reduction
in
monitoring
requirements
in
exchange
for
implementing
better­
than­
required
wastewater
treatment
technology.

3.2
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Data
One
tool
that
EAD
is
investigating
for
identifying
loading
reductions
which
may
be
the
result
of
voluntary
efforts
is
EPA's
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS).
This
database
provides
discharge
monitoring
data
for
a
subset
of
facilities
that
have
been
issued
direct
discharge
permits
to
discharge
wastewater
into
waters
of
the
U.
S.
The
system
can
be
used
to
calculate
and
sort
loadings
(
in
pounds
per
year)
of
a
large
number
of
regulated
pollutants
by
SIC
code
and
these
loadings
can
be
adjusted
to
reflect
relative
toxicity
using
EAD's
Toxic
Weighting
Factors
(
TWFs).

These
total
and
toxicity­
adjusted
loadings
profiles
can
be
used
to
identify
industries
that
show
the
greatest
decrease
in
loadings
over
the
past
five
years.
A
thorough
discussion
of
PCS
and
its
limitations
are
provided
in
both
the
Factor
1
Report
and
the
PCS
Report.

3.3
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Data
Another
tool
that
EAD
is
considering
for
identifying
loading
reductions
which
may
be
the
result
of
voluntary
efforts
is
the
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI).
The
TRI
collects
detailed
data
for
approximately
600
chemicals
released
and
transferred
by
selected
facilities
in
the
United
States.

Since
the
information
in
the
TRI
has
been
collected
over
a
number
of
years,
this
database
can
provide
a
sense
of
general
trends
in
pollutant
discharge
over
time.
The
information
can
be
sorted
into
industry
groups
using
the
Standard
Industrial
Classification
(
SIC)
codes,
and
EAD
can
adjust
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
3­
5
these
loadings
to
reflect
relative
toxicity
using
EAD's
Toxic
Weighting
Factors
(
TWFs).
EAD
is
considering
a
review
of
these
total
and
toxicity­
adjusted
loading
profiles
to
identify
industries
that
show
the
greatest
decrease
in
loadings
over
the
past
five
years.
A
thorough
discussion
of
TRI
and
its
limitations
are
provided
in
both
the
Factor
1
Report
and
the
Risk
Screening
Environmental
Indicators
(
RSEI)
/
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Report.

3.4
EPA
Programs
Encouraging
Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
EAD
has
begun
working
with
staff
from
three
EPA
programs
that
support
and
encourage
loading
reductions.
They
are
1)
the
Performance
Track
Program
in
the
Office
of
Policy,

Economics,
and
Innovation,
2)
the
Design
for
the
Environment
(
DfE)
program
in
the
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics,
and
3)
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
in
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response.
These
programs
are
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
5.0:
Potential
Alternative
Approaches.
EAD
intends
to
consider
voluntary
loading
reduction
results
provided
by
these
programs
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
1
4.0
OTHER
EPA
OFFICES'
RANKINGS
&
LISTS
FOR
MULTI­
MEDIA
CONCERNS
The
concept
of
addressing
multi­
media
impacts
was
raised
in
the
draft
Strategy,
and
stakeholders
were
encouraged
to
comment
on
the
issue.
This
subject
is
discussed
in
this
section,

but
due
to
the
amount
of
information
required,
EAD
was
unable
to
consider
multi­
media
concerns
during
the
screening
phase
of
this
initial
planning
cycle.
However,
EAD
may
be
able
to
consider
them
during
the
subsequent
detailed
investigation
phase.

Eight
commenters
on
the
draft
Strategy
specifically
addressed
this
topic.
Two
commenters
generally
agree
with
consideration
of
multi­
media
impacts
during
the
planning
process.
Five
other
commenters
agree
with
considering
multi­
media
impacts,
but
offer
specific
considerations:
1)
EPA
also
needs
to
revise
other
media
standards
(
note
the
timing
issue
mentioned
by
a
commenter
under
"
Additional
Factors"
above);
2)
EPA
needs
to
develop
an
"
environmental
impact
equivalent"
to
compare
toxicity
across
media
(
2
commenters);
3)
EPA
can
utilize
stakeholder
information,
and
4)

EPA
can
also
explore
TRI
for
media
transfer
information.
The
remaining
commenter
argues
that
multi­
media
data
and
strategies
are
inconsistent
with
the
CWA
and
therefore
invalid.

There
are
several
offices
within
EPA
that
review
information
on
industrial
releases
of
pollutants
to
the
environment,
and
use
this
information
to
generate
rankings
of
those
industries
or
set
priorities
for
future
activities
by
the
Agency.
As
a
way
to
capture
multi­
media
concerns,
EAD
collected
information
from
several
EPA
offices
that
had
recently
performed
such
a
prioritization
effort.
These
include
the
Office
of
Air;
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance;
the
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation;
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
jointly
with
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development;
and
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology.
Each
resource
is
discussed
in
the
sections
that
follow.
These
may
be
used
to
coordinate
Agency
efforts
across
media
offices,
including
sharing
data
and
timing
actions
for
increased
effectiveness.

4.1
Office
of
Air's
Integrated
Urban
Air
Toxics
Strategy
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
2
The
Integrated
Urban
Air
Toxics
Strategy
(
a
part
of
EPA's
national
air
toxics
program)
is
a
framework
for
addressing
air
toxics
emissions
in
urban
areas.
The
Air
Toxics
Strategy
complements
the
national
air
toxics
program,
which
develops
national
standards
for
stationary
and
mobile
sources,
by
focusing
on
achieving
further
reductions
in
air
toxics
emissions
in
urban
areas.

The
Air
Toxics
Strategy
identifies
33
air
toxics
that
pose
the
greatest
potential
health
threat
in
urban
areas.
It
also
presents
a
list
of
area
sources
(
e.
g.,
industry
categories)
responsible
for
a
substantial
portion
(
90%)
of
the
emissions
of
these
air
toxics.
This
list
originally
included
29
area
source
categories
for
which
standards
are
either
in
place
or
under
development.
The
Air
Toxics
Strategy
subsequent
added
41
area
source
categories
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs)
to
the
previous
lists.
With
the
addition
of
these
categories,
OAQPS
met
its
requirement
to
identify
and
list
area
source
categories
representing
at
least
90
percent
of
the
emissions
of
the
30
"
listed"
(
or
area
source)
HAPs
under
section
112(
c)(
3)
and
112(
k)(
3)(
B)(
ii)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
is
fulfilled.
Table
3
below
presents
the
70
listed
area
source
categories.
Of
these,
14
have
already
been
subject
to
standards.
The
remaining
56
will
be
subject
to
standards
in
the
future.

TABLE
3
70
AREA
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
ACCOUNTING
FOR
90%
OF
HAPS
EMISSIONS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines
based
on
preliminary
review)

Area
Source
Categories
already
subject
to
Air
Standards
Chromic
Acid
Anodizing
Hazardous
Waste
Incineration
Commercial
Sterilization
Facilities
Medical
Waste
Incinerators
Decorative
Chromium
Electroplating
Portland
Cement
Manufacturing
Dry
Cleaning
Facilities
Secondary
Aluminum
Production
Halogenated
Solvent
Cleaners
Secondary
Lead
Smelting
Hard
Chromium
Electroplating
Municipal
Landfills
Publicly
Owned
Treatment
Works
Hazardous
Waste
Combustors
Area
Source
Categories
to
be
subject
to
Air
Standards
in
the
Future
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
TABLE
3
70
AREA
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
ACCOUNTING
FOR
90%
OF
HAPS
EMISSIONS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines
based
on
preliminary
review)

4­
3
Acrylic
Fibers/
Modacrylic
Fibers
Production
Lead
Acid
Battery
Manufacturing
Ag
Chemicals
&
Pesticides
Manuf.
Mercury
Cell
Chlor­
Alkali
Plants
Manufacturing
Asphalt
Processing
&
Asphalt
Roofing
Misc.
Organic
Chemical
Manuf.
(
MON)

Autobody
Refinishing
Paint
Shops
Nonferrous
Foundries,
nec.

Brick
&
Structural
Clay
Oil
&
Natural
Gas
Production
Carbon
Black
Production
Open
Burning
of
Scrap
Tires
Chemical
Manufacturing:
Chromium
Compounds
Other
Solid
Waste
Incinerators
(
Human/
Animal
Cremation)

Chemical
Preparations
Paint
Stripping
Operations
Copper
Foundries
Paints
&
Allied
Products
Manufacturing
Cyclic
Crude
&
Intermediate
Production
Pharmaceutical
Production
Electrical
&
Electronic
Equip.:
Finishing
Operations
Plastic
Parts
&
Products
(
surface
coatings)

Fabricated
Metal
Products,
nec.
Plastic
Materials
and
Resins
Manufacturing
Fabricated
Structural
Metal
Manuf.
Plating
&
Polishing
Ferroalloys
Production:
Ferromanganese
&

Silicomanganese
Polyvinyl
Chloride
&
Copolymers
Production
Flexible
Polyurethane
Foam
Fabrication
Operations
Prepared
Feeds
Manufacturing
Flexible
Polyurethane
Foam
Production
Primary
Copper
(
not
subject
to
Primary
Copper
Smelting
MACT)

Fabricated
Plate
Work
Primary
Metals
Products
Manufacturing
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
TABLE
3
70
AREA
SOURCE
CATEGORIES
ACCOUNTING
FOR
90%
OF
HAPS
EMISSIONS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines
based
on
preliminary
review)

4­
4
Gasoline
Distribution
(
Stage
I)
Primary
Nonferrous
Metals­
Zinc,
Cadmium
and
Beryllium
Heating
Equipment,
except
electric
Pressed
&
Blown
Glass
&
Glassware
Manufacturing
Hospital
Sterilizers
Secondary
Copper
Smelting
Industrial
Boilers
Secondary
Nonferrous
Metals
Industrial
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Sewage
Sludge
Incineration
Industrial
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Stationary
Internal
Combustion
Engines
Industrial
Machinery
&
Equipment:
Finishing
Op.
s
Synthetic
Rubber
Manufacturing
Inorganic
Pigments
Manufacturing
Stainless
&
Non­
stainless
Steel
Manufacturing:
Electric
Arc
Furnaces
(
EAF)

Institutional/
Commerical
Boilers
Steel
Foundries
Iron
Foundries
Valves
&
Pipe
Fittings
Iron
&
Steel
Forging
Wood
Preserving
During
the
detailed
investigation
phase,
EAD
intends
to
determine
whether
the
selected
categories
have
corresponding
area
sources
for
which
the
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
is
developing
standards,
to
determine
whether
intra­
office
coordination
(
such
as
data
sharing
or
joint
rulemaking)
may
be
appropriate.
More
information
may
be
found
in
the
EPA
brief
"
Integrated
Urban
Air
Toxics
Strategy"
(
DCN
00217).
Two
additional
documents
in
the
public
record
that
pertain
to
programs
within
OAQPS
are:
"
NESHAP
Rulemaking
Since
1990
with
Potential
Overlap
to
ELG
Industries
of
Concern"
(
DCN
00290)
and
"
Table
of
Final
MACT
Rules"

(
DCN
00328).
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
5
4.2
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Sector
Notebooks
The
Sector
Notebook
series
is
produced
by
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA)
to
provide
users
with
a
consolidated
source
of
compliance­
related
information
for
specific
industry
sectors.
It
is
a
set
of
industry
profiles
containing
detailed
sector­
specific
environmental
information.
Unlike
many
resource
materials,
which
are
organized
by
air,
water,

and
land
pollutants,
the
Notebooks
provide
a
holistic,
"
whole
facility"
approach
by
integrating
manufacturing
process,
applicable
regulations,
and
other
relevant
environmental
information.

Sector
Notebooks
are
available
for
a
total
of
34
industry
sectors.

These
are
listed
in
Table
4
below;
Table
5
lists
the
sectors
for
which
sector
notebooks
are
planned
or
under
development.

TABLE
4
EXISTING
SECTOR
NOTEBOOKS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines)

Agricultural
chemical,
pesticide
and
fertilizer
(
2000)
Agricultural
crop
production
(
2000)

Agricultural
livestock
production
(
2000)
Aerospace
(
1998)

Air
Transportation
(
1997)
Dry
cleaning
(
1995)

Electronics
and
computer
(
1995)
Fossil
fuel
electric
power
generation
(
1997)

Ground
transportation
(
1997)
Inorganic
chemical
(
1995)

Iron
and
steel
(
1995)
Lumber
and
wood
products
(
1995)

Metal
casting
(
1997)
Metal
fabrication
(
1995)

Metal
mining
(
1995)
Motor
vehicle
assembly
(
1995)

Nonferrous
metals
(
1995)
Non­
fuel,
non­
metal
mining
(
1995)

Oil
and
gas
extraction
(
1999)
Organic
chemical
(
1995,
revised
2002)

Petroleum
refining
(
1995)
Pharmaceutical
(
1997,
being
revised)

Plastic
resins
and
man­
made
fibers
(
1997)
Printing
(
1995)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
TABLE
4
EXISTING
SECTOR
NOTEBOOKS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines)

4­
6
Pulp
and
paper
(
1995,
revised
2002)
Rubber
and
plastic
(
1995,
being
revised)

Shipbuilding
and
repair
(
1997)
Stone,
clay,
glass,
and
concrete
(
1995)

Textiles
(
1997)
Transportation
equipment
cleaning
(
1995)

Water
transportation
(
1997)
Wood
furniture
and
fixtures
(
1995)

Local
government
operations
(
1999)
Federal
facilities
(
draft)

TABLE
5
PLANNED
SECTOR
NOTEBOOKS
(
Shaded
sectors
have
no
corresponding
effluent
guidelines)

Auto
salvage
Construction
Healthcare
Tribal
Governments
Each
notebook
includes
the
following
information.
During
the
detailed
investigation
phase,
EAD
intends
to
review
the
appropriate
Sector
Notebooks,
if
available
for
selected
categories,
to
obtain
the
holistic
information
they
contain.

°
Overview
of
the
industry,
including
size,
geographic
distribution,
organizational
structure,
products,
economic
trends,
and
financial
analysis;

°
Description
of
industrial/
manufacturing
processes,
including
inputs
of
raw
materials;

°
Summary
of
chemical
releases
to
the
environment
(
pollutant
release
data);

°
A
comprehensive
environmental
profile;

°
Pollution
prevention
techniques
and
opportunities;

°
Summary
of
applicable
federal
statutes
and
regulations,
including
regulatory
requirements;

°
Compliance/
enforcement
history,
including
review
of
major
legal
actions;
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
7
°
History
of
government
and
industry
partnerships
including
initiatives
for
compliance
assurance
and
innovative
programs;

°
Resource
materials
and
contact
names;

°
Bibliographic
references;
and
°
Description
of
research
methodology.

See
the
EPA
brief
"
OECA
Sector
Notebooks"
(
DCN
00221)
for
more
information.

4.3
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
Multi­
Media
Data
Systems
The
information
that
the
Office
of
Enforcement
and
Compliance
Assurance
(
OECA)
uses
to
manage
and
assess
performance
of
the
Agency's
enforcement
and
compliance
assurance
program
is
stored
in
more
than
a
dozen
data
systems.
These
systems
were
built
to
support
specific
environmental
statutes.
In
general,
data
in
these
systems
is
input
by
either
EPA
Regions
or
States.

These
systems
are
the
primary
source
of
information
used
in
determining
the
state
of
environmental
compliance,
and
may
be
useful
in
supporting
the
304(
m)
planning
process.
EAD
identified
several
multi­
media
projects
and
data
systems
within
OECA,
including
the
Sector
Facility
Indexing
Project
(
SFIP),
the
Integrated
Data
for
Enforcement
Analysis
(
IDEA),
the
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
(
ICIS),
and
the
Enforcement
Compliance
History
Online
(
ECHO).
All
of
these
are
discussed
briefly
below.
Each
of
them
except
ICIS
is
publicly
available
through
the
EPA
web
site.
Although
they
are
not
utilized
in
the
current
planning
cycle,

they
will
be
evaluated
for
use
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase
for
the
current
and
future
planning
cycles.

4.3.1
Sector
Facility
Indexing
Project
The
Sector
Facility
Indexing
Project
(
SFIP)
brings
together
environmental
and
other
information
from
a
number
of
data
systems
to
produce
accessible,
internet­
based
facility­
level
profiles
for
six
industry
sectors.
It
is
available
through
EPA's
web
site,
at
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
8
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
sfipmtn1/.
The
six
sectors
listed
below
were
selected
for
a
number
of
reasons:

they
were
a
manageable
size
(
a
limited
number
of
facilities);
there
were
compliance
problems
identified;
there
was
sufficient
information
available
on
them,
both
within
the
Agency
(
e.
g.
permit
information)
and
through
outside
sources
(
e.
g.
through
trade
associations);
and
there
was
interest
from
outside
groups
as
well.
EAD
intends
to
use
information
collected
and
generated
under
SFIP,

if
available,
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

°
Petroleum
refining;

°
Iron
and
steel
production;

°
Primary
nonferrous
metal
refining
and
smelting;

°
Pulp
manufacturing;

°
Automobile
assembly;
and
°
Federal
facilities
(
subset
of
major
facilities
as
defined
by
air,
wastewater,
or
solid
waste
regulations).

Data
available
from
SFIP
include
compliance
and
inspection
history,
chemical
releases,

pollutant
spills,
production
or
production
capacity
data,
and
demographics
of
the
population
surrounding
facilities,
and
is
compiled
from
EPA's
Integrated
Data
For
Enforcement
Analysis
(
IDEA)
system.
The
SFIP
website
presents
"
current"
data
from
EPA's
Integrated
Data
For
Enforcement
Analysis
(
IDEA)
system
(
discussed
in
section
4.3.2
below).
IDEA
is
now
updated
monthly
and
the
date
of
the
current
update
is
displayed
online
at
the
top
right
hand
of
each
facilitylevel
statistics
report
and
sector
summary.
However,
the
TRI
data
currently
being
accessed
by
the
system
is
from
1999.
Dates
and
the
individual
media
databases
being
used
(
e.
g.,
PCS,
TRI)
appear
at
the
bottom
of
each
Detailed
Facility
Report.
The
SFIP
does
not
rank
or
order
the
information
it
contains,
but
users
can
view
and
sort
the
data
in
a
number
of
ways,
using
standardized
report
formats
or
creating
their
own
analyses.
See
the
EPA
brief
"
Sector
Facility
Indexing
Project"

(
DCN
00220)
for
more
information.

4.3.2
Integrated
Data
for
Enforcement
Analysis
(
IDEA)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
9
The
Integrated
Data
for
Enforcement
Analysis
system
(
IDEA)
is
a
comprehensive
single­
source
of
environmental
performance
data
on
regulated
facilities
within
the
EPA.
It
is
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
Compliance/
planning/
data/
multimedia/
idea/
index.
html.

With
IDEA,
a
user
can
obtain
a
comprehensive
historical
profile
of
inspections,
enforcement
actions,
penalties
assessed,
toxic
chemicals
released,
and
emergency
hazardous
spills
for
any
EPA
regulated
facility.
(
Public
users
must
obtain
an
EPA
mainframe
user
ID
and
account
before
using
this
data
system.)
This
single
point
of
access
provides
information
from
the
Agency's
Air,
Water,

Hazardous
Waste,
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory,
and
Emergency
Response
Notification
Systems.
EAD
intends
to
use
the
information
collected
under
IDEA,
if
available,
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

Implemented
in
early
1991,
IDEA
supports
a
multimedia
approach
to
the
analysis
of
environmental
problems
by
retrieving
data
about
facilities
across
program
office
databases.
IDEA
accesses
the
following
multimedia
information:

°
Air
°
Water
°
Hazardous
Waste
°
Toxics
°
Enforcement
°
Spills
°
Demographics
°
Federal
Facilities
IDEA
is
in
the
process
of
being
superceded
by
the
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System,
which
is
discussed
in
the
following
section.
Until
that
process
is
complete,
it
is
a
tool
that
EAD
intends
to
utilize
in
the
current
planning
cycle.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
10
4.3.3
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
(
ICIS)

OECA
is
in
the
process
of
modernizing
its
enforcement
and
compliance
data
systems,

including
the
IDEA
system
discussed
in
the
previous
section.
The
product
of
that
modernization
is
the
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System
(
ICIS)
a
Web­
based
system
that
will
integrate
data
currently
located
in
more
than
a
dozen
separate
data
systems.
The
first
phase
of
ICIS
was
completed
June
2002,
with
other
phases
to
be
completed
in
later
years.
ICIS
integrates
EPA's
enforcement
and
compliance
assurance
program
data
from
more
than
a
dozen
separate
data
systems
that
were
originally
designed
to
support
specific
environmental
statutes.
This
internetbased
system
will
eventually
enable
individuals
from
states,
communities,
facilities,
and
EPA
to
access
integrated
enforcement
and
compliance
data.
As
of
September
2003,
ICIS
is
not
publicly
available
on
the
EPA
web
site.

ICIS
is
a
compilation
of
all
existing
compliance
and
enforcement
data.
The
two
primary
databases
relevant
to
OW
include
PCS
and
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System/
Federal
(
SDWIS/
FED).
(
See
the
previous
discussion
of
PCS
in
Section
3.2
of
this
document.)
The
SDWIS/
FED
is
EPA's
national
database
for
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
Program,
and
includes
inventory,
compliance,
and
enforcement
information
on
the
nation's
170,000
public
water
systems.
One
sub­
system
of
SDWIS/
FED
generates/
tracks
significant
non­
compliers.

See
the
EPA
brief
"
ICIS
­
Integrated
Compliance
Information
System,
ECHO
­

Enforcement
and
Compliance
History
Online"
(
DCN
00219)
for
more
information.

4.3.4
Enforcement
and
Compliance
History
Online
(
ECHO)

The
Enforcement
and
Compliance
History
Online
(
ECHO)
is
one
of
the
pre­
existing
OECA
data
systems,
and
is
essentially
the
publicly
available
portion
of
the
ICIS
data
system
discussed
in
the
previous
section.
It
is
available
through
EPA's
web
site,
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
Compliance/
planning/
data/
multimedia/
echo.
html
and
anyone
with
access
to
the
Internet
can
use
ECHO.
EAD
expects
to
rely
on
the
more
complete
ICIS
system,
once
it
is
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
11
completed,
for
its
planning
process;
however
this
discussion
is
included
here
to
provide
a
definition
and
make
the
distinction
for
readers
unfamiliar
with
the
OECA
suite
of
tools.

ECHO
is
an
internet­
based
tool
that
provides
compliance,
permit,
and
demographic
data
for
approximately
800,000
facilities
regulated
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
stationary
source
program,

the
Clean
Water
Act
direct
discharge
program,
and
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
hazardous
waste
generation
program.
ECHO
allows
users
to
find
permit,
inspection,
violation,

enforcement
action,
and
penalty
information
covering
the
past
two
years,
and
is
updated
monthly.

ECHO
allows
users
to
sort
and
analyze
data
in
many
ways,
according
to
their
needs.

Although
the
system
is
currently
in
the
pilot
stage,
EPA's
ability
to
target
the
most
critical
environmental
problems
will
improve
as
the
system
integrates
data
from
all
media.
Once
ECHO
is
available,
EAD
intends
to
gather
the
information
available
through
this
tool
for
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

ECHO
is
also
a
compilation
of
all
existing
publicly
available
compliance
and
enforcement
data.
As
with
ICIS,
the
two
primary
databases
relevant
to
OW
include
PCS
(
see
discussion
in
Section
3.2:
Permit
Compliance
System
(
PCS)
Data)
and
the
Safe
Drinking
Water
Information
System/
Federal
(
SDWIS/
FED).
The
SDWIS/
FED
is
EPA's
national
database
for
the
Public
Water
System
Supervision
Program,
and
includes
inventory,
compliance,
and
enforcement
information
on
the
nation's
170,000
public
water
systems.
One
sub­
system
of
SDWIS/
FED
generates/
tracks
significant
non­
compliers.

4.4
Office
of
Policy,
Economics,
and
Innovation's
Sector
Strategies
Program
The
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation
(
OPEI)
is
expanding
its
multi­
media
program
to
work
with
new
industries
in
its
industry
sector
program.
The
Sector
Strategies
Program
is
concentrating
on
a
focused
set
of
actions
that
will
prompt
industry­
wide
environmental
gains
through
promoting
Environmental
Management
Systems
(
EMS),
working
to
address
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
12
regulatory
barriers
to
performance,
and
measuring
performance.
On
May
1,
2002,
OPEI
announced
the
selection
of
seven
sectors
to
participate
in
the
multi­
media
sector
program
(
Federal
Register
Vol.
68,
Number
84,
pages
23303
and
23304).
This
announcement
was
supplemented
on
June
2,
2003,
when
the
EPA
Administrator
welcomed
eight
new
and
four
existing
sectors
into
the
program.
These
sectors
are
listed
below,
most
of
which
are
expected
to
include
a
element
on
wastewater.
EAD
intends
to
use
the
information
collected
and
generated
under
this
program,
if
possible,
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

°
Agribusiness
°
Cement
Manufacturing
°
Colleges
and
Universities
°
Construction
°
Forest
Products
(
both
timber
and
pulp)

°
Iron
and
Steel
Manufacturing
°
Metal
Casting
°
Metal
Finishing
°
Paint
and
Coatings
°
Ports
°
Shipbuilding
and
Ship
Repair
°
Specialty­
Batch
Chemical
Manufacturing
OPEI
will
partner
with
EPA
programs
and
regions,
states,
and
select
trade
associations
to
craft
solutions
to
sector­
specific
problems.
The
program
will
consist
of
the
following
five
elements:
1)
providing
sector
point­
of­
contact,
2)
promoting
environmental
management
systems,

3)
overcoming
regulatory
or
other
barriers
to
performance
improvement,
4)
measuring
performance,
and
5)
providing
an
on­
line
toolbox.

Under
a
previous
OPEI
effort
called
"
Sustainable
Industries
Program,"
similar
actions
were
initiated
with
the
following
industries:

°
Metal
Finishing
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
13
°
Metal
Casting
°
Shipbuilding
and
Ship
Repair
°
Specialty
Batch
Chemical
Sectors
°
Meat
Processing
OPEI
will
maintain
points­
of­
contact
and
will
follow
through
on
EMS
and
other
projects
that
are
ongoing
with
these
sectors.
Accomplishments
with
the
Meat
Processing
industry
will
support
new
work
with
the
Agribusiness
Sector.

EAD
intends
to
monitor
the
progress
of
this
project,
and
integrate
information
into
both
the
screening
level
review
phase
and
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
future
planning
cycles
as
it
becomes
available.
See
the
Federal
Register
notice
cited
above
as
well
as
the
EPA
flyer
"
EPA's
New
Industry
Sector
Performance
Program"
(
DCN
00192)
for
more
information.

4.5
Office
of
Environmental
Information/
Office
of
Research
and
Development
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative
EPA's
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative
was
developed
to
improve
the
Agency's
ability
to
report
on
the
status
of
and
trends
in
environmental
conditions
and
their
impacts
on
human
health
and
the
nation's
natural
resources.
It
is
jointly
maintained
by
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information
and
the
Office
of
Research
and
Development.
EPA's
long­
term
goal
is
to
improve
the
indicators
and
data
that
are
used
to
guide
the
Agency's
strategic
plans,
priorities,
performance
reports,
and
decision­
making.

Environmental
indicators
are
scientific
measurements
that
track
environmental
conditions
over
time.
One
of
the
key
products
of
the
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative
is
the
Draft
Report
on
the
Environment,
released
on
June
23,
2003
and
available
at
www.
epa.
gov/
indicators.
The
report
used
available
national­
level
data
and
indicators
to:
1)
describe
current
national
environmental
conditions
and
trends
using
existing
data
and
indicators;
2)
identify
data
gaps
and
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
14
research
needs;
3)
discuss
the
challenges
government
and
our
partners
face
in
filling
those
gaps;

and
4)
include
supporting
technical
information.

On
the
subject
of
"
Purer
Water"
the
report
notes
that
water
pollution
problems
and
threats
to
surface
water
and
drinking
water
remain.
Some
of
the
threats
to
water
resources
identified
in
the
report
include
the
aging
of
the
nation's
wastewater
and
drinking
water
infrastructure,

landscape
modification,
invasive
species,
changes
to
water
flow,
over­
harvesting
of
fish
and
shellfish,
and
deposition
of
pollutants
from
the
air.
The
Report
also
describes
general
sources
of
drinking
water
contamination,
recreational
water
pollution,
and
fish
and
shellfish
contamination.

Storm
water
runoff
is
linked
to
contamination
of
both
drinking
water
and
recreational
water.

In
summary,
this
report
notes
that
releases
of
certain
toxic
chemicals
have
declined
since
1988,
but
that
the
condition
of
our
surface
waters
is
unknown,
and
that
our
estuaries
are
in
fair­

topoor
condition
nationwide.
EAD
intends
to
monitor
the
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative
for
information
that
can
inform
the
planning
process
in
future
cycles.
See
the
EPA
brief
"
Environmental
Indicators
Initiative"
(
DCN
00216)
and
EPA's
web
site
at
www.
epa.
gov/
indicators
for
more
detailed
information.

4.6
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
(
NACEPT)
Report:
Emerging
Challenges
and
Opportunities
for
EPA
In
September
2002,
the
National
Advisory
Council
for
Environmental
Policy
and
Technology
published
its
report,
"
The
Environmental
Future:
Emerging
Challenges
and
Opportunities
for
EPA."
The
report
reviews
EPA's
future
analysis
capability
and
recommends
that
more
be
done
to
support
environmental
foresight
programs.
In
addition,
the
report
offers
a
framework
to
analyze
the
environmental
implications
of
trends
in
world
population
and
demographics,
natural
resources,
science
and
technology,
information
management
and
access,

economics
and
commerce,
and
politics
and
social
evolution.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
4­
15
The
report
concludes
with
general
and
specific
recommendations
for
how
EPA
can
best
address
these
changing
conditions.
The
discussion
of
water
as
a
natural
resource
identifies
four
opportunities
for
EPA:
1)
develop
a
holistic
approach
to
water
and
the
environment;
2)
integrate
water
efficiency
with
environmental
regulations;
3)
support
an
effective
market
environment
to
minimize
generating
hazardous
wastes;
and
4)
redouble
efforts
to
effectively
include
non­
point
sources
in
water
management
programs.
For
more
information,
see
the
EPA
brief,
"
NACEPT
Report"
at
DCN
00218,
and
the
NACEPT
report
itself,
titled
"
The
Environmental
Future
Emerging
Challenges
and
Opportunities
for
EPA
(
DCN
00671).

EPA
believes
its
draft
Strategy
appropriately
places
the
development
of
industrial
discharge
regulations
in
the
context
of
the
mandates
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
a
comprehensive
national
program
for
water
quality
protection.
The
Agency
will
also
continue
to
consider
opportunities
for
promoting
water
efficiency
in
its
effluent
guidelines
planning.
(
Report
recommendation
3
above
addresses
other
parts
of
the
National
Water
Program,
and
Report
recommendation
4
above
addresses
the
Agency's
hazardous
waste
programs.)
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
1
5.0
POTENTIAL
ALTERNATIVE
APPROACHES
The
preceding
sections
of
this
report
address
information
needed
to
determine
whether
there
is
sufficient
concern
that
new
guidelines
or
revisions
to
existing
guidelines
are
likely
to
be
justified.
However,
once
such
a
concern
has
been
identified,
the
Agency
also
plans
to
consider
whether
effluent
guidelines
are
the
best
way
to
address
that
concern.
Determining
the
existence
of
alternatives
to
regulatory
action
is
another
consideration
that
is
part
of
Factor
4.
This
subject
is
discussed
in
this
section,
but
due
to
the
amount
of
information
required,
EAD
was
unable
to
consider
such
alternatives
during
the
screening
phase
of
this
initial
planning
cycle.
EAD
intends
to
obtain
information
about
alternative
approaches
during
detailed
investigation
phase.

EPA
must
first
determine
whether
such
alternatives
are
available
and
also
whether
they
present
a
more
effective
course
of
action
in
reducing
adverse
impacts
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Such
alternatives
may
include
the
Agency
issuing
compliance
or
permitting
guidance,
providing
technical
assistance
to
States
or
industry,
or
entering
into
a
voluntary
partnership
to
support
broader
environmental
goals.

Six
potential
alternatives
are
discussed
in
this
section:
1)
OAQPS'
Innovative
Regulatory
Strategies
program,
2)
OPEI's
Performance
Track
program,
3)
OPPT's
Design
for
the
Environment
prgram,
4)
OSWER's
Resource
Conservation
Challenge,
5)
pollutant
trading,
and
6)

voluntary
programs/
pollution
prevention.
In
many
instances,
these
programs
foster
pollutant
reductions
to
air
and
land,
as
well
as
water.

5.1
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
Innovative
Regulatory
Strategies
Program
The
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
hosts
an
Innovative
Regulatory
Strategies
Program,
which
includes
the
development
of
rules,
policies,
and
guidance
on
marketbased
incentive
programs
that
apply
to
national
emission
standard
programs
and
to
State
and
local
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
2
air
pollution
control
programs.
A
list
of
the
documents
developed
under
this
program
can
be
accessed
through
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
ecas/
innostra.
html.

For
example,
The
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation
published
Draft
Economic
Incentive
Program
Guidance
in
1999
discussing
discretionary
economic
incentive
programs
(
EIPs).
EIPs
use
marketbased
strategies
to
encourage
people
to
reduce
emissions
of
air
pollutants
in
the
most
efficient
manner.
OAR's
guidance
provides
the
information
necessary
to
develop
a
discretionary
EIP
for
air
dischargers,
submit
it
to
the
EPA,
and
receive
approval
from
the
EPA.
The
guidance
document
is
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
ecas/
innodata/
eip9­
2.
pdf.
EAD
intends
to
review
this
document
for
possible
usefulness
to
the
planning
process.

Some
economic
incentive
programs
(
EIPs)
will
involve
trading
of
volatile
organic
compound
(
VOC)
emissions.
Because
many
VOCs
are
also
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAPs)
as
defined
by
section
112(
b)
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
these
VOC
EIPs
will
inevitably
involve
the
trading
of
HAP
emissions.
The
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
has
been
working
on
a
ranking
system
for
HAPs
to
support
the
determination
that
a
change
in
pollutants
discharged
represents
a
net
decrease
in
discharge
of
hazardous
air
pollutants.

OAQPS
has
been
developing
a
methodology
with
which
to
assign,
to
the
extent
practicable,
the
relative
hazard
to
human
health
of
each
HAP
listed
in
the
section
112(
b)
of
the
Act.
A
1994
report
that
describes
the
methodology
and
supporting
data
for
developing
a
hazard
ranking
and
offsetting
provisions
for
pollutants
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
ecas/
innodata/
docum1.
pdf.
This
ranking
methodology
could
be
useful
to
EAD
as
it
considers
alternative
approaches,
including
trading,
which
is
discussed
in
section
5.2.

EAD
intends
to
consider
these
and
other
ongoing
activities
within
the
Innovative
Strategies
Program
related
to
the
industries
identified
in
EAD's
screening
review
to
determine
appropriate
coordination
activities.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
3
5.2
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program
The
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation
(
OPEI)
hosts
the
National
Environmental
Performance
Track
Program,
which
was
launched
in
2000
and
now
has
over
300
members.
Its
goal
is
to
recognize
and
reward
top
environmental
performers
that
go
beyond
legal
requirements.

There
are
four
criteria
required
for
participants
in
the
program:
1)
an
environmental
management
system
must
be
in
place,
2)
a
commitment
to
continuous
environmental
improvement
must
be
demonstrated,
which
may
include
decreases
in
discharges
to
water,
3)
a
good
compliance
history
must
be
demonstrated,
and
4)
a
community
outreach
program
must
be
developed.
Incentives
for
participation
include
public
recognition,
low
inspection
priority,
networking,
and
regulatory
changes
for
members
of
the
program.

Members
are
distributed
across
17
sectors,
although
the
majority
(
251
out
of
319)
are
in
the
manufacturing
sectors.
As
of
September,
2003,
the
distribution
of
members
in
the
11
manufacturing
sector
was
as
follows:

°
Electronic
and
Electrical
Equipment
 
45
members
°
Chemical
Products
 
42
members
°
Medical
Equipment
and
Supplies
 
29
members
°
Metal
Products
 
28
members
°
Wood
Products,
Paper,
and
Printing
 
26
members
°
Transportation
Equipment
and
Services
 
24
members
°
Pharmaceutical
Products
 
22
members
°
Rubber
and
Plastics
Products
 
13
members
°
Machinery
Equipment
 
12
members
°
Textile
Products
 
5
members
°
Miscellaneous
Products
 
5
members
As
of
September,
2003,
the
distribution
of
members
in
the
6
non­
manufacturing
sector
was
as
follows:
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
4
°
Public
Facilities
&
Institutions
 
21
members
(
6%)

°
Wholesale,
Retail,
and
Shipping
 
11
members
(
4%)

°
Services
 
11
members
(
3%)

°
Energy,
Utilities,
and
Sanitary
Services
 
10
members
(
4%)

°
Mining
and
Construction
 
10
members
(
3%)

°
Agriculture,
Livestock,
and
Food
 
5
members
(
2%)

Although
this
program
was
not
considered
during
the
screening
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle,
information
about
its
successes
will
be
considered
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
or
during
future
planning
cycles.
EAD
has
begun
a
dialogue
with
OPEI
about
ways
participation
in
the
Performance
Track
program
may
justify
a
lower
priority
for
consideration
in
the
planning
process
for
development
or
revision
of
effluent
guidelines.
This
in
turn
would
provide
additional
incentive
for
more
facilities
to
join
the
program.

In
addition,
EAD
intends
to
evaluate
industrial
categories
that
are
participating
in
the
Performance
Track
program
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase.
This
program
may
present
a
viable
alternative
method
to
reduce
discharges
to
surface
water
to
address
concerns
identified
during
the
screening
phase
of
the
current
planning
process.
For
more
information
about
this
program,
see
the
EPA
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
performancetrack.

5.3
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics'
Design
for
the
Environment
Program
The
Design
for
the
Environment
(
DfE)
program
works
directly
with
industry
to
create
voluntary
partnerships
with
the
goal
of
integrating
health
and
environmental
considerations
into
business
decisions.
DfE
partnerships
inform
businesses
in
the
design
or
redesign
of
products
and
processes
that
are
cleaner,
more
cost­
effective,
and
safer
for
workers
and
the
public.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
5
The
DfE
process
promotes
voluntary
environmental
improvement
by
providing
key
information
to
industries
on
ways
to
incorporate
environmental
concerns
into
business
decisions.

The
process
systematically:

°
Identifies
the
array
of
technologies,
products,
and
processes
that
can
be
used
to
perform
a
particular
function
within
an
industry
and
related
pollution
prevention
opportunities.

°
Evaluates
and
compares
the
risk,
performance,
and
cost
tradeoffs
of
the
alternatives.

°
Disseminates
this
information
to
the
entire
industry
community.

°
Encourages
and
enables
use
of
this
information
by
providing
mechanisms
and
incentives
to
institutionalize
continuous
environmental
improvement.

EAD
has
begun
working
with
the
DfE
to
identify
voluntary
pollutant
discharge
reductions
achieved
by
industry.
The
DfE
program
also
provides
information
on
potential
alternative
approaches.
If
appropriate,
this
information
will
be
considered
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
planning
cycle.
(
See
section
5:
Potential
Alternative
Approaches
for
a
discussion
of
potential
alternative
approaches.)

Current
DfE
partners
include
the
following
industry
categories,
some
of
which
address
discharges
to
surface
water:

°
Automotive
refinishing;

°
Adhesives;

°
Computer
display;

°
Garment
and
textile
care;

°
Flexographic
printing;

°
Product
formulators;
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
6
°
Gravure
printing;

°
Industrial
and
institutional
laundry;

°
Lead­
free
solder
partnership;

°
Lithographic
printing;

°
Printed
wiring
board;
and
°
Screen
printing.

Of
these,
adhesives
and
product
formulators
fall
under
the
chemical
formulators
subcategory
of
the
existing
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
and
Synthetic
Fibers
point
source
category,
and
the
printing
activities
fall
under
the
new
Printing
and
Publishing
category
recommended
for
further
consideration
by
stakeholders
(
see
Section
2.0:
Suggestions
for
Improving
Implementation
and
Efficiency).

5.4
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response's
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
The
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
is
a
major
national
effort
to
find
flexible,
yet
more
protective
ways
to
conserve
our
valuable
resources
through
waste
reduction
and
energy
recovery
activities
that
will
improve
public
health
and
the
environment.
The
RCC
encompasses
activities
across
EPA
programs:
waste,
air,
toxics,
pollution
prevention,
pesticides,
and
compliance.
It
also
includes
activities
in
the
EPA
Regions,
States,
and
Tribes.
The
RCC
identifies
areas
of
program
focus
 
challenges
 
that
are
ready
for
voluntary
partnerships.
Each
of
these
challenges
works
to
resolve
national
environmental
problems
by
finding
environmentally
acceptable
solutions.

In
an
effort
to
identify
successful
resource
conservation
projects
and
coordinate
the
message
of
their
successes,
EPA
identified
several
initial
areas
of
focus,
or
"
challenges."
These
challenges
were
either
groups
of
related
existing
projects
or
areas
of
unfinished
business
that
had
the
potential
for
development
of
successful
voluntary
partnerships.
Challenge
areas
include:

°
Construction
and
Demolition
Debris
°
Electronics
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
7
°
Green
Buildings
°
Hospitals
°
Industrial
Wastes
°
Paper
°
Schools
°
Targeted
Chemicals
°
Tires
For
each
of
these
challenge
areas,
EPA
has
developed,
or
is
currently
developing,
voluntary
partnerships
that
will
contribute
to
resource
conservation.
These
partnerships
are
mutual,

consisting
both
of
external
partners'
commitments
to
meet
measurable
objectives
and
EPA's
commitment
to
provide
appropriate
support.
For
those
willing
to
accept
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge,
EPA
commits
at
the
highest
level
to
mobilize
its
institutional
resources
to
bring
sustained
and
focused
attention
and
responsive
decision­
making
to
achieving
RCC
goals.
We
will
work
with
partners
to
create
incentives
that
reward
businesses
and
communities
that
meet
program
goals.

Under
the
National
Waste
Minimization
Partnership
Program
(
a
major
RCC
initiative),

member
companies
are
setting
specific
waste
minimization
goals
to
reduce
targeted
chemicals
and
waste
streams.
As
they
achieve
these
goals,
they
reduce
the
mass
loading
of
specified
chemicals
in
waste
materials
to
levels
below
existing
compliance
levels.

Although
this
program
was
not
considered
during
the
screening
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle,
information
about
its
successes
will
be
considered
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
or
during
future
planning
cycles.
EAD
has
begun
a
dialogue
with
OSWER
about
ways
participation
in
the
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
program
may
justify
a
lower
priority
for
consideration
in
the
planning
process
for
development
or
revision
of
effluent
guidelines.
This
in
turn
would
provide
additional
incentive
for
more
facilities
to
join
the
program.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
8
In
addition,
EAD
intends
to
evaluate
industrial
categories
that
are
participating
in
the
RCC
program,
especially
the
National
Waste
Minimization
Partnership
Program,
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase.
This
program
may
present
a
viable
alternative
method
to
reduce
discharges
to
surface
water
to
address
concerns
identified
during
the
screening
phase
of
the
current
planning
process.
For
more
information
about
this
program,
see
the
EPA
website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
epaoswer/
osw/
conserve.

5.5
Pollutant
Trading
On
January
13,
2003,
U.
S.
EPA
Administrator
Christie
Whitman
announced
a
new
Water
Quality
Trading
Policy
to
reduce
industrial,
municipal,
and
agricultural
discharges
into
the
nation's
waterways.
The
trading
policy
seeks
to
support
and
encourage
states
and
tribes
in
developing
and
putting
into
place
water
quality
trading
programs
that
implement
the
requirements
of
the
Clean
Water
and
federal
regulations
in
more
flexible
ways
and
reduce
the
cost
of
improving
and
maintaining
the
quality
of
the
nation's
waters.
More
information
about
EPA's
trading
policy
is
provided
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
owow/
watershed/
trading.
htm.

Seven
commenters
on
the
draft
Strategy
specifically
addressed
the
issue
of
pollutant
trading.
Two
commenters
endorse
EPA's
consideration
of
trading,
although
one
of
these
expressed
concerns
about
permit
language
and
anti­
backsliding.
Four
other
commenters
agree
conditionally,
specifying
that
trading
should
be
limited
to
trading
within
single
facilities
for
direct
dischargers
or
single
publicly
owned
treatment
works
(
POTWs)
for
indirect
dischargers.
One
of
these
commenters
presented
a
potential
approach,
but
also
identified
issues
with
trading
and
noted
that
Pretreatment
Regulations
would
have
to
be
revised
to
allow
it.
The
remaining
commenter
argues
that
in­
plant
trading
with
no
net
decrease
in
loadings
is
not
the
proper
subject
of
effluent
guidelines.

During
the
June,
2003
teleconference
with
stakeholders
in
the
Association
of
State
and
Interstate
Water
Pollution
Control
Authorities
(
ASIWPCA)
the
subject
of
trading
generated
some
discussion,
with
some
stakeholders
preferring
it
not
be
included
in
ELGs;
while
others
support
the
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
9
possibility
as
a
way
to
allow
industries
to
remove
more
pollutants
than
is
required
and
achieve
a
greater
improvement
in
stream
health.
When
looking
at
total
stream
health,
there
may
be
ways
to
adjust
the
limits
to
obtain
a
better
result.
For
example,
allowing
higher
manganese
discharges
allowed
a
discharger
to
avoid
increasing
the
pH
required
for
the
higher
removal
rates
and
the
result
was
an
improvement
in
the
receiving
stream.
These
stakeholders
also
recommend
trading
be
used
for
non­
toxic
pollutants,
such
as
dissolved
oxygen
parameters.
(
This
teleconference
is
discussed
in
more
detail
in
Section
2.6.1:
AMSA
and
ASIWPCA.)

Water
quality
trading
uses
economic
incentives
to
improve
water
quality.
It
allows
one
source
to
meet
its
regulatory
obligations
by
using
pollutant
reductions
created
by
another
source
that
has
lower
pollution
control
costs.
The
standards
remain
the
same,
but
efficiency
is
increased
and
costs
are
decreased.
Under
the
new
policy,
for
example,
industrial
and
municipal
facilities
would
first
meet
technology
control
requirements
and
then
could
use
pollution
reduction
credits
generated
by
reducing
pollutants
below
what
is
required
and
trade
these
with
others.

In
order
for
a
water
quality
trade
to
take
place,
a
pollution
reduction
"
credit"
must
first
be
created.
EPA's
water
quality
trading
policy
is
based
on
sources
reducing
pollution
loads
beyond
the
level
required
by
the
most
stringent
water
quality­
based
requirements
in
order
to
create
a
pollution
reduction
"
credit"
that
can
be
traded.
For
example,
a
landowner
or
a
farmer
could
create
credits
by
changing
cropping
practices
and
planting
shrubs
and
trees
next
to
a
stream.
A
municipal
wastewater
treatment
plant
then
could
use
these
credits
to
meet
water
quality
limits
in
its
permit.

The
policy
could
save
the
public
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
by
advancing
more
effective,
efficient
partnerships
to
clean
up
and
protect
watersheds.
An
independent
study
of
three
watersheds
in
Minnesota,
Michigan,
and
Wisconsin
looked
at
the
cost
of
controlling
phosphorus
loadings.
(
World
Resources
Institute
2000)
This
study
found
that
the
cost
of
reducing
phosphorus
from
controlling
point
sources
to
be
considerably
higher
than
those
based
on
trading
between
point
and
non­
point
sources
which
are
not
regulated
by
the
Clean
Water
Act.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
10
Another
example
of
innovative
approaches
to
pollutant
and
risk
reduction
is
in­
plant
trading.
For
example,
the
"
water
bubble"
is
a
regulatory
flexibility
mechanism
included
in
the
Iron
and
Steel
regulation
at
40
CFR
420.03
to
allow
for
intra­
plant
trading
of
conventional
and
toxic
pollutants
between
outfalls
at
any
single
steel
mill.
The
bubble
has
been
used
at
some
facilities
to
realize
cost
saving
and/
or
to
facilitate
compliance.

Based
on
the
level
of
detailed,
industry­
specific
information
required
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
a
trading
program,
EAD
was
unable
to
evaluate
the
feasibility
of
trading
during
the
screening
level
review
phase.
However,
EAD
intends
to
collect
and
consider
information
about
trading
for
the
categories
selected
for
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
planning
process.

5.6
Other
Voluntary
Programs/
Pollution
Prevention
There
are
a
number
of
voluntary
programs
sponsored
or
supported
by
EPA
designed
to
achieve
real
environmental
results.
The
Partners
for
the
Environment
web
page
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
partners/)
describes
a
number
of
voluntary
EPA
programs.
EAD
has
begun
to
explore
these
programs,
starting
with
two
approaches
to
voluntary
loading
reductions:
Section
5.5.1
introduces
Environmental
Management
Systems
which
are
being
implemented
by
many
organizations;
and
Section
5.5.2
discusses
State
voluntary
programs
that
have
had
success
in
reducing
pollutant
discharges
to
surface
water.

5.6.1
Environmental
Management
Systems
(
EMSs)

EMSs
provide
organizations
of
all
types
with
a
structured
approach
for
managing
environmental
and
regulatory
responsibilities
to
improve
overall
environmental
performance,

including
areas
not
subject
to
regulation.
EMSs
can
also
help
organizations
better
integrate
the
full
scope
of
environmental
considerations
and
get
better
results,
by
establishing
a
continuous
process
of
checking
to
make
sure
environmental
goals
are
met.
EMS
implementation
ensures
that
procedures
are
in
place
for
taking
remedial
action
if
problems
occur.
From
a
business
perspective,
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
5­
11
benefits
may
include
cost
savings,
increased
operational
efficiency
and
competitiveness,
risk
reduction,
improved
internal
communication,
and
improved
relations
with
external
parties.
EMSs
typically
incorporate
a
feedback
mechanism
that
supports
measurement
of
performance
against
a
set
of
measurable
objectives
and
provides
a
mechanism
for
correction
or
preventive
action.

A
strong
EMS
does
not
just
set
rules
for
employees:
it
tracks
performance,
fosters
proactive
identification
and
correction
of
problems,
and
provides
a
mechanism
to
prevent
problems
from
recurring.
Many
organizations
are
adopting
EMSs
as
a
management
tool.
EPA
encourages
the
use
of
EMSs
because
these
tools
have
the
potential
to
improve
compliance
rates
and
environmental
performance.
EAD
expects
to
gather
information
about
industry­
specific
EMS
programs
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
current
planning
cycle.

Based
on
the
level
of
detailed,
industry­
specific
information
required
to
evaluate
environmental
management
systems,
EAD
was
unable
to
evaluate
EMS
during
the
screening
level
review
phase.
However,
EAD
intends
to
continue
to
collect
information
about
EMS
during
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
the
planning
process.
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
6­
1
6.0
CONCLUSIONS
AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
As
a
result
of
this
Factor
4
screening
level
analysis,
EAD
identified
two
lists
of
industry
categories
for
possible
further
consideration
in
the
detailed
investigation
phase:
(
1)
industry
categories
without
effluent
guidelines
suggested
for
regulatory
development,
and
(
2)
industry
categories
already
covered
by
effluent
guidelines
suggested
for
regulatory
revision.
These
recommendations
were
identified
through
stakeholder
input
and
from
observations
provided
by
expert
staff
in
EPA
regions
and
headquarters,
as
discussed
in
Section
2.0
of
this
report.
They
are
listed
below.

13
Suggested
Categories
Without
Effluent
Guidelines
Airport
Industrial
Discharges
Independent
and
Stand­
Alone
Laboratories
Aquatic
Animal
Production
Municipal
Storm
water
Runoff
Construction
and
Development
Ocean
Going
Vessels
(
cruise
ships,
(
storm
water
discharges)
ballast
and
bilge
water)
Dental
Facilities
Printing
and
Publishing
Drinking
Water
Supply
and
Treatment
Prisons
Food
Service
Establishments
Wastewater
Treatment
&
Sewerage
Systems
Groundwater
Remediation
Discharges
24
Suggested
Categories
with
Existing
Effluent
Guidelines
Canned
and
Preserved
Fruits
and
Metal
Products
&
Machinery
Vegetables
Processing
Mineral
Mining
and
Processing
Canned
and
Preserved
Seafood
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction:
coal
bed
methane
Coal
Mining
Ore
Mining
and
Dressing
(
hard
rock
mining)
Coil
Coating
Organic
Chemicals,
Plastics,
&
Synthetic
Fibers,
Dairy
Products
Processing
including
chemical
formulators,
and
Electrical
and
Electronic
Components
adhesives
and
sealants
Electroplating
Petroleum
Refining,
including
petroleum
bulk
Fertilizer
Manufacturing
stations
and
terminals
Hospitals
Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
(
Phases
1,
2,
and
3)
Inorganic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Steam
Electric
Power
Generation
Meat
(
and
Poultry)
Products
Textile
Mills
Metal
Finishing
Timber
Products
Processing
Metal
Molding
and
Casting
Transportation
Equipment
Cleaning:
industrial
container
&
drum
cleaning
Factor
4
Analysis:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations
6­
2
Some
of
these
categories
may
not
fall
within
the
scope
of
section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
and
others
may
already
be
in
the
process
of
development
or
revision
by
EAD.
Those
determinations
are
made
during
the
next
step
of
the
planning
process.
For
a
discussion
of
how
EPA
integrated
these
results
with
those
of
the
other
factor
analyses,
see
the
memorandum
titled
"
Description
and
Results
of
EPA
Methodology
to
Synthesize
Screening
Level
Results
for
the
CWA
304(
m)
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005"
(
DCN
00548).

During
the
detailed
investigation
phase
of
this
planning
cycle,
EAD
intends
to
consider
as
many
of
the
other
elements
identified
in
this
analysis
as
possible,
including
voluntary
loading
reductions,
multi­
media
concerns,
and
potential
alternative
approaches.
