
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
MEMORANDUM
TO:
EPA
Docket
OW­
2003­
0074,
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
FROM:
Betsy
Bicknell,
ERG
DATE:
January
29,
2004
SUBJECT:
January
28,
2004,
Public
Meeting
on
the
Preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005
Notes
This
memorandum
provides
highlights
of
the
presentations
given
during
the
January
28,
2004,
public
meeting
on
the
Preliminary
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
for
2004/
2005.
Attendees
asked
questions
during
EPA
presentations.
These
questions
and
EPA's
responses
to
them
are
included
at
the
point
they
occurred
in
the
presentations.

I.
Welcome
and
Overview
of
the
304(
m)
Planning
Process
Slide
Presentation
by
Mary
Smith
(
Director,
Engineering
&
Analysis
Division)

°
How
EPA
is
implementing
the
draft
strategy
published
November
2002.
°
What
are
ELGs?
°
Address
direct
and
indirect
discharges;
°
Industry
specific;
°
Technology
based;
°
Numerical;
°
Economically
achievable.
°
Major
issues
addressed
in
a
Rulemaking
­
Economics,
loadings,
and
removals.
°
Often
involves
new
data
collection.
°
304(
m)
added
to
CWA
in
1987
requires:
°
(
1)
Annual
review;
°
(
2)
Plan
published
in
even
years;
and
°
EPA
must
regulate
a
new
category
if
there
is
a
"
nontrivial"
discharge
of
pollutants.
°
The
1992
consent
decree
took
over
the
planning
process.
Last
rules
to
be
finalized
under
consent
decree:
°
2/
26/
04
(
meats);
°
3/
31/
04
(
C&
D);
and
°
6/
30/
04
(
aquaculture).
Memorandum
January
29,
2004
Page
2
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
°
Draft
Strategy
­
11/
2002
based
on
ELG
goals
of
Task
Force:
°
Reduce
risk
to
human
health
and
environment;
°
Involve
stakeholders;
and
°
Transparent
decision­
making.
°
Draft
Strategy
considers
four
factors:
°
1.
Risk
to
Human
Health
and
the
Environment;
°
2.
Technology
Developments;
°
3.
Economic
Considerations;
and
°
4.
Implementation/
Efficiency.
°
Draft
Strategy
implemented
in
four
phases:
°
1.
Scree;
°
2.
Prioritize;
°
3.
In­
depth
review;
and
°
4.
Decide.
°
Strategy
implementation
is
not
a
rulemaking
process:
°
Data
do
not
need
to
be
"
rulemaking"
quality.
°
Request
for
comments,
and
extension,
encourage
comments.

II.
Review
of
the
Preliminary
Plan
Slide
Presentation
by
Tom
Wall
(
Chief,
Chemical
Engineering
Branch)

°
Example
of
multimedia
considerations
in
planning
guidelines:
°
Timber
Products
(
plywood)
MACT,
which
may
result
in
change
of
ELG
applicability
in
order
to
encourage
best
air
toxics
control.
°
Analytical
Framework
and
Methodology:
°
Two
key
sets
of
information
used
in
screening
review:
PCS
and
TRI;
°
Used
Toxic
Weighting
Factors
used
for
years
in
guidelines
program
to
develop
category
rankings;
and
°
Stakeholder
concerns.
°
The
plan
published
Dec
31,
2003
differs
from
the
Draft
Strategy
in
that
EPA
has
not
yet
completed
detailed
review
of
high­
priority
categories.
°
Annual
Review
is
the
screening
review,
using
PCS
and
TRI
data.
°
After
initial
ranking,
lower
the
priority
of
certain
categories:
°
New
regulations;
°
Predominantly
indirect
dischargers;
°
Regulated
by
other
Clean
Water
Act
(
CWA)
sections
(
e.
g.,
vessels)
°
Is
there
an
NPDES
permit?
If
yes
then
ELG;
if
no,
then
other
CWA
section
applies.
Memorandum
January
29,
2004
Page
3
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
°
One
or
only
a
few
facilities
drive
the
toxic­
weighted
pounds
discharged;
and
°
If
data
were
unclear
or
hazard
uncertain.
°
Outcome
of
the
first
screening
review:
°
OCPSF
(
including
potential
new
subcategory
­
CFPR);
and
°
Petroleum
Refining
(
including
potential
new
subcategory
­
PBST).
°
Refer
to
Rationale
Memo
in
the
docket
for
more
details.
°
New
Category:
looked
at
Section
306
"
Categories
of
Sources"
for
non­
trivial
discharges.
No
new
categories:
two
potential
new
subcategories
(
CFPR
&
PBST).

III.
Data
Gathering
Activities
and
Analyses
for
the
Final
Plan
Slide
Presentation
by
Carey
Johnston
(
304(
m)
Planning
Team)

°
Schedule:
EPA
currently
working
on
detailed
studies.
Will
complete
by
end
of
March.
°
Final
plan
development
is
iterative;
studies
are
revised
and
refined
as
team
gets
questions
from
EPA
management
and
questions
and
data
from
public
comments.
°
Decisions
for
final
plan
will
be
made
by
end
of
May.
°
Screening
Level
data
sources:
°
TRI
and
PCS
used
to
identify
what
is
discharged;
and
°
WATERS
Expert
Query
Tool
used
to
link
discharges
to
impaired
water
bodies.
°
Question:
Have
you
also
looked
at
NPDES
permits?
°
Answer:
Absolutely.
°
Mr.
Johnston
repeated
a
comment
that
EAD
had
heard
already:
Why
did
EAD
use
TRI
since
it
is
not
a
perfect
database
(
for
this
application)?
°
Response:
EPA
did
not
use
TRI
alone,
but
reviewed
other
existing
data
and
used
"
weight
of
evidence"
approach.
°
Environmental
data
not
used
in
the
screening
review
were
those
not
linked
to
specific
facilities,
e.
g.
fish
tissue,
sediment
contaminants
databases,
etc.
°
Data
Challenges:
°
Iterative
approach
to
eliminate
data
errors
in
PCS
and
TRI;
°
PCS
does
not
have
monitoring
data
for
minor
facilities
and
general
permits;
°
SIC
code
classification
may
not
correspond
to
source
of
wastewater;
and
°
Lack
of
latitude
&
longitude
for
many
discharge
points.
°
Impairments:
°
EPA
investigated
the
question,
"
Was
the
facility
discharging
a
pollutant
for
which
the
receiving
water
was
impaired?"
°
The
impairments
analyses
was
not
a
driving
factor
in
category
ranking;
and
Memorandum
January
29,
2004
Page
4
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
°
EAD
did
not
look
at
the
magnitude
of
discharges.
°
Limitations
of
screening
approach:
°
Can
only
identify
parameters
that
are
monitored;
and
°
Ranking
based
only
on
toxicity,
other
impacts
(
e.
g.,
nutrients)
not
included.
°
Summary
­
Imperfect
databases,
iterative
approach,
blend
quantitative
and
qualitative
information
sources.
°
Question:
How
many
facilities
did
we
talk
to?
°
Answer:
Not
more
than
nine
per
category.
°
Question:
Will
the
decision
to
identify
the
category
for
potential
new
rulemaking
be
based
this
limited
data?
°
Answer:
Yes.
°
EAD
Director
Mary
Smith
emphasized
that
development
of
the
Effluent
Guidelines
Program
Plan
is
not
a
rulemaking
and
EAD
is
depending
industries
to
supplement
data
readily
available
to
EPA.
°
Question:
How
is
impaired
water
work
related
to
TMDL?
°
Answer:
TMDLs
are
far
off,
some
may
be
approved,
but
no
schedules/
time
tables
on
how
to
get
there.
°
Question:
Why
not
let
TMDLs
do
the
work
­
Why
go
to
ELGs?
°
Answer:
Tools
for
improving
water
quality
include
ELGs
as
well
as
TMDLs.
ELGs
are
the
proper
tool
for
certain
toxic
pollutants.
°
Comment
on
Detailed
Study
Approach
­
SIC
Code
for
PBST
are
overly­
broad
includes
small
facilities
with
a
few
small
tanks
on
stilts.
°
Response:
EAD
is
looking
at
PBST
as
a
potential
new
subcategory
of
petroleum
refining
for
efficiency.
After
review
of
existing
data,
EAD
concluded
that
only
a
very
few
facilities
drive
the
analysis.
Effluent
guidelines
are
crafted
(
through
applicability
definitions
that
include
size
cut­
offs,
for
example)
to
avoid
impacts
to
small
businesses.
°
Example
of
EAD
deciding
not
to
develop
ELGs
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
few
facilities:
Pulp
and
Paper
Phase
III.
EAD
decided
to
support
permit
writers.
°
Side
note
on
dioxin.
°
To
avoid
overestimating
pollutant
releases,
if
a
pollutant
was
reported
"
detected"
in
PCS,
EAD
assumed
the
mass
discharged
was
zero
(
0).
°
This
approach
is
consistent
with
TRI
guidance
for
reporting
dioxins.
°
Emphasized
EAD
has
not
identified
any
category
for
further
regulation
in
the
12/
31/
03
notice.
Identified
two
categories
for
further
detailed
review.
°
Question
about
PCS
issues:
How
do
you
justify
using
a
database
that
does
not
have
data
of
the
quality
you
would
like?
Memorandum
January
29,
2004
Page
5
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
°
Answer:
Quality
plan
is
in
the
docket.
Let
us
know
if
there
are
errors
in
PCS
or
TRI
data.
We
have
found
errors
in
PCS,
incorrect
flow,
misreported
SIC
codes,
etc.
(
Note:
EAD
also
found
errors
in
TRI.)
°
CFPR
­
Identified
this
group
as
a
possible
new
subcategory,
but
EAD
is
still
investigating
how
they
are
currently
regulated.
°
Question:
What
threshold
is
used
to
determine
if
a
discharge
is
"
non
trivial?"
°
Answer
(
provided
by
EAD
Director
Mary
Smith):
EAD
has
not
identified
any
"
new
categories,"
so
did
not
have
to
answer
this
question.

IV
Considering
Voluntary
Loading
Reductions
Slide
Presentation
by
Patricia
Harrigan
(
304(
m)
Planning
Team)

°
Factor
Four:
Implementation
and
Efficiency
Considerations.
°
Where
is
the
industry
engaged
in
voluntary
loading
reduction?
°
Are
these
strategies
widely
adopted?
Do
they
address
toxic
and
nonconventional
pollutants?
°
Benefits
to
industry
of
voluntary
reductions:
°
Lower
priority
for
ELGs;
and
°
Industry
sets
its
own
goals.
°
How
can
loading
reductions
be
verified?
°
Are
any
voluntary
loading
reductions
"
meaningful"
in
terms
of
reducing
wastewater
risks
to
human
health
and
the
environment?

A.
Performance
Track
Program
Slide
Presentation
by
Daniel
Fiorino
(
Program
Director,
Office
of
Policy
Economics
and
Innovation)

°
Performance
Track
is
a
"
Beyond
Compliance,"
three
year
old
program,
with
345
members
(
facilities).
°
Requirements
to
enroll:
°
(
1)
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS);
°
(
2)
Commitment
to
continuous
improvement;
°
(
3)
Good
compliance
history;
and
°
(
4)
Community
outreach.
°
EPA
does
annual
audit.
°
Facilities
submit
annual
performance
report.
Memorandum
January
29,
2004
Page
6
C:\
dmautop\
temp\
DCTM_
ARP.
wpd
°
If
poor
performance
in
audit
or
no
performance
report
submitted,
facility
is
asked
to
leave
program.
°
Benefits
­
Recognition,
low
inspection
priority.
°
EPA
works
with
states
(
CO,
MA,
TN,
TX,
and
VA).
°
Commitments
to
continuous
improvement,
examples:
°
Reduce
water
use
(
47%
of
members);
and
°
Reduce
water
pollutants
loads
(
17%
of
members).

B.
Resource
Conservation
Challenge
Slide
Presentation
by
David
Hockey
(
Program
Director,
RCC
­
Multimedia)


RCRA
historically
focused
on
hazard
waste,
now
look
at
other
solid
wastes,
approaches
to
reduce
waste
"
cradle
to
cradle"
"
C
to
C")
system.


Voluntary
partnerships.


Measurable
outcomes.


Multimedia:
Six
ideas....
include
reducing
priority
chemicals
and
beneficial
re­
use.


Nine
clusters,
many
kinds
of
partnership.


Thirty
persistent,
bioaccumulative,
and
toxic
chemicals
(
PBTs)
in
waste.
Voluntary
approach
to
reductions
­
Using
TRI
to
identify
states,
industry
sectors,
compliance
assistance,
cross
fertilization
of
reduction
ideas.
Facilities
sign­
up
to
report
progress
and
receive
recognition.

C.
Design
for
the
Environment
Slide
Presentation
by
Clive
Davies
(
Program
Director,
DFE,
OPPTS)


DFE
asks
"
What
is
the
environment
impact
of
use
of
a
particular
chemical?"


Life
Cycle
Assessment
Approach.


DFE
can
do
this
quickly
and
inexpensively.
Challenge
"
presumption
of
safety."
Examples:


Brominated
flame
retardants;


Paint
­
"
best
practices"
for
spray
application;
and

Replace
use
of
lead
in
printed
circuit
boards.


DFE
recognition
sticker.
