Page 1 of 40 Gathering EPA Experts' Input for the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/ 2005 December, 2003 Background Information Section 304( m) of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop and publish a plan every two years showing which effluent limitations guidelines and standards (" effluent guidelines") the Agency will revise and which industries currently without effluent guidelines it will regulate. For most of the last 10 years, selections of industries for guidelines and their schedules were substantially influenced by court ordered consent decree.

As the Agency meets its final obligations under the consent decree, the Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) in EPA's Office of Science and Technology is developing and implementing a planning process to determine future work on effluent limitations guidelines. The draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations describes the planning process in detail ( http:// www. epa. gov/ guide/ strategy). The process will allow the Agency to identify existing effluent guidelines ( or specific aspects of guidelines) that need to be revised, and categories ( or specific subcategories) that have not been previously addressed that should be considered for effluent guidelines development.

We collected information under four main topics, or factors, which were identified in the draft Strategy to identify and prioritize industries ( or parts of industries) for guideline revision and development. Those four factors are 1) human health and environmental impacts; 2) technology innovation and process changes; 3) cost, performance, and affordability; and 4) implementation and efficiency considerations.

A major component of the information collection effort under Factor 4 is consulting with permit writers and pretreatment coordinators of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) program who use effluent guidelines in the development of permits. During the spring and summer of 2003, EAD talked with a number of permit writers, pretreatment coordinators, and others involved in the permitting process to find out what problems they are encountering.

We also attempted to gather available information that is available about facilities which may be employing technologies that may have potential for reducing environmental pollution below current levels. These would include technologies that are in use by dischargers into impaired waterways that are complying with stringent water quality based permit limits or by dischargers to waters that are small or subject to special federal or state protections. Page 2 of 40 How the Information Will be Used The information collected will be reviewed by EAD during the screening level review described in the draft Strategy. EAD will consider it along with information being developed, for example, under Factor 1 on the relative risks posed by the current estimated loadings by different discharging categories. The screening level review phase will be followed by a ranking process, in which EAD will sort categories by relative level of concern using all the information gathered during the screening level review. EAD will then present a subset of categories recommended for a detailed investigation. This subset will be reviewed by the Agency workgroup and by management, and all or part of this subset will enter the detailed investigation phase. EAD will use the detailed investigation phase to evaluate the need for guideline development or revision for those categories in the subset. This will include follow up discussions with respondents to obtain more details on information they provided during the screening level phase.

Questions We Asked EPA Experts to Consider:

1) Implementation, Compliance, Enforcement Issues: Are there existing effluent guidelines that need to be revised or developed because   ° the current guidelines no longer reflects the performance of the best available technologies? ° there are problems in implementation, compliance, or enforcement? ° changes in industry have made certain provisions or requirements obsolete? ° discharges from the industry are generating problems? ° problems are due to pollutants for which no water quality criteria/ standards exist?

2) Technology: ° Are there facilities which may be employing technologies that have potential for more widespread application across an industry sector to reduce wastewater pollutant discharges below current levels? ° How should technological innovation be encouraged and rewarded? ° What drives innovation in industries? ° How should voluntary loading reductions be taken into account and how do you verify this, especially with changing production by industry? ° What role should market incentives, including pollutant trading, have?

3) Sources of Information: ° What additional sources of information should we consider? ° How can we best obtain information for the more detailed analysis of industries early in the process? ° How can we obtain the information necessary to fairly evaluate assertions by both EPA experts and our stakeholders? Page 3 of 40 Most of these questions were included in a questionnaire, which we sent to those who expressed willingness to supply written information in response to our questions. The blank questionnaire is attached here ( Attachment 1), along with the completed questionnaires we received. In addition, these questions were posed verbally to attendees at the monthly conference calls held by the Office of Wastewater Management with permit writers and pretreatment coordinators.

Results:

The results of this information gathering effort are summarized by EPA Region. These recommendations are also reflected in the Factor 4 Screening Level Analysis Report.

Region 1 Austine Frawley responded by email, and identified one discharging category not currently covered by an effluent guideline. ° Aquaculture ( concentrated aquatic feeding operations): Nominated due to water quality issues. She recommended EAD contact Ted Lavery, EPA's NPDES coordinator in the Maine State unit at 617/ 918 1683 and Greg Wood with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, 207/ 287 3901 for more information on this industry Region 2 We obtained no feedback from this Region during this effort. EPA has received information from them during previous efforts, and that input is reflected in the Factor 4 report.

Region 3 Brian Trulear and John Lovell responded by sending in two questionnaires ( Attachments 2 and 3), one for the potassium manufacturing subpart of the inorganic chemicals rule and one for metal finishing. He recommends contacting Pennsylvania for more information. ° Inorganic Chemicals, Potassium Manufacturing Subcategory ( 40 CFR 415, subpart K): Nominated in response to an issue over the definition of process wastewater. ° Metal Finishing ( 40 CFR 433): Nominated due to applicability issues. ° Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ( 40 CFR 430): Region 3 also recommends a measurable limit for color in the pulp and paper cluster rule.

Region 4 EAD received information from Marshall Hyatt, who responded for Scott Gordon and Roosevelt Childress. They polled their states and had the following responses from Georgia and Alabama. They recommend contacting Melinda Vickers in South Carolina, 803/ 898 4186. Rufus Torrence provided recommendations from Arkansas and Robert Heilman reported in from Florida. Page 4 of 40 ° Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ( 40 CFR 430): Georgia recommends a limit for color to be included. ° Textile Mills ( 40 CFR 410): Georgia recommends a limit for color be added; Alabama agreed, adding a recommendation for a limit for copper. ° Meat Products, Poultry Processing Subcategory ( 40 CFR 432): Alabama suggests addressing this subcategory as a result of BOD ( biochemical oxygen demand), ammonia, and TSS ( total suspended solids) discharges. ° Steam Electric Power Generation ( 40 CFR 423): Alabama identifies this industry due to concerns for temperature at the cooling outfalls, and for mercury and arsenic at ash pond outfalls. Florida asserts that non detects levels for priority pollutants in the 1970' s are quite different from that possible today; also notes that there are different additives in use now. ° Metal Molding and Casting ( Foundries) ( 40 CFR 464): Alabama states that cyanide can be an issue if in the quenching process molten slag is allowed to come into contact with the quench water and recommended EPA consider revising the guidelines to address this. Arkansas reported difficulties implementing the guidelines with die casters especially with phenols, given the formulas and using the model discharge rate. Recommends that limits on Fundamentally Different Factors be eliminated. Notes that P2 facilities are now very different from what they were when the guidelines were promulgated. ° Canned and Preserved Seafood ( 40 CFR 408) Alabama suggests revising this subcategory due to concerns for discharges of BOD ( biochemical oxygen demand) and pathogens, specifically fecal coliform. ° Groundwater remediation  Alabama also suggests effluent guidelines be developed for this industry, due to concerns about discharges of PCBs ( polychlorinated biphenyls) and perchlorate.

Region 5 Matt Gluckman and Carol Staniec responded for the Region. Matt completed three questionnaires ( Attachments 4, 5, and 6) concerning one category for which effluent guidelines should be developed ( dental facilities), and two existing effluent guidelines which should be revised ( Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers; and Metal Finishing). Carol and Grace Scott in Michigan also provided recommendations. ° Dental facilities: Recommends developing effluent guidelines due to its contributions of mercury from dental amalgam to POTW systems. 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. Michigan agrees that dentists are a problem and extensive attempts to encourage voluntary actions have not worked. ° Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers ( 40 CFR 414): Recommends revising existing guidelines due to difficulties in getting POTWs and OCPSF facilities to correctly calculate flow based mass limits, and to provide necessary data to determine compliance with the standards. In addition, deficiencies in permits and control mechanisms has in the Page 5 of 40 past hindered enforcement actions against these facilities.

° Metal Finishing ( 40 CFR 433): Recommends revising existing guidelines due to challenges arising out of applicability requirements and structure of the electroplating standards and the metal finishing standards, specifically when determining whether a facility performs a core activity and is thus categorical, or just an ancillary activity. ° Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard ( 40 CFR 430): Recommends continuing with the Phase II cluster rule, due to the quantity of pollutants discharged by the chemical mechanical and fiber deinking subcategories.. ° Metal Molding and Casting ( Foundries) ( 40 CFR 464): Michigan reports that small aluminum die casters have problems meeting the limits they receive when you follow the formulas provided. ° Hospitals ( 40 CFR 460): Michigan identifies a need to revise these guidelines because hospitals discharge chemicals like mercury and silver, and do so without pretreatment standards or even 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. ° Steam Electric Power Generation ( 40 CFR 423): Michigan noted that the footnotes in these guidelines contain errors.

Region 6 Scott Wilson responded for the Region. He did not fill out the questionnaire, but provided the following information. An additional contact is Brian Mueller in the Regional Office. ° Petroleum Refining ( 40 CFR 419): Recommends revising the effluent guidelines for this category since they are very outdated relative to the industry and should be a high priority. Many refineries have two to four times the throughput that was used when the permits were first issued a number of years ago and can easily meet the limits. The technologies seem to have changed significantly since those guidelines were issued. ° Steam Electric Power Generation ( 40 CFR 423): Recommends revising the effluent guidelines for this category since they are very old and probably do not represent the industry well. Most plants that have been built in the last decade are combined cycle plants, which the guidelines do not reflect well. There is some national disagreement as to whether the steam electric guidelines even cover combined cycle plants. ° Fertilizer Manufacturing ( 40 CFR 418): Recommends revising the effluent guidelines for this category since they are very old and do not seem to be at all stringent.

Region 7 Paul Marshall responded for the Region. He provided a questionnaire ( Attachment 7) for Metal Molding and Casting focusing on aluminum casting facilities. In response to the question about pollutants without water quality standards or criteria, he said it would be unlikely that such pollutants would be a problem because people don't sample for them. Because of that, these pollutants would not appear to be a problem. Page 6 of 40 ° Metal Molding and Casting ( Foundries) Aluminum Casting subcategory ( 40 CFR 464): Recommends revising the effluent guidelines for this category since they are difficult to implement, specifically the aluminum casting subcategory. The method for determining allowances and discharge limits has caused problems, and applicability issues also arise.

Region 8 Talked to Deborah Thomas, who reiterated that Region's concerns about discharges from growing coal bed methane development activities. ° Oil and Gas Extraction, Coal Bed Methane Development Subcategory ( 40 CFR 435) : Recommends developing effluent guidelines for this subcategory. Problems encountered include discharges of pollutants without WQ standards, as well as problems identified in previous efforts by Bruce Kent. Concerns include depletion of aquifers, erosion, sedimentation, exceedances of barium concentrations, salinization of land, adverse impact on farmers through plugging of soils which decreases infiltration, and the loss of the water's return to groundwater.

Region 9 Terry Oda, John Hillenbrand, and John Tinger sent in a questionnaire ( Attachment 8) for Hard Rock Mining ( Ore Mining and Dressing). Keith Silva provided input over the phone, referring to recommendations provided in the past ( Attachment 9). He recommended that we should concentrate on those issues we know are of concern to the administration   e. g. persistent bioaccumulative toxics ( PBTs) and emerging pollutants. He also suggested two contacts in California: Jim Maughan at 916/ 657 0450 and Sue Ma at 510/ 622 2386. ° Ore Mining and Dressing ( Hard Rock Mining) ( 40 CFR 440) Recommends revising these guidelines based on concerns for runoff from waste rock and overburden piles. They also have a table of data on Total copper vs. TSS in mine runoff at Arizona copper mines that illustrates their concerns. ° Metal Products and Machinery ( 40 CFR 438): Recommends addressing missile and rocket producers to address recent ( ground water) problems with perchlorate. ° Electrical and Electronic Components ( 40 CFR 469): Recommend revising the semiconductor manufacturing subcategory based on major changes in the industry. The industry is moving from aluminum to copper to build internal components. It is also using new process operations not considered when the guidelines were developed. ° Dental facilities: Asserts that dental offices need a nationally consistent categorical standard, since voluntary efforts will yield highly inconsistent results. ° Stormwater Runoff: Recommends developing effluent guidelines to define Maximum Extent Practical ( MEP) determinations for BPJs ( Best Professional Judgement) for municipal stormwater controls. Page 7 of 40 Region 10   Seattle Sharon Wilson provided a recommendation from the Region. Dave Knight provided input from Washington. Additional comments from Melodie Selby in Washington were forwarded by Kelly Huynh ( Attachment 10). ° Electrical and Electronic Components ( 40 CFR 469): Recommends revising these guidelines because this industry has changed so much since the rule was promulgated in 1983. Washington agreed that the rule does not suit the industry today. ° Timber Products Processing ( 40 CFR 429): Suggests revising ELGs to include effluent limits for stormwater discharges from associated log yards. ° Fruits and Vegetable Processing ( 40 CFR 407): Asserts that these ELGs badly need updating for both direct and indirect dischargers. Direct dischargers often discharge much less than the current technology based limits. Since there are no WQ criteria for BOD nor an equitable way to determine the farfield impacts of BOD ( short of a TMDL), revising these ELGs might help address the dissolved oxygen problems in our waterways over the long term ° Petroleum Refining ( 40 CFR 419): Notes that the ELGs are 20 years old and the subject of a lot of controversy and litigation over the past decade. The refineries are performing well below limits derived from the guidelines, and there is no acceptable way to address this gap. Suggests that revising the ELGs to support lower limits would be very helpful. ° Canned and Preserved Seafood ( 40 CFR 408): Asserts that the ELGs are out of date and that an update of the ELG's for all categories of fish processing would greatly benefit them. Page 8 of 40 Attachment 1 Issue/ Industry Reporting Form Background Information ° The Clean Water Act requires EPA to develop and publish a plan every two years showing which effluent limitations guidelines the Agency will revise and which new industries it will regulate. For most of the last 10 years, selections of industries for guidelines and their schedules were substantially influenced by court ordered consent decree. With the consent decree ending, the Engineering and Analysis Division ( EAD) in the Office of Science and Technology is currently developing and implementing a planning process to determine future work on effluent limitations guidelines [ the 304( m) planning process].

° For more details about the planning process see http:// www. epa. gov/ guide/ strategy.

° This will be an ongoing planning process with multiple goals, including: ( 1) identify existing effluent limitations guidelines ( or specific aspects of guidelines) that need to be revisited ( for example because the current guideline no longer reflects the performance of the best available technologies, or because there are problems in implementation, compliance, or enforcement; because changes in industry have made certain provisions or requirements obsolete, etc.) and ( 2) identify industries ( or specific parts of industries) that have not been previously addressed that should be considered for effluent limitations guideline development.

° It is also anticipated that some of the issues identified and information developed through this process will point to the use of other tools, in addition to effluent limitations guidelines.

° We are pursuing many avenues of investigation to determine how to identify and prioritize industries ( or parts of industries) for guideline revision and development. However, in all of our many public stakeholder meetings, a consistent suggestion is that we start by consulting with the people in the field who do the work   to find out what they think the problems are.

° We are also interested in any information that you have about facilities which may be employing technologies that may have potential for reducing environmental pollution below current levels. These might be technologies that are in use by dischargers into impaired waterways that are complying with stringent water quality based permit limits or by dischargers to waters that are small or subject to special federal or state protections, etc. In this case, it is not necessary for you to know details about the technologies, only just that they are apparently being used and where, so that we can obtain additional information from the users. How the Information Will be Used Page 9 of 40 ° The information collected will first be reviewed by the 304( m) team in EAD. It will be considered together with other information being developed, for example, on the relative risks posed by the current estimated loadings for different industries. Recommendations on which industries to consider for guideline development or revision will then be provided to an Agency workgroup for their consideration and input. Finally, the information and recommendations will be presented to upper management in the Office of Water and the Agency for decision. The Agency will then publish and take comment on a proposed plan. The statute requires that we develop a final plan by February 4, 2004 and every two years thereafter.

° We have developed a " formal" questionnaire and a process for continuing input because we believe that wide spread and on going input from you will benefit not only the effluent limitations guideline planning process, but may also point to other areas in which work could be done. These may include providing technical guidance and working collaboratively with other Divisions and Offices to find the most appropriate solutions to issues, given all the tools provided by the CWA.

° We would like to thank you in advance for your participation and for any suggestions you may have on how best to gather and use this information in the future.

Issue/ Industry Nomination Form The Engineering and Analysis Division in the Office of Science and Technology is currently developing a planning process to determine future work on effluent limitations guidelines. Among the goals of this process are: ( 1) identify existing effluent limitations guidelines ( or specific aspects of guidelines) that need to be revisited ( for example because the current guideline no longer reflects the performance of the best available technologies, or because there are problems in implementation, compliance, or enforcement; because changes in industry have made certain provisions or requirements obsolete, etc.) and ( 2) identify industries ( or specific parts of industries) that have not been previously addressed that should be considered for effluent limitations guideline development. This information will be used in the planning process to help in the selection of industries for guideline revision or guideline development.

We are also interested in any information that you have about facilities which may be employing technologies that may have potential for reducing environmental pollution below current levels. These might be technologies that are in use by dischargers into impaired waterways that are complying with stringent water quality based permit limits or by dischargers to waters that are small or subject to special federal or state protections, etc. In this case, it is not necessary for you to know details about the technologies, only just that they are apparently being used and where, so that we can obtain additional information from the users.

Please use separate forms if you would like to report information/ suggestions on more than Page 10 of 40 one industry or technology.

1. Date:

2. Name:

3. Contact Information 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region:

Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Please provide a brief and very direct statement identifying existing effluent limitations guidelines ( or specific aspects of guidelines) that need to be revisited ( for example, because the current guideline no longer reflects the performance of the best available technologies, or because there are problems in implementation, compliance, or enforcement; because changes in industry have made certain provisions or requirements obsolete, etc.) and industries ( or specific parts of industries) that have not been previously addressed that should be considered for effluent limitations guideline development. Please explain why you think this action should be taken. As you write this brief description and answer other questions on this form, please bear in mind that, in general, those issues/ industries that are likely to be of most concern will possess several of the following characteristics: ° the problem is recurring and widespread among facilities in the industry ( can it be quantified or characterized?) ° there is a resulting environmental or human health problem ( can it be quantified or characterized?) ° there has been a general change in industry practice that is associated with the problem ( this might be especially the case for a guideline that needs to be revisited) ° without attention through the effluent limitations guideline program the issue may otherwise go unaddressed 6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers).

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? Page 11 of 40 8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results?

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry?

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified?

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology Please provide any information that you have about facilities which may be employing technologies that have potential for more widespread application across an industry sector to reduce wastewater pollutant discharges below current levels. Describe the technologies used by these facilities and characterize ( quantifying, if possible) how pollutant discharges would be improved.

13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers).

14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future. Page 12 of 40 16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 13 of 40 Attachment 2 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Potassium Metal Subcategory of Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing 1. Date: June 5, 2003 2. Name: John Lovell 3. Contact Information e mail address: lovell. john@ epa. gov phone: 215 814 5790 fax: 215 814 2318 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: Pretreatment Team Office of Municipal Assistance Water Permits Division Region III Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue The PSNS for the potassium metal subcategory of the inorganic chemicals manufacturing standards ( 40 CFR 415, subpart K) require no discharge of process wastewater pollutants. Based on the development document for these standards, the no discharge requirement was established because the one facility in the category was not discharging process wastewater. We have received a baseline monitoring report from Mine Safety Appliances in Evans City, PA which indicates that they have constructed a new potassium manufacturing operation which essentially duplicates their existing operation and is therefore a new source. The facility discharges wastewater from scrubber blowdown, process area floor washing, process equipment cleaning, salt byproduct storage runoff, safety shower/ eyewash, and sanitary. The facility claims that it is the only potassium manufacturing facility in the country, and was the facility that was studied during the effluent guideline development. The discharges from the new operation are essentially the same as the discharges from the existing operation, except as a new source, would be subject to the no discharge requirement. The facility claims that it was discharging these wastestreams from its existing operations when the guideline was developed and EPA found that there was no process wastewater discharges from the studied facility, and therefore these discharges cannot be process wastewater ( although many of the wastestreams clearly fall within the process wastewater definition). They also claim that for safety reasons, they cannot convert the operations to dry operations or reuse the wastewater in their operations ( although they agree that they can cover the material storage area to prevent runoff), and therefore the guidelines are impossible to meet if Page 14 of 40 the discharges are classified as process wastewater.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). We know of no other potassium manufacturers, and the facility has claimed it is the only one in the country.

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? The standard needs to be reevaluated to determine if the no discharge requirement is reasonable.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? PADEP previously issued an NPDES permit to the facility without applying the effluent guideline because it found that the discharge did not constitute process wastewater because EPA had found that the facility did not discharge process wastewater. The facility has since connected to a POTW, thus prompting the applicability of the PSNS standards.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry? None anticipated.

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). No one outside of the company.

Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology Page 15 of 40 None known. Facility in question uses equalization, pH adjustment/ chemical addition, and clarification.

13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). Baseline Monitoring Report and effluent monitoring reports available at the Regional office.

14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). Contact listed in BMR:

Mark B. Finch Manager, Environmental and Site Services Mine Safety Appliances 1420 Mars Evans City Road Evans City, PA 16033 Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 16 of 40 Attachment 3 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Metal Finishing 1. Date: June 5, 2003 2. Name: John Lovell 3. Contact Information e mail address: lovell. john@ epa. gov phone: 215 814 5790 fax: 215 814 2318 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: Pretreatment Team Office of Municipal Assistance Water Protection Division Region III Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Over the years , there have been many questions regarding the applicability of the Metal Finishing regulations which have not been resolved. These issues include distinctions between phosphate coating and cleaning, and between acid etching and acid cleaning. In addition, the distinction between the applicability of the metal finishing regulations and other regulations such as iron & steel manufacturing ( steel finishing without steel manufacturing) or nonferrous metals manufacturing ( when tube/ rod/ sheet is purchased and finished including some forming operations). Since the pretreatment regulations are self implementing ( the regulation is enforced rather than an NPDES permit), it is important that the applicability of the standards is clear. There have been many questions and disagreements between the Regions on the applicability of the metal finishing standards which have been raised to HQ and have not been resolved. Since there are thousands of facilities covered by the metal finishing standards, it is important that these issues be resolved.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). Thousands of facilities all over the country. This is the single largest category of industrial users in the pretreatment program. Page 17 of 40 7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? May be possible to compile a list of issues and issue guidance or clarifications rather than restudy the industry.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? To the best of my knowledge, all of the Regions have dealt with some or all of these issues, and the guidelines are being applied inconsistently. The issues have been raised and discussed repeatedly during the monthly pretreatment conference calls, with no final resolution.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry? It would seem that this would be of great interest to many Regions, States, and POTWs.

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology 13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers).

14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). Page 18 of 40 Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 19 of 40 Attachment 4 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Dental Facilities 1. Date: 6/ 2/ 03 2. Name: Matt Gluckman Pretreatment Program Mgr 3. Contact Information e mail address: gluckman. matthew@ epa. gov phone: 312/ 886 6089 fax: 312/ 886 7804 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: U. S. EPA Region 5, Water Division, NPDES Programs Branch Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Dental facilities. Development of effluent guidelines and standards should be considered for this sector, due to its contributions of mercury from dental amalgam to POTW systems. Studies conducted by POTWs have identified dental facilities as the largest commercial contributors of mercury to their systems. 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.

For several years, EPA has worked with other regulators to promote sound management practices regarding management and disposal of dental amalgam. With the adoption by our states of more stringent mercury water quality criteria to implement the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance ( typically 1.3ng/ l), coupled with EPA's adoption of more sensitive analytical methods which can detect mercury at 0.2ng/ l, control of all sources of mercury discharges to Publicly Owned Treatment Works ( POTW) has taken on additional importance in Region 5 states. Upon reissuance of their NPDES permits, many POTWs will be unable to meet their new water quality based effluent limits, and will need to obtain variances to address this situation. As a condition for a variance, POTWs will be required to develop Pollutant Minimization Programs ( PMP), which will involve identifying mercury sources, developing strategies to minimize or eliminate mercury from these sources, monitoring and reporting. At this point, all PMPs would be expected to address contributions from dental facilities, hospitals, schools and laboratories, along with other sectors identified as contributors of local concern. Page 20 of 40 Some states and POTWs have promoted voluntary adoption of best management practices by dentists, but in the last couple of years, focus has been shifting to the use of amalgam separators, which recent studies indicate can remove 95 99% of mercury that would have otherwise been discharged to sewers, and at a reasonable cost ( from $ 160 3500 uninstalled, plus 300 500 O& M/ yr). Other studies have indicated that widespread use of separators in a POTW system can substantially reduce mercury loadings to the POTW's influent and sludge, and their use is beginning to be required in certain cities and states. Together with our states, we are currently considering various approaches for promoting use of separators or comparable technologies. Effluent guidelines for this sector could potentially simplify POTW efforts to implement PMPs, minimize the need to develop extensive control strategies for more diffuse sources of mercury, and result in POTW compliance with water quality based effluent limits.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). The ADA estimates about 150,000 dental clinics in the U. S.. A large percentage of these facilities either remove old fillings and/ or replace new restorations, and while other restoratives are being used, mercury silver amalgams are still commonly used. All or virtually all of these facilities are believed to discharge to POTWs.

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? BAT and pretreatment standards could be developed based on a set of identified best management practices for dentists, including the use of ISO approved amalgam separation technologies.

Currently, all Industrial Users that are subject to categorical standards are automatically considered significant IUs, and would have to be permitted, inspected, monitored, etc.. There would need to be ways to structure a regulation for this sector that recognizes the large number of small facilities, so as not to overburden POTW and other Control Authorities.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? See discussion above. Initially, dentists were encouraged to follow voluntary BMPs. With the advent of amalgam separators, certain POTWs facing tight water quality based effluent limits are beginning to require installation of separators and use of BMPs. More ( including many of the POTWs in the Great Lakes Basin) will need to consider such requirements in the next several years. In some states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, the States are working with state dental associations to support the use of separators as a standard practice for the industry. Based on a pilot effort in Minnesota and early results from a program in Toronto, Ontario, widespread Page 21 of 40 adoption of this technology can lead to significant reductions in influent and sludge levels of mercury.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry?

Several of our States have been active in this area, in conjunction with their state dental associations and certain POTWs Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Northeast Ohio Regional Sanitary District, Detroit Water and Sewerage District. The Naval Institute for Biological and Dental Research has also been at the forefront of testing and implementation of separator technologies.

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). Randy Case, Wisconsin Mercury Coordinator, WDNR 608/ 267 7639 Grace Scott, Pretreatment Coordinator, Michigan DEQ 517/ 335 4107 Tim Tuominen, Western Lake Superior Sanitary District, Duluth MN, 218/ 722 3336 ext. 324 Peter Berglund, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, St. Paul, MN, 612/ 772 7001 Tom Nowicki, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, WI, 414/ 272 5100 Keith Linn, NEORSD, Cleveland, OH, 216/ 641 6000, ext. 2202 Dr. Mark Stone, Naval Institute for Biological and Dental Research Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology Naval Institute for Biological and Dental Research, Great Lakes, IL Facilities in Duluth, MN and St. Paul/ Minneapolis, MN 13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). ADA has done a comparison study of amalgam separators with respect to ISO Standards, and all Page 22 of 40 units tested achieved > 95% removal. JADA Vol. 133, May 2002 14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). Dr. Mark Stone ( see above)

Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 23 of 40 Attachment 5 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers ( OCPSF)

1. Date: 6/ 2/ 03 2. Name: Matt Gluckman Pretreatment Program Mgr 3. Contact Information e mail address: gluckman. matthew@ epa. gov phone: 312/ 886 6089 fax: 312/ 886 7804 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: U. S. EPA Region 5, Water Division, NPDES Programs Branch Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue OCPSF. Since promulgation of this rule, there have been difficulties in getting POTWs and OCPSF facilities to correctly calculate flow based mass limits, and to provide necessary data to determine compliance with the standards. Deficiencies in permits and control mechanisms has in the past hindered enforcement actions against these facilities.

Much effort has also been expended in having to determine which SIC codes apply to facilities, with some not being subject to OCPSF even though they appear to be doing similar operations as covered facilities. There are some facilities, such as adhesive manufacturers and solvent recovery facilities, that fall through the cracks of categorical coverage.

This rule should be reevaluated to consider more general coverage, which is not tied to SIC codes ( or expands on covered SICs), and to consider allowing the concentration standards to be applied directly.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). We have a significant number of these facilities in R5. Data for direct discharging facilities would be in PCS. PCS, as currently maintained, does not contain information for most indirect discharging industrial users such as OCPSF facilities. Page 24 of 40 7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? See above 8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? Guidance on calculating flow based mass limits has been of some help, and training has been provided on these calculations, but the structure and limited scope of the regulation still create permitting and enforcement challenges.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry?

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology 13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers).

14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). Page 25 of 40 Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 26 of 40 Attachment 6 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Metal Finishing 1. Date: 6/ 2/ 03 2. Name: Matt Gluckman Pretreatment Program Mgr 3. Contact Information e mail address: gluckman. matthew@ epa. gov phone: 312/ 886 6089 fax: 312/ 886 7804 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: U. S. EPA Region 5, Water Division, NPDES Programs Branch Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Metal finishing. Applicability requirements and structure of the electroplating/ metal finishing standards have resulted in ongoing challenges in determining whether a facility performs a core activity and is thus categorical, or just an ancillary activity, in which case it is not. Determining whether changes at an existing electroplating job shop result in the new operations being subject to 433 also continues to pose challenges.

While upgrading facilities from part 413 to 433 was considered in the Metal Products and Machinery rulemaking, this approach should be reconsidered, from the perspective of common use of the treatment technology for 433, and implementation issues associated with having two separate standards for facilities essentially performing the same activities.

Determining whether activities are core or ancillary metal finishing operations is an ongoing technical and resource issue. Consideration should be given to expanding the list of core operations, such that certain activities that are currently considered ancillary, and thus not independently covered by 433, would become core metal finishing activities.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). We have an estimated 2000 metal finishers in R5, most of which discharge to POTWs. Data for Page 27 of 40 direct discharging facilities would be in PCS. PCS, as currently maintained, does not contain information for most indirect discharging industrial users such as metal finishing facilities.

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? See above. If regulatory revision isn't feasible, guidance should be provided regarding distinguishing between certain core and ancillary metal finishing processes, and national guidance regarding when existing operations constitute a new source should be finalized.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? There are numerous category determinations dealing with these issues, including existing and new source issues. Definitive national guidance in these areas continues to be needed.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry? Any of our delegated states would be interested in providing input on these issues. Other stakeholders from the MPM rulemaking process should also be involved.

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology 13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). Page 28 of 40 14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 29 of 40 Attachment 7 Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Metal Molding and Casting, Aluminum Casting Subcategory 1. Date: June 20, 2003 2. Name: Paul Marshall 3. Contact Information e mail address: marshall. paul@ epa. gov phone: 913 551 7419 fax: 913 551 9419 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region: US EPA Region 7, Water Management Division, NFMB Branch, Pretreatment Coordinator Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Note: The following comments are based on my experience with the Aluminum Casting portion of the 40 CFR Part 464 Regulations ( Metal Molding and Casting). The problems I identify might also be applicable to subparts other than Aluminum Casting.

The Metal Molding and Casting Regulations are difficult to implement for two reasons. One is that the nature of the regulation itself and the building block method of determining allowances, and hence discharge limits. Many aluminum casting facilities are very small, and consequently only receive an allowance for their die casting operations, as none of the other processes are on site. When this happens, the facility gets roped into a phenol limit for which they receive a minuscule allowance. However, phenol is not used for this operation, since the operations are dry, yet, phenol is ever present as a background pollutant. This, then results in a phenol limit when phenol isn't present to control and almost certain noncompliance because there is no possible way to remove the phenol at these low levels for any sensible reason, since this level would easily be treated in municipal secondary treatment.

Other " building blocks" provide for more generous phenol allowances, however, if the facility doesn't qualify for any of these allowances, the insignificant allowance for Die Casting Operations merely creates a facility in noncompliance at a level that doesn't even approach environmental significance.

Another problem with the Aluminum Casting Subcategory is the horribly confusing language describing applicability. The Subcategory seems to imply that once a casting has cooled Page 30 of 40 any further work on it is no longer covered by the 464 regulations. Yet obviously, once a casting has been quenched it has been cooled and the casting cleaning step is done on a cooled piece. This language needs to be rewritten.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). The facilities that I am familiar with are all indirect dischargers, and generally small in nature. Consequently, there are no NPDES permit numbers to direct you to. However, if EAD decides to revisit this regulation, I would be happy to provide all known aluminum casting facilities in the Region.

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? The simplest solution would be to eliminate the phenol allowance from the Die Casting Operations " building block".

Clarify the applicability language.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? NA 9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry? Anyone who must write permits and enforce this standard should have an interest in it. This includes States and approved Pretreatment Program cities. Also, the Industry may want to help participate.

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes.

11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of Page 31 of 40 knowledge/ expertise). Allen Gilliam, Pretreatment Coordinator AR Department of Environmental Quality P. O. Box 8913 8001 National Drive Little Rock, AR 72219 8913 ( 501) 682 0625 FAX ( 501) 682 0910 gilliam@ adeq. state. ar. us Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology 13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers).

14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future.

16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.).

Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 32 of 40 Attachment 8 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form Ore Mining and Dressing ( Hard Rock Mining)

1. Date: June 17, 2003 2. Name: John Hillenbrand & John Tinger 3. Contact Information e mail address: Tinger. john@ epa. gov; Hillenbrand. john@ epa. gov phone: 415 972 3518 / 415 972 3494 fax: 415 947 3545 4. Office/ Division/ Branch/ Region:

John Tinger: Region IX Water Division, Permits John Hillenbrand: Region IX Water Division, Enforcement Issues/ Industries 5. Identification of Industry or Issue Background Hard Rock Mines are covered by 40 CFR Part 440  Ore Mining and Dressing. Subparts include: A: Iron B: Aluminum C: Uranium, Radium, and Vanadium D: Mercury E: Titanium F: Tungsten G: Nickel H Vanadium I: Antimony J: Copper, Lead, Zinc, Gold, Silver and Molybdenum K: Palatinum M: gold placer mining On August 7, 1998, EPA published the Multi Sector General Permit ( MSGP) for Industrial Activities, Sector G for Metal Mining ( Ore Dressing and Mining). Table G 4 listed what wastewaters from mining activities are covered by Part 440 and what wastewaters are to be covered by the industrial MSGP. Initially, EPA said that runoff from waste rock and overburden piles were covered by effluent guidelines. However, the National Mining Association challenged EPA on this interpretation and contended that the runoff from waste rock and overburden was not considered in the ELGs and is not a problem. As a result, it was determined that runoff from waste rock and overburden is not subject to the effluent guidelines. It is therefore considered industrial stormwater and is covered under Part G of the MSGP unless it " naturally drains ( or is intentionally diverted) to a point source and combines with " mine drainage" that is otherwise subject to the ELGs." The final MSGP was published on October 30, 2000. Page 33 of 40 The MSGP establishes benchmark monitoring for pollutants including: TSS, pH, hardness, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, selenium, silver, zinc, uranium. The data from this sampling is now becoming available due to the 2000 MSGP requirements.

Problem Preliminary data indicate high concentrations of metals in active and inactive mine site runoff that are violating water quality standards. The volumes of discharge are significant due to the large land area covered by the mine sites. Constituents include toxic pollutants such as arsenic, copper, mercury and selenium as well as pH problems. The requirements of the MSGP are not sufficient to control this wastewater.

The current guidelines do not represent the best technology. Numerous mines sites have installed what may be considered BAT ( see below).

If not addressed: Most mine sites continue to be covered under the MSGP. The MSGP only includes very general benchmark values for sampling; general requirements to develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and does not establish numeric limits or stormwater containment/ treatment requirements. For mines that fail to comply with the MSGP, enforcement at every mine site to require individual NPDES permits or to develop an individual BMP plan is a long and time consuming process. Currently, we do not believe that most states are not addressing mine site runoff.

6. Please provide any information that you have which describes the universe and geographic distribution of affected facilities. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). Number of hard rock mines: we estimate around 100 of active hard rock mines. Geographic: mostly Western states & Alaska, but throughout U. S. Note that many mine sites are covered only by the stormwater permit.

7. Do you have suggestions on how to address the issue/ industry which you have identified? BAT may be considered: ° Reclamation of wasterock or overburden and tailings piles ( regrading and revegetating to natural contours); and/ or ° Containment of stormwater through grading, berms, retention ponds ( e. g, designed to contain 100 year, 24 hour storm)

Potential to be cost effective. This is a relatively simple technology  largely moving dirt around on a mine site ( thats what mines do) and reclamation ( which they are supposed to have to do Page 34 of 40 anyways). Volumes of wastewater can be very large due the large size of many sites, and pollutants found in runoff can be toxic.

8. Have EPA or the States dealt with this issue/ industry in the past ( other than through an effluent limitations guideline)? If so, do you know what prompted that activity and can you describe the results? EPA Region IX ( When it retained permitting authority for Arizona) has required several mine sites to contain mine site runoff. These were the result of enforcement actions ( due to continued non compliance with MSGP and water quality standard violations) for several mines sites, and EPA has issued several permits that require the mine to contain stormwater.

Due to the time and resources involved in implementing BAT, we do not believe that most other states are addressing this issue. Many states have general industrial stormwater permits but these tend not to be enforced ( including mines) because of the workload. No specific program to address contaminated runoff from mine tailings, wasterock or overburden exists in CA, NV, AZ. We do not believe any other states are implementing programs either.

9. Potential Partners/ Leveraging Opportunities. Are there others in EPA or outside organizations ( States, trade organizations, non profits, etc.) that may have an interest in joining an effort to address this problem/ industry? Great Basin Mine Watch  Environmental organization Western Mining Action Project Sierra Club ( Nevada)

10. Do you want to be involved or be kept informed on how we are addressing the issue/ industry which you have identified? Yes 11. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable on this issue/ industry that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise). HQ  Bill Telliard EPA ( EAD) 202 566 1061 Jeff Smith EPA OWM 202 564 0652 Bryan Rittenhouse, EPA OWM, water permits division, Headquarters 202 564 0577 Steve Sweeney OGC lead in negotiating ` 98 MSGP revision with NMA 202 564 5491 Region 8  Steve Bubnick 303 312 6829 Vern Berry, Region 8, helped write MSGP 303 312 6234 Page 35 of 40 Region 10 Bill Riley, CWA Compliance 206 553 1412 Technologies 12. Identification of Facilities That May be Using Advanced/ Innovative Technology Known facilities with potential BAT:

Asarco Mission copper mine ( Arizona)  has stormwater controls to contain 100 year storm event for most of site, other areas contained for 10 year storm event.

BHP Pinto Valley copper mine ( Arizona)  has stormwater controls to contain 100 year storm event for all of the waste rock and overburden piles amd most all tailings facilities.

Silver Bell copper mine ( Arizona)  most of the stormwater containment up to 100 year/ 24 hour storm event from waste rock and overburden.

Phelps Dodge Morenci ( Arizona) stormwater contaiment at all facilities to a minimum 100 year 24 hour capacity as of 1996 from maste rock, overburden and tailings facilities.

13. Please provide any information that you have which can be used to characterize the performance of the technology and its effluent quality. Also, please identify relevant EPA and external data sources ( e. g. permit numbers). Performance and reduction in pounds of pollutants are mainly due to elimination of discharge and containment. Reduction of pollutants should be in the mid to high 90 percent removal based on containment for 24 hour storm or 100 year storm.

Enclosed is a summary graph of copper concentration vs TSS of mine site discharges of stormwater from Copper mines in Region IX. Note that much of this data have been collected as part of the MSGP and may be available from other states.

Summarizing from the 58 data points collected so far:  70 % are over 1 ppm total copper.  91 % are over 0.1 ppm total copper.  81% of all stormwater samples are above the Agricultural Livestock standard of 0.5 ppm total copper.  Aquatic standards ( warmwater, coldwater, effluent dominated and ephemeral acute and chronic) range from .002 to .085 ppm dissolved copper. A plot of dissolved copper concentrations would yield a similar problem of many discharges above these standars also. Page 36 of 40 14. Do you know of any experts or other people knowledgeable about this facility or technology that we should contact? ( If so please provide names, contact information, and area of knowledge/ expertise).

Other Suggestions 15. Please provide any suggestions you have on how best to collect this type of information in the future. None 16. Please provide any other information that you believe would be useful in the effluent limitations guideline planning process ( for example, 2c applications, fact sheets, etc.). DMRs from MSGP by mine category The ` 98 lawsuit from NMA Randal Directory  lists active and inactive mine sites by state and basic info about mine Size of mine sites and area of waste rock piles and overburden Rainfall data to estimate total volume of flows Please return completed form to e mail: Harrigan. Patricia@ epa. gov with the subject, " 304( m) Issue/ Industry Nomination Form". Any additional hard copy information should be sent to Patricia Harrigan at mail code 4303T. Pat's phone number is 202/ 566 1666. Page 37 of 40 Attachment 9 From: Keith Silva on 10 15 99 05: 49 pm To: Harrigan. Patricia@ EPA. GOV@ EPA cc: Alexis Strauss/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Frace. Sheila@ EPA. GOV@ EPA, Terry Oda/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Robert Wills/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Greg Arthur/ R9/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: Identifying high priority discharge categories for effluent guideline development Pat:

Here is Region 9' s response to Sheila's 9 23 99 e mail message asking for suggestions for new categorical standards. I've used blue text to respond to each of Sheila's three questions which are repeated below:

1) Are there categories of dischargers who are repeatedly at issue in impaired waters?

Oil Refineries  We need to relook at these for metals, particularly selenium.

Dental Offices and Clinics  We believe that these are an important source of mercury. The water quality based approach to regulating these sources using NPDES permits and pretreatment local limits, however, is made very complicated by atmospheric deposition issues. A technology based categorical standard could be a very efficient control measure.

2) Are there categories of dischargers for whom you always must rely on water quality based limitations because there are no effluent guidelines or the existing effluent guidelines are not sufficiently stringent?

Photoprocessing  These facilities are everywhere in modern society and generally are lightly controlled. The metal finishing standards do not cover nondestructive photoimaging testing. In addition, although we regulate silver recyclers under Part 421, we discourage such recycling by allowing photoprocessors to dispose of photographic wastes into the sanitary sewer under lenient local limits or voluntary measures. The industry has been masterful at exploiting the complicated and weak water quality basis for regulation by NPDES permits and pretreatment local limits under the Act. Considering the size and scope of this industry, a national standard is appropriate.

Fastener Manufacturing  This industry manufactures screws, bolts and other small parts, frequently for aerospace applications. These facilities are always covered by the metal finishing standards and metal forming standards. Due to the small and complicated configuration of the parts, however, it is extremely difficult to apply the existing categorical standards correctly. This industry generates a metal bearing, oily wastestream that is difficult to treat and it is not well reflected in the current categorical standards. Page 38 of 40 Job Shop Galvanizers  These sources are not covered under Part 420 and are not limited for zinc under Part 413 (< 10K gpd). We should revise Part 413 or 433 to cover these small, but very dirty discharges. One approach to this problem is to add a new subcategory for job shop galvanizers to Part 433.

Bilge Water  This is an oily, metal bearing wastestream that could greatly benefit from BAT treatment. The episodic discharge mode complicates the application of local limits and POTWs often depend on dilution with domestic wastewater to prevent problems at a treatment plant. Uniform national standards for all coastal areas are appropriate in view of the mobile nature of the pollutant " sources" ( ships).

Jewelry Manufacturing  This industry is concentrated in Los Angeles and New York. In these locations, many small manufacturers typically occupy one building. This arrangement complicates the application of the metal finishing categorical standards. Los Angeles has implemented a solution requiring shared, centralized BAT treatment in each building. It would be helpful if there were categorical standards specifically reflecting the unique circumstances of jewelry manufacturers with a uniform national approach for regulation. In addition, we would like to see stand alone jewelry manufacturers that discharge less than 100 gpd to be excluded from the categorical standards, along with jewelry repair operations that are performed at locations where the primary business is retail sales. One approach to this problem is to add a new subcategory for jewelry manufacturing to Part 433.

3) Are there categories of dischargers for whom you wish you had more technical support?

Biotechnology  This industry is concentrated in California and New England. A frequent concern is organic pollutants and low level radioactive waste that ultimately partitions to municipal sludge.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 415.744.1907 or Greg Arthur at 415.744.1900.

Regards, Keith Silva Page 39 of 40 Attachment 10 October 28, 2003 Comments on EPA ELG from WA Dept. of Ecology Direct Dischargers ° Part 429, Timber Products Processing point source category revised to include effluent limits for stormwater discharges from associated log yards.

° The Fruit & Vegetable Processors ( 40 CFR 407) badly need updating for both direct and indirect dischargers. For direct dischargers, they're often putting out only 15 to 25% of the technology based limits that appear in the ELGs. And, since we have neither WQ criteria for BOD nor an equitable way to determine the farfield impacts of BOD ( short of a TMDL), the Part 407 ELGs might help us address the dissolved oxygen problems in our waterways over the long term.

° Petroleum refineries  These effluent guidelines are 20 years old and have been the subject of a lot of controversy and litigation over the last 7 or so years. The refineries are all performing well below limits derived from the guidelines. We have found it difficult to address this gap in a way that would not be considered arbitrary and capricious or that uses the " dreaded" ( by the industry) BPJ. We are going into a new permit cycle for the refineries and anticipate this issue coming up once again. It would be nice to eventually have some EPA rules to support lower limits.

° Fish Processors  The ELG's are terribly out of date for this category. We could really benefit from an update of the ELG's for all categories of fish processing.

Pretreatment One of the most problematic areas of the Federal Pretreatment program is the lack of flexibility for dischargers that have small quantities of effluent and/ or those which are processing small volumes of material. The federal rules are generally designed for facilities that have a certain economy of scale. Application of the same pollutant concentration or mass limits to much smaller facilities often requires them to implement a level of treatment far in excess of what was envisioned as the best available technology reasonably achievable. This ( in combination with other regulatory burdens) can and too often does force them out of business. While the representatives of the " industry" from which EPA receives comments and negotiates may not be adverse to burdening these start up and niche industries with the same standards, and thus preserving their market share, I believe we have stifled competition and innovation by not defending them better. There are two ways to fix this, one would be to have each categorical Page 40 of 40 industry include a deminimus level of production or discharge at which only local limits need be applied. The second is to provide a process by which Control and Approval authorities can exempt categorical facilities from unduly burdensome regulations.

I favor the second approach. Part of the reason is that pretreatment programs have been operating at the local level for about 20 years now, and are doing an outstanding job. I believe their success, and that of the states overseeing them, merits a greater level of empowerment. I believe that the approval authority ( the state), upon request by any control authority, should be given the authority to waive categorical pretreatment standards for any industry that has less than 10,000 gallons per day of categorical process wastewater flow as a highest monthly average, but would be subject to categorical pretreatment standards. I envision that such industries should still be subject to obtain a permit which included applicable local discharge limitations ( and any pollutant that would have been regulated under categorical standards would be applicable) and all other pretreatment requirements would need to be met. The state should have the same ability for permittees which it directly oversees, and the process would be for the permit writer to document the concurrence of the same regional pretreatment program coordinator that would approve such a request by a delegated program.

In a similar vein, I also believe that requests for modified standards due to fundamentally different factors requests should be handled at the state level, not EPA level, and there should be no time limit on how when such a request can come in. Fundamentally different processes are put in place all the time. It appears that EPA's vision is to have this done at the national level for each industry that is granted a FDF request because standards will be revisited every five years, and that this data will be collected and used in the next iteration of standards. Neither of these activities occurs though.

Melodie Selby, Section Manager, Water Quality Program