This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-845 
entitled 'Water Pollution: EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent 
Guidelines but Could Benefit from More Information on Treatment 
Technologies' which was released on October 10, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
Representatives: 

September 2012: 

Water Pollution: 

EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit 
from More Information on Treatment Technologies: 

GAO-12-845: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-845, a report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee 
on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA has made significant progress in 
reducing wastewater pollution from industrial facilities. EPA 
currently regulates 58 industrial categories, such as petroleum 
refining, fertilizer manufacturing, and coal mining, with technology-
based regulations called effluent guidelines. Such guidelines are 
applied in permits to limit the pollutants that facilities may 
discharge. The Clean Water Act also calls for EPA to revise the 
guidelines when appropriate. EPA has done so, for example, to reflect 
advances in treatment technology or changes in industries.
GAO was asked to examine (1) the process EPA follows to screen and 
review industrial categories potentially needing new or revised 
guidelines and the results of that process from 2003 through 2010; (2) 
limitations to this process, if any, that could hinder EPA’s 
effectiveness in advancing the goals of the Clean Water Act; and (3) 
EPA’s actions to address any such limitations. 

GAO analyzed the results of EPA’s screening and review process from 
2003 through 2010, surveyed state officials, and interviewed EPA 
officials and experts to obtain their views on EPA’s process and its 
results. 

What GAO Found: 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses a two-phase process to 
identify industrial categories potentially needing new or revised 
effluent guidelines to help reduce their pollutant discharges. EPA’s 
2002 draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations 
was the foundation for EPA’s process. In the first, or “screening,” 
phase, EPA uses data from two EPA databases to rank industrial 
categories according to the total toxicity of their wastewater. Using 
this ranking, public comments, and other considerations, EPA has 
identified relatively few industrial categories posing the highest 
hazard for the next, or “further review,” phase. In this further 
review phase, EPA evaluates the categories to identify those that are 
appropriate for new or revised guidelines because treatment 
technologies are available to reduce pollutant discharges. Since 2003, 
EPA has regularly screened the 58 categories for which it has issued 
effluent guidelines, as well as some potential new industrial 
categories, and it has identified 12 categories for its further review 
phase. Of these 12 categories, EPA selected 3 for updated or new 
effluent guidelines. EPA chose not to set new guidelines for the 
others. 

Limitations in EPA’s screening phase may have led it to overlook some 
industrial categories that warrant further review for new or revised 
effluent guidelines. Specifically, EPA has relied on limited hazard 
data that may have affected its ranking of industrial categories. 
Further, during its screening phase, EPA has not considered the 
availability of advanced treatment technologies for most industrial 
categories. Although its 2002 draft strategy recognized the importance 
of technology data, EPA has stated that such data were too difficult 
to obtain during the screening phase and, instead, considers them for 
the few categories that reach further review. Officials responsible 
for state water quality programs and experts on industrial discharges, 
however, identified categories they believe EPA should examine for new 
or updated guidelines to reflect changes in their industrial processes 
and treatment technology capabilities. According to some experts, 
consideration of treatment technologies is especially important for 
older effluent guidelines because changes are more likely to have 
occurred in either the industrial categories or the treatment 
technologies, making it possible that new, more advanced treatment 
technologies are available. 

Recognizing the limitations of its hazard data and overall screening 
approach, EPA has begun revising its process but has not assessed 
other possible sources of information it could use to improve the 
screening phase. In 2012, EPA supplemented the hazard data used in 
screening with four new data sources. EPA is also developing a 
regulation that, through electronic reporting, will increase the 
completeness and accuracy of its hazard data. In 2011, EPA also began 
to obtain recent treatment technology literature. According to EPA, 
the agency will expand on this work in 2013. Nonetheless, EPA has not 
thoroughly examined other usable sources of information on treatment 
technology, nor has it reassessed the role such information should 
take in its screening process. Without a more thorough and integrated 
screening approach that both uses improved hazard data and considers 
information on treatment technology, EPA cannot be certain that the 
effluent guidelines program reflects advances in the treatment 
technologies used to reduce pollutants in wastewater. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is making recommendations to improve the effectiveness of EPA’s 
effluent guidelines program by expanding its screening phase to better 
assess hazards and advances in treatment technology. EPA agreed with 
two recommendations in principle and said it is making progress on 
them, but said that one is not workable given current agency 
resources. GAO believes improvements can be made. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-845]. For more 
information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 
trimbled@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

EPA's Two-Phase Screening and Review Process Has Identified Few 
Industrial Categories for New or Revised Effluent Guidelines: 

Focus on Limited Hazard Data to the Exclusion of Technology 
Information May Have Led EPA to Overlook Industrial Categories for 
Pollution Reduction: 

EPA Is Adding Hazard Data Sources but Is Not Fully Using Potential 
Sources of Information on Treatment Technologies: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Survey of State Water Quality Permit Writers and Analysis 
of Views about Whether EPA Should Revise Effluent Guidelines: 

Appendix III: Additional Details on Industrial Categories with 
Effluent Guidelines: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Industrial Categories with Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards as of August 2012: 

Table 2: Standards for Effluent Guidelines for Direct Dischargers: 

Table 3: Consideration of Treatment Technology during Further Review 
and Resulting Key Agency Decisions: 

Table 4: Regulated Industrial Categories Excluded in the Screening 
Phase from Further Review, 2003-2010: 

Table 5: State Officials' Responses to the Key Questions in Our Survey 
for the Industries Discharging the Greatest Amount of Toxic Effluent 
in Their State: 

Table 6: State Officials' Views about Whether EPA Should Revise the 
Effluent Guidelines for the Industries Discharging the Greatest Amount 
of Toxic Effluent in Their State, by the Four Factors EPA Considers 
When Deciding Whether to Revise Effluent Guidelines: 

Table 7: Years Effluent Guidelines Were Promulgated and Revised for 
Industrial Categories and Years the Categories Were in the Top 95 
Percent of Total Reported Hazard, 2004-2010: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Industrial Facilities Subject to Regulation of Discharges: 

Figure 2: Industrial Categories Responsible for 95 Percent of the 
Total Reported Hazard and Considered for Possible Further Review, 2003-
2010: 

Figure 3: Criteria Used by EPA during Screening Phase to Exclude 
Industrial Categories from Further Review: 

Figure 4: Number of Times Existing Industrial Categories Were in the 
Top 95 Percent of Total Reported Hazards in the Four Biennial 
Screening Phases from 2003 through 2010: 

Figure 5: Decision Tree of State Officials' Views of Whether EPA 
Should Revise Effluent Guidelines for Specific Industrial Categories: 

Abbreviations: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 10, 2012: 

The Honorable Timothy H. Bishop: 
Ranking Member: 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Bishop: 

Forty years after the Clean Water Act set a national goal of 
eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable U.S. waters, 
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made significant 
progress in reducing pollution from industrial facilities; 
nevertheless, pollution from these facilities continues to cause 
concern.[Footnote 1] EPA's actions to reduce this pollution have 
included establishing national technology-based regulations--or 
effluent guidelines--for separate industrial categories, such as 
petroleum refining, fertilizer manufacturing, coal mining, and metal 
finishing. EPA issued the vast majority of these regulations in the 
1970s and 1980s and has revised most of them; revisions may range from 
changes in testing methods to establishment of more stringent 
standards. Relatively few effluent guidelines have been revised or 
created in recent years, however, and environmental advocacy groups 
continue to raise concerns because industrial facilities annually 
discharge hundreds of billions, and perhaps trillions of pounds of 
pollutants to U.S. waters. According to EPA, industrial pollutants may 
contribute, in part, to impaired water quality; harm aquatic life; and 
limit the ways in which people can safely use the nation's waters. 

One of EPA's main responsibilities under the act is to regulate "point 
source" pollution--that is, pollution such as effluent or wastewater 
coming from a discrete point, such as a pipe from an industrial 
facility. The Clean Water Act directed EPA to establish effluent 
guidelines to achieve pollutant reductions using specific treatment 
technologies or changes in a facility's production processes. In 
establishing and revising effluent guidelines, EPA is to assess (1) 
the performance and availability of the best pollution control 
technologies or pollution prevention practices for an industrial 
category; (2) the economic achievability of those technologies; (3) 
non-water-quality environmental impacts, such as the energy required 
to reduce pollutants; and (4) other factors that the EPA Administrator 
deems appropriate, such as the risk posed by discharges. The 
legislative history of relevant provisions in the Clean Water Act 
suggests that effluent guidelines were expected to be revised and made 
more stringent over time to reflect technological advances. 

To carry out its effluent guidelines program, EPA develops regulations 
setting national effluent guidelines, and states generally implement 
the program by applying limits in permits that they issue to specific 
facilities. Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
(NPDES) program, all facilities that discharge pollutants from any 
point source into U.S. waters are required to obtain a permit, 
typically from their state or EPA region. Under the Clean Water Act, 
EPA has authorized 46 states to issue NPDES permits and retains the 
authority to issue permits for the remaining 4 states: Idaho, 
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico.[Footnote 2] 

The Clean Water Act requires that after setting effluent guidelines, 
EPA is to annually review each existing effluent guideline--that is, 
guidelines for regulated industrial categories--to determine whether 
revising these guidelines would be appropriate. In addition, at least 
every 2 years, EPA is to identify industrial categories that do not 
have effluent guidelines but that discharge nontrivial amounts of 
toxic or certain other pollutants.[Footnote 3] At least every 2 years, 
EPA is required to publish schedules for its annual review and 
revision of existing effluent guidelines and for promulgating effluent 
guidelines for any newly identified categories. The agency's intent is 
to issue a plan every year, with preliminary plans to be issued in odd 
years and final plans for effluent guidelines in even years. If EPA 
decides that an industrial category requires new or revised effluent 
guidelines, it generally establishes them through a regulatory process 
that involves proposing new effluent guidelines, obtaining public 
comment, making revisions, and publishing a final regulation. 

Throughout much of the effluent guidelines program's history, EPA's 
schedule for issuing effluent guidelines has been driven by litigation 
and resulting consent decrees.[Footnote 4] In 2002, following 
extensive consultation with an advisory task force formed in response 
to a 1992 consent decree, EPA issued a draft Strategy for National 
Clean Water Industrial Regulations, outlining a new process by which 
it planned to meet the requirement to review industries in the future 
to determine whether new or revised effluent guidelines were 
appropriate. The draft strategy calls for EPA to conduct an annual 
screening of industrial categories to consider (1) the risks the 
industrial categories pose to human health or the environment; (2) the 
availability of treatment technology or other approaches to reduce the 
risk; (3) the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology; 
and (4) implementation and efficiency considerations. EPA derived 
these screening factors in part from the statutory requirements for 
developing or revising effluent guidelines. Following screening with 
available information, the draft strategy calls for EPA to conduct a 
further review of selected categories. The further reviews may take 1 
or more years to complete. EPA has not finalized or formally updated 
its draft strategy, although according to EPA officials, the draft has 
served in part as the basis for the agency's annual reviews of 
industrial categories after 2002. 

As EPA's regulatory efforts have reduced pollutants from industrial 
point sources over the past several decades, the agency has placed 
greater emphasis on what is now the primary reason for impairment of 
the nation's waters, namely diffuse or nonpoint pollution, such as 
some agricultural runoff. In light of that change in emphasis and soon 
after issuing the draft strategy, EPA reduced staffing levels for the 
effluent guidelines program by about 40 percent, according to program 
officials. EPA issued its most recent effluent guidelines--for airport 
deicing, a previously unregulated industry--in May 2012. Before that, 
EPA's most recent revisions of existing effluent guidelines were for 
concentrated animal feeding operations in 2008 and construction and 
development in 2009.[Footnote 5] Most effluent guidelines have not 
been revised since the 1980s or 1990s. 

In this context, you asked us to review EPA's effluent guidelines 
program. This report examines (1) the process EPA follows to screen 
and review industrial categories potentially in need of new or revised 
effluent limitation guidelines and the results of that process from 
2003 through 2010; (2) limitations to this screening and review 
process, if any, that could hinder the effectiveness of the effluent 
guidelines program in advancing the goals of the Clean Water Act; and 
(3) what actions EPA has taken or could take to address limitations, 
if any, that exist. 

To address our objectives, we reviewed the Clean Water Act and 
relevant regulations, EPA's 2002 draft strategy, effluent guidelines 
program plans, and associated supporting documents. We also reviewed 
EPA's screening decisions for all industrial categories and its 
further reviews for the 12 industrial categories selected through 
screening from 2003 through 2010.[Footnote 6] Our purpose was to 
identify those industries that EPA had only initially screened and 
those that received a further review, including an examination of 
available treatment technologies. We also documented the status of 
regulatory actions and other steps that EPA took for industries that 
it reviewed further. In addition, we interviewed officials in EPA's 
Engineering and Analysis Division to learn about the process the 
agency follows to screen and review industries potentially in need of 
new or revised effluent limitation guidelines. We then compared the 
steps specified in the draft strategy with the agency's current 
process for screening and reviewing industries for possible revised 
guidelines. To better understand the steps in the current process as 
they apply to specific industrial categories, we conducted detailed 
interviews with EPA staff regarding 7 of the 12 industrial categories 
that EPA selected from 2003 onward for possible new or revised 
effluent guidelines. We chose 2003 because it was the year when EPA 
issued its first preliminary effluent guidelines plan after developing 
its 2002 draft strategy for screening and reviewing industries. We 
also conducted 17 interviews with 22 experts from academia, industry, 
nonprofit organizations, and state and local water quality agencies 
for their perspectives on EPA's effluent guidelines program. We 
selected these experts from a list of approximately 50 individuals 
identified from a variety of sources, including referrals from EPA, 
the Association of Clean Water Agencies, the National Association of 
Clean Water Agencies, and other experts; relevant academic literature; 
and litigation documents. Because we used a nonprobability sampling 
method to select experts, the results of our interviews with them 
cannot be generalized to all experts on the program, but the 
information derived from interviewing these experts provided 
illustrative observations and examples. We also surveyed the directors 
for water quality permits in the 46 states authorized to issue NPDES 
permits about the adequacy of current effluent guidelines; the results 
of our analysis are not generalizable to all industrial categories in 
all states. Using the results of the survey, we selected an industrial 
category that state officials said warranted revised effluent 
guidelines and interviewed state officials to learn more about the 
reasons for their views. We also interviewed EPA officials about their 
plans, if any, related to those industries. Appendixes I and II 
present a more detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to September 
2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

Tens of thousands of industrial facilities directly discharge 
wastewater into the waters of the United States and are subject to 
permit limits on their discharges, which for certain industries are 
determined by effluent guidelines set by EPA under the Clean Water 
Act. For certain industries, EPA issues a similar type of regulation--
pretreatment standards--applicable to facilities that are indirect 
dischargers; that is, their effluent goes to wastewater treatment 
plants, which then discharge the collected and treated wastewater into 
a water body. To establish pollutant control limits for different 
pollutants in these guidelines or standards, EPA groups industrial 
facilities into categories that have similar products or services. To 
date, EPA has issued effluent guidelines or pretreatment standards for 
58 industrial categories. EPA has issued effluent guidelines for 57 of 
the 58 categories and pretreatment standards for 35 of the 58 
categories.[Footnote 7] Table 1 lists industrial categories that are 
regulated by effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. According 
to EPA, there are approximately 35,000 to 45,000 direct dischargers 
covered by effluent guidelines and about 10,000 facilities that 
discharge indirectly to wastewater treatment plants. 

Table 1: Industrial Categories with Effluent Guidelines and 
Pretreatment Standards as of August 2012: 

Industrial category: Airport deicing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Aluminum forming; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Asbestos manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Battery manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables 
processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved seafood processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Carbon black manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Cement manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Centralized waste treatment; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Coal mining; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Coil coating; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Concentrated animal feeding operations; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Concentrated aquatic animal production; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Construction and development; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Copper forming; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Dairy products processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Electrical and electronic components; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Electroplating; 
Effluent guideline: [Empty]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Explosives manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Ferroalloy manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Fertilizer manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Glass manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Grain mills; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Gum and wood chemicals manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Hospital; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Ink formulating; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Inorganic chemicals manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Iron and steel manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Landfills; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Leather tanning and finishing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Meat and poultry products; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Metal finishing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Metal molding and casting; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Metal products and machinery; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Mineral mining and processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Nonferrous metals manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Oil and gas extraction; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Ore mining and dressing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Paint formulating; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt); 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Pesticide chemicals; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Petroleum refining; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Pharmaceutical manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Phosphate manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Photographic; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Plastics molding and forming; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Porcelain enameling; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Rubber manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Soap and detergent manufacturing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Steam electric power generating; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Sugar processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Textile mills; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Timber products processing; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Empty]. 

Industrial category: Transportation equipment cleaning; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Waste combustors; 
Effluent guideline: [Check]; 
Pretreatment standard: [Check]. 

Industrial category: Total; 
Effluent guideline: 57; 
Pretreatment standard: 35. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of table] 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits: 

Before an industrial facility discharges pollutants, it must receive a 
permit that is to, at a minimum, incorporate any relevant pollutant 
limits from EPA's effluent guidelines. Where needed to protect water 
quality as determined by standards set by individual states, NPDES 
permits may include limits more stringent than the limits in the 
guidelines. NPDES permits for direct dischargers are issued by 1 of 
the 46 states authorized by EPA to issue them and by EPA elsewhere. 
Unlike direct dischargers, indirect dischargers, which do not 
discharge to surface waters, do not require an NPDES permit. Instead, 
an indirect discharger must meet EPA's national pretreatment standards 
and may have to meet additional pretreatment conditions imposed by its 
local wastewater treatment plant.[Footnote 8] Under the national 
pretreatment standards and conditions, an indirect discharger is 
required to remove pollutants that may harm wastewater treatment plant 
operations or workers or, after treatment and discharge, cause 
violations of the wastewater treatment plant's permit. Figure 1 
illustrates both types of facilities subject to regulation. 

Figure 1: Industrial Facilities Subject to Regulation of Discharges: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Direct discharger: to surface water. 

Indirect discharger: 
To wastewater treatment plant: to surface water. 

Source: EPA documentation. 

[End of figure] 

To get an NPDES permit, industrial facilities' owners--like any source 
discharging pollutants as a point source--must first submit an 
application that, among other things, provides information on their 
proposed discharges. Water quality officials in authorized states and 
EPA regional offices responsible for the NPDES program in the four 
nonauthorized states review these applications and determine the 
appropriate limits for the permits. Those limits may be technology-
based effluent limits, water quality-based effluent limits, or a 
combination of both. Technology-based limits must stem from either 
effluent limitation guidelines, when applicable, or from the permit 
writer's best professional judgment when no applicable effluent 
limitation guidelines are available. Using best professional judgment, 
permit writers are to develop technology-based permit conditions on a 
case-by-case basis, considering all reasonably available and relevant 
information, as well as factors similar to those EPA uses in 
developing guidelines for national effluent limitations. A permit 
writer should also set water quality-based limits more stringent than 
technology-based limits if necessary to control pollutants that could 
cause or contribute to violation of a state's water quality standards. 
To support each permit, permit writers are supposed to develop a fact 
sheet, or similar documentation, briefly summarizing the key facts and 
significant factual, legal, methodological, and policy questions 
considered.[Footnote 9] The fact sheet and supporting documentation 
also serve to explain to the facility, the public, and other 
interested parties the rationale and assumptions used in deriving the 
limitations in the permit. 

Facilities with NPDES permits are required to monitor their discharges 
for the pollutants listed in their permits and to provide monitoring 
reports with their results to their permitting authority (the relevant 
state, tribal, or territorial agency authorized to issue NPDES permits 
or, in nonauthorized locations, EPA). For facilities designated by EPA 
regional administrators and the permitting authorities as major 
facilities, the permitting authorities are in turn required to 
transfer the monitoring report data to EPA headquarters. These 
reports, known as discharge monitoring reports, are transmitted 
electronically and stored in an electronic database or reported in 
documents and manually entered into the electronic database for use by 
EPA in reviewing permit compliance.[Footnote 10] Permitting 
authorities are not required to report the discharge monitoring 
results from all remaining facilities, known as minor facilities, to 
EPA but may do so. According to EPA, there are about 6,700 major and 
40,500 minor facilities covered by NPDES permits. 

Facilities may also be required to report data to EPA's Toxics Release 
Inventory on their estimated wastewater discharges.[Footnote 11] This 
inventory contains annual estimates of facilities' discharges of more 
than 650 toxic chemicals to the environment. One of the inventory's 
primary purposes is to inform communities about toxic chemical 
releases to the environment, showing data from a wide range of mining, 
utility, manufacturing, and other industries subject to the reporting 
requirements. As such, although the inventory is unrelated to the 
NPDES program, the Toxics Release Inventory contains estimated 
discharges of toxic pollutants for many NPDES-permitted facilities. 
Not all industrial categories covered by effluent guidelines--the oil 
and gas industrial category, for example--are necessarily required to 
report to the inventory. 

Effluent Guidelines Program: 

Under the Clean Water Act, EPA must establish effluent guidelines for 
three categories of pollutants--conventional, toxic, and 
nonconventional pollutants--and several levels of treatment 
technology. As defined in EPA's regulations, conventional pollutants 
include biological oxygen demand,[Footnote 12] total suspended solids, 
[Footnote 13] fecal coliform bacteria,[Footnote 14] oil and grease, 
and pH.[Footnote 15] The Clean Water Act designates toxic pollutants 
as those chemicals listed in a key congressional committee report, 
[Footnote 16] which contains 65 entries, including, arsenic, carbon 
tetrachloride, and mercury, as well as groups of pollutants, such as 
halomethanes.[Footnote 17] Nonconventional pollutants are any 
pollutants not designated as a conventional or toxic pollutant; for 
example, EPA has developed limitations for such nonconventional 
pollutants as chemical oxygen demand,[Footnote 18] total organic 
carbon, and the nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus. 

The act authorizes EPA to establish effluent limits for these three 
pollutant categories according to several standards; the standards 
generally reflect increasing levels of treatment technologies. A 
treatment technology is any process or mechanism that helps remove 
pollutants from wastewater and can include filters or other 
separators, biological or bacteria-based removal, and chemical 
neutralization. Legislative history of the Clean Water Act describes 
the expectation of attaining higher levels of treatment through 
research and development of new production processes, modifications, 
replacement of obsolete plans and processes, and other improvements in 
technology, taking into account the cost of treatment.[Footnote 19] 
Under the act, the effluent limits do not specify a particular 
technology to be used but instead set a performance level based on one 
or more particular existing treatment technologies. Individual 
facilities then have to meet the performance level set but can choose 
which technology they use to meet it. 

Under the act, EPA was to issue initial guidelines for existing 
facilities on the basis of the "best practicable control technology 
currently available" for conventional, toxic, and nonconventional 
pollutants--guidelines to be achieved by 1977--followed by guidelines 
set on the basis of "best available technology economically 
achievable" for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and "best 
conventional pollutant control technology" for conventional 
pollutants. The act also called for guidelines known as "new source 
performance standards," which would apply to new facilities starting 
operations after such standards were proposed. When permitting 
authorities develop a permit, they apply standards most appropriate to 
a given facility: For example, a new facility would receive a permit 
with limits reflecting the new source performance standards. Existing 
facilities would generally receive permits with limits reflecting the 
best conventional technology and best available technology, but where 
those standards have not been issued, permit limits would reflect best 
practical treatment. Table 2 shows the different levels of treatment 
established in the act and the category of pollutant to which they 
apply. 

Table 2: Standards for Effluent Guidelines for Direct Dischargers: 

Standard: Best practicable technology currently available; 
Pollutants: Toxics, nonconventional, and conventional; 
Basis for treatment level: The average of the best performances of 
facilities within the industry; 
Entities subject to regulation: Existing industrial facilities during 
the Clean Water Act's initial implementation phase (1977-89). 

Standard: Best conventional pollutant control technology; 
Pollutants: Conventional; 
Basis for treatment level: The most stringent technology option that 
passes tests as feasible and economically achievable; 
Entities subject to regulation: Existing industrial facilities, after 
1989[A]. 

Standard: Best available technology economically achievable; 
Pollutants: Toxics and nonconventional; 
Basis for treatment level: Level to be set with reference to the best 
performer in any industrial category and determined to be economically 
achievable for the category or subcategory; 
Entities subject to regulation: Existing industrial facilities, after 
1989[B]. 

Standard: New source performance standards; 
Pollutants: Toxics, nonconventional, and conventional; 
Basis for treatment level: The most stringent controls attainable 
through the application of the best demonstrated control technology 
that does not pose a barrier to entry; 
Entities subject to regulation: New industrial facilities. 

Source: GAO analysis. 

[A] If EPA has not established an applicable best conventional 
technology effluent guideline, then the best practicable treatment 
effluent guideline still applies. 

[B] If EPA has not established an applicable best available technology 
effluent guideline, then the best practicable treatment effluent 
guideline still applies. 

[End of table] 

The Clean Water Act requires EPA to annually review all existing 
effluent guidelines and revise them if appropriate, and also to review 
existing effluent limitations at least every 5 years and revise them 
if appropriate.[Footnote 20] The Water Quality Act of 1987 added two 
related requirements to EPA's reviews. First, EPA is to identify, 
every 2 years, potential candidates for new effluent guidelines, 
namely, industries that are discharging significant, or nontrivial, 
amounts of toxic or nonconventional pollutants that are not currently 
subject to effluent guidelines. Second, every 2 years beginning in 
1988, EPA is required to publish a plan establishing a schedule for 
the annual review and revision of the effluent guidelines it has 
previously promulgated. In response to these two requirements, EPA 
published its first effluent guidelines program plan in 1990, which 
contained schedules for developing new and revised effluent guidelines 
for several industrial categories. 

From the start of the effluent guidelines program in the early 1970s, 
EPA has faced considerable litigation, with industry challenging most 
of the industry-specific effluent guidelines. As the agency 
implemented the program, EPA also faced challenges from environmental 
groups over its failure to issue guidelines and the process EPA used 
to screen and review industrial categories. For example, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, an environmental organization, brought two 
suits, each seeking to compel EPA to meet its duties to promulgate 
effluent limitations for listed toxic pollutants, among other actions. 
As a result, EPA operated under two key consent decrees establishing 
court-approved schedules for it to develop and issue effluent 
guidelines regulations. In addition, under one of the consent decrees, 
EPA established a task force that operated from 1992 through 2000 and 
advised the agency on various aspects of the effluent guidelines 
program. In particular, the task force issued several reports advising 
EPA on changes to its screening and review process for the effluent 
guidelines program and recommended that EPA hold a workshop to discuss 
improvements to the process. 

In 2002, after considering the recommendations made by both the task 
force and the workshop, EPA developed an approach to guide its post-
consent decree screening and review, issued in a document called A 
Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations. Under this 
draft strategy, EPA was to evaluate readily available data and 
stakeholder input to create an initial list of categories warranting 
further examination for potential effluent guidelines. The strategy 
identified the following four key factors for EPA to consider in 
deciding whether to revise existing effluent guidelines or to develop 
new ones: 

* the extent to which pollutants remaining in an industrial category's 
discharge pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment; 

* the availability of a treatment technology, process change, or 
pollution prevention alternative that can effectively reduce the 
pollutants and risk; 

* the cost, performance, and affordability of the technology, process 
change, or pollution prevention measures relative to their benefits; 
and: 

* the extent to which existing effluent guidelines could be revised, 
for example, to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to 
technological innovation or to promote innovative approaches. 

The draft strategy also indicated that EPA would apply nearly 
identical factors to help determine whether it should issue effluent 
guidelines for industrial categories for which it had not yet done so. 
The document noted that EPA intended to revise and issue the strategy 
in early 2003, but EPA has chosen not to finalize it.[Footnote 21] EPA 
officials stated that the agency made this choice because its 
implementation of the process was likely to evolve over time. 

Since EPA issued its draft strategy, the agency has faced litigation 
challenging the use of technology in its screening process. In 2004, 
EPA was sued by Our Children's Earth, a nonprofit environmental 
organization, which alleged that EPA failed to consider technology-
based factors during its annual review of industrial categories. On 
appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court decided in 2008 that the statute did 
not establish a mandatory duty for EPA to consider such factors. The 
court found that the statute's use of the phrase "if appropriate" 
indicated that decisions on whether to revise guidelines are 
discretionary but are also constrained by the statute's mandate as to 
what effluent guidelines regulations are to accomplish.[Footnote 22] 
Further, the court stated that the overall structure of the Clean 
Water Act strongly suggests that any review to determine whether 
revision of effluent guidelines is appropriate should contemplate 
technology-based factors. 

EPA's Two-Phase Screening and Review Process Has Identified Few 
Industrial Categories for New or Revised Effluent Guidelines: 

EPA uses a two-phase process to review industrial categories 
potentially in need of new or revised effluent guidelines; from 2003 
through 2010, the agency identified few such categories. Since 2003, 
EPA has annually screened all industrial categories subject to 
effluent guidelines, as well as other industrial categories that could 
be subject to new guidelines; it has identified 12 categories for 
further review and selected 3 categories to update or to receive new 
effluent guidelines. 

EPA's Screening Phase Results in a Subset of Industrial Categories for 
Further Review: 

EPA's screening phase starts with a review of industrial categories 
already subject to effluent guidelines--as well as industrial 
categories that are not--to identify and rank those whose pollutant 
discharges pose a substantial hazard to human health and the 
environment.[Footnote 23] EPA analyzes and ranks industrial categories 
using pollutant data from facilities in similar industrial 
classifications. Before it ranks industrial categories in this 
screening phase, EPA excludes from consideration any industrial 
categories where guidelines are already undergoing revision or have 
been revised or developed in the previous 7 years. For example, EPA 
announced in its 2010 final effluent guideline program plan that it 
excluded the steam electric power-generating category from the 
screening phase because the agency had already begun revising effluent 
guidelines for this industry.[Footnote 24] Also in 2010 EPA excluded 
the concentrated aquatic animal production category (e.g., fish 
farming) from screening because the agency issued effluent guidelines 
in 2004. 

[Side bar: Steam Electric Power-Generating Industrial Category: 
The steam electricity power-generating industrial category produces 
electric power by means of steam generated from fossil fuels (coal, 
oil, and natural gas) or nuclear fuels. In the process, a given power 
plant may discharge pollutants such as arsenic and mercury into water 
bodies. Pollutants from this category persist in the environment and 
can accumulate in aquatic organisms, wildlife, and humans, with long-
term health effects. Effluent guidelines for this industry were first 
promulgated in 1974 and revised less than a decade later, in 1982. 

[Photograph: Source: EPA documentation] 
End of side bar] 

In ranking industrial categories during the screening phase, EPA 
considers the extent to which discharged pollutants threaten human 
health and the environment--the first factor identified in EPA's 2002 
draft strategy. EPA compiles information from two EPA sources on the 
facilities within these industrial categories that discharge 
wastewater, the pollutants they discharge, and the amount of their 
discharge: (1) the discharge monitoring report database and (2) the 
Toxics Release Inventory.[Footnote 25] From these two sources, EPA 
estimates the amount and relative toxicity of pollutant discharges 
from screened industrial categories, converts these estimates into a 
single "score" of relative toxicity for each industrial category, and 
uses this score to rank the industrial categories according to the 
reported hazard they pose. To determine the relative toxicity of a 
given pollutant, EPA multiplies the amount (in pounds) of that 
pollutant by a pollutant-specific weighting factor to derive a "toxic 
weighted pound equivalent." EPA's ranking of one industrial category 
relative to other categories can vary depending on the amount of the 
pollutants it discharges or the toxicity of those pollutants. For 
example, an industrial category, such as pesticide chemicals, may 
discharge fewer pounds of pollutants than another category, such as 
canned and preserved seafood processing, but have a higher hazard 
ranking because of the relative toxicity of the pollutant chemicals it 
discharges. 

After ranking industrial categories, EPA identifies those responsible 
for the top 95 percent of the total reported hazard, which is the 
total of all industrial categories' hazard scores. EPA assigns these 
industrial categories a high priority for further review in the second 
phase of its review process. As the relative amounts of their 
discharges change, the number of industrial categories making up this 
95 percent can vary each year with each screening EPA performs. From 
2003 through 2009, for example, 10 to 13 industrial categories 
composed the top 95 percent of reported hazard, whereas in 2010, 21 
categories made up the top 95 percent.[Footnote 26] Figure 2 shows the 
number of industrial categories that EPA considered for possible 
further review on the basis of its hazard screening. 

Figure 2: Industrial Categories Responsible for 95 Percent of the 
Total Reported Hazard and Considered for Possible Further Review, 2003-
2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: line graph] 

Year: 2003; 
Number of industrial categories: 11. 

Year: 2004; 
Number of industrial categories: 11. 

Year: 2005; 
Number of industrial categories: 13. 

Year: 2006; 
Number of industrial categories: 11. 

Year: 2007; 
Number of industrial categories: 12. 

Year: 2008; 
Number of industrial categories: 11. 

Year: 2009; 
Number of industrial categories: 10. 

Year: 2010; 
Number of industrial categories: 21. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA documents. 

Note: According to EPA, the doubling in the number of industrial 
categories in 2010 resulted from the removal of the steam electric 
power-generating category from the ranking process after EPA decided 
to revise its effluent guidelines. Previously, that industrial 
category alone constituted up to 73 percent of the total toxic 
weighted pound equivalent. When EPA removed that category from its 
hazard ranking, many other industries with smaller hazard ranking 
scores moved into the top 95 percent. 

[End of figure] 

After it identifies the industrial categories contributing to 95 
percent of reported hazard, EPA takes additional steps to exclude 
industrial categories before beginning the further review phase. 
Specifically, the agency may exclude industrial categories on the 
basis of three criteria: 

* Data used in the ranking process contained errors. After completing 
its ranking, EPA verifies the pollutant discharge data from the 
discharge monitoring reports and Toxics Release Inventory and corrects 
any errors. For example, according to EPA, the agency has found that 
facilities have reported the wrong unit of measurement in their 
discharge monitoring reports, or states have transferred data into the 
EPA database incorrectly. In such cases, a pollutant discharge may, 
for example, be reported at a concentration of 10 milligrams per liter 
but in fact be present at a concentration of 10 micrograms per liter--
a thousand-fold lower discharge. 

* Very few facilities account for the relative toxicity of an 
industrial category. EPA typically does not consider for further 
review industries where only a few facilities account for the vast 
majority of pollutant discharges and the discharges are not 
representative of the category as a whole. In such cases, EPA states 
in its effluent guideline program plans that revising individual NPDES 
permits may be more effective than a nationwide regulation to address 
the discharge. For example, in 2004, EPA determined that one facility 
was responsible for the vast majority of discharges of dioxin 
associated with the inorganic chemicals industrial category. In its 
effluent guideline program plan for that year, EPA indicated that it 
would work through the facility's NPDES permit to reduce these 
discharges as appropriate. 

* Other factors. EPA considers other factors in addition to those 
described above to determine if an industrial category warrants 
further review. According to EPA, one such factor is inadequate data 
from which to make a clear determination. For example, in its 2010 
screening phase, EPA excluded several industrial categories from the 
further review phase because it did not have conclusive data but said 
that it would "continue to review" the categories' discharges to 
determine if they were properly controlled. These industries included 
pulp, paper, and paperboard; plastic molding and forming; and waste 
combustors. 

Figure 3 illustrates the exclusion process EPA applies in its initial 
screening phase. 

Figure 3: Criteria Used by EPA during Screening Phase to Exclude 
Industrial Categories from Further Review: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Start of screening phase: 

Industrial categories identified for screening and ranking on the 
basis of a hazard ranking score reflecting the quantity and toxicity 
of discharges and stakeholder comments: 52 industrial categories. 

Excludes categories undergoing guideline revisions or having 
guidelines revised within the past 7 years: 33 industrial categories 
remaining. 

Excludes categories not contributing to top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 18 industrial categories remaining. 

Excludes categories if, among other factors, incorrect data were used 
in ranking or few facilities accounted for the ranking: 3 industrial 
categories remaining for further review. 

End of screening phase. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA's screening process. 

[End of figure] 

During the screening phase, EPA uses existing industry classifications 
as the basis for identifying industrial categories. EPA groups these 
industry classifications, which are identified by one of two 
standardized coding schemes, into industrial categories that it then 
considers for effluent guidelines.[Footnote 27] If EPA identifies an 
industrial category that does not have effluent guidelines but has 
discharges that present a potential hazard, it decides whether the 
category produces a product or performs a service similar to one 
subject to existing effluent guidelines. If so, EPA generally 
considers the former category to be a subcategory of the latter. 
Conversely, if the products or services differ from categories subject 
to existing guidelines, EPA considers the category as a potential new 
category. In either case, EPA may decide that the industrial category 
warrants further review and, possibly, new effluent guidelines. 

Throughout the screening phase, EPA also obtains stakeholder and 
public input, which may identify industrial categories warranting new 
or revised effluent guidelines that were not identified by their 
hazard ranking. Stakeholder and public input comes from EPA's 
solicitation of comments on its biennial preliminary and final 
effluent guidelines program plans. For example, in 2004 stakeholders 
raised concerns about discharges from dental facilities of mercury 
used in dental fillings; in response, EPA later identified the dental 
category for further review. On completing the screening phase, the 
agency lists in its preliminary or final effluent guidelines program 
plans the industrial categories it has identified for further review. 
Alternatively, EPA may decide on the basis of its screening criteria 
that no industrial categories warrant further review. 

EPA's Further Review Phase Results in Few Industrial Categories to 
Consider for Potential New or Revised Effluent Guidelines: 

In its further review phase, EPA conducts detailed studies of any 
industrial categories identified in its screening phase, using the 
four factors listed in its November 2002 draft strategy to determine 
whether the categories need new or revised effluent guidelines. Since 
issuing its draft strategy, EPA has selected 12 industrial categories 
to move beyond the screening phase to the further review phase. Seven 
of the categories--for example, the pulp, paper, and paperboard 
category and the petroleum refining category--were identified for 
further review on the basis of the risk or toxicity of the pollutants 
they discharge, and 5 were identified for review on the basis of 
stakeholder concerns. If the categories are already subject to 
effluent guidelines that EPA set, the agency studies the need to 
revise effluent limits in the existing guidelines; if the categories 
are not subject to existing guidelines, EPA studies the need to 
develop effluent limits and apply them for the first time. Of the 12 
categories selected for further review, 8 were already subject to 
existing effluent guidelines, and 4 were not. 

During its further review phase, according to EPA documents, EPA 
gathers and analyzes more information on the factors identified in its 
draft strategy. During this phase, EPA typically analyzes information 
on the hazards posed by discharged pollutants, which corresponds to 
the first factor in its draft strategy. The data on hazards that EPA 
obtains and analyzes include: (1) characteristics of wastewater and of 
facilities; (2) the pollutants responsible for the industrial 
category's relative toxicity ranking; (3) geographic distribution of 
facilities in the industry; (4) trends in discharges within the 
industry, and (5) any relevant economic factors related to the 
industry. 

During the further review phase, EPA also begins to gather and analyze 
information on the availability of pollution prevention and treatment 
technology for the industrial categories reviewed, which corresponds 
to the second factor identified in its draft 2002 strategy. Through 
this analysis, EPA identifies current technologies that industry is 
using to reduce pollutants, potential new technologies that could be 
used to reduce pollutants, or both. Table 3 summarizes EPA's 
consideration of treatment technologies for the 12 industrial 
categories that proceeded to the further review phase. For example, 
EPA studied one technology used by the ore mining and dressing 
industrial category and several current technologies for the coalbed 
methane category. 

[Side bar: Airport Deicing Industrial Category: 
EPA's effluent guidelines for the airport deicing industrial category 
are the agency's most recent. They apply to the fluids airports use to 
deice airfield pavement. Discharges from deicing operations may lead 
to fish kills and reduced species diversity, contaminate drinking 
water sources (both surface and groundwater), and create noxious odors 
and discolored water. Airports with 1,000 or more annual jet 
departures must either control their discharge of ammonia or use non-
urea-based airfield pavement deicing fluids. EPA first studied the 
airport deicing industrial category in the late 1990s to meet the 
terms of a consent decree. EPA named the category for rule making in 
2004, and the agency finalized its regulations in May 2012. 

[Photograph: Source: EPA documentation] 
End of side bar] 

Table 3: Consideration of Treatment Technology during Further Review 
and Resulting Key Agency Decisions: 

Categories with existing effluent guidelines: 

Industrial category: Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons 
manufacturing[B]; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2005-present; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: EPA did not prepare a 
written study for this industrial category. Instead it used site 
visits and sampled wastewater to collect data on pollutant quantities 
and conducted site visits to design an industry-led voluntary sampling 
plan. EPA officials stated that through implementation of the sampling 
plan, the agency discovered that most participating facilities used 
treatment technology that was effectively controlling their pollutant 
discharges; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: According to EPA officials, the agency does not 
plan to initiate rule making for this industrial category because only 
one facility is responsible for the majority of the pollutant 
discharge. 

Industrial category: Coalbed methane extraction[C]; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2005-2010; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: In its 2010 study, EPA 
presented an overview of seven treatment methods used by this 
industry, depending on the type of wastewater pollutant produced 
during the extraction process; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: On the basis of the study's findings, EPA in 2010 
announced the start of rule making for effluent guidelines for this 
category. The agency plans to propose the rule in 2013. 

Industrial category: Coal mining; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2006-2008; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: In its 2008 study, EPA 
described two treatment technologies associated with the most common 
pollutant discharges resulting from coal mining processes; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: On the basis of the study's findings, EPA decided 
to take no further action on this category, stating that the existing 
guidelines were appropriate to address the industry's discharges. 

Industrial category: Ore mining and dressing; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2008-2011; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: EPA prepared a study 
published in 2011, which included a review of one currently used 
treatment technology: high density sludge recycling. The review 
included an overview of this treatment, where it was used in the 
United States, and permit requirements for facilities that used the 
technology; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA in 2011 decided to take no further action on 
ore mining and dressing. The agency found that a small number of 
facilities were responsible for the majority of discharges and decided 
to address the pollutants the NPDES permit process with permitting or 
through compliance and enforcement activities. 

Industrial category: Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2003-2004; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: EPA's study of this 
category included general descriptions of treatments currently used by 
the industry, as well as a more detailed discussion of pollution 
prevention and wastewater treatment technologies used to minimize the 
amount of dioxin in wastewater streams; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA in 2004 decided to take no further action for 
the category because of the small number of facilities discharging 
significant amounts of toxic pollutants. 

Industrial category: Petroleum refining; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2003-2004; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: In its study of the 
petroleum refining category, EPA presented general information on 
current treatments used by refineries to treat wastewater produced and 
on additional pollution control alternatives; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA in 2004 decided to take no further action on 
petroleum refining because it found that most petroleum refining 
facilities were not discharging toxic pollutants. For the few 
facilities that were, the agency said it would seek changes through 
the NPDES permit process. 

Industrial category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2005-2006; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: In its 2006 study, EPA 
identified technologies used in a laboratory setting, pilot programs, 
and industry to remove metals in wastewater from pulp and paper mills; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: On the basis of findings from the further review 
phase, including that some available technologies were site-specific 
and not readily adaptable industrywide, EPA in 2006 decided to take no 
further action on this category. 

Industrial category: Steam electric power generating; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2005-2009; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: As part of its 2009 
study, EPA focused primarily on technologies associated with two 
sources (coal-ash-handling operations and wastewater produced from 
specific air pollution control systems) because these sources account 
for a significant amount of the pollutants discharged by the industry; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: On the basis of findings from its study, EPA in 
2009 decided to begin revising the effluent guidelines for this 
category. Proposed revisions to existing guidelines are expected in 
November 2012, with final action expected by April 2014. 

New industrial categories considered: 

Industrial category: Dental facilities; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2006-2008; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: EPA issued a study of 
dental facilities in 2008. The study discussed best management 
practices for dental facilities to reduce their discharge of dental 
amalgam containing mercury. In particular, the study reviewed 
facilities' continuing use of amalgam separators; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA In 2008 announced that it would not pursue a 
rule making and would instead work with stakeholders, including the 
American Dental Association and state water agencies, on a voluntary 
discharge reduction program. In 2010, however, the agency reversed its 
decision after assessing the progress made under the voluntary 
reduction program. EPA expects to propose effluent guidelines in 2012. 

Industrial category: Drinking water treatment; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2004-2011; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: EPA reviewed available 
treatment technologies as part of a 2011 study of the industry. 
Because drinking water treatment operations vary--in types of 
contaminants found at different plants, for example--the study 
presented a range of treatment approaches; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA took no further action on this category 
because the agency found that discharges from the category could best 
be addressed by adding limits to specific NPDES permits. In addition, 
according to agency officials, the 2011 technical report can provide 
information on technologies for state permit writers for drinking 
water treatment facilities. 

Industrial category: Pharmaceuticals management[D]; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2006-present; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: According to EPA 
officials, a study of the industrial category is still under way. 
Officials said that because of the nature of the industry, they are 
pursuing a "front-end" strategy to prevent flushing of unused 
pharmaceuticals into wastewater systems. Given this approach, 
treatment technologies will not be a primary focus of the agency's 
further review process; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: EPA continues to work on its study, although 
according to agency officials, no further action is expected toward 
developing new effluent guidelines for this industry. Instead, the 
agency plans to update draft guidance issued in August 2010 on best 
management practices for unused pharmaceuticals at health care 
facilities. 

Industrial category: Tobacco products processing; 
Period for further review[A]: Categories with existing effluent 
guidelines: 2004-2006; 
Consideration of treatment technology during further review: 
Categories with existing effluent guidelines: In 2006, EPA issued a 
study on this industry, which provided an overview of the treatment 
process typically used by tobacco products facilities; 
Key agency decisions after further review: Categories with existing 
effluent guidelines: The agency found that the category comprises 
primarily indirect dischargers; that pollutant loads are low; and, 
according to EPA officials, wastewater treatment plants remove 96 
percent of the loads. EPA in 2006 therefore decided to take no further 
action. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA documents. 

[A] The dates of further review (1) start with the year when EPA 
announced in an effluent guidelines program plan that it would conduct 
a study and (2) end with the year when EPA completed that work. 

[B] Chlorine and chlorinated hydrocarbons manufacturing is a 
subcategory of two existing effluent guidelines categories: (1) 
organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers and (2) inorganic 
chemicals. 

[C] Coalbed methane extraction is not covered by an existing effluent 
guidelines category, although EPA considers the industry a new 
subcategory of the oil and gas extraction category . 

[D] Pharmaceuticals management is not to be confused with 
pharmaceutical manufacturing. 

[End of table] 

During its further review phase, EPA also obtains and analyzes 
information related to the cost, affordability, and performance of 
technologies, the third factor in its strategy. To do so, EPA examines 
the cost and performance of applicable technologies, changes in 
production processes, or prevention alternatives that may reduce 
pollutants in the industrial category's discharge. As part of its cost 
analysis, the agency considers the affordability or economic 
achievability of any identified technologies, production processes, or 
prevention alternatives. To assess the performance of technologies, 
EPA considers the results of the treatment technologies used in tests 
or actual operations--information the agency obtains from published 
research papers and internal and external sources, including site 
visits and surveys of industrial facilities.[Footnote 28] During its 
further review of the steam electricity power-generating industry, for 
example, EPA sampled wastewater directly at power plants, surveyed 
plant operators about which technologies they were using to minimize 
pollutant discharges and at what cost, and sought information on other 
potential treatment technologies. 

[Side bar: Coalbed Methane Extraction Industrial Category: 

Coalbed methane extraction requires the removal of groundwater to 
facilitate the flow of natural gas to the surface, unlike extraction 
of conventional natural gas. The industrial category is currently 
unregulated. Through a nationwide survey, EPA determined that the
750 coalbed methane extraction projects across the country use 56,000 
individual wells. Total dissolved solids in the discharge from coalbed 
methane extraction wells are EPA's chief pollutant of concern. The 
photograph shows a tanker truck loading groundwater collected during 
methane extraction. According to agency documents, EPA plans to 
propose an effluent guideline for this portion of the oil and gas 
extraction industrial category in 2013. 

[Photograph: Source: EPA documentation] 
End of side bar] 

At the conclusion of its further review of an industrial category, EPA 
decides whether it is feasible and appropriate to revise or develop 
effluent guidelines for the category, a decision that includes 
gathering information on whether an effluent guideline is the most 
efficient and effective approach to manage the discharges, the fourth 
factor in EPA's draft strategy. As shown in table 3, for example, EPA 
decided that the drinking water treatment industrial category did not 
require effluent guidelines but that the agency's study could act as a 
resource for state permit writers as they issue permits for drinking 
water facilities. Or, as also shown in table 3 for coalbed methane, 
EPA decided to develop guidelines that it plans to propose in 2013. 
Some of the information EPA can consider during this decision making, 
and some of the information related to the fourth factor in its 
strategy, is the extent to which existing effluent guidelines could be 
revised to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to technological 
innovation or to promote innovative approaches. Specifically, EPA 
considers whether another way exists--either regulatory or voluntary--
to decrease pollutant discharges. For example, after the further 
review of the dental facility category in 2008, EPA decided not to 
develop effluent guidelines but to instead work with the American 
Dental Association and state water agencies on a voluntary reduction 
program to reduce pollutant discharges from dental facilities. It 
later changed its decision because the voluntary effort was shown to 
be ineffective, and the agency plans to issue effluent guidelines in 
2012. 

It takes EPA, on average, 3 to 4 years to complete the further review 
phase for an industrial category. As of July 2012, EPA had identified 
three industrial categories for which it had decided to revise 
effluent guidelines--steam electric power generating--or to develop 
new effluent guidelines--coalbed methane extraction and dental 
facilities.[Footnote 29] According to agency documents and officials, 
EPA has chosen to take no action on the other 9 of the 12 categories 
it has further reviewed since 2002. 

Focus on Limited Hazard Data to the Exclusion of Technology 
Information May Have Led EPA to Overlook Industrial Categories for 
Pollution Reduction: 

Limitations in the screening phase of EPA's review process may have 
caused the agency to overlook some industrial categories that warrant 
new or revised effluent guidelines and thus hinder the effectiveness 
of the effluent guidelines program in advancing the goals of the Clean 
Water Act. First, the data EPA uses in the screening phase has 
limitations that may cause the agency to omit industrial categories 
from further review or regulation. Second, EPA has chosen to focus its 
screening phase on the hazards associated with industrial categories, 
without considering the availability of treatment technologies or 
production changes that could reduce those hazards. The screening 
phase of the process may thus exclude some industrial categories for 
which treatment technologies or production changes may be available to 
serve as the basis for new or revised effluent guidelines. 

Limitations in Hazard Data May Have Caused EPA to Overlook Industrial 
Categories: 

The two sources EPA relies on during its initial screening process--
discharge monitoring reports and the Toxic Release Inventory--have 
limitations that may affect the agency's ability to accurately rank 
industrial categories for further review on the basis of the human 
health and environmental hazards associated with those categories. 
Data from industrial facilities' discharge monitoring reports have the 
benefit of being national in scope, according to EPA documents, but 
according to agency officials and some experts we spoke with, these 
data have several limitations that could lead the agency to 
underestimate the hazard caused by particular industries. Specifically: 

* The reports contain data only for those pollutants that facilities' 
permits require them to monitor. Under NPDES, states and EPA offices 
issue permits containing limits for pollutant discharges, but those 
permits may not include limits for all the pollutants that may be 
discharged, as for example, if those pollutants are not included in 
the relevant effluent guidelines or need not be limited for the 
facility to meet state water quality standards.[Footnote 30] If a 
pollutant is not identified in a permit, and hence not reported on 
discharge monitoring reports, it would not be part of EPA's 
calculation of hazard and would not count toward the ranking of 
industrial categories. 

* The reports do not include data from all permitted facilities. 
Specifically, EPA does not require the states to report monitoring 
results from direct dischargers classified as minor. According to EPA, 
the agency in 2010 analyzed data for approximately 15,000 minor 
facilities, or about 37 percent of the 40,500 minor facilities covered 
by NPDES permits. As a result, the pollutants discharged by the 
remaining 25,500 minor dischargers would not be counted as part of the 
relative toxicity rating and could contribute to undercounting of 
pollutants from those industrial categories. For example, most coal 
mining companies in Pennsylvania and West Virginia are considered 
minor dischargers whose pollutants would not count toward the ranking 
of that industrial category. 

* The reports include very limited data characterizing indirect 
discharges from industrial facilities to wastewater treatment plants, 
according to EPA documents. Thus, the data do not fully document 
pollutants that, if not removed by a wastewater treatment plant, are 
discharged. These data are not incorporated into EPA's calculations of 
hazard for each industrial category, and thus result in underestimated 
hazards.[Footnote 31] 

EPA documents and some experts we contacted also stated that data 
collected in the Toxics Release Inventory are useful to identify toxic 
discharges. Nevertheless, according to the agency and experts, these 
inventory data have limitations that may cause EPA to either 
overestimate or underestimate the relative toxicity of particular 
industrial categories. The limitations they identified include the 
following: 

* The data reported are sometimes estimates and not actual monitored 
data. In some cases, the use of an estimate may overreport actual 
pollutant discharges. For example, some industry experts said that to 
be conservative and avoid possible liability, some facilities engaging 
in processes that produce particularly toxic pollutants, such as 
dioxin, may report the discharge of a small amount on the basis of an 
EPA-prescribed method for estimating such discharges even if the 
pollutant had not been actually monitored. 

* Not all facilities are required to report to the inventory, which 
may lead to undercounting the discharges for the industrial categories 
of which the facilities are a part. Facilities with fewer than 10 
employees are not required to report to the inventory, and neither are 
facilities that do not manufacture, import, process, or use more than 
a threshold amount of listed chemicals. For example, facilities that 
manufacture or process lead or dioxin do not need to report to the 
inventory unless the amount of chemical manufactured or processed 
reaches 10 pounds for lead or 0.1 grams for dioxin. 

Despite the limitations of these data sources, EPA officials said that 
discharge monitoring reports and the Toxic Inventory Release are the 
best available data on a national level. Experts we interviewed also 
generally supported the continued use of these data sources despite 
their limitations. An EPA official responsible for the screening and 
review process said that EPA could not quantify the effect of the 
missing data on its ranking and setting of priorities for industries 
without time-consuming and expensive collecting of data directly from 
industrial facilities. Still, agency officials agreed that the data 
limitations can lead to under-or overestimating the hazard of 
discharges from industrial categories, which could in turn affect the 
rankings of these categories and potentially result in different 
categories advancing for further review and potential regulation. 

EPA's Screening Phase Does Not Consider Treatment Technologies, 
Omitting Some Industrial Categories from Further Review: 

EPA's primary focus during its screening phase is the relative hazard 
posed by industrial categories, without consideration of available 
treatment technologies that could be used as the basis for revised 
effluent guidelines to help reduce pollutant discharges. Because EPA 
sets the cutoff point in its screening process as industrial 
categories contributing to 95 percent of total reported hazard, the 
agency does not consider for further review the categories 
contributing to 5 percent of the total reported hazard. Although this 
percentage is low, the categories involved constitute the majority of 
all industrial categories with effluent guidelines. EPA does not 
conduct a further review for these and other industrial categories 
that it has excluded for other reasons, meaning that EPA does not 
examine them for the availability of more-effective treatment 
technologies. As previously noted, the Ninth Circuit Court held in 
2008 that EPA does not have a mandatory duty to consider technology in 
its screening process but stated that the act strongly suggests that 
any review to determine whether revision of effluent guidelines is 
appropriate should contemplate technology-based factors. Regardless of 
whether EPA is required to do so, the agency is not considering 
technology for these industrial categories, and hence EPA cannot 
ensure that the facilities in these categories are using the best 
available treatment technology. 

According to our analysis of EPA's planning documents for the effluent 
guidelines program, since the agency in 2003 began using its current 
screening process, more than half the industrial categories with 
effluent guidelines did not advance beyond the screening phase in any 
year from 2003 to 2010. The reason these categories did not advance 
was that, during a given 2-year screening cycle, the relative toxicity 
of their pollutant discharges did not put them among the top 95 
percent of dischargers. As a result, these industrial categories were 
excluded from further review before EPA would have analyzed the 
availability of more-advanced treatment technologies or production 
processes. As figure 4 shows, from 2003 through 2010, out of the 57 
industrial categories with existing effluent guidelines at the time of 
review, EPA excluded 35 in each of the four biennial screening cycles, 
thus omitting them from further review of the availability of 
treatment technologies or production processes that could reduce 
hazards from discharges.[Footnote 32] (See appendix III for further 
information on the industrial categories that have and have not come 
within the top 95 percent since 2003.) 

Figure 4: Number of Times Existing Industrial Categories Were in the 
Top 95 Percent of Total Reported Hazards in the Four Biennial 
Screening Phases from 2003 through 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of times: 0 of 4; 
Number of industrial categories: 35. 

Number of times: 1 of 4; 
Number of industrial categories: 10. 

Number of times: 2 of 4; 
Number of industrial categories: 2. 

Number of times: 3 of 4; 
Number of industrial categories: 3. 

Number of times: 4 of 4; 
Number of industrial categories: 7. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

Note: The total number of industrial categories with effluent 
guidelines during this period was 57. 

[End of figure] 

As noted in 4 of the 17 interviews with experts we interviewed from 
academia, industry, nonprofit organizations, and state and local water 
quality agencies, consideration of treatment technologies is 
especially important for older effluent guidelines because either the 
industrial categories or the treatment technologies would have been 
more likely to change, making it possible that new, more advanced 
treatment technologies are available. As table 4 shows, however, 
effluent guidelines have not been revised since the 1980s for 8 of the 
35 industrial categories that have been excluded from further review. 
Further, 25 of the 35 effluent guidelines for categories that were 
excluded from further review have not been revised since 1995 or 
earlier. Battery manufacturing, for example, has not been through the 
further review phase since EPA began using its current screening and 
review process. Yet according to state officials we interviewed, the 
effluent guidelines for this category apply to older battery types and 
do not address wastewater from the manufacture of newer battery types, 
such as those made with lithium. In addition, even in cases where EPA 
has revised the effluent guideline for an industrial category, the 
revision may have addressed just a portion of the guideline. For 
example, EPA may add pollutants or change the limits for a particular 
industrial category or add a new subcategory. Thus, the guidelines for 
the category as a whole may not have been revised since the guidelines 
were originally promulgated. Table 4 shows the 35 industrial 
categories that were excluded from further review over the last 8 
years, the year effluent guidelines were promulgated, and the year the 
categories' guidelines were most recently revised. 

Table 4: Regulated Industrial Categories Excluded in the Screening 
Phase from Further Review, 2003-2010: 

Industrial category: Porcelain enameling; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 27. 

Industrial category: Electrical and electronic components; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 27. 

Industrial category: Electroplating; 
Year promulgated: 1981; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 26. 

Industrial category: Copper forming; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 26. 

Industrial category: Metal finishing; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 26. 

Industrial category: Battery manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1984; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 26. 

Industrial category: Aluminum forming; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1988; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 24. 

Industrial category: Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders; 
Year promulgated: 1985; 
Year most recently revised: 1989; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 23. 

Industrial category: Asbestos manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables 
processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved seafood processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Dairy products processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Ferroalloy manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Glass manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Grain mills; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Soap and detergent manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Sugar processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Ink formulating; 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Paint formulating; 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt); 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Explosives manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Gum and wood chemicals; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Hospital; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Carbon black manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1978; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 17. 

Industrial category: Leather tanning and finishing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1996; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 16. 

Industrial category: Pharmaceutical manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 2003; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 9. 

Industrial category: Iron and steel manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 2005; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 7. 

Industrial category: Transportation equipment cleaning; 
Year promulgated: 2000; 
Year most recently revised: 2005; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 7. 

Industrial category: Coil coating; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 2007; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 5. 

Industrial category: Concentrated animal feeding operations; 
Year promulgated: 2003; 
Year most recently revised: 2008; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: 4. 

Industrial category: Photographic; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: No revisions; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: No revisions. 

Industrial category: Metal products and machinery; 
Year promulgated: 2003; 
Year most recently revised: No revisions; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: No revisions. 

Industrial category: Concentrated aquatic animal production; 
Year promulgated: 2004; 
Year most recently revised: No revisions; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: No revisions. 

Industrial category: Meat and poultry products; 
Year promulgated: 2004; 
Year most recently revised: No revisions; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: No revisions. 

Industrial category: Construction and development; 
Year promulgated: 2009; 
Year most recently revised: No revisions; 
Number of years elapsed since most recent revision: No revisions. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA documentation. 

Note: In a given year, EPA may have revised just a portion of the 
effluent guideline for an industrial category. For example, EPA may 
have added pollutants or changed the pollutant limits for a particular 
industrial category or added a new subcategory. 

[End of table] 

Our survey of state water quality directors, who are responsible for 
NPDES permits, also identified industrial categories that have been 
omitted from EPA's further review phase even when treatment 
technologies may be available. Specifically, state officials 
identified nine industrial categories that they think pose significant 
risk and have treatment technologies or pollution prevention practices 
available to mitigate that risk, categories for which the effluent 
guidelines should be revised. Further, state officials generally 
thought that industries could implement the technologies without 
financial hardship. Nevertheless, EPA has excluded these industrial 
categories from further review because they did not contribute to the 
top 95 percent of total reported hazard. At least one state director 
identified one or more of the following nine industrial categories as 
needing revised effluent guidelines, noting that their pollutants were 
hazardous to human health or the environment and technologies were 
available to further reduce these hazards: canned and preserved 
seafood processing; dairy products processing; electrical and 
electronic components; electroplating; grain mills; meat and poultry 
products; metal finishing; pharmaceutical manufacturing; and sugar 
processing. With regard to metal finishing, for example, state 
officials said that existing guidelines reflect processes no longer in 
use and do not address newer and more common production techniques and 
associated pollutants. In contrast, state officials agreed with EPA's 
efforts to revise or develop new effluent guidelines for certain other 
industrial categories, including steam electric power generation and 
airport deicing. (For more information on our survey and its results, 
see appendix II.) 

In its 2002 draft strategy, EPA recognized the importance of including 
treatment technology in its screening phase but later stated that it 
was unable to develop an approach it deemed feasible for gathering 
such information. The draft strategy included treatment technology as 
one of the factors that EPA would use to screen industrial categories 
to determine if they needed new or revised effluent guidelines. 
According to the draft strategy, EPA was to obtain information on 
available treatment technologies and pollution prevention practices by 
regularly reviewing trade publications; participating in professional 
conferences; and consulting with permit writers, industry 
representatives, and the public. EPA initially pursued this approach, 
but in 2003 concluded that gathering the data needed to perform a 
meaningful screening-level analysis for technology was much more 
resource intensive than anticipated[Footnote 33] and restricted the 
screening phase to comparing the degree of hazard posed by various 
industrial categories.[Footnote 34] Yet without treatment technology 
data, the agency cannot be confident that the effluent guidelines 
program is meeting the Clean Water Act's goal of applying the best 
available technologies economically achievable or that the program 
reflects advances in the technologies used to reduce pollutants in 
wastewater. 

EPA Is Adding Hazard Data Sources but Is Not Fully Using Potential 
Sources of Information on Treatment Technologies: 

EPA has begun to take actions to improve the hazard data it uses in 
its screening of industrial categories, but it is not fully using 
potential sources of information on treatment technologies for 
consideration in this screening. According to program officials, EPA 
has recognized that its screening phase has resulted in the same 
industries rising repeatedly to the top of its hazard rankings. 
Program officials said that they are considering changes to their 
screening approach to identify additional industrial categories for 
further review. The primary change, the officials told us, would be to 
rank categories according to toxicity every 2 years, rather than 
annually, and to supplement that ranking with a targeted analysis of 
additional sources of data. To develop such revisions, officials from 
EPA's effluent guidelines program engaged in an informal 
"brainstorming" exercise within the agency and identified several 
sources of data on new and emerging pollutants, sources that officials 
think could help target industrial categories for further review. EPA 
officials said they will propose revisions to the review process in 
the 2012 preliminary effluent guidelines program plan they expect to 
issue late in 2012. 

To mitigate the limitations with hazard data that EPA currently 
experiences, the agency has taken several steps to obtain new sources 
of information and to improve existing sources. Using additional 
sources of data is consistent with suggestions made to us by several 
academic and governmental experts we interviewed that other sources of 
hazard data may be useful to the agency, including additional 
monitoring data and data on the quality of water bodies receiving 
wastewater discharges.[Footnote 35] The new data sources would broaden 
the hazard data considered in the screening phase. Among the sources 
EPA intends to pursue for future use are the following: 

* a 2009 EPA survey of sludge produced by wastewater treatment plants 
to identify pollutants entering these plants, indicating that they are 
not being treated by an industrial facility and might need regulation; 

* a review of action plans prepared under EPA's Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxic Substances for specific chemicals of emerging 
concern to identify pollutants that are likely to be discharged to 
waters by industrial point sources; 

* a review of all EPA air pollution regulations issued within the last 
10 to15 years to identify new treatment processes that could add to or 
change the pollutants in wastewater streams;[Footnote 36] and: 

* a review of data and information available concerning industries 
that EPA is considering for a proposed expansion of required reporting 
for the Toxics Release Inventory. 

EPA is also drafting a rule that would increase the information EPA 
receives electronically from discharge monitoring reports from NPDES 
permittees and permitting authorities. According to officials with the 
effluent guidelines program, increased electronic reporting would 
result in a more complete and accurate database and improve their 
access to the hazard data from facilities' discharge monitoring 
reports, thereby improving the screening of industrial categories. For 
example, according to EPA officials, data on minor facilities that are 
not currently reported into the discharge monitoring database used in 
the screening process would be reported under the electronic reporting 
rule, as sent to the Office of Management and Budget for review. 
[Footnote 37] 

EPA recognizes the need to use information on treatment technologies 
in the screening phase to improve its process and has taken some 
initial steps to develop a database of such information, but it has 
not made full use of potential data sources. EPA started to gather 
information on treatment technology in 2011, contracting with 
consultants to obtain relevant literature for the database. In its 
comments on a draft of this report, the agency said that it will 
expand on this work in 2013 and 2014 once new fiscal year operating 
plans are in place. According to agency officials, a thorough analysis 
of the literature would give the program an updated technology 
database, which would help in identifying advances in technologies in 
use or with potential use in industrial categories, which, on the 
basis of these advances, may in turn warrant further review. They 
noted that in the 1980s and 1990s, the program used such information 
from an agency database but that the database had become outdated. 

In more than half of our interviews (10 of 17), experts told us that 
EPA should consider technology in its screening phase,[Footnote 38] 
and some of them suggested the following two approaches for obtaining 
this information: 

* Stakeholder outreach. Experts suggested that key stakeholders could 
provide information on technology earlier in the screening process. 
Currently, EPA solicits views and information from stakeholders during 
public comment periods following issuance of preliminary and final 
effluent guidelines plans. According to experts, EPA could obtain up-
to-date information and data from stakeholders beyond these formal 
comment periods. For example, EPA officials could (1) attend annual 
workshops and conferences hosted by industries and associations, such 
as engineering associations, or host their own expert panels to learn 
about new treatment technologies and (2) work with industrial research 
and development institutes to learn about efforts to reduce wastewater 
pollution through production changes or treatment technologies. 

* NPDES permits and related documentation. Experts suggested that to 
find more information on treatment technologies available for specific 
pollutants, EPA could make better use of information in NPDES permit 
documentation. For example, when applying for NPDES permits, 
facilities must describe which pollutants they will be discharging and 
what treatment processes they will use to mitigate these discharges. 
Such information could help EPA officials administering the effluent 
guidelines program as they seek technologies to reduce pollutants in 
similar wastewater streams from similar industrial processes. 
Similarly, information from issued NPDES permits containing the more 
stringent water quality-based limits--which may lead a facility to 
apply more advanced treatment technologies--could suggest the 
potential for improved reductions. Further, information in fact sheets 
prepared by the permitting authority could also furnish information on 
pollutants or technologies that could help EPA identify new 
technologies for use in effluent guidelines. 

According to EPA officials, these two sources of information have not 
been extensively used. They said that they would like to obtain more 
stakeholder input during screening and review, but they have limited 
time, resources, and ability to work with stakeholders. They noted 
that the effluent guidelines program does assign staff members 
responsibility for keeping up with technologies and developments in 
specific industrial categories. They also said that the NPDES 
information suggested by experts is not current or readily available 
for use by the program. 

Our analysis of NPDES information, however, showed that EPA has not 
taken steps to make the information available for use by the effluent 
guidelines program. For example, the standard list of treatment 
processes on the NPDES application form has not been updated since 
1980, and EPA officials said it was out of date. Yet EPA has not 
updated this information or provided it to the effluent guidelines 
program for use in screening available technologies. EPA could have 
done so through a second rulemaking effort under way to improve NPDES 
data--in which EPA is updating NPDES application forms to make them 
more consistent with NPDES regulations and current program practices--
but chose not to. Agency documents about this rulemaking described it 
as modifying or repealing reporting requirements that have become 
obsolete or outdated over the past 20 years and modifying permit 
documentation procedures to improve the quality and transparency of 
permit development. Nonetheless, effluent guidelines program officials 
said that they did not request potential NPDES permit updates relevant 
to their program because the scope of this rulemaking was too narrow. 
EPA's Office of Wastewater Management, which is responsible for the 
rulemaking, confirmed that the scope of the proposed rule is to be 
narrow and not call for states or permittees to provide new 
information. 

Further, fact sheets or similar documentation that NPDES permit 
writers develop describing the basis for permit conditions are not 
stored in EPA's electronic NPDES database and are therefore difficult 
to obtain and analyze, according to program officials. Instead, these 
NPDES documents are now maintained by the authorized states or EPA 
regions and are not readily accessible to the effluent guidelines 
program. Program officials said that electronic transmission of fact 
sheets or information about the basis for permit limits could be 
useful in identifying treatment technologies, although the scope of 
the electronic reporting rulemaking did not include such documents or 
information. Officials from the Office of Enforcement and Compliance 
Assurance, the office responsible for this rulemaking, told us that 
they discovered such wide variability among the states' practices for 
gathering and managing NPDES information like fact sheets or the basis 
for permit limits that it would be difficult to call for electronic 
reporting of such information. 

Conclusions: 

EPA and the nation have made great strides in reducing the pollutants 
in wastewater discharged from point sources, such as industrial 
facilities, since the Clean Water Act was passed. EPA's effluent 
guidelines program has been key in contributing to these results by 
establishing national uniform limits on pollutant discharges for 
various industrial categories. Progress within the program has slowed, 
however, and numerous effluent guidelines for particular industrial 
categories have not been revised for 2 or 3 decades, although the act 
calls for EPA to routinely review its effluent guidelines and update 
or add to them as appropriate. EPA's approach for screening and 
further reviewing industrial categories, as currently implemented, has 
not identified many categories for the agency to consider for new or 
revised guidelines, and the screening process has identified many of 
the same industrial categories year after year. EPA's approach focuses 
its resources on the most hazardous sources of pollution, but its 
reliance on incomplete hazard data during the screening phase has 
limited the results of the approach, as has EPA's inability to 
thoroughly collect treatment technology data within its resource 
constraints. Under EPA's current approach, most industrial categories 
have not received a detailed further review examining the availability 
of more-effective treatment technologies. According to some experts, 
consideration of treatment technologies is especially important for 
older effluent guidelines because changes in either the industrial 
categories or the treatment technologies are more likely to have 
occurred, making it possible that new, more advanced and cost-
effective treatment technologies have become available. EPA has 
recently taken steps to obtain more information on treatment 
technologies for use in its screening phase--which could help make up 
for limitations in the hazard data it currently uses--but it has not 
taken steps to improve and gain access to technology information from 
the NPDES program. Further, EPA is reconsidering its approach to its 
screening and review process--initially documented in its draft 
strategy that was never finalized--but has not analyzed a range of 
possible sources of data to improve the program, including taking full 
advantage of the NPDES database, obtaining relevant stakeholder input, 
and reviewing older effluent guidelines for changes in either the 
industry or available treatment technologies. Without evaluating a 
range of new sources of relevant information, officials with the 
effluent guidelines program cannot ensure that the reconsidered 
approach can be implemented or that it optimizes the agency's ability 
to consider technology in the screening process. Most important, 
without a more thorough and integrated screening approach that both 
improves hazard information and considers treatment technology data, 
EPA cannot be certain that the effluent guidelines program is 
reflecting advances in the treatment technologies used to reduce 
pollutants in wastewater. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To improve the effectiveness of EPA's efforts to update or develop new 
effluent guidelines, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA direct 
the effluent guidelines program to take the following three actions, 
as it considers revisions to its screening and review process: 

* Identify and evaluate additional sources of data on the hazards 
posed by the discharges from industrial categories. 

* Identify and evaluate sources of information to improve the agency's 
assessment in the screening phase of treatment technologies that are 
in use or available for use by industrial categories, including better 
use of NPDES data. 

* Modify the screening phase of its review process to include thorough 
consideration of information on the treatment technologies available 
to industrial categories. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. In 
its written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV, EPA said 
that our report adequately describes the agency's effluent guidelines 
program and agreed in principle with two of the report's 
recommendations but disagreed with the third recommendation. EPA also 
provided several technical comments, which we have incorporated as 
appropriate. 

Regarding our first recommendation, that EPA identify and evaluate 
additional sources of data on the hazards posed by industrial 
discharges and factor these into its annual reviews, EPA agreed that 
additional sources of such data are valuable. For this reason, EPA 
said, it began collecting new sources of hazard information in 2011, 
which the agency is using in its 2012 annual review. EPA also said 
that its preliminary 2012 effluent guideline program plan will solicit 
additional ideas for new hazard data sources from the public and 
industry stakeholders. We described EPA's ongoing and planned efforts 
in our report, but because the agency has not yet published its 
preliminary 2012 effluent guideline program plan, we cannot determine 
the extent to which these efforts address the limitations we 
identified in its hazard data. Likewise, we are not able at this time 
to confirm that EPA will solicit additional sources of such data from 
stakeholders. We support EPA's stated intent to identify and evaluate 
additional sources of hazard data and retain our recommendation, 
reinforcing the need for the agency to continue the efforts it has 
begun. 

Regarding our second recommendation, that EPA should identify and 
evaluate additional sources of information to improve its assessment 
of treatment technologies for industrial dischargers, EPA agreed that 
treatment technology information is useful to its program. The agency 
added that, given the importance of new treatment technology 
information, in 2011 it initiated efforts to gather more treatment 
information across all industry categories and will be expanding on 
this work in 2013 and 2014, once new fiscal year operating plans are 
in place. We described EPA's initiative to obtain and review technical 
literature on treatment technology in our report. We nevertheless 
believe that EPA could use other sources of information on treatment 
technology, including information associated with NPDES permits, as 
described in the report. We continue to believe that EPA should 
identify and evaluate these and other sources of information on 
treatment technologies, with the goal of ensuring that the agency's 
effluent guidelines reflect the best available treatment technologies 
that are economically achievable. 

Regarding our third recommendation, that EPA modify the screening 
phase of its review process to include a thorough consideration of 
information on the treatment technologies available to industrial 
categories, EPA agreed that factoring treatment technology information 
into its reviews is valuable. The agency said, however, that the 
recommendation was not workable in the context of the agency's current 
screening phase, noting that such an effort would be very resource 
intensive. Our concern is that EPA's current screening phase, while 
targeted toward high-risk industries, does not ensure that effluent 
guidelines incorporate the best available treatment technologies that 
are economically achievable. We acknowledge that evaluating 
technologies for all existing industrial categories could be difficult 
for EPA to accomplish on an annual basis under its current approach. 
Our recommendation, however, did not specify that such an evaluation 
be done every year. For example, EPA could commit to a detailed study 
of the technologies in use and available to an industrial category on 
a periodic basis (i.e., every 5-10 years). As noted in our report, 
EPA's 2002 draft strategy recognized the importance of evaluating 
treatment technologies in its screening phase, and the Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that, while not mandatory, the 
Clean Water Act strongly suggests that in determining whether the 
revision of effluent guidelines is appropriate--which begins with the 
screening phase--the agency should contemplate technology-based 
factors. However, we are not aware of any detailed EPA evaluation of 
options for considering technology during the screening phase since 
the agency announced in 2003 that performing a meaningful screening-
level analysis of the availability of treatment technologies as 
planned in the draft strategy was "much more difficult than 
anticipated." We believe that, nearly a decade later, EPA should, 
within the constraints of available resources, evaluate current 
options to consider such technologies in its screening phase. 
Furthermore, given its efforts to develop and update its technology 
information, we believe that EPA should clarify how it plans to 
incorporate this information in its screening phase. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
Administrator of EPA, the appropriate congressional committees, and 
other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at 
no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact 
points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

David C. Trimble: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To examine the process the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
follows to screen and review industrial categories and the results of 
that process, we reviewed the Clean Water Act and relevant court 
decisions and agency documents, interviewed agency officials and 
experts, and documented the steps EPA has taken to screen particular 
industrial categories for possible new or revised effluent guidelines. 
Specifically, we reviewed relevant portions of the Clean Water Act to 
determine EPA's responsibilities regarding the effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment programs. We analyzed several court decisions that ruled 
on challenges to EPA's effluent guidelines program to determine what, 
if any, impact they had on the agency's screening and review process. 
Further, we interviewed officials in EPA's Engineering and Analysis 
Division to learn how the agency has used the process to screen and 
review industries. We focused our review on the results of the process 
EPA used from 2003 through 2010 in order to examine the approach it 
developed after the publication in November 2002 of its draft Strategy 
for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations: Effluent Limitation 
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance 
Standards. By the end of our review, EPA had not yet published a 
preliminary or final effluent guideline program plan for the 2011-2012 
planning cycle. 

To document the results of EPA's process, we examined the agency's 
screening decisions for all industrial categories from 2003 through 
2010. Specifically, we examined EPA's final effluent guideline plans 
and technical support documents for 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2010 and the 
agency's website to identify screening decisions and subsequent 
studies associated with particular industries. We examined these 
studies to identify those industries that EPA subjected to further 
review, which included an examination of available treatment 
technologies. Specifically, we examined preliminary and detailed 
studies for the 12 industries that EPA advanced beyond the screening 
phase into further review and selected 7 of them for more robust 
analysis to document how EPA had applied the process to those 
industries. The 7 industries were ore mining and dressing, coalbed 
methane extraction, steam electric power generation, chlorine and 
chlorinated hydrocarbon, drinking water treatment, pharmaceuticals 
management, and dental facilities. That analysis included in-depth 
interviews with EPA staff assigned to those industrial categories. 
These 7 industrial categories met our selection criteria that they be 
active or recently active, that is, that EPA was reviewing them or had 
made a decision to proceed or not to proceed with a rulemaking as 
recently as 2011 or 2012. We also documented the current status of any 
regulatory actions or other steps that EPA had taken with the other 5 
industries that received a further review. We also examined the 
planning documents for 2 industrial categories--airport deicing and 
construction and development--that did not go through EPA's 2003-2010 
screening and review process but were the subject of regulatory 
activity during our study period. 

To examine limitations to EPA's screening and review process, if any, 
that could hinder the effectiveness of the effluent guidelines program 
in advancing the goals of the Clean Water Act, we pursued three 
separate methodologies: we (1) interviewed a cross section of experts 
on EPA's effluent guidelines program, (2) surveyed the water quality 
permit directors of the 46 states that are authorized to issue permits 
for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and 
(3) analyzed information about the hazard data sources EPA uses in its 
screening process. 

We identified individuals for possible "expert" interviews by 
compiling a list of approximately 50 people from a variety of sources 
relevant to the effluent guideline program, including referrals from 
EPA, the Association of Clean Water Agencies, and the National 
Association of Clean Water Agencies and by consulting other 
knowledgeable individuals, relevant academic literature, and 
litigation documents. We classified the individuals by their 
affiliation with a particular stakeholder category (academia, 
industry, nongovernmental organization, or state and local water 
quality agencies). We then excluded from consideration 13 individuals 
for whom we could not obtain contact information. We called or sent an 
electronic message to those individuals for whom we had contact 
information to ask if they were familiar with EPA's current effluent 
guidelines screening and review process. We excluded from 
consideration those individuals who told us that they were not 
familiar with these processes, those who could not speak with us 
during the time frame of our review, and those who said they were not 
interested in contributing to our review. From our larger list of 
approximately 50 experts, we selected 22 individuals to interview whom 
we determined to be experts on the basis of their familiarity with the 
program and their affiliation with a particular stakeholder category. 
We conducted 17 interviews including these 22 individuals from 
February 2012 to April 2012. Six of these interviews were with 
officials from industry, 4 from academia, 4 from state and local 
government, and 3 from nongovernmental organizations. In 4 cases, more 
than one expert participated in an interview. We prepared and asked a 
standard set of questions about the overall effectiveness of the 
effluent guidelines program and EPA's use of hazard data, stakeholder 
input, and information on treatment technology in the screening 
process. We then reviewed their responses to identify common themes. 
The sample of experts is a nonprobability sample, and we therefore 
cannot generalize their opinions across all experts on the effluent 
guideline program. 

To assess the extent to which effluent guidelines might need to be 
revised, we conducted a web-based survey of state water quality 
directors, and we statistically analyzed the data. Appendix II 
presents a complete description of our survey and our data analysis. 

To obtain information about an industry that EPA had not analyzed in a 
further review phase, we selected one of the nine industries that 
states in our survey said presented a risk to human health or the 
environment, had treatment technology available to reduce that risk, 
and warranted revision. We asked officials from the five states whose 
responses for the metal finishing industry met all three of the above 
criteria a standard set of questions about the risk the metal 
finishing industrial category posed, the technology available to 
mitigate this risk, and the likely effect of a revised effluent 
guideline. 

We further interviewed experts about their views on the adequacy of 
the hazard data that EPA uses in its screening process--discharge 
monitoring reports and the Toxics Release Inventory--and whether the 
experts had suggestions for alternative data sources. We also reviewed 
EPA's own examinations of the benefits and limitations associated with 
the two data sources. EPA reports on these examinations of data 
quality in the technical support documents that accompany its effluent 
guideline program plans. In addition, we interviewed officials from 
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance to learn about 
the management of the databases that store discharge monitoring data. 
We also interviewed officials from the Engineering and Analysis 
Division in EPA's Office of Water about possible effects that 
incomplete or inaccurate data could have on the screening process. We 
did not perform an independent assessment of data quality, although we 
concluded from the information we gathered that the data do have 
limitations that could affect EPA's screening process. 

To examine the actions EPA has taken to address any limitations in its 
screening and review process, we interviewed effluent guideline 
program officials from the Engineering and Analysis Division about 
their plans to modify the biennial screening and review process. We 
also reviewed papers prepared for the division by a contractor, which 
describe new sources of data that the division could use to identify 
industrial categories potentially posing environmental hazards and 
warranting further review for possible new or revised effluent 
guidelines. In addition, we interviewed officials from the Engineering 
and Analysis Division, the Office of Wastewater Management, and the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance about agency efforts to 
revise the NPDES permitting process and the database that contains 
NPDES permit information. We conducted these interviews to determine 
what steps EPA has taken or could take to use these activities to 
improve the hazard and treatment technology data available for the 
screening process. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2011 to September 
2012, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Survey of State Water Quality Permit Writers and Analysis 
of Views about Whether EPA Should Revise Effluent Guidelines: 

To assess the extent to which effluent guidelines might need to be 
revised, and to better understand the reasons for any such revisions, 
we conducted a web-based survey of state water quality officials, and 
we statistically analyzed patterns in the survey data. Our analysis 
identified numerous industries in numerous states for which state 
officials think that EPA should revise its guidelines. Furthermore, 
our analysis suggests that a few key factors--particularly, the 
significance of risk posed by effluent and the availability of 
pollution control technology--largely influence these officials' views 
about whether guidelines should be revised. Details about our survey 
and our data analysis follow. 

Questionnaire Design: 

We designed our survey to ask respondents both (1) whether they 
thought EPA should revise effluent guidelines for certain industrial 
categories and (2) whether they thought the major factors that EPA 
considers when revising effluent guidelines were present for these 
industrial categories in their state. We reviewed EPA's 2002 draft 
Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial Regulations and 
identified the four key factors that the agency uses to determine 
whether effluent guidelines should be revised. These factors include 
(1) whether the effluent from a particular industrial category poses a 
significant risk to human health or the environment; (2) whether 
technology is available to substantially reduce the risk; (3) whether 
industry could adopt the technology without experiencing financial 
difficulty; and (4) whether other factors are present, such as whether 
current effluent guidelines for that industrial category are difficult 
to administer and whether revised guidelines could promote innovative 
regulatory approaches. We summarized these factors, using the exact 
language from EPA's guidance wherever possible, and wrote survey 
questions that were simple enough to yield valid responses. We 
determined that the fourth factor was too complicated to be expressed 
as a single survey question, and we divided it into two simpler 
questions. By designing the questionnaire in this way, we sought to 
increase the reliability of our survey data in two ways: First, asking 
respondents to assess each of the factors that EPA considers for 
revision before providing their views about whether EPA should revise 
effluent guidelines focused their attention on providing an informed 
opinion. Second, by obtaining data on both the decision-making factors 
and the need for effluent guideline revisions, we were able to conduct 
a statistical analysis to identify how these factors appear to 
influence states' views about the need for guideline revisions. 

Our survey was divided into three sections. In the first section, we 
asked states to respond to a series of questions about each of the 
five industrial categories that release the greatest amount of toxic 
effluent in their state. We originally considered surveying states 
about each of the 58 industrial categories regulated by effluent 
limitation guidelines. During initial interviews with state officials, 
however, we determined that this approach would be burdensome and 
impractical. Therefore, we used data on pollutant discharges from 
EPA's Toxics Release Inventory and discharge monitoring reports to 
select the five industries that discharged the greatest amount of 
toxic effluent in each state in 2010.[Footnote 39] For each of these 
five industrial categories, we asked states six questions, the first 
five of which pertain to EPA's decision-making factors and the last of 
which pertains to the need for revised effluent guidelines. The six 
questions we asked about each industry are as follows:[Footnote 40] 

1. Are the existing effluent guidelines for this industry[Footnote 41] 
sufficient on their own--that is, without additional water quality-
based effluent limits--to protect your state from significant risks 
[Footnote 42] to human health or the environment? 

2. Is there a technology, process change, or pollution prevention 
action that is available to this industry that would substantially 
reduce any risks that remain after the state applies existing effluent 
limits? 

3. Do you think this industry can afford to implement this risk-
reducing technology, process change, or pollution prevention action 
without experiencing financial difficulty? 

4. Are the current effluent guidelines for this industry difficult to 
understand, implement, monitor, or enforce? 

5. Do you think the current effluent guidelines for this industry 
could be revised to promote innovative approaches, such as water 
quality trading or multimedia benefits? 

6. Given your responses to the previous questions, do you think EPA 
should revise the current effluent guidelines for this industry? 

In addition to asking about the top five industrial categories in each 
state, we asked states about two other sets of industrial categories. 
First, we asked state officials to list up to three other categories 
that were not among the top five in their state but for which they 
thought the effluent guidelines should be revised. Second, we asked 
these officials to list up to three categories that are not regulated 
by effluent guidelines but for which they think EPA should consider 
developing guidelines. To be confident that our questions would yield 
reliable data, we conducted four pretests with state officials. During 
these pretests, we sought to determine whether the questions were 
clear, could be reliably answered, and imposed a reasonable burden on 
respondents. 

Survey Respondents: 

We administered our survey to the directors of the water quality 
programs in the 46 states that are authorized to implement NPDES. 
These state officials are largely responsible for issuing permits to 
industrial facilities and for incorporating effluent guidelines into 
those permits. They have regular, firsthand experience with the 
guidelines, and their experience may supplement EPA's information on 
effluent. We determined that these officials were therefore 
sufficiently knowledgeable to answer our survey questions. We obtained 
a list of these officials and their contact information from EPA and 
verified this list through Internet searches and phone calls with 
state officials. We identified the primary contact for each state but 
asked these individuals to consult with others in their office to 
determine the most accurate answer for each survey question. 

Survey Administration: 

We implemented our survey as a web-based questionnaire. We notified 
the state water quality permit directors in February 2012 of our 
intent to conduct the survey and requested their participation. We 
instructed the states on how to access the web-based survey on March 
2, 2012. We sent three e-mail reminders and telephoned states that had 
not responded before we closed the survey in April. We received 
responses from 31 of the 46 states, for an overall response rate of 67 
percent of states. The survey data are based on responses from 42 
individuals in these 31 states. Because we surveyed state officials 
only about the industrial categories that discharge the greatest 
amount of toxic effluent in their state, and because several states 
did not respond to our survey, the results of our analysis are not 
generalizable to all industrial categories in all states. 

Summary of Survey Responses: 

To determine the extent to which state officials think that effluent 
guidelines should be revised, we analyzed the univariate frequencies 
of responses to our six primary survey questions. We aggregated the 
survey responses to create industry-by-state cases, such that each 
case represented the views of a particular state about the guidelines 
for a particular industrial category in that state. The completed 
survey questionnaires from 31 states led to 155 possible state-by-
industry cases. Because not all states responded to all of the survey 
questions, however, we had at most 123 valid cases for analysis, 
depending upon the survey question. A summary of the responses to 
these questions appears in table 5. 

Table 5: State Officials' Responses to the Key Questions in Our Survey 
for the Industries Discharging the Greatest Amount of Toxic Effluent 
in Their State: 

Are the existing effluent guidelines for this industry sufficient on 
their own--that is, without additional water quality-based effluent 
limits--to protect your state from significant risks to human health 
or the environment? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 51 (42%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 69 (57%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 2 (2%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 122 (100%). 

Is there a technology, process change, or pollution prevention action 
available to this industry that would substantially reduce any risks 
that remain after the state applies existing effluent limits? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 38 (31%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 51 (41%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 34 (28%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 123 (100%). 

If yes to the previous question: Do you think this industry can afford 
to implement this risk-reducing technology, process change, or 
pollution prevention action without experiencing financial difficulty? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 31 (82%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 2 (5%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 5 (13%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 38 (100%). 

Are the current effluent guidelines for this industry difficult to 
understand, implement, monitor, or enforce? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 30 (24%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 91 (74%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 2 (2%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 123 (100%). 

Do you think the current effluent guidelines for this industry could 
be revised to promote innovative approaches, such as water quality 
trading or multimedia benefits? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 44 (36%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 59 (48%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 19 (16%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 122 (100%). 

Given your responses to the previous questions, do you think EPA 
should revise the current effluent guidelines for this industry? 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 63 (51%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 60 (49%); 
Don't know or no response (percentage): 0 (0); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 123 (100%). 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] This column represents all cases for which the survey respondent 
selected one of the response options, which included "don't know/no 
response." It does not include responses from individuals who skipped 
the question entirely. 

[End of table] 

These tabulations indicate that a substantial number of cases exist 
for which states thought that EPA should revise effluent guidelines 
and also for which they perceived that one or more of EPA's decision-
making factors were present. In 51 percent (63 of 123 cases), state 
officials said that EPA should revise the effluent guidelines for the 
corresponding industry. With regard to whether the key decision-making 
factors were present, state officials reported that effluent posed a 
significant risk in 57 percent of cases, that technology was available 
in 31 percent of cases, that the guidelines were difficult to 
administer in 24 percent of cases, and that revised guidelines could 
promote innovative approaches in 36 percent of cases. We had far fewer 
responses to our question about whether industry could adopt 
technology without experiencing financial difficulty because that 
question was applicable only if the respondent said such technology 
was available. Among these cases, state officials reported that the 
technology would not cause financial hardship to the industry in 82 
percent of cases (31 of 38 cases). 

We repeated this analysis after removing the 29 cases representing the 
three industrial categories whose effluent guidelines are in revision, 
leaving at most 96 cases for analysis, depending upon the question. Of 
the remaining cases, state officials said that EPA should revise the 
effluent guidelines for a substantial percentage of them; they also 
said that key decision-making factors were present in a substantial 
percentage of cases. For example, in 46 percent of these cases, state 
officials said that EPA should revise the effluent guidelines for the 
corresponding industry. 

Relationships between Key Decision-Making Factors and States' Views 
about Whether EPA Should Revise Effluent Guidelines: 

We compared state officials' views about whether effluent guidelines 
should be revised with their views of each of the factors that EPA 
uses when considering guideline revisions. For three of the four 
factors, our results show that when state officials perceived the 
factor to be present, they were significantly more likely to think 
that EPA should revise the effluent guidelines for the corresponding 
industrial category. (We had too few cases with valid responses to the 
survey question about cost to determine whether that factor was 
significantly associated with views about guideline revisions.) The 
risk posed by effluent and the availability of technology were the 
strongest predictors of states' views about the need for guideline 
revisions. In particular, we found the following: 

* When state officials perceived effluent from a particular industrial 
category to pose a significant risk, they were 3.8 times more likely 
to think that EPA should revise the guidelines for that category than 
when they did not perceive the effluent to pose a significant risk. 
Specifically, among the cases in which state officials perceived 
effluent to pose a significant risk, they thought the effluent 
guidelines should be revised 75 percent of the time (52 of 69 cases), 
compared with 20 percent of the time (10 of 51 cases) when they 
thought the effluent did not pose a significant risk. 

* When state officials perceived technology to be available to 
substantially reduce the risk for a particular industrial category, 
they were 4.3 times more likely to think that EPA should revise the 
guidelines for that category than when they did not perceive 
technology to be available. Specifically, among the cases in which 
these officials perceived technology to be available, they thought EPA 
should revise the effluent guidelines 84 percent of the time (32 of 38 
cases), compared with 20 percent (10 of 51 cases) when they thought 
that technology was not available. 

* When state officials thought that other factors were present for a 
particular industrial category, they were 2.3 times more likely to 
think that EPA should revise the guidelines than when they did not 
think these factors were present. "Other factors" refers to either 
that the current guidelines were difficult to understand, implement, 
monitor, or enforce or that revised guidelines could promote 
innovative approaches. Specifically, when state officials thought that 
such other factors were present, they thought that EPA should revise 
its effluent guidelines 70 percent of the time (43 of 61 cases), 
compared with 30 percent of the time (18 of 60 cases) when they 
thought these factors were not present. 

Table 6 presents the complete results of these bivariate comparisons. 
We excluded one of the factors from the discussion above--namely, 
whether the industry could afford to implement the technology, process 
change, or pollution prevention action--because the responses to this 
question applied only to the subset of cases for which such a 
technology, change, or action was available, only 33 of which provided 
a yes or no response. In 87 percent of those cases in which the 
technology was perceived to be affordable (27 of 31 cases), state 
officials said that EPA should revise its guidelines for the 
corresponding industry. We repeated this analysis after removing the 
29 cases representing the two industrial categories whose effluent 
guidelines EPA is already revising. We found that, even after removing 
these cases, the same three factors retained a significant 
relationship with state officials' views about whether effluent 
guidelines should be revised. This result indicates that these key 
decision-making factors appear to influence state officials' views 
even for industrial categories whose guidelines EPA is not already 
revising. 

Table 6: State Officials' Views about Whether EPA Should Revise the 
Effluent Guidelines for the Industries Discharging the Greatest Amount 
of Toxic Effluent in Their State, by the Four Factors EPA Considers 
When Deciding Whether to Revise Effluent Guidelines: 

Are the existing effluent guidelines for this industry sufficient on 
their own--that is, without additional water-quality-based effluent 
limits--to protect your state from significant risks to human health 
or the environment? 

Do you think EPA should revise the current effluent guidelines for 
this industry? 

Probably yes or definitely yes: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 10 (20); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 41 (80); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 51 (100%). 

Probably no or definitely no: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 52 (75); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 17 (25); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 69 (100). 

Total: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 62 (52); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 58 (48); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 120 (100). 

Is there a technology, process change, or pollution prevention action 
available to this industry that would substantially reduce any risks 
that remain after the state applies existing effluent limits? 

Do you think EPA should revise the current effluent guidelines for 
this industry? 

Probably yes or definitely yes: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 32 (84); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 6 (16); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 38 (100). 

Probably no or definitely no: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 10 (20); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 41 (80); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 51 (100). 

Total[B]: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 42 (47); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 47 (53); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 89 (100). 

If yes to the previous question: Do you think this industry can afford 
to implement this risk-reducing technology, process change, or 
pollution prevention action without experiencing financial difficulty? 

Do you think EPA should revise the current effluent guidelines for 
this industry? 

Probably yes or definitely yes: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 27 (87%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 4 (13%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 31 (100%). 

Probably no or definitely no: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 1 (50%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 1 (50%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 2 (100%). 

Total[C]: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 28 (85%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 5 (15%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 33 (100%). 

Are the current effluent guidelines for this industry difficult to 
understand, implement, monitor, or enforce or could the current 
effluent guidelines for this industry be revised to promote innovative 
approaches?[D] 

Probably yes or definitely yes: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 43 (70%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 18 (30%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 61 (100%). 

Probably no or definitely no: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 61 (50%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 60 (50%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 60 (100%). 

Total[A]: 
Probably yes or definitely yes (percentage): 18 (30%); 
Probably no or definitely no (percentage): 42 (70%); 
Total number of cases[A] (percentage): 121 (100%). 

Source: GAO analysis of survey data. 

[A] This column represents all cases for which the survey respondent 
selected one of the response options, which included "don't know/no 
response," for both the question on whether EPA should revise its 
effluent guidelines and the question on whether a given factor was 
present. It does not include responses from individuals who skipped 
the questions entirely. 

[B] Cases were excluded from this analysis if the response to either 
question in the cross-tabulation was "Don't know or no response." 

[C] This question pertained only to the cases for which respondents 
answered that a technology, process change, or pollution prevention 
action was available. 

[D] This category combines two survey questions. Cases in this 
category were coded as "probably yes or definitely yes" if that 
response was given to either of the two questions. 

[End of table] 

Decision Tree of States' Views about Whether EPA Should Revise 
Effluent Guidelines: 

To understand how the various decision-making factors interact to 
influence states' views about the need for revised effluent 
guidelines, we used the data from our survey to conduct decision-tree 
analysis. We developed the decision tree by splitting the data into 
smaller and smaller subgroups according to whether state officials 
perceived each of the factors to be present for a particular 
industrial category. Beginning with the first factor, risk, we divided 
the cases into subgroups, depending upon whether state officials 
perceived the effluent from the particular industry to pose a 
significant risk to human health or the environment. For each of these 
subgroups, we tabulated the number of cases in which state officials 
said the effluent guidelines should be revised, compared with the 
number of cases in which they said the guidelines should not be 
revised. We then split these subgroups again, according to whether 
state officials thought that technology was available to substantially 
reduce the risk. This split resulted in further subgroups. We 
continued splitting the data into smaller and smaller subgroups by 
next assessing state official's views of the cost of technology and 
finally assessing their views on the presence of other factors. At 
each step, we stopped splitting the data if (1) the original group had 
fewer than 10 cases, (2) the resulting subgroups did not differ 
significantly in terms of the percentages of respondents who said that 
EPA should revise the guidelines; or (3) the resulting subgroups 
tended to support the same conclusion as to whether EPA should revise 
the guidelines. We examined the cases terminating in each of the 
branches and found that the overall decision tree was based on a broad 
variety of industries and states. The resulting decision tree, which 
is shown in figure 5, has four splits and six branches. 

Figure 5: Decision Tree of State Officials' Views of Whether EPA 
Should Revise Effluent Guidelines for Specific Industrial Categories: 

[Refer to PDF for image: decision tree] 

Risk?[A]: 
Yes: Technology[B]; 
No: Not revise[D] (41 of 51). 

Technology?[B]: 
Yes: Revise[D] (30 of 36); 
No: Other?[C]: 
* Yes: Revise[D] (5 of 6); 
* No: Not revise[D] (5 of 5). 
Don't know: Other?[C]: 
*Yes: Revise[D] (11 of 11); 
* No: Revise[D] (5 of 10. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from survey of state water quality 
officials.  

Note: This analysis is based on 119 industry-by-state cases from our 
survey of state water quality permit writers. Each case represents the 
views of a single state about a single industry in that state. 

[A] Whether the state official views the effluent from a particular 
industry to pose a significant risk to human health or the 
environment, according to their response to the first question on our 
survey. 

[B] Whether the state official views technology to be available to 
substantially reduce the risk to human health or the environment, 
according to their response to the second question on our survey. 

[C] Whether the state official views other factors to be present--such 
as current guidelines difficult to enforce or revised guidelines able 
to promote innovative approaches--according to the fourth and fifth 
questions in our survey. 

[D] Based on responses to the sixth question on our survey, as to 
whether state officials think EPA should revise the effluent 
guidelines for a particular industrial category. The tabulations in 
parentheses represent the number cases in which state officials 
answered yes and no, respectively, to this question for each branch of 
the decision tree. 

[End of figure] 

The decision tree illustrates how the key decision-making factors 
collectively predict states' views about whether EPA should revise 
effluent guidelines, and it corroborates the reliability of our survey 
data. Overall, when the risk of effluent was perceived to be 
significant and technology was perceived to be available, state 
officials overwhelmingly thought the corresponding effluent guidelines 
should be revised. Even when technology was not perceived to be 
available, many states still thought the guidelines should be revised 
if they thought that other factors were present. In particular, in 
three scenarios, corresponding to three branches of the decision tree, 
state officials generally said that effluent guidelines should be 
revised: 

* When state officials thought that effluent from an industrial 
category poses a significant risk to human health or the environment 
and when they thought technology was available to substantially reduce 
that risk, they generally said that EPA should revise the effluent 
guidelines. In such instances, they thought that EPA should revise the 
effluent guidelines 83 percent of the time (in 30 of 36 cases). This 
scenario is illustrated by the far left branch of the decision tree. 

* When state officials thought that effluent from an industrial 
category poses a significant risk, they generally thought that EPA 
should revise the effluent guidelines even when they perceived that 
technology was not available--as long as they perceived other factors 
to be present. In such instances, they thought that EPA should revise 
its effluent guidelines 83 percent of the time (5 of 6 cases). This 
scenario is illustrated by the second-to-left branch of the decision 
tree. 

* When state officials thought that effluent from an industrial 
category poses a significant risk, they generally thought that EPA 
should revise the effluent guidelines even when they did not know if 
technology was available--as long as they perceived other factors to 
be present. In such instances, these officials thought EPA should 
revise its effluent guidelines 100 percent of the time (11 of 11 
cases). This scenario is illustrated by the branch of the decision 
tree in the third column from the right. 

By contrast, in two scenarios, state officials thought EPA should not 
revise the guidelines. In the primary scenario, officials did not 
perceive the effluent to pose a significant risk, although officials 
also thought that guidelines should not be revised when the risk was 
significant but neither technology nor other factors were present. In 
particular, our decision tree identified the following two 
scenarios:[Footnote 43] 

* When state officials did not think the effluent from a particular 
industrial category posed a significant risk to human health or the 
environment, they generally thought that EPA should not revise the 
corresponding effluent guidelines. In these instances, state officials 
thought that EPA should not revise the guidelines 80 percent of the 
time (41 of 51 cases). This scenario is illustrated by the branch of 
the decision tree on the far right. 

* When state officials thought the effluent from a particular 
industrial category posed a significant risk but that technology was 
not available and other factors were not present, they generally said 
that EPA should not revise the effluent guidelines for that industry. 
In such instances, state officials thought that EPA should not revise 
the guidelines 100 percent of the time (5 of 5 cases). This scenario 
is illustrated by the branch of the decision tree in the third column 
from the left. 

Industrial Categories for Which States Thought Effluent Guidelines 
Should Be Revised: 

Corresponding to this decision tree, we further examined the data to 
identify specific industrial categories that presented the strongest 
evidence for needing to be revised. Because the significance of risk 
and the presence of technology are the two primary decision-making 
factors, we selected the 30 cases for which states said these two 
factors were present and for which they said effluent guidelines 
should be revised. These cases fall into the far left branch of the 
decision tree in figure 5. These 30 cases represent 14 industrial 
categories: canned and preserved seafood processing; cement 
manufacturing; coal mining; fertilizer manufacturing; meat and poultry 
products; metal finishing; metal molding and casting; oil and gas 
extraction; ore mining and dressing; petroleum refining; pulp, paper, 
and paperboard; steam electric power generation; sugar processing; and 
timber products processing. We added industries that state officials 
cited in the second section of our survey, in which we asked them to 
identify industries that were not among the top five dischargers in 
their state. This addition lengthened the list by 22 cases, 
representing 7 additional industrial categories: centralized waste 
treatment, dairy products processing, electrical and electronic 
components, electroplating, grain mills manufacturing, landfills, and 
pharmaceutical manufacturing. In total, therefore, we identified 52 
cases representing 21 industrial categories for which state officials 
thought effluent guidelines should be revised. Of these 52 cases, 39 
represent industrial categories whose guidelines EPA is not already 
revising. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Additional Details on Industrial Categories with 
Effluent Guidelines: 

EPA has promulgated effluent guidelines for 58 industrial categories 
beginning in the mid-1970s. EPA has also revised the guidelines for 
most of those industries, although many have not been revised in 
recent years. As described elsewhere in this report, EPA uses a 
screening process to determine which categories may warrant further 
review and possible revision. According to our analysis, since EPA 
began using its current screening process in 2003, more than half the 
industrial categories with effluent guidelines did not advance beyond 
the screening phase in any year from 2003 to 2010 because, during a 
given 2-year screening cycle, the relative toxicity of their pollutant 
discharges did not put them among the top 95 percent of discharge 
hazard. Table 7 provides further information on the industrial 
categories, including the year their effluent guidelines were first 
promulgated, the year the guidelines were most recently revised, and 
the year(s) in 2004 through 2010 when their hazard ranking scores came 
within the top 95 percent. 

Table 7: Years Effluent Guidelines Were Promulgated and Revised for 
Industrial Categories and Years the Categories Were in the Top 95 
Percent of Total Reported Hazard, 2004-2010: 

Industrial category: Airport deicing; 
Year promulgated: 2012; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Aluminum forming; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1988; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Asbestos manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Battery manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1984; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved fruits and vegetables 
processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; [Empty]; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Canned and preserved seafood processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Carbon black manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1978; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Cement manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Centralized waste treatment; 
Year promulgated: 2000; 
Year most recently revised: 2003; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2008. 

Industrial category: Coal mining; 
Year promulgated: 1985; 
Year most recently revised: 2002; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Coil coating; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 2007; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Concentrated animal feeding operations; 
Year promulgated: 2003; 
Year most recently revised: 2008; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Concentrated aquatic animal production; 
Year promulgated: 2004; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Construction and development; 
Year promulgated: 2009; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Copper forming; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Dairy products processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Electrical and electronic components; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Electroplating; 
Year promulgated: 1981; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Explosives manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Ferroalloy manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Fertilizer manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Glass manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Grain mills; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Gum and wood chemicals manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Hospital; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Ink formulating; 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Inorganic chemicals manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1984; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Iron and steel manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 2005; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Landfills; 
Year promulgated: 2000; 
Year most recently revised: 2000; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Leather tanning and finishing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1996; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard:none. 

Industrial category: Meat and poultry products; 
Year promulgated: 2004; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Metal finishing; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Metal molding and casting; 
Year promulgated: 1985; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Metal products and machinery; 
Year promulgated: 2003; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Mineral mining and processing; 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Nonferrous metals forming and metal powders; 
Year promulgated: 1985; 
Year most recently revised: 1989; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Nonferrous metals manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1984; 
Year most recently revised: 1990; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Oil and gas extraction; 
Year promulgated: 1979; 
Year most recently revised: 2012[A]; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Ore mining and dressing; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1988; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers; 
Year promulgated: 1987; 
Year most recently revised: 1993; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Paint formulating; 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Paving and roofing materials (tars and asphalt); 
Year promulgated: 1975; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; none. 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Pesticide chemicals; 
Year promulgated: 1978; 
Year most recently revised: 1998; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006. 

Industrial category: Petroleum refining; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Pharmaceutical manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1983; 
Year most recently revised: 2003; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Phosphate manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1986; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2004. 

Industrial category: Photographic; 
Year promulgated: 1976; 
Year most recently revised: Not revised; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Plastics molding and forming; 
Year promulgated: 1984; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2006. 

Industrial category: Porcelain enameling; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1985; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Pulp, paper, and paperboard; 
Year promulgated: 1998; 
Year most recently revised: 2012[A]; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Rubber manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010. 

Industrial category: Soap and detergent manufacturing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Steam electric power generating; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 2012[A]; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2008, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Sugar processing; 
Year promulgated: 1974; 
Year most recently revised: 1995; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Textile mills; 
Year promulgated: 1982; 
Year most recently revised: 1983; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2006, 2004. 

Industrial category: Timber products processing; 
Year promulgated: 1981; 
Year most recently revised: 2004; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2004. 

Industrial category: Transportation equipment cleaning; 
Year promulgated: 2000; 
Year most recently revised: 2005; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: none. 

Industrial category: Waste combustors; 
Year promulgated: 2000; 
Year most recently revised: 2004; 
Year(s) the industrial category was in the top 95 percent of total 
hazard: 2010, 2008. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA documentation. 

Notes: In its screening phase, EPA ranks some industrial categories 
that are not subject to existing effluent guidelines and are therefore 
not included in this table. When EPA revised the effluent guideline 
for an industrial category, it may have revised just a portion of the 
guideline. For example, EPA may have added pollutants or changed the 
limits for a particular industrial category or added a new 
subcategory. In some cases, EPA may have made revisions that did not 
affect the stringency of the effluent guidelines. With the exception 
of three 2012 revisions, we did not determine the nature of the 
revisions shown in this table. 

[A] The revisions to these industrial categories did not increase the 
stringency of the effluent guidelines. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Office of Water: 
Washington, DC, 20460: 

August 23, 2012: 

Mr. David Trimble: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO): 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Trimble: 

Thank you for sending us the draft of your proposed report entitled: 
EPA Has Improved Its Review of Effluent Guidelines but Could Benefit 
from More Information on Treatment Technologies (GAO-12-845). The 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appreciates the time GAO has 
taken to research our annual review of industrial discharges, an 
element of our Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELG) program, which is 
required under Sections 301, 304 and 306 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). 
You requested that we review the draft report and provide you with 
written comments. 

I would like to highlight the importance of the ELG program to the 
EPA's clean water activities. As noted in your report, the EPA has 
published technology-based effluent limits for 58 major industrial 
categories (with over 450 subcategories) in the thirty-seven year 
history of the effluent guidelines program (started under the 1972 
CWA). These national, technology-based limits are controlling 
pollution from close to 60,000 industrial facilities and annually 
prohibit the discharge of 700 billion pounds of pollutants to the 
Nation's surface waters. As a result, the ELGs substantially 
contribute to improvements in the quality of water nationwide. 

Regarding your audit report, I believe the report adequately describes 
the well designed, rigorous, data-based approach used to determine 
which industries necessitate new or revised ELGs. In addition, your 
report concludes with three recommendations for improving our program, 
most of which we agree with in principle. 

Your first recommendation is that we identify and evaluate additional 
sources of data on the hazards posed by industrial discharges and 
factor these into our annual reviews. We agree that additional sources 
of hazard data are valuable, and in fact we initiated an effort to 
begin collecting new sources of hazard information in 2011. At that 
time, the EPA examined approximately 12 different methods for 
factoring in more hazard data in its reviews and is currently applying 
some of those methods for the 2012 annual review. Furthermore, once 
the Preliminary 2012 ELG Plan is published, it will solicit additional
ideas for new hazard data sources from the public and industry 
stakeholders. I believe we are making substantial progress in 
incorporating additional sources of hazard data and will continue to 
do so. 

Your second recommendation is that we should identify and evaluate 
additional sources of information to improve our assessment of 
treatment technologies for industrial dischargers. I agree that 
treatment technology information is useful in our program and we have 
always evaluated such data. For example, in recent industry reviews, 
the EPA examined treatment technologies capable of removing sulfide 
from textiles, landfills, and pulp and paper wastewater discharges. We 
examined technologies for removing carbon disulfide from cellulose 
manufacturers, and we examined treatment technologies for ore mining 
and dressing, all a part of our efforts to screen these industries for 
the need for revised ELGs. 

Given the importance of new treatment technology information, in 2011 
we initiated efforts to gather more treatment information across all 
industry categories and will be expanding on this work in 2013 and 
2014 once new fiscal year operating plans are in place. In addition, 
we will begin exploring ways to stimulate the development and use of 
innovative treatment technologies through the ELG program.
Suffice it to say. the ELG program itself is a catalyst for new and 
innovative treatment technologies in setting high-performance effluent 
limitations that industry must meet, and industry can then choose to 
implement new and innovative technologies, or process improvements, to 
meet those requirements. 

Your third recommendation suggests that we modify our industry 
screening process to include a thorough consideration of treatment 
technology early on in our screening phase. Although we agree 
factoring in treatment technology information in our reviews is 
valuable, I do not think this is a workable suggestion in the context 
of our current screening process. Conducting a thorough review of 
treatment technology as part of the current screening phase of all 
existing industry categories would be very resource intensive at this 
early stage in the process. As described above, the EPA is currently 
pursuing a more strategic approach to conduct literature reviews and 
research data analysis on new developments and emerging new 
technologies for industrial sectors which arc screened in for further 
analysis. 

The EPA currently is preparing new or revised ELGs for steam electric 
power generation (a major hazard source), coalbed methane extraction, 
shale gas extraction and dental amalgam (a significant source of 
mercury discharged to sewage treatment plants). 

In summary, I appreciate the GAO's review of our program and its 
recommendations, and I look forward to continued enhancements of our 
industry review process. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

[Illegible] for: 
Nancy K. Stoner: 
Acting Assistant Administrator: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Susan Iott (Assistant 
Director), Elizabeth Beardsley, Mark Braza, Ross Campbell, Ellen W. 
Chu, Heather Dowey, Catherine M. Hurley, Paul Kazemersky, Kelly Rubin, 
Carol Hernstadt Shulman, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made significant 
contributions to this report. Wyatt R. Hundrup, Michael L. Krafve, 
Armetha Liles, and Jeffrey R. Rueckhaus also made important 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. 
L. No. 92-500, § 2, 86 Stat. 816, codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. §§ 
1251-1387 (2012) (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act). For 
consistency throughout this report, we refer to the statute and its 
amendments as the Clean Water Act. 

[2] In addition to the 46 states, the territory of the U.S. Virgin 
Islands is authorized to issue NPDES permits. The remaining 
territories and the District of Columbia are not authorized to issue 
these permits. 

[3] A Senate committee report explaining the addition of this 
provision to the Water Quality Act of 1987, noted in part, "guidelines 
are required for any category of sources discharging significant 
amounts of toxic pollutants. In this use, 'significant amounts' does 
not require the Administrator to make any determination of 
environmental harm; any non-trivial discharges from sources in a 
category must lead to effluent guidelines." S. Rep. 99-50 at 24-25 
(1985). See also 69 Fed. Reg. 53,707 (Sept. 2, 2004). 

[4] Consent decrees are settlement agreements signed by the parties 
and entered, or approved, by a court; they are therefore enforceable 
by the courts. 

[5] EPA stayed a portion of the guideline for the construction and 
development industrial category that established a numerical effluent 
limitation for turbidity, but other portions of the guidelines remain 
in effect. See 75 Fed. Reg. 68215 (Nov. 5, 2010), 40 C.F.R. pt. 450. 

[6] As of August 2012, EPA had not published a preliminary effluent 
guidelines program plan for 2011. 

[7] Throughout this report, we use the term effluent guidelines to 
refer to effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards collectively. 
Some industrial categories are made up of direct dischargers, some of 
indirect dischargers, and some have a mix of both. Thirty-four of the 
58 industrial categories are regulated by both effluent guidelines and 
pretreatment standards because these categories comprise both direct 
and indirect dischargers. Twenty-three industrial categories are 
regulated by effluent guidelines but not pretreatment standards, while 
the electroplating industrial category is regulated by pretreatment 
standards but not by effluent guidelines. 

[8] Wastewater treatment plants generally must have a NPDES permit to 
operate. 

[9] EPA regulations require permit writers to document the reasoning 
behind a facility's permit. A fact sheet is required to accompany the 
permit for facilities designated by EPA regional administrators and 
the permitting authorities to be major dischargers. A statement of 
basis is required for permits issued to all other facilities, which 
EPA considers minor facilities. For purposes of this report, we refer 
to both fact sheets and statements of basis as "fact sheets." See EPA, 
NPDES Permit Writers Manual at 11-10, 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.7, 124.8, 
124.56, 123.25 (2012). 

[10] EPA and the states are making a transition from one national 
database, known as the Permit Compliance System, to another known as 
the Integrated Compliance Information System: NPDES. The states are 
divided in their use of the two databases. Consequently, two databases 
contain discharge-monitoring reports. In our report, however, we refer 
to them collectively as "the database." 

[11] Specifically, certain facilities that manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use any of the listed individual chemicals and chemical 
categories are required to report annually to EPA and their respective 
state those chemicals used above threshold quantities, the amounts 
released to the environment, and whether the releases entered the air, 
water, or soil. 42 U.S.C. § 11023 (2012). 

[12] Biological oxygen demand is a measure of the oxygen used during 
decomposition of organic material over a specified period (usually 5 
days) in a wastewater sample; it represents the readily decomposable 
organic content of wastewater. 

[13] A measure of filterable solids present in a sample, as determined 
by the method specified in 40 C.F.R. pt. 136. 

[14] Fecal coliform are bacteria whose presence indicates that water 
may be contaminated by human or animal wastes. 

[15] A measure of the hydrogen ion concentration of water or 
wastewater expressed as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion 
concentration in milligrams per liter. A pH of 7 is neutral, a pH less 
than 7 is acidic, and a pH greater than 7 is basic. 

[16] See Clean Water Act §307(a)(1), codified at 33 U.S.C. §1317(a)(1) 
(2011); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1362(13) (defining toxic pollutant). The 
list appears in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15. 
The committee report list was developed from a 1976 consent decree 
signed with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental 
group, to resolve litigation that, among other things, sought to 
compel EPA to expand the list of toxic pollutants promulgated under 
the act. The consent decree was entered in NRDC et al. v. Train, 6 ELR 
20588, (D.D.C. 1976). The statute authorizes EPA to revise the list. 

[17] Human-made halomethanes are most notably used as refrigerants, 
solvents, propellants, and fumigants. 

[18] Chemical oxygen demand is a measure of the oxygen-consuming 
capacity of inorganic and organic matter present in wastewater. 

[19] See, e.g., Senate Consideration of the Report of the Conference 
Committee, October 4, 1972 (Statement of Sen. Muskie), reprinted in 
Cong. Research Serv., A Legislative History of the Water Pollution 
Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 169-70 (1978); S. Comm. on Public 
Works, Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, S. Rep. No. 92-
414, at 50-51 (1971), reprinted in Cong. Research Serv., A Legislative 
History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 7669-
70 (1978). 

[20] EPA is required to issue both effluent guidelines and effluent 
limitations. The agency issues regulations that simultaneously address 
both of these and therefore it does not distinguish between the 
reviews required for the guidelines and for the limitations. 

[21] See also 68 Fed. Reg. 75,515, 75,519 (Dec. 31, 2003) in which EPA 
stated, "EPA articulated an early form of this evolving analytical 
framework in the draft Strategy for National Clean Water Industrial 
Regulations ('draft Strategy'), which EPA hope[d] to finalize 
concurrently with the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan in 2004." 

[22] Our Children's Earth (OCE) Found. v. EPA, 527 F.3d 842, 851 (9th 
Cir. 2008), rehearing 506 F.3d 781 (9th Cir. 2007), on appeal from 
2005 U.S. Dist. Lexis 45716 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

[23] EPA's draft 2002 strategy stated that it would consider the risks 
to human health or the environment. According to a senior effluent 
guidelines program official, however, the agency's screening process 
includes a relative hazard assessment rather than a risk assessment. 
According to EPA, once an industrial category has been identified as 
posing a significant hazard on the basis of the screening analysis--
and before initiating an effluent guideline rule making--the agency 
may then conduct a study of the industrial category to determine the 
risks imposed on human health and the environment. 

[24] The steam electric power-generating industry produces electric 
power by means of steam generated from fossil fuels, such as coal, 
oil, and natural gas, or nuclear fuels. 

[25] As explained above, an industrial direct discharger is required 
to have an NPDES permit regardless of whether there are effluent 
guidelines for the industry. NPDES permits require monitoring for 
specific pollutants to determine compliance with permit limits. Some 
industries may also be subject to requirements under another EPA 
program to report toxic releases to the Toxics Release Inventory. 
These requirements are independent of whether an industry is regulated 
by effluent guidelines. 

[26] According to EPA, the doubling in the number of industrial 
categories in 2010 resulted from the removal of the steam electric 
power-generating category from the ranking process after EPA decided 
to revise its effluent guidelines. Previously, that industrial 
category alone constituted up to 73 percent of the total toxic 
weighted pound equivalent. When EPA removed that category from its 
hazard ranking, many other industries with smaller hazard ranking 
scores moved into the top 95 percent. 

[27] The industrial coding schemes that EPA uses are the Department of 
Labor's Standard Industrial Classification codes, created in the 1930s 
and the North American Industry Classification System, which was 
created through a cooperative effort of Canadian and Mexican 
government agencies and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

[28] Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA can contact--with a survey 
or questionnaire--up to 9 entities without first obtaining approval 
from the Office of Management and Budget. If EPA decides to contact 10 
or more entities, the agency must prepare an Information Collection 
Request. This request describes the information to be collected, gives 
the reasons the information is needed, and estimates the time and cost 
for respondents to answer the request. The office reviews the request 
and determines if the request is approved or disapproved, or it 
defines conditions to be met for approval. 

[29] EPA also announced in October 2011 the initiation of a new 
effluent guideline rulemaking process for shale gas extraction. The 
agency decided to undertake the rulemaking on the basis of stakeholder 
concerns about the industrial category without going through a further 
review phase. The agency plans to propose new standards in 2014. In 
addition, EPA conducted the further review phase of the airport 
deicing industrial category prior to our 2003 time frames. The agency 
issued effluent guidelines for the category in May 2012. 

[30] Generally, permits are to establish limitations for those 
pollutants reasonably expected to be present in wastewater with 
potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above a water quality 
standard. For an industry with an effluent guideline, the guideline 
specifies which pollutants must, at minimum, be included in the 
permit. For other industries, the permit writer uses information 
provided on the permit application, as well as other sources, to 
determine which pollutants may be present in wastewater and warrant a 
limitation. In addition, permits may include water-quality-based 
limits derived from the standards for the water body into which the 
effluent is discharged. 

[31] In addition, EPA has identified some limitations in the discharge 
monitoring report data that may cause the agency to overestimate the 
hazard presented by an industrial category. For example, many 
facilities do not report average quantities for specific pollutants, 
in which case, EPA has to base its estimates on the maximum or other 
amount discharged, which could lead to overestimating a facility's 
actual discharges. 

[32] And, as we described above, after identifying the industrial 
categories contributing to the top 95 percent of hazard, EPA may use 
other factors to exclude additional industrial categories before 
beginning the further review phase. Therefore, even those categories 
within the top 95 percent do not necessarily receive the further 
review examining the availability of treatment technology. 

[33] 68 Fed. Reg. 75515, 75521 (Dec. 31, 2003) ("EPA found that it was 
much more difficult than anticipated to gather the data needed to 
perform a meaningful screening-level analysis of the availability of 
treatment or process technologies that might reduce hazard or risk 
beyond the performance of technologies in place."). 

[34] Environmental Protection Agency, Factor 2 Analysis: Technology 
Advances and Process Changes (Washington, D. C.: December 2003). 

[35] Notably, of the six experts we interviewed from industry, only 
one suggested additional sources. 

[36] Air pollution regulations can be relevant in that they may cause 
a shift in pollutants from air emissions to wastewater or sludge. For 
example, EPA's ongoing effort to revise the effluent guidelines for 
the steam electric power-generating industry is in part a response to 
changes in the industry's wastewater as the plants installed scrubber 
equipment that uses water to remove pollutants to comply with air 
pollution regulations to control sulfur dioxide. 

[37] As of August 2012, the Office of Management and Budget is 
reviewing EPA's draft electronic reporting rule. Accordingly, EPA has 
not yet proposed the rule. 

[38] Five experts said that EPA should not consider technology earlier 
in its screening phase, and two did not provide their opinions. 

[39] Although these data have certain limitations, which we describe 
elsewhere in this report, we determined they were sufficiently 
reliable for the purpose of selecting industries on which to focus our 
survey questions. 

[40] Because state officials might not have complete information about 
all the key factors for each of the five industries, we allowed them 
to report their level of certainty in their response by answering each 
of the questions with either definitely yes, probably yes, probably 
no, definitely no, or don't know or no response. We collapsed these 
five categories into three categories--yes, no, and don't know or no 
response--for subsequent analysis. 

[41] In the online version of the questionnaire, we customized the 
survey questions by inserting the name of each of the specific 
industries for each state. 

[42] We based our survey questions on EPA's draft 2002 strategy, which 
uses the term risk rather than the term hazard. To be consistent with 
the precise wording of the survey questions, we use the term risk when 
describing the survey results. Elsewhere in this report, we use the 
term hazard in accordance with our discussions with EPA officials 
about the agency's screening process, in which contaminants are first 
assessed for hazard and then assessed for risk. 

[43] Responses were evenly split when risk was perceived to be 
present, state officials were uncertain whether technology was 
available, and they did not report that other factors were present. 
This split is illustrated by the branch of the decision tree in the 
second column from the right. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.