» Advocacy Alerts Archive

EPA published its Final 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan   (Final Plan) on October 26, outlining the results of the Agency’s 2010 review of existing effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and pretreatment standards, as well as its evaluation of indirect discharges without categorical pretreatment standards.  The Final Plan announces the development of pretreatment standards for dental amalgam and shale gas extraction and development of an ELG for coalbed methane extraction.  NACWA and its Pretreatment and Pollution Prevention Committee have been involved with providing the perspective of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) on a dental amalgam rule for the past year, and the proposed rule is expected in early 2012.  NACWA is also seeking to continue to determine the appropriate role for any advocacy efforts on the issue of shale gas extraction issue, often referred to by the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” process used in the extraction.  In particular, NACWA would like to hear the views of its members about the benefits or drawbacks of national pretreatment standards for accepting wastewater from shale gas extraction (see more below).

The Final Plan also requests input by November 25 on the 2011 annual review that is now beginning, including a specific request for information regarding discharges of nanosilver, an issue that NACWA has raised concerns about to EPA many times in the past.  EPA has also asked for data and comments on water efficiency and discharges from shale gas extraction and waste combustors.  Please contact Cynthia Finley at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it or 202/296-9836 with any input on these issues by November 16.

Draft Pretreatment Guidelines for Dental Amalgam Expected in Early 2012

EPA began a detailed study of the Health Services Industry in 2006, which included a study of dental amalgam disposal.  Mercury-containing dental amalgam enters wastewater through the waste particles that result from the placement and removal of amalgam fillings.  The American Dental Association (ADA) estimated in 2003 that up to 50 percent of mercury entering POTWs comes from dental offices, and EPA has estimated that dentists are responsible for 3.7 tons of mercury entering POTWs each year.  There are about 120,000 dental offices in the U.S., most of which discharge to POTWs.

In 2008, EPA decided not to initiate a rulemaking for dental amalgam, and instead relied on a Memorandum of Understanding to Reduce Dental Amalgam Discharges  (MOU) between the Agency, NACWA, and the ADA.  The goal of the MOU was to increase the number of dental amalgam separators voluntarily installed by dentists and to track the progress made with voluntary installations.  Dental amalgam separators can be installed in dental offices to remove 95 percent or more of dental amalgam particles from wastewater.

Under pressure from the states and environmental groups, however, EPA decided in 2010 that not enough progress was being made under the MOU and that a development of a national pretreatment standard was required.  NACWA provided input to EPA last year about the concerns POTWs have with a pretreatment standard for dental offices.  With the large number of dental offices, POTWs could face a significant burden in terms of costs and staff time to implement the standards if dental offices are classified as significant categorical industrial users.  The non-significant categorical industrial user classification provided by the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule is also not a solution to this problem, since some states have not adopted the Streamlining provisions and there are still significant hurdles for reaching this classification.  EPA has already developed a proposal for the pretreatment standard and has communicated that the Agency has taken POTW concerns seriously by creating a new category specifically for dental offices in the 40 CFR 403 General Pretreatment Regulations, thus avoiding a dramatic increase in the number of significant industrial users.  Although the Final Plan reports that the proposal was to have been published last month, EPA has stated that they expect the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review to be complete early next year, with publication of the proposal expected in February 2012.

Pretreatment Guidelines Will Be Developed for Shale Gas Extraction

Shale Gas Extraction, a subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category, is the removal of natural gas from underground shale deposits using hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.”  Large volumes of fracturing fluids are injected at high pressures to create a network of fissures that allows the natural gas to flow to the well.  A total of three to five million gallons of fracturing fluid is typically used for each well, and a portion of this fluid returns to the surface through the well.  This wastewater usually contains high concentrations of fracturing fluid additives and total dissolved solids (TDS), and may also contain organics, metals, and naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM).  The wastewater may be reused, re-injected into disposal wells, or sent to a POTW or private centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility.  Pass-through of pollutants may result at POTWs or CWTs, since neither is designed to treat high levels of TDS, NORM, or metals.

The Shale Gas Extraction subcategory is currently subject to the effluent guidelines of the Oil and Gas Extraction Category, but there are no pretreatment standards for this subcategory.  EPA decided that initiating a rulemaking on a pretreatment standard is appropriate due to the concerns of the public and environmental groups, the high levels of pollutants in shale gas extraction wastewater, the availability of treatment technologies, and the expected growth of the shale gas extraction industry.  EPA plans to propose a rule in 2014.

Earlier this year, NACWA conducted a survey of its members about shale gas extraction and found that only two of the 32 respondents accepted hydraulic fracturing wastewater at their facilities.  However, with the expected growth of shale gas extraction, POTWs in some regions may become more involved with the industry.  EPA plans to consult with NACWA when the Agency begins its study of the industry, and NACWA members will be asked for their input as the rule is developed.

Effluent Guidelines Initiated for Coalbed Methane Extraction

Based on the results of its detailed study of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry category, EPA decided to initiate an ELG rulemaking for the currently unregulated subcategory of Coalbed Methane Extraction, which represents about eight percent of the natural gas produced in the U.S.  To release methane from coalbeds, groundwater is pumped from seams of coal, which then allows the methane to flow into the well.  EPA found that approximately 45 percent of the water produced from coal seams is discharged directly to waters of the U.S., resulting in 22 billion gallons per year of discharges.  The remaining produced water is either discharged to land, re-injected into the ground, or reused.  EPA determined that an ELG was needed because of the high TDS content of the produced water, the availability of treatment technologies, and the expected growth of the industry.  The proposed rule is expected in 2013.

Other Effluent Guideline Updates

EPA is currently working on ELGs for two other categories:  Airport Deicing and Steam Electric Power Generation.  EPA expects to release its final ELG rule for Airport Deicing this fall.  The Steam Electric Power Generation rule is expected to be proposed in July 2012, with the final rule issued in January 2014.

EPA states in the Final Plan that it is not continuing the ELG rulemaking that it began in 2004 for the Drinking Water Treatment Industry.  As stated in the 2010 Final Plan, “After considering extensive information about the industry, its treatment residuals, wastewater treatment options, and discharge characteristics, and after considering other priorities, EPA has suspended work on this rulemaking.”

BMPs for Unused Pharmaceutical Management Expected Soon

NACWA’s comments on the 2010 Preliminary Plan focused on the issue of unused pharmaceutical disposal that was part of EPA’s detailed study on the Health Services industry.   In these comments, and in previous comments on the 2008 Preliminary Plan, NACWA supported EPA’s proposal to develop best management practices (BMPs) for unused pharmaceutical disposal, rather than numeric limits.  In late 2010, NACWA met with EPA to discuss the Agency’s draft Best Management Practices for Unused Pharmaceuticals at Health Care Facilities, and then submitted written comments .  NACWA encouraged EPA to take a stronger position in the BMPs against disposal of unused pharmaceuticals into the sewer system and provided specific suggestions for wording changes that would clarify that disposing of unused pharmaceuticals down-the-drain or by flushing is not an acceptable destruction option.  NACWA requested that the BMPs reflect that incineration is the preferred disposal method, since pharmaceuticals have been detected in leachate from landfills and leachate is often sent to POTWs for treatment.  EPA is expected to release the final BMPs within the next few months.

EPA Seeks Input on Nanosilver, Other Industries

In the Final Plan, EPA asks for information on several different issues and industries, including industrial manufacturing of nanonsilver.  EPA recognizes that nanosilver is becoming more common in many industrial materials and commercial products, including washing machines and fabrics, as an antimicrobial pesticide.  Since the manufacturers of these products may discharge silver in their wastewater, and the use of products containing nanosilver may also introduce silver to wastewater, EPA would like to gather information about the fate and transport of nanosilver in the environment and its effects aquatic and human health.

NACWA has communicated many times with EPA about the potentially harmful effects of nanosilver and other nanoscale products, beginning in 2006 when the Association requested that EPA require pesticide registration for consumer products that by design release silver ions into the sewer system, such as the silver-ion releasing washing machines.  In response, EPA clarified  that this type of equipment indeed required registration as a pesticide if the manufacturer included antimicrobial claims in product information.  Since manufacturers could avoid registration by eliminating antimicrobial claims, NACWA supported a petition  from the International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA) and others on the regulation of nanosilver as a pesticide, requesting that EPA further assess the potential impacts of nanosilver and how the Agency addresses products containing nanosilver.  Most recently, NACWA submitted comments  to EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) earlier this year on the Agency’s proposed policy for collecting information about nanoscale materials in pesticide programs, urging the Agency to use an approach that would require data generation about nanomaterials before they are approved for use.  NACWA also sent a letter  last year recommending more data collection before approval of new nanosilver pesticide products.

NACWA will provide comments to EPA about its concerns with nanosilver and present the relevant information contained in previous letters to OPP.  NACWA will also ask that the Office of Water and OPP work more closely on this issue to help reduce or prevent nanosilver discharges from both industrial manufacturing and use of consumer products.

EPA also requested data and information on the Shale Gas Extraction industry, particularly the type of pollutants in the wastewater and the volume of wastewater.  EPA would like to collect more information about the pass-through of the pollutants at POTWs and the impacts on the aquatic environment and human health.

In addition, EPA asks for any input on the following:

• The concentration of metals and pesticides discharged from waste combustors;
• The impacts of the ELG program on water conservation or climate change;
• Data sources and methodologies used in its annual review;
• Permit-based support rather than ELG revision when only a few facilities are affected;
• Opportunities to eliminate inefficiencies or impediments to pollution prevention or technological innovation;
• The evaluation of indirect dischargers without categorical pretreatment standards; and
• How to better access and aggregate discharge data reported to local pretreatment programs.

If you have any comments on these topics or any information on the nanosilver or shale gas extraction industry, please email Cynthia Finley at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it by November 16 for inclusion in NACWA’s comments to EPA.  Please also email with your general views about the development of pretreatment standards for shale gas extraction wastewater, including thoughts about the positive or negative impacts that a national standard will have on POTWs.