United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4303
EPA821-B-98-010
July 1998
Cost-Effective Analysis Of Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
And Standards For The
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Industry
""*.,
X
-------
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF
FINAL EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
AND STANDARDS FOR THE
PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Prepared for
Mr. William Anderson
Engineering and Analysis Division.
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C! 20460 . ',
Prepared by
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02421
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ............... 1-1
SECTION TWO BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY 2^1
2.1 Pollutants of Concern .'....._-........... 2-3
2.2 Toxic Weighting Factors ......... v .... ..... 2-3
2.3 Pollution Control Options .-....: 2"7
,'-,./..' ' . - '' '
2.4 Pollutant Removals ..." ., 2-10
2.5 Annualized Costs of Compliance ./. ..2-12
2.6 Calculation of th6 Cost-Effectiveness Values .,...- .'..... 2-12
2.7 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-15
SECTION THREE COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS ../..,. 3-1
SECTION FOUR COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTTVENESS VALUES WITH
PROMULGATED RULES ;; 4-1
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS: POLLUTANT LOADING ANALYSIS A-l
APPENDIX B SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR COST-EFFECTIVENESS
ANALYSIS: COST ANALYSIS B-l
APPENDIX C COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS RESULTS USING THE
ALTERNATIVE PWF APPROACH C-l
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
This analysis is submitted in support of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. The report analyzes the cost effectiveness of six regulatory options
organized into four regulatory groupings. This document compares the total annualized cost incurred for each
^ - -
of the regulatory options within each grouping to the corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing
the discharge of pollutants. The effectiveness measure used is pounds of pollutant removed weighted by an
estimate of the relative toxicity of the pollutant The rationale for this measure, referred to as "pounds-
equivalent CPE)removed," is described later in this document.
Section Two discusses EPA's cost-efTectiveness methodology and identifies the pollutants included
in the analysis. This section also presents EPA's toxic weighting factors (TWFs) for each pollutant and
considers the removal efficiency of each optioa Section Three presents the results of the cost-effectiveness
analysis. In Section Four, the cost-effectiveness values for the proposed regulatory options are compared to
cost-effectiveness values for other proposed and promulgated rules. Appendix A presents data on pollutants
and pollutant removals, and Appendix B presents data on annualized costs for each of the regulatory options.
1-1
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
Cost effectiveness (CE) is evaluated as the incremental and average annuali/ed cost of a pollution
' . . '.'.'.- ''"''
control option in an industry or industry subcategory per incremental and total pounds-equivalent of pollutant
(i.e., pound of pollutant adjusted for toxicity) removed by that control option. The cost-effectiveness analysis
primarily enables EPA to compare the removal efficiencies of regulatory options under consideration for a
ruler A secondary use is to compare the cost effectiveness of proposed options for the Final Pharmaceutical
Industry Effluent Guidelinesto that'of pretreatment standards for other industries.
m each regulatory grouping, EPA ranks options in order of increasing pounds-equivalent removed to
identify the point at which increased removal of pollutants is no longer cost-effective. Generally, EPA
( _ - , -. f ^ . ^ ,,..__ ^, | . i
determines this to be where costs (per pound-equivalent removed) increase sharply, that is, where; relatively
few incremental pounds are removed for steady increases in cost The accompanying figure (Figure 2-1)
shows this point as Point A, where the cost-effectiveness curve becomes nearly vertical. Increases in
removals beyond this point come only at relatively high unit costs, which, in many cases, EPA will determine
exceed the benefit of the increased removals to society. '
A number of steps must be undertaken before a cost-effectiveness analysis can be performed. There
are five steps that define the analysis or generate data for use in the cost-effectiveness calculation:
' .''/' ' ' ' ' ; '
Determine the wastewater pollutants of concern (priority and other pollutants).
Estimate the relative toxic weights (the adjustments to pounds of pollutants to reflect
toxicity) of the pollutants of concern.
Define the regulatory pollution control options.
Calculate pollutant removals for each pollution control option.
Determine the annualized cost of each pollution control option.
2-1
-------
o
CD
1
-------
All of these factors are used in the calculation of the cost-effectiveness values, which can then be
compared for each regulatory option under consideration. The following sections discuss the five preliminary
steps and the cost-effectiveness calculation and comparison methodologies.
2.1 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Under the Final Pharmaceutical Industry Effluent Guidelines, a number of priority and other
nonconventional pollutants are regulated. Some of the factors considered in selecting pollutants for
regulation include toxicity, frequency of occurrence in wastestream effluent, and amount of pollutant in the
wastestream. The list of pollutants for all regulatory options is presented in Table 2-1.
2.2 TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
TWFs are used to calculate copper-based pounds-equivalent, and are derived from chronic aquatic
life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the
consumption of fish. For carcinogenic substances, the human health risk level is set at 10"5 (i.e., protective to
a level allowing 1 in 100,000 excess lifetime cancer cases over background). These toxicity levels are related
to a benchmark value, or toxicity level associated with a single pollutant. Copper, a toxic metal commonly
detected and removed from industrial effluent, was selected as die benchmark pollutant (i.e., the basis to
which others are compared). EPA used copper previously in TWF calculations for the cost-effectiveness
analysis of effluent guidelines. Although the water quality criterion for copper was revised in 19S4 (to
12.0/*g/L), the TWF method uses the former criterion (5.6 ffg/L) to facilitate comparisons with cost-
effectiveness values calculated for other regulations. The former criterion for copper (5.6 pg/L) was reported
in the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper document.1
Two types of TWFs are used for this industryTWF,^^ which is used for nonvolatile pollutants
and TWFvoI, which is used for volatile pollutants. In the TWF,^! method, a TWF for aquatic life effects and
a TWF for human health effects are added for pollutants of concern. The calculation is performed by
1 U.S. EPA, 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Copper.
;. ... ' " . 2-3 -
-------
Table 2-1
Toxic Weighting Factors and Removal Efficiencies
for Regulated Pollutants
Pollutant
Code
Pollutant Name
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
Pollutant
Weighting
Factor
POTW
Removal
Efficiency
S j f
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM15
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM35
CHEM37
CHEM39
CHEM43
CHEM48
CHEM51
CHEM55
CHEM58
CHEM60
CHEM61
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
CHEM79
CHEM80
CHEM82
Cyanide
Acentonitrile
Ammonia-N (aqueous)
N-Amyl Acetate
Amvl Alcohol (1-Pentanol)
Aniline
Benzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
N-Butyl Acetate
N-Butvl AlcohoKl-Butanol)
tert-Butyl Alcohol
Chlorobenzene
Chlorofonn
Chloromethane
Cyclohexane
o-Dichlorobenzene
1^-Dichloroethane
Diethylamine
Diethyl ether
NJ^-Dimethylacetamide
Dimethylamine
N,N-Dimethylaniline
N,N-Dimethylformamide
Dimethyl sulfoxide
1,4-Dioxane
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Fonnamide
Furfural
1.08E+00
8.50E-05
2.70E-03
8.60E-04
1.60E-04
1.50E+00
4.80E-01
2.90E-04
3.10E-03
1.70E-03
3.20E-05
1.10E-02
l.OOE-01
2.08E-01
9.00E-03
1.20E-02
1.50E+00
2.80E-04
8.82E-04
2.09E-06
6.22E-04
8.30E-02
2.40E-06
1.65E-06
1.80E-01
5.80E-04
7.60E-04
8.40E-05
2.30E-03
O.OOE+00
6.70E-02
1.90E-01
4.80E-03
4.90E-04
1.50E-04
2.80E-05
2.50E-01
8.40E-01
4.80E-05
5.60E-04
2.90E-04
5.60E-06
1.50E-03
1.80E-01
3.70E-01
1.60E-03
1.80E-03
2.60E400
5.00E-05
1.40E-04
3.70E-07
1.10E-04
1.50E-02
2.90E-04
2.90E-07
3.10E-01
l.OOE-04
1.00Er04
1.50E-05
4.10E-04
O.OOE+00
9.60E-03
. 50%
0%
82%
83%
83%
80%
19%
83%
83%
80%
81%
18%
1%
0%
0%
78%
77%
67%
0%
79%
0%
83%
79%
95%
75%
89%
83%
96%
85%
67%
0%
2-4
-------
Table 2-1 (continued)
Pollutant Name
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
Pollutant
Weighting
Factor
POTW
Removal
Efficiency
'- ' " ' ^, , ,
CHEM84
CHEM87
CHEM 93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CHEM96
CHEM 97
CHEM99
CHEM101
CHEM102
CHEM103
CHEM105
CHEM106
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM134
CHEM136
CHEM139
N-Heptane ' . . _
N-Hexane '
Isobutyraldehyde (2-Methyl propanal)
Isopropanol (2-propanbl)
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methylamine
Methyl CeUosolve (2-Methoxyethanol)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Methyl Formate
Methyl Isobulyl Ketone (MffiK)
2-Methyl Pyridine (2-Picoline)
Petroleum Naphtha ,
Phenol
Polyethylene Glycol 600
N-Proponal (1-Proponal) . -
Acetone
Pyridine .
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Triethylamine ,
Xylenes
6.20E-02
3.10E-02
2.10E-03
5.60E-03
6.90E-05
' 6.10E-04
3.30E-04
3.44E-04
1.60E-01
1.20E-01
8.90E-06
2.10E-03
1.36E-04
6.70E-02
2.83E-02
5.60E-05
2.70E-05
1.60E-03
1.60E-01
7.00E-03
6.40E-03
1.49E-03
1.50E-04
4.30E-03
1.10E-02
4.40E-03
3.80E-04
l.OOE-03
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
5.80E-05
6.10E-05
2.90E-02
2.10E-01
1.60E-06
3.60E-04
2.40E-05
1.20E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-05
4.90E-06
2.90E-04
2.90E-02
1.30E-03
l.OOE-03
1.60E-04
2.60E-05
7.50E-04
37%
37%
73%
81%
83%
83%
80%
0%
15%
15%
83%
81%
0%
80%
95%
96%
~ 88%
83%
0%
83%
36%
0%
, 83%
20%
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Industry Final Effluent Guidelines.
2-5
-------
dividing aqautic life and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) for each pollutant, expressed as a
concentration in micrograms per liter 0/g/L), into the former copper criterion of 5 .6 ug/L:
= 5.6/AQ + 5.6/HHOO
where:
TWFuonvd = Toxic weighting factor for nonvolatile pollutants
AQ = Chronic aquatic life value 0*g/L)
* HHOO = Human health (ingesting organisms only) value 0/g/L)
Reductions in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are also included in this cost-effectiveness
analysis. The equation to calculate TWFs for volatiles follows the same method used in the Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers Industry? this equation
was constructed to include in TWFs all exposure to humans associated with the presence of volatile toxic
pollutants in the industry's wastewater. This modification applies only to the volatile pollutants; the
calculation of the TWFs for nonvolatile pollutants is as described above.-
As discussed in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic
Fibers Industry,3 VOCs have the potential to volatize from wastewater effluent into the atmosphere during
wastewater treatment. Although removed from the final wastewater discharge, the subsequent air load can
increase the exposure of humans to pollutants through the inhalation pathway of exposure. Ideally, a
weighting factor for VOCs would incorporate both air and water criteria or toxic effect levels. This approach
is not readily feasible, however, because the criteria are expressed in different units (pg/m3 versus ugfL).
Therefore, proxy criteria for air are developed by: (1) substituting the average quantity of water ingested
(2 L/day) for the average amount of air inhaled (20 mVday) and (2) using oral cancer slope potency factors
and oral reference doses to represent toxicity from inhalation. With these modifications, the proxy criteria for
air become equivalent to the calculated water quality criteria for ingesting water and organisms (as
represented by the term HHWO). The equation used here to calculate TWFs is the same as above, except
2 U.S. EPA, 1987. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers
Industry.
^Ibid. ,
-------
that HHOQ is replaced with HHWO in consideration of the additional human health risk from the potential
presence of VOCs in the air:
= 5.6/AQ + 5.6/HHWO
where: . . :
= Toxic weighting factor for volatile pollutants
AQ = Chronic aquatic life value (ug/L)
HHWO = Human health (ingesting water and organisms) value (jtgfL)
The similarities and differences between TWFTOl and TA^TF^,^ are summarized in Table 2-2
2.3 POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
The pollution control options investigated are divided into those for direct dischargers and those for
indirect dischargers. Within each type of discharger, additional distinctions are made. First, all technology
options are divided between industry subcategories, with A and C industry subcategories (representing
faculties that use fermentation or chemical synthesis processes) being distinguished from B and D industry
subcategories (representing faculties that use biological and natural extraction processes or that are
fonnulators of pharmaceutical products). For direct dischargers, the technologies are then further broken
down into BPT, BCT, BAT, and NSPS options, of which only the BAT options are considered in the cost-
effectiveness analysis; for indirect dischargers, PSES technology options are examined. NSPS and PSNS
options are identical to the BAT and PSES options for each group of facilities. Thus the relative cost-
effectiveness of these options will be similar to that for the equivalent options in each regulatory grouping.
Table 2-3 presents the regulatory options addressed in this analysis and defines the, technologies
associated with each option. -
2-7
-------
Table 2-2
Differences Between
and
Feature
TWF
* VTJ?nonvol
TWFVOI
< ^ ' " " ,
Benchmark Value
(numerator)
Carcinogenic Risk Level
Human Health Exposure
Aquatic Life Effects vs.
Human Health Effects
5.6 (former freshwater
chronic criterion for copper)
10'5 (1 in 100,000 excess
cancer cases)
Fish consumption only
Effects are added
5.6 (former freshwater
chronic criterion for copper)
lO'5 (1 in 100,000 excess
cancer cases)
Drinking water and fish
consumption
Effects are added
Source: U.S. EPA, 1987. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and
Synthetic Fibers Industry.
2-8
-------
Table 2-3
, , _-;^ ts»
Summary of Regulatory Options Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Regulation
Short Option
Description
Option
Type of Treatment
" - '- "
BAT
PSES
BATVA/C
BAT-B/D
PSES-A/C
PSES-B/D
Add organics, ammonia,
and COD and modify
cyanide
Add COD and withdraw
cyanide
Add organics,
ammonia,and modify
cyanide
Add organics and withdraw
jyanide
Advanced biological treatment with
nitrification
«
Advanced biological treatment
In-plant steam stripping for organic
compounds and ammonia
In-plant steam stripping for organic
compounds
8 COD = chemical oxygen demand.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category.
2-9
-------
2.4 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
The pollutant loadings have been calculated for each facility under each regulatory option for
comparison with baseline loadings. The postregulatory removals under each regulatory option are presented
inAppendixA. , .
Pollutant removals are calculated directly as the difference between current and posttreatment
discharges. Removals are then weighted using the TWFs and are reported in pounds-equivalent (see
Appendix A for pound-equivalent removals for all pollutants by pollutant and option). Total removals for
each option are then calculated by summing the removals for all pollutants under each option.
One additional step is undertaken to calculate final reductions in nonvolatile pollutant loadings for
indirect dischargers because of the ability of POTWs to remove pollutants. Thus water removals for indirect
dischargers take into account POTW removal efficiencies for nonvolatiles. Volatile pollutants are not
removed by POTWs since they are volatized before reaching POTWs. Significant emission of these
compounds to the air is expected from conveyance systems or open primary treatment units prior to reaching
a POTW's biological treatment unit. Table 2-1 presents the POTW removal efficiencies for 50 pollutants.
The POTW removal efficiencies are used as follows. If a facility is discharging 100 pounds of cadmium in
its effluent stream to a POTW and the POTW has a removal efficiency for cadmium of 38 percent, then the
cadmium discharged to surface waters is only 62 pounds. If the regulation results in a reduction of cadmium
in the effluent stream such that total cadmium discharged to the POTW is 50 pounds, then the amount
discharged to surface waters is calculated as 50 pounds multiplied by the POTW removal efficiency factor (1
- 0.38 or 0.62 times 50 pounds equals 31 pounds). The cost-effectiveness calculations then reflect the fact
that the actual reduction of pollutant discharged to surface water is not 50 pounds (the change in the amount
discharged to the POTW), but 31 pounds (the change in the amount actually discharged to surface water).
Pollutant removals calculated in this way are presented in Table 2-4.
2-10
-------
Table 2-4
Total Pollutant Removals by Regulatory Option
Option
Pounds
Removed
Pounds-Equivalent
Removed
f >
BAT-A/C
BAT-B/D
PSES-A/C
PSES-B/D
2,160,048
22,339
10,653,427 ' :,
3,346,808
9,780
87
282,614
80,807
Source: See Tables A-1 through A-6.
,2-11
-------
2.5 ANNUALIZED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
Under each regulatory option, annualized costs of compliance have been developed.4 The derivation
of these costs is summarized briefly below.
Two groups of costs were derived for each of the affected facilities under each of the regulatory
options: capital costs, which include capital equipment, delivery and installation of equipment including site
work, site work prior to installation, engineering and necessary ancillary equipment and activities (piping;
painting, electrical hookups, etc.); and recurring operating and maintenance costs (O&M) which include
O&M labor and materials, chemical use, and sludge handling and disposal, if applicable, and electricity usage
costs. The capital costs are then amortized over the lifetime of the equipment, to produce an annual cost.5
Unlike annual costs derived in the Economic Assessment Report, where tax shields were incorporated when
estimating impacts on industry, annual costs hi this cost-effectiveness analysis are derived using no tax
shields and the 7 percent discount rate suggested by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as an
appropriate discount rate.6 These annualized capital costs are added to the recurring costs to produce a total
anmial compliance cost for each facility affected under each regulatory option. Aggregate annual costs for
each regulatory option are used in the calculation of the cost-effectiveness values. The total BAT/PSES
aggregate annual costs by option are presented in Table 2-5. Appendix B presents the calculations used to
arrive at the aggregate annual cost figures presented in Table 2-5.
2.6 CALCULATION OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Cost-effectiveness values are calculated separately for each regulatory option. Options first are
ranked in ascending order of pounds-equivalent of pollutants removed. The incremental cost-effectiveness
value for a particular control option is calculated as the ratio of the incremental annual cost to the incremental
4 See U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category and U.S. EPA, 1998. Economic Analysis for Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Existing and New Sources for the Pharmaceutical Industry.
5 These annualized costs are pretax to approximate the total cost to society of these options.
6 OMB, 1996. Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations under Executive Order 12866. January 11.
2-12
-------
Table 2-5
Aggregate Annual Cost by Regulatory Option
Option
Cost
($1990)
Cost
($1981)
'' " " :
BAT-A/C
BAT-B/D
PSES-A/C
PSES-B/D
$2,926,352
$333,318
$36,130,524
$7,166,657
$2,186,106
$249,003
$26,990,998
'$5,353,790
Source: See Table B-l
2-13
-------
pounds-equivalent removed. Average cost-effectiveness values for each option are calculated as total dollars
for the option divided by total pounds-equivalent removed by the option. The incremental effectiveness
values are viewed incrementally in comparison to the baseline (zero costs/zero removals) for BAT-B/D and to
the preceding regulatory option (for all subsequent options). Cost-effectiveness values are reported in units
of dollars per pound equivalent of pollutant removed.
For the purpose of comparing cost-effectiveness values of options under review to those of other
promulgated rules, compliance costs used in the cost-effectiveness analysis (which are in 1990 dollars) are
adjusted to 1981 dollars using Engineering News Records Construction Cost Index (CCI) (see Table 2-4 for
compliance costs in 198 1 dollars).7 This adjustment factor is calculated as follows:
Adjustment factor = 1981 CCI/1990 CCI = 3,535/4,732 = 0.7470
The equation used to calculate incremental cost effectiveness is:
"*
where:
Cost-effectiveness of Option k
Total annuaUzed treatment cost under Option k
Pound equivalents removed by Option k
The numerator of the equation, ATCj. minus ATC^j, is simply the incremental annuaUzed treatment
cost in going from Option k-1 (an option that removes fewer pounds-equivalent of pollutants) to Option k (an
option that removes more pounds-equivalent of pollutants). The denominator is similarly the incremental
removals achieved in going from Option k- 1 to k. Thus, cost effectiveness measures the incremental unit cost
of pollutant removal of Option k (in pound equivalents) in comparison to Option k- 1 .
' Engineering News Record, 1997. Construction Cost Index. March 31.
2-14
-------
Average cost-effectiveness values also can bederived by siting ATCj.., to zero and by setting the
pollutant loadings (PEi..,) to the current loading. These values can be used, with caution, to compare an
option to previously promulgated effluent limitations guidelines.
2.7 COMPAMSONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Because the options are ranked in ascending order of pounds-equivalent of pollutants removed
within each regulatory grouping, any option that has higher costs but lower removals than another option
immediately can be identified (the cost-effectiveness value for the next option becomes negative). When
; ''..* '. - , / i-
negative values are computed for Option k, Option k-1 will be noted as "dominated" (having a higher cost
arid lower removals than Option k). Option k-1 is then removed from the cost-effectiveness calculations, and
all cost-effectiveness values within a regulatory grouping are then recalculated without the "dominated"
option. This process continues until all "dominated" options are eliminated. The remaining options can then
be presented in terms of their incremental cost-effectiveness values and are considered viable options" for
regulatory consideration. " , . .
2-15
-------
-------
SECTION THREE
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
- - - '" ' ' -
The cost-effectiveness analysis is based CHI the Agency's estimates of the cost of compliance and
wastewater pollution removes associated with two BAT optionsone for facilities with fermentation or
chemical synthesis processes (the A and C facilities) and one for facilities with biological and natural
extraction processes or which formulate Pharmaceuticals (the B and D facilities) For indirect dischargers the
analysis calculates cost-effectiveness values for two PSES options, one for A/C facilities and one for B/D
facilities. ,
3.1 BEST AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGYDIRECT DISCHARGERS
' ' ; ' ' .'', '
3.U A/CFacifities
T' -'-.,,
As shown in Table 3-1, the incremental and average cost-effectiveness for mis selected regulatory
option is S224/PE.
3.1.2 B/D Facilities
The incremental cost effectiveness for BAT-B/D is $2,870/PE. Since the selected option is a no-
additional regulation option, BAT-B/D is set etpial to BPT. BPT is not evaluated in cost-effectiveness
analyses, so no cost-effectiveness value is calculated.
3.2 PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING SOURCESINDIRECT
DISCHARGERS
3.2;1 A/C Facilities
As shown in Table 3-1, the selected regulatory option, PSES-A/C, has an incremental and average
cost-effectiveness value of S96/PE.
3-1
'-'j .
-------
2
'H
a
a
.2
i
i
-------
3.2.2 B/D Facilities
:'..- ' \" ' '.. .' .-'. ''? ' ; '.* '. _.-' . ; .
The incremental cost-effectiveness value for the selected regulatory option, PSES-B/D, has an
incremental and average cost-effectiveness value of $66/PE.
3-3
-------
-------
SECTION FOUR
COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES WITH THOSE OF
OTHER PROMULGATED RULES
As discussed in Section Two, incremental cost effectiveness is the appropriate measure for
comparing one regulatory option to an alternative, less stringent regulatory option for the same rule. Some
believe that it also may be used to compare cost effectiveness across rules when considering how die last
increment of stringency in one rule compares to the last increment of stringency in another. For comparing
the overall cost effectiveness of one rule to another, average cost effectiveness may be a more appropriate
measure, but must be considered in context with caution. (Average cost-effectiveness can be thought of as
the "increment" between no regulation and the selected option for any given rule.)
Table 4-1 presents the cost-effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines and standards
issued for direct dischargers under BAT in other industries. For the A/C direct dischargers, the cost-
effectiveness value for the selected option is S224/PE. The cost-effectiveness value for BAT-A/C is higher
, }.'."
than those shown for most other effluent guidelines, but not all, and, for the reasons outlined below, this value
is believed to understate the true cost effectiveness of the rule. For B/D direct dischargers, the selected option
issetatBAT = BPT.
Table 4-2 presents the cost-effectiveness values for pretreatment standards issued for indirect
dischargers under PSES in other industries. For A/C indirects, the cost-effectiveness value for the selected '
option is S96/PE. For B/D indirects, the value is S66/PE. The values for PSES-A/C and PSES-B/D are
within the range shown for other pretreatment standards.
The cost-effectiveness values determined for this rule do not represent an estimate of the removal of
the toxic pounds resulting from the removal of COD. Discharges from pharmaceutical manufacturing facilties
exhibit toxicity as measured by the whole effluent toxicity test and reported as part of the routine National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge monitoring reports. One study conducted by
EPA'.at a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility showed a significant decrease in toxicity with a
corresponding decrease in chemical oxygen demand (COD) level for the tested effluent sample from the
4-1
-------
Table 4-1
Industry Comparison of BAT Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights;' 1981 dollars)
Industry
' v
AluF»mlm Forming
Battery M?ni'facturing
n«ntnating
Centralized Waste Treatment5
Coal Mining
Coil Coaling
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics n
Foundries
inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Metal Products and
Machinery*
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonfcrrous Metals Mfg H
Oil and Gas: Ofishoreb
Coastal Produced
Water/rWC
Drilling Waste
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals A/C
B/D
Plastics Molding & Penning
Porcelain Enameling
PE Currently Discharged
(thousands)
',
1,340
4,126
12
3,372
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
9
NA
2,308
32,503
60S
40,746
259
3,305
140
34
6,653
1,004
3,809
951
BAT = Current Practice
54,225
2,461
560
0.1
44
1,086
PE Regaining at Selected
Option
(thousands)
90
5
0.2
1,261-1,267
BAT=BPT
9
8
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
70
2
313
12
2328
239
BAT = Current Practice
9,735
371
550
__
41
63
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
(S/PE removed)
:
121
2
10
5-7
BAT=BPT
49
27
404
NA
84
<1
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
50
69
4
6
33
35
BAT - Current Practice
5 '
14
224
BAT=BPT
BAT=BPT
6
.4-2
-------
Table 4-1 (continued)
Industry
PE Currently Discharged
(thousands)
PE RcttaMng at Selected
Option
(thousands)
Cost-Eflfectiveness of
Selected Opoon(s)
(S/PE removed)
, , ,,,"''<,' ,,,-; , "* " :
.. ' ' % :
Petroleum Refining
Pulp & Paper
Textile Mills
Transportation Equipment
Cleaning0
BAT=BPT
- 15,524
BAT=BPT
, 15
BAT=BPT
4,069
BAT=BPT
0.8
BAT-BPT
14
BAT=BPT
108
Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects tiw cost effectiveness at the time of
regulation.
'Produced water only; for produced sand and drilling fluids and drfll cuttings, BAT=NSPS.
Troposed. .
4-3
-------
Table 4-2
Industry Comparison of PSES Cost-Effectiveness
for Indirect Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights'; 1981 dollars)
Industry
1 ?
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining""
Coastal Oil and Gas*
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics 11
Foundries
Industrial Laundries'1
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals H
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing n
Offshore Oil and Gas*
OCSPSF
Pharmaceuticals0 A/C
B/D
Plastics Molding and Forming
PE Currf nHy Biicbflrged
(thousands)
" ~- * %%
1,602
1,152
252
NA
NA
2,503
34
75
260
2,136
2,002
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
189
3,187
38
NA
5,210
897
90
NA
PF, Remaining at Selected
Option
(thousands)
18
5
5
NA
NA
10
4
35
24
18
1,594
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
5
19
0.41
NA
72
614
9
NA
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
(S/PE removed)
f
155
15
38
NA
NA
10
10
14
14
116
108
9
<1
6
111
10
90
15
12
NA
34
96
66
NA
4-4
-------
Table 4-2 (continued)
"'..- ' .'"fty
Industry
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper"1
PE Currently Discharged
(thousands)
s
1,565
1323
PE Remaining at Selected
Option
(thousands)
-
96
314
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
(S/PE removed)
,,
14
14
'Although toxic weighing factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the cost effectiveness at the time of
regulation.
'industry has no known or expected indirect discharges.
Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants. '
^Proposed. , >
415
-------
facility and a sample effluent of a pilot-scale biological treatment plant study. Because of the limited amount
of date, and the inability to identify the different mix of specific organic compounds represented by the COD
measurement, the total amount of toxic pounds-equivalent represented by the nonconventional pollutant
parameter of COD could not be determined.
Based on the lack of pounds-equivalent associated with COD removals, the cost-effectiveness
analysis results understate the true cost effectiveness of this rule.
4-6
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
COST-EFFECTTVENESS ANALYSIS:
POLLUTANT LOADINGS ANALYSIS
-------
-------
TabfcA-1
Industry Loads and Removals by Pollutant
BAT-A/C Faculties
PoDutant
Code
Pollutant Name
Removals
Ota^yr)
Toxic
Weighting PE
Factor Removals
: " .. , , ,-.-.'.
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM1S
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM3S
CHEM37
CHEM48
CHEMS1
CHEM55
CHEM60
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
.CHEM79
CHEM80
CHEM84
CHEM87
CHEM93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CBEM96
CHEM97
CHEM101
CHEM102 .
CHEM103
CHEM10S
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM136
CHEM139
CHEMBOD
CHEMCOD
CHEMTSS
Cyanide
Acetooilrile . .
Ammonia-N
Amyl Acetate, n-
Pentanol, 1- (amyl alcohol)
Aniline - -
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketooe
Butyl acetate, n-
Butanol, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
Methyl-2-propanol, 2- (tert-butyl alcohol)
Chlorobenzene
Trichtorometfaane (chloroform)
Dichtorobenzene, 1,2- .
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Diethylamine
Dimethylaceiamide, N,N-
N,N-Dimelhylaniline
Dimethylformamide, N,N-
Dimethyl sulfoxide
Dioxane, 1,4-
Etfaanol
Ethyl acetate *
Elfaylene glycd
Fonnaldehyde
Formamide
Heptane, n-
Hexane, n-
Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
Isopropanol (2-propanol)
Isopropyi Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methoxyethanol, 2- (methyl cellosolve)
Dichloromethane (metfayletie chloride)
Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
Methyl isooutyl ketooe
Petroleum Naptha
Phenol
Polyethylene Glycol 600
Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
Acetone
Pyridine
Telrahydrofuran . .
Toluene ,
Triethylamine ,
Xylenes'
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day ,
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Totals
0
1,146
800,913
1,616
52,174
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,080
0
147
0
0
0
0
3,712
0
195,517
87,223
0
0
0
0
241
0
165,987
286
0
712,931
0
41,905
8,437
14,462
0
8,995
0
0
17,832
0
31,821
8,042
0
2,581
0
0
0
2.160,048
1.08E+00
8.50E-05
2.70E-03
8.60E-04
1.60E-04
1.50E+00
4.80E-01
2.90E-04
3.10E-03
1.70E-03,
3.20E-05
1.10E-02,
. l.OOE-01
1.20E-02
1.50E-KX)
2.80E-04
2.09E-06
8.30E-02
2.40E-06
1.65E-06
1.80E-01
5.80E-04
7.60E-04
8.40E4)5
2.30E-03
O.OOE+00
6.20E-02
3.10E-02
2.10E-03
5.60E-03
6.90E-05
. 6.10E-04
3J30E-04
1.60E-01
1.20E-01
8.90E-06
2.10E-03
6.70E-02
2.83E-02
5.60E-05
2.70E-05
1.60E-03
1.60E-01
7.00E-03
6.40E-03
1.50E-04
4.30E-03
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0
0
2,162
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
408
0
221
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
66
0
0
0
0
7
0
930
,0
0
235
0
5,029
0
30
0
254
0
0
29
0
223
51
0
11
0
0
0
9,780
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for Has Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manuficturing Industry
Final Effluent Guidelines. - ',
-------
Table A-2
Industry Loads and Removals by PoDutani
BAT-B/D Facflifief
oRutant
Code Pollutant Name
f
CN- Cyanide
CHEM3 Acetonhrile
CHEM9 Ammonia-N
CHEM10 Amyl Acetate, n-
CHEM11 Pentanol,l-(amyl alcohol)
CHEM12 Aniline
CHEM15 Benzene
CHEM25 Methyl ethyl ketone
CHEM26 Butyl acetate, n-
CHEM27 Butanol, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
CHEM29 Mefljyi-2-propanoI, 2- (tert-butyl alcohol)
CHEM35 Chlorobenzene
CHEM37 Trichloromethane (chloroform)
CHEM48 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
CHEM51 Dichloroethane, 1,2-
CHEM55 Diethylamine
CHEM60 Dimethytacetamide, N.N-
CHEM62 N,N-Diinethylaniline
CHEM64 Dimethylformamide, N,N-
CHEM66 Dimethyl sulfoxide
CHEM67 Dioxaoc, 1,4-
CHEM70 Ethand
CHEM71 Ethyl acetate
CHEM77 Ethylene gtycol
CHEM79 Formaldehyde
CHEM80 Formamide
CHEM84 Heptane, n-
CHEM87 Hexane, n-
CHEM93 Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
CHEM94 Isopropanol (2-propanol)
CHEM9S Isopropyl Acetate
CHEM96 Isopropyl Ether
CHEM97 Methanol
CHEM101 Methoxyethanol, 2- (methyl cellosolve)
C HEM 102 Dichloromethane (melhylene chloride)
CHEM103 Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
CHEM105 Methyl isobutylketone
CHEM113 Petroleum Naptha
CHEM114 Phenol
CHEM115 Polyethylene Glycol 600
CHEM117 Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
CHEM118 Acetone
CHEM124 Pyridine
GHEM129 Tetrahydrofuran
CHEM130 Toluene
CHEM136 Triethylamine
CHEM139 Xylenes
CHEMBOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand S-day
CHEMCOD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CHEMTSS Total Suspended Solids
Removal! Weighting PE
(Ibs/vr) Factor Removab
,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,477
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
14,646
0
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22,339
1.08E+00
8.50E-05
Z70E-03
8.60E-04
1.60E-04
1.50E-HK)
4.80E-01
2.90E-04
3.10E-03
1.70E-03
3.20E-05
1.10E-02
l.OOE-01
1.20E-02
l.SOE+00
X80E-04
2.09E-06
8.30E-02
2.40E-06
1.6SE-06
1.80E-01
5.80E-04
7.60E-04
8.40E-05
230E-03
O.OOE+00
6.20E-02
3.10E-02
2.10E-03
5.60E-03
6.90E-05
6.10E-04
3.30E4M
1.60E-01
1.20E-01
8.90E-06
2.10E-03
6.70E-02
2.83E-02
5.60E-05
2.70E-05
1.60E-03
1.60E-01
7.00E-03
6.40E-03
1.50E-04
4.30E-03
O.OOE400
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
87
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry
Final Effluent Guidelines.
A-2
-------
TabfeA-3
Industry Loads and Removals by Pollutant
PSES-A/CFadBtte*
Pollutant
Code
PoDntani Name
POTW
Removals ' Removal
(Ibs/yr) Efficiency (%)
Removals
After POTW
Tosk
Weighting PE
Factor Removals
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM15
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM35
CHEM37
CHEM48
CHEM51
CHEM55
CHEM60
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
CHEM79
CHEM80
CHEM84
CHEM87
CHEM93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CHEM96
CHEM97.
CHEM101
CHEM102
CHEM103
CHEM105
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM136
CHEM139
CHEMBOD
CHEMCOD
CHEMTSS
Cyanide
Acetonitrile
Ammonia-N
Amy! Acetate, n-
Pentanol, 1- (amyl alcohol)
Aniline
Benzene , .
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, n-
Butand, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
Methyl-2-propanol, 2- (tart-butyl alcohol)
Chlorobenzene
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,2- .
Diethylamine
Dimethyiacetamide, N,N-
N,N-Dimethylaniline
DimethyUbrmamide, N,N-
Dimemyl sulfoxide
Dioxane, 1,4- ,
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Heptane, n-
Hexane,n-
Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
Isopropanol (2-propanol)
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol ,
Methoxyethanol, 2- (methyl cellosolve)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
Methyl isobutyl ketooe
Petroleum Naptha
Phenol " ,
Polyethylene Glycol 600 ,
Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
Acetone
Pyridine
Tetrahydrofiiran
Toluene
Triethylamine
Xylenes
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Totals
0
0
1,425,793
294,153
,0
0
120,896
0
412,547
0
0
84,094
45,219
16,376
546
61,644
0
0
0
0
0
110
, 1,693,800
0
0
0
17,502
1,133,860
29,737
11
9,426
9,280
22
978,930
677,934
23,283
254,906
0
0
0
0
2,234,971
0
91,062
640,348
374,837
22,140
0
0
0
10,653,427
50%
0%
82%
83%
83%
80%
19%
83%
83%
80%
81%
18%
1%
78%
77%
67%
79%
83%
79%
95%
75%
89%
83%
96%
85%
67%
37%
37%
73%
81%
83%
83%
80%
15%
15%
83%
81%
- 80%
95%
96%
88%
83%
0%
83%
36%
83%
20%
0
0
259,494
50,594
0
0
98,047
0
70,958
0
0
69,042
44,812
3,553
124
20,466
0
0
0
0
0
12
291,334
0
, 0
0
11,061
716,599
8,088
2
1,621
J.596
4
, 832,091
577,600
4,005
48,942
0
0
0
0
373,240
0
15,663
411,104
64,472
17,624
, . " 5
3,992,148
1.08E+00
8.SOE-05
2.70E-03
8.60E-04
1.60E-04
1.50E+00
4.80E-01
2.90E-04
3.10E-03
1.70E-03
3.20E-05
1.10E-02
1.00E41
1.20E-02
1.50E+00 -
2.80E-04
2.09&06
8.30E-02
2.40E-06
1.65E-06
1.80E-01
5.80E-04
7.60E-04
8.40E-05
2.30E-03
O.OOE+00
6.20E-02
3.10E-02
2.10E-03
5.60E-03
6.90E-05
6.10E-04
330E-04
1.60E-01
1.20E-01
8.90E-06
2.10E-03
6.70E-02
2.83E-02
5.60E-05
2.70E-05
1.60E-03
1.60E-01
7.00E-03
6.40E-03
l.SOE-04
4.30E-03
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0
0
701
44
0
0
47,063
0
220
0
0
759
4,481
43
186
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
221
0
0
0
686
22,215
17
0
0
1
0
133,135
69,312
0
103
0
0
0
0
597
0
lio
2,631
10
76
0
0
0
282,614
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical
: ' Manufacturing Point Source Category. '
U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Final Effluent Guidelines.
A-3
-------
TabfeA-4
Industry Loads and Removals by Pollutant
PSES-B/D Facflttk*
PoButant Removals Removal Alter POTW Wdgrfng PE
Code PoBntantName Obs/yrt Efficiency (%)
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS:
COST ANALYSIS
-------
-------
ca
§
CO
Q«
CO
i
p
tf»
-2
on
a
SO
o
ON
oo
o"
oo
OO'
00
o
VO
1
Tfr
en
©"
1I
o
OO:
s
£
oo
ON
ON
O"
S
so"
.s
ON
SO
O
so
oo
ts
s
E
i
l
B-l
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS RESULTS
USING THE ALTERNATIVE PWF APPROACH
The pollutant weighting factor (PWF) method is an alternative to the TWF method for assessing
water-based effects. PWFs are derived from the more protective of either the chronic aquatic life criteria (or
? ' -
toxic effect levels) or the human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of
water sad fish. For carcinogenic substances, the human health risk level is 10"6 (i.e., protective to a level
allowing 1 in 1,000,000 excess lifetime cancer cases over background). In contrast to TWFs, PWFs are not
related to a benchmark pollutant PWFs are derived by taking the reciprocal of the more stringent (smallest
value) of the aquatic life or human health criterion or toxic effect level, both expressed in concentration units
of micrograms per liter (ug/L):
PWF = _L if AQ -< HHWO or PWF = * , if HHWO < AQ
where:
PWF = pollutant weighting factor
''-" ' . . 1 ' . .'-'.,!
AQ = chronic aquatic life value (ug/L)
HHWO= human health (ingesting water and organisms value (ug/L)
The results of using PWFs rather than TWFs in the cost-effectiveness analysis are shown in
Table C-1. As Table C-1 shows, the selected option for BAT-A/C has an average and incremental cost-
effectiveness value of S205/PE, PSES-A/C has an average and incremental cost-effectiveness value of
$112/PE and the selected option for PSES-B/D has an average and incremental cost-effectiveness value of
$38/PE. Tables C-2 through C-5 provide the detailed supporting data.
C-l
-------
n
s
SO*
00
«3
O
g
es
oo
Ed
«
3
so
o
SO
00
3
o
so
I
OS
eT
OS
<»>
f^
o"
o
S.
CO*
0«
oo
so
o
so
OO
ts
o
oC
<«
v»
IT)
o
V
H » Z
3-1 E
OS
o"
OS
OS
so"
ts
1"
o
^
o
o
§
CO
w
CO
a,
C-2
-------
TabfeC-2
Industry Loads and Removals by PoOutant Based on PWFi
BAT-A/C Facilities
PoOutant
Code
Pollutant Name
Removals
Obsfrr)
Pollutant
Weighting PE
Factor Removals
/ .. . fff % - it ' '" ''"f " '' ''' ' '''' ''
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM15
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM35
CHEM37
CHEM48
CHEM51
CHEM55
CHEM60
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
CHEM79
CHEM80
CHEM84
CHEM87
CHEM93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CHEM96
CHEM97
CHEM101
CHEM102
CHEM103
CHEM105
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM136
CHEM139
CHEMBOD
CHEMCOD
CHEMTSS
Cyanide
Acetonitrile
Ammonia-N
Amyl Acetate, n-
Pentanol, 1- (amyl alcohol)
Aniline
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketooe
Butyl acetate, n-
Butanol, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
Methyl-2-propanol, 2- (tert-butyl alcohol)
Chlorobenzene
Trichloromcthane (chloroform)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichloroemane, 1,2-
Diethylamine
Dimelhvlacetainide, N,N-
N,N-Dimethylaniline ,
Dimethylfonnamide, N,N- ;
Dimethyl sulfbxide
Dioxane, 1,4- . . ,
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Heptane, n-
Hexane,n-
Methyl propanal, 2- (isoburyraldehyde)
Isopropanol (2-propanol)
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methoxyethanol, 2- (methyl cellosdve)
Dichloromemane (memylene chloride)
Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
Methyl isobutyl ketooe
Petroleum Naptha
Phenol
Polyethylene Glycol 600
Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
Acetone
Pyridine
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene .
Triemylamine
Xylenes .
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Totals
0
1,146
800,913
1,616
52,174
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
4,080
0
147
0
0
0
0
3,712
0
195,517
87,223
0
0
0
0
241
0
165,987
286
0
712,931
0
41,905
8,437
14,462
0
8,995
0
0
17*832
0
31,821
8,042
0
2,581
0
0
0
2,160.048
1.90E-01
4.80E-03
4.90E-04
1.50E-04
2.80E-05
2.50E-01
8.40E-01
4.80E-05
S.60E-04
2.90E-04
S.60E-06
1.50E-03
1.80E-01
1.80E-03
2.60E-KX)
5.00E-05
3.70E-07
1.50E-02
2.90E-04
2.90E-07
3.10E-01
l.OOE-04
l.OOE-04
1.50E-05
4.10E-04
O.OOE+00
1.10E-02
4.40E-03
3.80E-04
l.OOE-03
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
5.80E-05
2.90E-02
2.10E-01
1.60E-06
3.60E-04
1.20E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE^S
4.90E-06
2.90E-04
2.90E-02
130E-03
l.OOE-03
2.60E-05
7.50E-04
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE-KK)
0
6
392
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
734
9
382
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
9
0
0
0
0
1
0
166
0
0
41
0
8,800
0
5
0
45
0
; 0
5
0
41
* 8
0
2
0
0
0
10.660
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category. '
U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry
1 Final Effluent Guidelines.
C-3
-------
Table C-3
Industry Loads and Removals by Pollutant Based on PWFs
BAT-B/D Fadttfes
Pollutant
Code
Pollutant Name
Removal*
PoButant
Weighting PE
Factor Removal*
. , , x%
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM15
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM35
CHEM37
CHEM48
CHEM51
CHEM55
CHEM60
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
CHEM79
CHEM80
CHEM84
CHEM87
CHEM93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CHEM96
CHEM97
CHEM101
CHEM102
CHEM103
CHEM105
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM136
CHEM139
CHEMBOD
CHEMCOD
CHEMTSS
Cyanide
Acetonhrile
Ammooia-N
Amy! Acetate, n-
Pentanol, 1- (amyl alcohol)
Aniline
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, n-
Butanol, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
Methyl-2-propanol, 2- (tert-butyl alcohol)
Chlorobenzene
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Diethylamine
DimethyUcetamide, N,N-
N,N-Dimemylanilme
Dimethylfonnamide, N,N-
Dimethyl sulfbxide
Dioxane, 1,4-
Ethanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Heptane, n-
Hexane,n-
Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
Isopropanol (2-propanol)
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methoxyethanol, 2- (methyl cellosorve)
Dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Petroleum Naptha
Phenol
Polyethylene Glycol 600
Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
Acetone
Pyridine
Tetrahydrofunn
Toluene
Triethylamine
Xylenes
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Totals
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,477
0
0
171
0
0
0
0
, 14,646
,0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
46
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* 0
22,339
1.90E-01
4.SOE-03
4.90E-04
1.50E-04
2.80E-05 ,
2.50E-01
8.40E-01
4.80E-05
5.60E-04
2.90E-04
5.60E-06
1.50E-03
1.80E-01
1.80E-03
2.60E+00
5.00E-05
3.70E-07
1.50E-02
2.90E-04
2.90E-07
3.10E-01
l.OOE-04
l.OOE-04 .
1.50E-05
4.10E-04
O.OOE+00
1.10E-02
4.40E-03
3.80E-04
l.OOE-03
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
5.80E-05
2.90E-02
2.10E-01
1.60E-06
3.60E-04
1.20E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-05
4.90E-06
2.90E-04
2.90E-02
130E-03
l.OOE-03
2.60E-05
7.50E-04
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Point Source Category.
US. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry
Final Effluent Guidelines.
C-4
-------
Table C-4
Industry Loads and Removals by Pollutant Based on PWFi
PSES-A/C Facilities
Pollutant
Code
CN-
CHEM3
CHEM9
CHEM10
CHEM11
CHEM12
CHEM15
CHEM25
CHEM26
CHEM27
CHEM29
CHEM35
CHEM37
CHEM48
CHEM51
CHEM55
CHEM60
CHEM62
CHEM64
CHEM66
CHEM67
CHEM70
CHEM71
CHEM77
CHEM79
CHEMSO
CHEMS4
CHEM87
CHEM93
CHEM94
CHEM95
CHEM96
GHEM97
CHEM101
CHEM102
CHEM103
CHEM105
CHEM113
CHEM114
CHEM115
CHEM117
CHEM118
CHEM124
CHEM129
CHEM130
CHEM136
CHEM139
CHEMBOD
CHEMCOD
CHEMTSS
Polhnant Name
-
Cyanide
Acetom'trile
Ammonia-N .
Amyl Acetate, n-
Pentanol, 1- (amyl alcohol)
Aniline L
Benzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Butyl acetate, n-
Butanol, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
Methyi-2-propanol, 2- (tert-butyl alcohol)
Chlorobenzene
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichkxoemane, 1,2-
Diemylamine
Dimemylacetamide, N,N-
N,N-Dimethylaniline
Dimethylformamide, N,N-_,
Dimethyl sulfbxide
Dioxane, 1,4-
Etnanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Heptane, n-
Hexane,n-
Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
Isoprbpanol (2-propanol)
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Ether
Methanol
Methoxyethanbl, 2- (methyl cellosolve)
pichloromethane (metfayiene chloride)
Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Petroleum Naptha
Phenol
Polyethylene Glycol 600
Propanol, 1- (n-propanol) :
Acetone, '
Pyridine -
Tetrahydrofiiran
Toluene
Triethylamine '
Xylenes,
Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Suspended Solids
Totals
POTW
Removab Removal
(Ibs/yr) Efficiency (%)
> '
0
0
1,425,793
294,153
0
0
120,8%
0
412,547
0
0
84,094
45,219
16,376
546
61,644
0
0
0
0
0
110
1,693,800
0
0
0
17,502
1,133,860
29,737
11
9,426
9,280
22
978,930
677,934
23,283
254,906
0
0
0
0
2,234,971
0
91,062
640,348
374,837
22,140
0
0
0
10^653,427
>
50%
0%
82%
83%
83%
80%
19%
83%
83%
80%
81%
18%
1%
78%
77%
67%
79%
83%
79%
95%
75%
89%
83%
96%
85%
67%
37%
37%
73%
81%
83%
83%
80%
15%
15%
83%
81%-
80%
95%
96%
88%
83%'
0%
83%
36%
83%
20%
Removab
After POTW
0
0
259,494
50,594
0
0
98,047
0
70,958
0
0
69,042
44,812
3,553
124
, 20,466
0
0
0
0
0
12,
291,334
0
0
0
11,061
716,599
8,088
2
1,621
1,596
4
1 83^091
577,600
4,005
48,942
0
0
0
0
373,240
0
15,663
411,104
64,472
17,624
3,992,148
Pollutant
Weighting
Factor
f
1.90E-01
4.80E-03
4.90E-04
1.50E-04
2.80E-05
2.50E-01
8.40E-01
4.80E-05
5.60E-04
2.90E-04
5.60E-06
1.50E-03
l.SOE-01
1.80E-03
2.60E400
5.00EX)5
3.70E-07
1.50E-02
2.90E-04
2.90E-07
3.10E-01
l.OOE-04
l.OOE-04
1.50E-05
4.10E-04
O.OOE-HX)
1.10E-02
4.40E-03
3.80E-04
l.OOE-03
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
5.80E-05
2.90E-02
2.10E-01
1.60E-06
3.60E-04
1.20E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-05
4.90F^06
2.90E-04'
2.90E-02
1.30E-03
l.OOE-03
2.60E-05
7.50FX)4
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
PE
Removab
,'
0
0
127
8
0
0
82,359
0
, 40
^
c
104
8,066
6
322
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
122
3,153
3
0
0
0
0
24,131
121,296
0
18
0
0
0
0
108
0
20
411
2
13
0
0
0
240 339
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Point Source Category. , ,
, U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Final Effluent Guidelines.
C-5
-------
Table C-5
Industry Loads and Removals by PoButant Based on FWFs
PSES-B/BFacffittes
Pollutant
Code Pollutant Name
POlw Removals PoHuteiirt
Removals Removal After POTW Wd^Obig PE
(Ibs/yr) Efficiency (%) (lb«6T) Factor Rcmovab
,,.,-,.; , . : ., ^
CN- Cyanide
CHEM3 Acefcoitrile
CHEM9 Ammonia-N
CHEM10 Amyl Acetate, n-
CHEM1 1 Pentanol, 1- (amyi alcohol)
CHEM12 Aniline
CHEM1S Benzene
CHEM25 Methyl eftyl ketooe
CHEM26 Butyl acetate, n-
CHEM27 ButKDOl, 1- (n-butyl alcohol)
CHEM29 Methyl-2-propanoI, 2- (tot-butyl alcohol)
CHEM35 Chlorobenzene
CHEM37 Trichloromethane (chloroform)
CHEM48 Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
CHEMS1 Dichloroetfaane, 1,2-
CHEM55 Dielhylamine
CHEM60 Dimetfaylacetamide, N.N-
CHEM62 N^-Dunetfaylaniline
CHEM64 Dmutirylfonnamide, N,N-
CHEM66 Dimethyl sulfoxide
CHEM67 Dioxane, 1,4-
CHEM70 Efcand
CHEM71 Ethyl acetate
CHEM77 Ethylene glycol
CHEM79 Fonnaldehyde
CHEMSO Formamide
CHEM84 Heptane, n-
CHEM87 Hexane, n-
CHEM93 Methyl propanal, 2- (isobutyraldehyde)
CHEM94 Isopropanol (2-propanol)
CHEM95 Isopcopyl Acetate
CHEM96 Isopropyl Etoer
CHEM97 Methanol
CHEM101 Methoxyethaiwl, 2- (methyl cellosolve)
CHEM102 Dichlonxnethane (methyleae chloride)
CHEM103 Methyl formate (formic acid, methyl ester)
CHEM10S Methyl isobutyi ketooe
CHEM113 Petroleum Naplha
CHEM114 Phenol
CHEM115 Polyethylene Glycol 600
CHEM1 17 Propanol, 1- (n-propanol)
CHEM118 Acetone
CHEM124 Pyridine
CHEM129 Tetrahydrofuran
CHEM130 Toluene
CHEM136 Trie%lamine
CHEM139 Xylenes
CHEMBOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand 5-day
CHEMCOD Chemical Oxygen Demand
CHEMTSS Total Suspended Solids
Totals
0
0
0
810,977
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11,639
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
217,733
0
0
0
785,175
0
0
0
1
0
0
1,520,984
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.346,808
50%
0%
82%
83%
83%
80%
19%
83%
83%
80%
81%
18%
1%
78%
77%
67%
79%
83%
79%
95%
75%
89%
83%
96%
85%
67%
37%
37%
73%
81%
83%
83%
80%
15%
15%
83%
81%
80%
95%
96%
88%
83%
0%
83%
36%
83%
20%
0
0
0
139,488
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
2,002
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
37,450
0
0
0
668,969
0
0
0
0
0
0
254,004
0
0
0
0
0
1,101,971
1.90E-01
4.80E-03
4.90E-04
1.50E.44
2.80E-05
2.50E-01
8.40E-01
4.80E-05
5.60E-04
2.90E-04
5.60E-06
1.50E-03
1.80E-01
1.80E-03
2.60E-HX)
5.00E-05
3.70E-07
1.50E-02
2.90E-04
2.90E-07
3.10E-01
l.OOE-04
l.OOE-04
1.50E-05
4.10E-04
O.OOE+00
1.10E-02
4.40E-03
3.80E-04
l.OOE-03
1.20E-05
1.10E-04
5.80E-05
2.90E-02
2.10E-01
1.60E-06
3.60E-04
1.20E-02
5.00E-03
l.OOE-05
4.90E-06
2.90E-04
2.90E-02
1.30E-03
l.OOE-03
2.60E-05
7.50E-04
O.OOE-HX)
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE-KX)
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
140,483
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
140.579
Source: U.S. EPA, 1998. Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Point Source Category.
U.S. EPA, 1998. Toxic and Pollutant Weighting Factors for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Industry Final Effluent Guidelines.
C-6
------- |