United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Wa!£
(WH-552)
EPA821-R-93-007
May 1993
Supplement To The Development
Document For Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And New Source
Performance Standards For The
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, And
Synthetic Fibers
Point Source Category

Final

-------
SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT

                   FOR

      EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
   NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
                   AND
        PRETREATMENT STANDARDS

                 FOR THE

           ORGANIC CHEMICALS,
      PLASTICS, AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS
          POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
              Carol M, Browner
               Administrator

             Thomas P. O'Farrell
    Director, Engineering & Analysis Division

              Elwood H. Forsht
        Chief, Chemicals/Metals Branch

               George M. Jett
               Project Officer
               May 28, 1993
        Engineering & Analysis Division
              Office of Water
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             401  M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                        ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Support of this Final Supplemental to the Development Document
for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines, New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards for the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category was provided
under Contract No. 68-C1-0006.

-------
                             TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                          Page

I.   INTRODUCTION	   1-1

    A.  SUMMARY	   1-1

    B.  LEGAL AUTHORITY	   1-2

        1.   Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) 	   1-2

        2,   Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)	   1-3

        3.   Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) 	   1-3

        4.   New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)	   1-4

        5.   Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)	,	   1-4

        6.   Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)	   1-4

    C.  HISTORY OF THE OCPSF RULEMAKING EFFORTS AND LITIGATION ....   1-5

    D.  ORGANIZATION OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT .   I-S


II.  BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME	   II-l


III.  IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT RELATED TO BAT SUBPART J
    LIMITATIONS AND PSES STANDARDS	   III-l

    A.  BACKGROUND	   Ill-1

    B.  APPLICABILITY OF BAT SUBPART J AND PSES	   III-3

    C.  PASS-THROUGH ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY	   111-6

        I.   Assessment of the Remanded Phthalate Esters
            and Polynuclear Aromatics 	   IH-7

    D.  REVISED BAT SUBPART J AND PSES COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
        LAND REQUIREMENTS	   ffl-11

        1.   Revised Baseline Costs	   1041

        2.   Revised In-Plant Biological Treatment Costs  	   HI-16

-------
    E.
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.  The Initial Analysis	   ffl-29

4,  The RIA Analysis	   ffl-29

5,  The Preamble Economic Impact Analysis  	   ffl-29

6,  Land Availability  	   IH42

FINAL BAT SUBPART .1 AND PSES LIMITATIONS	   HM8
IV.  NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS FOR
    NEW SOURCES	   IV-1
APPENDIX I-A

APPENDIX I-B



APPENDIX III-A
APPENDIX m-B
APPENDIX III-C
APPENDIX III-D
APPENDIX III-E
          GUIDANCE FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX MATRICES

          GUIDANCE FOR THE APPROPRIATE FLOW BASIS FOR CONVERTING
          CONCENTRATIONS  INTO  MASS-BASED  IMITATIONS  AND
          STANDARDS

          TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS,
          PLASTICS AND SYNTHETIC FIBERS POINT SOURCE  CATEGORY
          DECEMBER  1, 1992  NOTICE   OF  AVAILABILITY  OF  NEW
          INFORMATION

          BAT AND PSES INITIAL ANALYSIS COST DATA

          BAT AND PSES RIA ANALYSIS COST DATA

          BPT, BAT AND PSES PREAMBLE ANALYSIS COST DATA

          BPT, BAT AND PSES TECHNOLOGIES COSTED FOR THE PREAMBLE
          ANALYSIS COST DATA
                                  ill

-------
                                     LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                                                 Page

II1-1   List of 47 BAT Subpart J Plants	(	   m-5

IH-2   Compliance Cost Estimates for Steam Stripping Upgrades	   ffi-13

HI-3   Compliance Cost Estimates for Chemical Precipitation Upgrades r . .  «	   ffl-14

IH-4   Revised Plant-by-Plant Cost Estimates for Plants with Steam Stripping
       and Chemical Precipitation Upgrades	   M-15

III-5   Technology Corrections	   H-L7

III-6   Revised Cost Estimates Based on Technology Corrections	   ffl-18

IH-7   Flow Corrections and Revised Cost Estimates Based on Flow Corrections  ........   ffl-19

III-8   Detention Time Versus Average Influent Phenol Concentration Analysis .	   ffl-20

III-9   Detention Time Analysis for the Remaining Pollutants	   M-22

111-10  Plant-by-plant Detention Time Assignment  	   M-25

III-11  Revised Land Requirement Estimates for In-PIant Biological Treatment Systems ....   M-26

HI-12  Revised Capital and O&M Cost for In-Plant Biological Treatment Systems  	   ffl-28

111-13  Land Availability of Selected OCPSF Plants   	   ffl43
                                            IV

-------
                                     LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                                                  Page
III-l   Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  84 hours   	   ffl-30

III-2   Total Capital cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  130 hours	   ffl-31

IIL3   Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Small In=Plant
       biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  413 hours	   HI-32

III-4   Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Small  In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  84 hours   	   uT33

III-5   Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Small  In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  130 hours	   ffl-34

IIL6   Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Small  In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  413 hours	   ffl-35

III-7   Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  84 hours   	   HI-36

III-8   Total Capita] Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  130 hours	   ffl-37

III-9   Total Capital Cost Curve vs. Flow for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  413 hours	   ffl-38

111-10  Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  84 hours   	   ffl-39

III-tl  Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  130 hours	   BT40

111-12  Annual O&M Cost Curve vs. Flow  for Large In-Plant
       Biological Treatment Systems - Detention Time:  413 hours	   BT41

-------
I.     INTRODUCTION
A.     SUMMARY
This document describes the supporting information for the Agency's amendments to 40 CFR Pan 414,
which limits effluent discharges to waters of the United States and the introduction of pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) by existing and new sources in the organic chemicals, plastics,
and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) point source category. These final amendments are based on the December
6, 1991 Proposal (56 FR 63897), the January 21, 1992 Extension of the Comment Period and Correction
Notice (57 FR 2238) and the December 1, 1992 Notice of Availability (NOA) and request for comments
(57 FR 56883). The OCPSF guideline was promulgated on November 5, 1987 (55 FR 42522), and is
codified at 40 CFR Part 414. These amendments respond to the  U.  S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals'
remand decisions on the OCPSF regulation, Chemical Manufacturers Associations U.S. EPA. 870 F.2d
177 (5th Cir.), modified, 885 F,2d 253 (5th Cir. 1989), cert, denied. PPG Industries. Inc. v. U.S. EPA.
495 U.S. 910 (1990).

The Court remanded three aspects of the OCPSF guideline:  (1) the subcategorization of the industry into
two subcategories imposing differing limitations based  on Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), on the grounds that the Agency did not provide sufficient notice of the scheme;  (2)
limitations for 19 of the 20 BAT Subpart J pollutants that were based upon in-plant biological treatment
technology (and the corresponding New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for these pollutants), as
well  as 13 corresponding Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources and Pretreatment Standards  for
New Sources (PSES and PSNS, respectively), on the grounds that the model treatment systems used to
estimate the cost of compliance had shorter detention times than the systems on which the limitations were
based; and (3)  the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and the Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS) for consideration of whether zero discharge limits would be appropriate for new plants
in the OCPSF industry based on recycle of wastewater.

In reconsidering the BAT subcategorization scheme  for Subpart I and Subpart J.  The Agency concluded
that this is the most appropriate approach for the OCPSF industry.

EPA is also promulgating  the same numerical effluent limitations and standards that were proposed on
December 6,  1991 for  the 19 remanded BAT Subpart J and NSPS pollutants and  for 11 of the 13
                                            1-1

-------
corresponding PSES and PSNS pollutants based on revised estimates for the cost of compliance derived
from revised model in-plant biological treatment system designs. Pretreatment standards for phenol and
2,4-dimethylphenol are not being promulgated because, based on the revised pass-through analysis results
presented in the December 1, 1992 NO A, EPA has concluded they do not pass through POTWs.  The
final limitations and standards are listed on pages 111-48 to 11-49 of Section  III.

EPA also  decided  not to revise the NSPS and PSNS standards that were  promulgated in the OCPSF
guideline because, among other  things, EPA's database does not demonstrate  that total recycle is  a
demonstrated technology.

In addition, EPA corrected the criteria for designating "metal-" and "cyanide-bearing" waste streams and
is adopting the two nonsubstantive formatting changes that were  described in the December 6,  1991
notice.  These actions did not arise out of the litigation; rather, they resulted from independent  EPA
review of the regulation.

B.     LEGAL AUTHORITY
This regulation was promulgated under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501  of
the  Clean Water Act (the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C.  1251
et seq., as amended) also referred to as "the Act" or "CWA".  It is also promulgated in response to the
Consent Decree in Natural Resources Defense Council. Inc. v. Reilly. D.D.C. Civ, No. 89-2980 (consent
decree entered January 31, 1992).

Under the Act, the EPA  is required to establish several different kinds of effluent limitations guidelines
and standards. These are summarized briefly helow.

1.      Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available fBFT)
BPT effluent limitations  guidelines  are generally based on the average of the  best existing performance
by plants of various sizes, ages,  and unit processes within the category or subcategory for control  of
familiar (e.g.,  conventional) pollutants, such as BOD5, TSS, and pH.
                                              1-2

-------
In establishing BPT effluent limitations guidelines., EPA considers the total cost in relation to the effluent
reduction benefits, age of equipment and facilities involved,  processes employed,  process  changes
required, engineering aspects of the control technologies, and non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements).  The Agency balances the category-wide or subcategory-wide cost of
applying the technology against the effluent reduction benefits.

2.      Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
BAT effluent limitations guidelines, in general, represent the best existing performance in the category
or subcategory.  The Act establishes BAT as the  principal  national  means of controlling the direct
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters.

In establishing BAT, the Agency considers the age of equipment  and facilities  involved, processes
employed,  engineering  aspects of the control  technologies, process changes,  cost of achieving such
effluent reduction, and non-water quality environmental impacts.

3.      Best Conventional Pollutant  Control  Technology (BCD
The  1977  Amendments to  the  Clean Water Act added  Section 301(b)(2)(E), establishing "best
conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT) for  the  discharge of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources.  Section 304(a)(4) designated the following as conventional pollutants:
BOD5,  TSS, fecal  coliform, pH,  and any  additional pollutants defined by  the Administrator as
conventional. The Administrator designated oil and grease a conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44
FR 44501).

BCT is not  an  additional limitation, but replaces  BAT for  the control  of conventional  pollutants.  In
addition  to  other factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B),  the Act  requires that the BCT effluent
limitations guidelines be assessed in  light of  a two part "cost-reasonableness" test [American Paper
Institute v.  EPA. 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981)].  The  first test compares the cost for private industry
to reduce its discharge  of  conventional pollutants with the costs to publicly-owned  treatment works
(POTWs) for similar levels of reduction in their discharge of these pollutants.  The second test examines
the cost-effectiveness of additional industrial treatment beyond BPT.  EPA must find that limitations are
                                              1-3

-------
 "reasonable" under both tests before establishing them as BCT.  In no case may BCT be less stringent
 than BPT.

 EPA has promulgated a methodology for establishing BCT effluent limitations guidelines (51 FR 24974,
 July 8? 1986).

 4,      New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
 NSPS  are based on the performance of the best available demonstrated technology. New plants have the
 opportunity to install the best  and most  efficient production processes and  wastewater treatment
 technologies.  As a result, NSPS  should represent the most stringent numerical values attainable through
 the application  of best available demonstrated control  technology for all  pollutants (i.e.,  toxic,
 conventional, and nonconventional).

 5.      Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
 PSES  are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants  that pass through,  interfere with, or are
 otherwise incompatible with the operation of POTWs. The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates
 that pretreatment standards are to be technology-based and  analogous to the BAT effluent limitations
 guidelines for removal  of toxic  pollutants.  For the purpose of determining whether to  promulgate
 national category-wide PSES, EPA generally determines that there is pass through of pollutants, and thus
 a need for categorical standards  if the nationwide average percentage of pollutants removed  by well-
 operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the percent removed by the BAT model
 treatment system.  The General Pretreatment Regulations, which serve as the  framework for categorical
 pretreatment standards, are found at 40 CFR Part 403.  (These regulations contain a definition of pass
 through that addresses localized  rather than national instances of pass through  and  does  not use the
percent removal comparison test described above (52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987),)

 6.     Pretrcatment Standards for New Sources  (PSNS)
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass through, interfere with,
or are  otherwise incompatible with  the operation of a POTW.  PSNS are to be issued at the same time
as NSPS.  New indirect dischargers, like new direct dischargers,  have the opportunity to incorporate in
                                             1-4

-------
their plant the best available demonstrated technologies.  The Agency considers the same factors in
promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS,
C.     HISTORY OF THE OCPSF RULEMAKING EFFORTS AND LITIGATION
A detailed history of OCPSF rulemaking efforts and litigation as well as background for the current
amendments is contained in the December 6, 1991 Proposal (56 FR 63897).

The Agency received comments from 28 separate cornrnenters on the December 6, 1991 proposal and
January 21, 1992 extension of the comment period. These included three trade associations, two POTWs,
22 individual companies, and NRDC. The Agency also received comments from 26 separate commenters
on the December  1, 1992 NOA.  These included four  trade associations, four POTWs, the  City of
Philadelphia, and 17  individual companies. The Agency's responses to these comments are contained in
the  "Comment Summary and Response" section of the  rulemaking docket.  EPA's responses to the
principal comments relating to the remand issues are also presented in Section VIII of the Preamble to
the  Final Regulation.

D.     ORGAMZATION OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
The following sections describe the technical analyses that provide the basis for the Agency's response
to the Fifth  Circuit's  remand:
              BAT Subcategorization Scheme
              In-Plant   Biological  Treatment  for   BAT  Subpart  J   Limitations  and   PSES
              Standards
              New  Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New Sources
In addition, Agency guidance in response to two general  OCPSF implementation issues, "Laboratory
Analysis of Complex Matrices " and "Appropriate Flow Basis for Converting Concentrations into Mass-
Based Limitations and Standards" are presented as Appendix I-A and I-B to this document.
                                           1-5

-------
II.     BAT SUBCATEGORIZATION
The original OCPSF guideline had two technology-based BAT subcategories for the control of toxic
pollutants: one for any direct discharge point source that     end-of-pipe biological treatment or installs
end-of-pipe biological treatment to comply with BPT effluent limitations (Subpart I, § 414.90), and one
for any direct discharge point source that     not use end-of-pipe biological treatment or      not install
end-of-pipe biological treatment to comply  with BPT effluent limitations (Subpirt J,  § 414.100). Subparts
I and J set limits for 63 and 59 pollutants, respectively.  Of the 59 Subpart J Maximum for Monthly
Average limitations, 9 are identical to, 20 are more stringent than, and 30 are less              the
corresponding Subpart I limitations.

As explained in the proposal, EPA established     scheme based, in part, on its conclusion that there are
plants in the OCPSF industry whose wastewaters have such low levels of Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BOD) that they will not be able to operate biological treatment         effectively and do not
biological treatment systems to comply with the BPT BOD effluent levels (56 PR at 63899).  Biological
treatment systems rely on microorganisms to biodegrade or "eat" the organic pollutants in the wastewater.
BOD, a measure of the organic pollutant strength in water or wastewater, is determined by measuring
the oxygen  used by microorganisms to oxidize or  "eat"  the organic  contaminants of a sample.
Consequently, BOD measures the amount  of          or  "food" available  for the  survival  of
microorganisms (id.). Biological treatment systems therefore require sufficient BOD levels to operate
CM.)-

NRDC challenged the BAT subeategorization scheme in the litigation over the OCPSF guideline, arguing
that the Agency had failed to present its BAT subcategorization scheme for comment and     asserting
that this type of BAT subcategorization violated the CWA because it allowed a discharger who
not to employ end-of-pipe biological treatment to be subject to fewer and less stringent BAT Subcategory
J limitations, rather tlian the more stringent Subcategory I limitations which apply to plants with end-of-
pipe biological treatment systems. NRDC also argued that, if it had an opportunity to comment, it would
have urged EPA to establish a raw waste BOD "floor" above which plants would not be able to qualify
for Subpart J, or to limit the applicability of Subpart J to those categories of OCPSF production that tend
to have low raw waste BOD levels (NRDC        Brief at 54).
                                             II-1

-------
On March  30,  1989, the Fifth  Circuit Court of Appeals,  without  ruling on  NRDC's  substantive
arguments,  remanded the BAT subcategorization of the industry for notice-and-comment proceedings.
The Court left the scheme in effect pending further rulemaking, reasoning in part that the  notice-and-
comment proceedings may disclose that the BOD floor urged by NRDC is neither necessary nor feasible
(870 F.2d at 236).

The Agency has reconsidered  the  issues related to revising the BAT sub categorization  scheme  or
otherwise limiting the applicability of Subpart J and has decided not to revise the existing scheme for the
same  reasons presented  in its December 6, 1991 Proposal. The scheme accommodates the  complexity
of the industry and encourages  source control and rational waste management decisions. In addition,
EPA does not believe revision of the scheme is necessary.  Plants must comply with low BPT limits, and
plants that need to achieve significant BOD reductions will generally install biological treatment because
other  treatment alternatives are  significantly  more expensive,  EPA does not believe plants' treatment
decisions will  be motivated by  the desire to  be subject to Subpart J.  In any event,  Subpart J is not
significantly less stringent than Subpart I,

Moreover, the Agency does not have a technical basis to determine which plants can sustain biological
treatment because of the lack of a theoretical BOD floor for sustaining biological treatment and the great
variability of OCPSF production and wastewater characteristics.  For these reasons, as explained more
fully in Section VIII. C of the preamble to the final regulation, the Agency has decided not to establish
a BOD floor or otherwise limit the applicability of Subpart J,
                                             II-2

-------
 in.    IN-PLAOT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT RELATED TO BAT SUBPART J LIMITATIONS
        AND       STANDARDS
 A.     BACKGROUND
 At promulgation, BAT Subpart J established direct discharge toxic pollutant limitations for an estimated
 23 plants that were projected to comply with BPT limitations without the use of end-of-pipe biological
 treatment or contract hauling.  The BAT Subpart J toxic pollutant numerical limitations were based on
 the performance of in-plant wastewater-treatment technology including      stripping to remove volatile
 priority pollutants, chemical precipitation for metals, alkaline chlorination for  cyanide, and  in-plant
 biological treatment for removal of selected priority pollutants including poly nuclear aromaties, phthalate
 esters, acrylonitrile, phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenoI (52 PR 42538 - 45, 1987 Dev. Doc. Vol. I, pp. II-8
 to 11).

 Numerical standards for 20 of the BAT Subpart J pollutants were      on the performance of three
 biological treatment        with detention      between 1,6 and 17,2 days. In contrast, detention times
 between 1 to 2.1 days were used to estimate the costs of compliance based on the model  in-plant
 biological treatment         [(1987 Dev. Doc., pp. ₯111-189); OCPSF Record R. 93970^1020; EPA 9-
 23-88 Response Brief, pp. 244-59],

 CMA challenged the BAT Subpart J limitations based on in-plant biological treatment arguing, in part,
 that the plants used by EPA  to derive the limitations       on in-plant biological treatment have more
 treatment in place than EPA's model treatment used to               of compliance and that EPA
 significantly underestimated the      of installing in-plant  biological treatment (CMA's 4-25-88 Brief,
 pp. 58-76).

 After the Fifth  Circuit initially upheld      BAT Subpart J  limitations      F.2d at 240-2), CMA
 petitioned for reconsideration, again arguing,  in part,      the  Agency underestimated  the       of
 compliance due to the differences between the detention times of the three plants     provided the basis
 for the numerical standards and the detention      of the model technology that provided the      for
 estimating the engineering costs of compliance (CMA's 5-3-89 Petition for Review Brief, pp.  8-11). The
 Court concluded that the detention time was a key variable in determining the effectiveness of biological
treatment and that EPA had failed to demonstrate a reasonable     to conclude that biological systems
 with a 1 or 2.1  day detention time would control pollutants as effectively as the biological systems with
the 3.5 and 17.2-day detention times (885 F.2d  at 265).
                                            ffl-1

-------
The Court remanded limitations for the BAT Subpart J pollutants based on the two plants with these
longer detention times. In a June 29, 1990 revocation notice (55 FR 26691), the Agency withdrew the
BAT limits for the 19 of the 20 Subpart J limits that were based on these two plants. EPA left in effect
the limitations for acrylonitrile, which were based upon the treatment system with the 1.6 day detention
time. In this notice, EPA also withdrew the 19 corresponding NSPS standards, and the 13 corresponding
PSES and PSNS standards that were based on the remanded BAT Subpart J limits.

The remand was based on the discrepancy between the detention times of the systems that provided the
technical basis for the BAT Subpart J limits and the detention times of the costed model in-plant systems,
and not on the technical achievability of the limits generally.  EPA therefore proposed on December 6,
1991 and January 21, 1992, the same numerical standards with revised estimates of costs of compliance.
The revised compliance costs were based on revised model in-plant biological treatment systems with
increased detention times as a function of reported or projected raw waste toxic pollutant concentrations.

A large number of comments received on the December 6, 1991 proposal arid January 21, 1992 extension
of the comment period challenged EPA's proposal.  CMA and other commenters  raised in comments the
same kinds of costing  issues arising from their  technical critique of the  limits as they did in their
challenge to the 1987 OCPSF guideline (see, e.g..  CMA Brief at 56 n.94, CMA Reply Brief at 61 n. 112
(EPA has  grossly underestimated  cost of compliance and economic impacts because  it did not cost
sufficiently extensive treatment systems)). These issues were litigated and decided in EPA's favor, and
were not re-opened by the Court's remand. Rather, the issues opened by the remand were whether EPA
accurately re-costed  the model in-plant technology to reflect the longer detention times  assigned to the
plants and whether EPA adequately accounted for land availability.

A large number of the comments on the proposal also challenged EPA's determination in the original
1987 OCPSF promulgation that phenol -- one of the 13 pollutants for which pretreatment standards were
remanded  - passes  through POTWs.  Several  comments  raised  the same issue with  respect  to 2,4-
dimethylphenol - another of the 13  pollutants.  Based on EPA's assessment that these comments had
merit, EPA announced in a Notice of Availability (NOA) published in the Federal Register on December
1, 1992, that it was considering revising its determination that phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol pass
through POTWs, based on a proposed modification to the Agency's traditional pass-through methodology
(57  FR 56883).   The revised methodology as proposed applied scientific and engineering judgment in
conjunction with biological treatment performance data to determine that phenol and  2,4-dimethylphenol
do not pass through  POTWs.

                                            m-2

-------
EPA collected additional POTW phenol removal data and reviewed it in conjunction with the data that
EPA used in the 1987 pass through analysis, and performed a chemical and engineering assessment of
the fate of phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol in biological treatment systems. EPA has concluded that these
pollutants are highly biodegradable and that the removals of these pollutants achieved by POTWs  are
essentially  equivalent to those  achieved by  direct dischargers.   In  addition,  since phenol  and 2,4-
dimethylphenol are low volatility pollutants, the removals achieved by POTWs do not simply result from
the transfer of the pollutants to the air.

Based on these conclusions, the final PSES regulation is based on revised engineering costs of compliance
and pollutant load ing reductions for 11 of the 13 remanded PSES pollutants. Final pretreatment standards
for phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol are not being promulgated today because the Agency has concluded
they do not pass through POTWs.

The following sections  present the analyses  that have been performed since the December 6, 1991
Proposal  and the December 1, 1992 NOA.

B. APPLICABILITY OF BAT SUBPART J AND PSES
At promulgation,  EPA  identified  84  direct discharge plants that relied exclusively upon end-of-pipe
physical/chemical treatment or did not report any treatment in-place at all (see Table VI1-42 of the DD).
At that time, the Agency projected that after compliance with BPT, only 23 plants would remain without
end-of-pipe biological treatment in-place.  After promulgation,  the Agency determined from its 308
Questionnaire data base  that one plant (#2660) was not  a direct discharger because it did not discharge
process wastewater;  subsequently, this plant was  reclassified as a zero  discharge facility  and was
eliminated from this analysis.

In April of 1991, SAIC contacted the remaining 83 direct  dischargers  by telephone to  determine  the
accuracy  of the projection that 22 plants would be subject to BAT Subpart J limitations, i.e. these plants
would not install end-of-pipe biological treatment.

The April 1991 survey (documented in a April 26, 1991 Memo to the OCPSF Record) found that of  the
83 direct discharge plants:
       a)      14 plants had become indirect dischargers (33, 155, 180, 502, 536, 611, 819,  877, 956,
              991, 1593, 1794, 2606, & 2680).
                                            III-3

-------
       b)     6 plants are closed (87, 614, g76, 1033, 1776, 2606)

       c)      12 plants installed EOF biological treatment

       d)     7 plants could not be reached (no listings or nobody answered phone, or people would
              not or could not answer questions 260, 373, 992,, 1327, 1670, 1774, 2647);       plants
              retained their 1987 Subpart I or J assignments.


Based on the results of this survey, there are 44 known Subpart J plants plus 3 plants  (260, 373, and

1774) originally categorized as Subpart J plants whose status could not be determined and that have been

assumed to be included in BAT Subpart J, Table III-l presents a list of these 4? Subpart J plants,


Based on comments received on the December 6, 1991 Proposal and the December 1, 1992 NOA, the

Agency decided to update its projection of the number of plants subject to BAT Subparts I and J and

PSES limitations for the purposes of updating its compliance cost  estimates  and  associated economic

impacts for promulgation based  on the information obtained. This updated analysis includes the following
changes:

       •      For the 14 plants that switched to indirect discharge status;

              a)     delete all direct discharge costs; (BPT and BAT)
              b)     develop costs using the PSES trigger values
              c)     include these plants and associated costs in PSES

       •      For the plants that switched from BAT Subpart I to Subpart J:

              a)     BPT   end-of-pipe   biological   costs   were  kept  and   in-plant
                     biological  costs   based   on   BAT   Subpart   I  trigger   values   were
                     deleted;   all   other    BAT   costs   were   kept.   This  serves   as   a
                     conservative   estimate   to   cover    whatever  these  plants   did   to
                     comply   with   the   BPT/BAT  Subpart   J   limits    without  installing
                     end-of-pipe biological treatment.

              b)     cost   in-plant   biological   using   Subpart   J  trigger   values   and
                     revised  detention time.

       »      For the plants that closed:

              a)     use   the  same   costs   estimated   for   the   December   6,   1991
                     Proposal.
                                            III-4

-------
          TABLE III-l




LIST OF 47 BAT SUBPART J PLANTS
Plant #
76
105
114
225
259
260
373
412
446
447
451
601
657
663
664
669
#
709
727
775
814
859
913
942
1249
1439
1569
1618
1688
1774
1785
1839
1986
Plant #
2030
2047
2062
2073
2268
2400
2419
2527
2533
2590
2668
2735
2767
2771
2786

            ffl-5

-------
 C. PASS-THROUGH ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
 A large number of the comments on the December 6, 1991 proposal and the January 21, 1992 extension
 of the comment period challenged EPA's determination in the original 1987 OCPSF promulgation
 thatphenol — one of the 13 pollutants for which pretreatment standards were remanded —       through
 POTWs. Several comments raised the same issue with respect to 2,4-dimethylphenoI — another of the
 13 pollutants.  Based on EPA's assessment that      comments had merit, EPA announced in a Notice
 of Availability (NOA) published in the Federal Register on  December  lr 1992, that it was considering
 revising its determination that phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol     through POTWs,       on a proposed
 modification to the  Agency's traditional pass-through methodology  (57  FR  56883).   The revised
 methodology as proposed  applied scientific and engineering judgment in conjunction with biological
 treatment performance data to determine thatphenol     2,4-dim ethyl phenol do not pass through POTWs,

 EPA collected additional PQTW phenol removal data    reviewed it in conjunction with the data that
 EPA used in the 1987 pass through analysis, and performed a chemical and engineering assessment of
 the fate of phenol and 2,4-dimethyIphenol in biological treatment systems.   EPA  concluded that  these
 pollutants are highly biodegradable and     the removals of      pollutants achieved by POTWs  were
 essentially equivalent to those achieved  by direct  dischargers.  In addition,  since phenol  and  2,4-
dimethylphenol are low volatility pollutants, the removals achieved by POTWs do not simply result from
the transfer of the pollutants to the air.

 A number  of industry commenters supported the Agency's  proposed  conclusion presented in the
 December 1, 1992 NOA that phenol and 2,4-dim ethyl phenol do not pass through POTWs, but urged that
the modified pass through analysis used to reach that conclusion be applied to the remaining 11 remanded
PSES pollutants to  determine that they also do not pass through.  EPA  disagrees,  for the reasons
explained below.

As the Agency explained in the NOA, EPA generally is continuing to apply the median percent removal
methodology used to determine    through at promulgation of the OCPSF guideline (57 FR at 56885).
This methodology was upheld in litigation as an appropriate, conservative approach to determining pass
through (870 F,2d at 243-48), and EPA continues to believe it is the correct approach as a general matter.
EPA determined that the approach is overly conservative for the highly-biodegradable phenol  and 2,4-
dimethylphenol, but believes it is appropriate for the other 11 remanded pollutants.
                                            III-6

-------
As explained  in  the  NOA  and below, EPA believes  these pollutants are less  biodegradable and,
consequently, less readily treatable by PQTWs, which typically have biological treatment systems with
much shorter detention times than the systems employed  by direct dischargers.

1.     Assessment or the Remanded Phthakite Esters and Polynuclear Aroma tics.
In the NOA and accompanying Technical Support Document (TSD), which is included as Appendix III-A
of this document, EPA performed a data review and technical analysis for the  other 11 remanded
pollutants similar to that performed for phenol  and 2,4-
-------
determined lhat 2,4-dimethylphenol would be removed by POTWs to the same degree as phenol, given
its similar molecular structure.

Three of the  remaining eleven  pollutants  — fluoranihene, bis(2-eihylhexyl) phihalate and di-n-butyl
phlhalate -- were detected in POTW effluent in the 50 POTW Study (TSD at 11, Table II-2).  For these
pollutants, the results of the pass through determination clearly are  not merely  an artifact of differing
influent concentrations but reflect worse performance by POTWs.  EPA has no basis  to conclude that
these pollutants do not pass through.

With respect to  the  remaining eight pollutants, EPA does not have  data comparable  to the data that
provided a basis to modify the pass through methodology for the phenols.  In addition,  EPA's technical
analysis confirmed that phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol are the most readily treatable by POTWs of the
13 pollutants.  EPA noted that while phenols are rapidly biodegraded in biological treatment systems due
to iheir simple molecular structure, PEs and PNAs would be expected to biodegrade at a much slower
rate  because of the additional time required  to convert these pollutants into a form that can be readily
biodegraded (TSD at 6).

Biodegradation does not commence until a pollutant is "sorbed" by (i.e., attached to) the microorganisms
in the biological treatment system that degrade the pollutant. Once sorbed, pollutants degrade at different
rates lhat depend on structural complexity.  In order to be biodegraded, a pollutant must be able to pass
through the cell wall of a microorganism.  This transfer will occur only if the pollutant is compatible with
the proteins in the cell wall. While small, simple molecules are generally compatible, the more complex
structures typical of PE and PNA organic pollutants must first be broken down into smaller chemical units
by extra-cellular enzymes secreted by the  microorganisms.  Thus, biodegradation depends on the ability
of the microorganisms  to structurally alter pollutants outside the cell  wall while they are sorbed.

As EPA explained in the NO A, the phenols have simple chemical  structures  that permit them to be
rapidly transferred through the cell wall and biodegraded (NOA at 56888).  This molecular-level analysis
is  confirmed  by the  fact that  wastewaters containing phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol have high
"biodegradation  rate  constants"  (id.  at  56887).   (As  explained  in the NOA (57  FR at 56887),
"biodegradation  rate constant" is a measure of  how rapidly a compound or  mixture of compounds
biodegrades).    In  addition, these  two  pollutants  have the  highest  compound-specific  estimated
biodegradation rate constants of the  13 remanded pollutants (TSD at 11, Table II-2)(biodegradation rate
constants can  be assigned  to both individual pollutants and to  waste streams  containing mixtures of

                                             III-8

-------
 pollutants).  In contrast, the phthalate .esters and polynuelear aromatics-are structurally more complex,
 and require additional transformation steps before they can be transferred through the cell wall of the
 biodegrading microorganisms and biodegraded.  These      require additional time in the aeration basin
 of a biological treatment system that is generally available at OCPSF direct discharge facilities, which
 typically have detention times that exceed 24 hours, but may not be available at POTWs, where aeration
 basin detention times are usually four to eight hours,

 Thus, based on rate of biodegradation, EPA believes that phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol are more readily
 treatable by POTWs than the eight remaining pollutants. EPA recognizes that organic pollutants may be
 removed from wastewater by biological treatment systems to varying degrees  by removal mechanisms
 other than biodegradation. In particular, pollutants may be removed by volatilization and by adsorption
 to  sludge.  However, EPA believes that a pollutant's biodegradation rate is the     accurate indicator
 of whether the pollutant will pass through POTWs,

 In  general, volatile pollutants are not readily treated in POTWs; rather,      pollutants are volatilized
 or  "stripped" to the atmosphere. As EPA explained above, EPA applied the volatile override in the 1987
 OCPSF  guideline to determine that  several volatile and  semi-volatile pollutants      through  where
 POTWs showed equal or better percent removals than direct OCPSF dischargers or where no POTW
 removal data were available.  In determining whether to apply the volatile override, EPA considered
 estimated volatilization of a pollutant after leaving an indirect discharge facility — i.e., volatilization in
 both the aeration basin (i.e., the treatment basin) of the biological treatment system and volatilization in
 the sewer systems and pre-biological  unit treatment operations that convey the  pollutant to the aeration
 basin (1987 DD at Vffl-281).

 For five of the PNAs that were remanded - naphthalene, acenaphthene,  anthracene, fluorene,  and
 phenanthrene — EPA would have applied the volatile override in the 1987 OCPSF rule to determine these
 pollutants passed through if the percent removal analysis had not shown pass through. These pollutants
 have overall volatilization rates comparable to the     for which the override was applied. For example,
 EPA  applied the  override  to  hexaehlorobenzene,  hexachloroethane and hexachlorobutadiene  in
 promulgating the  1987 guideline (1987 DD at  VIII-279).  These  pollutants have a 5  to  10 percent
 estimated  volatilization  rate  in  the  aeration  basin;  the pre-biological  volatilization  rates  for
hexachlorobenzene, hexachloroethane and hexachlorobutadiene are estimated to  range  from 19 to 39
percent,  59 to 66  percent,  and 48 to  73 percent, respectively (1987 DD at VIII-281).   Similarly,  the
estimated aeration basin volatilization rates for the five remanded PNAs at      range from 10 to 30

                                              III-9

-------
percent, and the estimated pre-biological volatilization      range from 12 to 82 percent (id.)  EPA notes
that estimated volatilization rates for individual pollutants vary depending on the source of the estimate,
and the aeration basin volatilization      that appear in the TSD, at 11, Table II-2,  vary from those
presented in the 198? Development Document because they are based on different technical studies. TSD
Table II-2, however, does not account for pre-aeration-basin volatilization, and the overall estimated
volatility of the five pollutants at issue is comparable to the estimated volatility of the pollutants to which
EPA applied the volatile override in 1987.  Because these pollutants are chemically more complex than
phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenoI and, EPA believes, therefore less readily biodegradable in POTWs, and
because much of the "removal" of these pollutants prior to and during POTW biological treatment is
likely the result of volatilization, EPA continues to conclude,      on its traditional methodology, that
these five pollutants      through  POTWs.

EPA believes the remaining three pollutants -- diethyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, and pyrene —  are
likely adsorbed to sludge in the biological          system.  A compound's propensity  to         from
the water  phase and adsorb to  sludge (which includes the microorganisms that degrade the compounds)
is predicted by  its "octanol/water partition coefficient."   Pyrene,  in particular, has a high estimated
octanol/water partition coefficient, and would be expected to adsorb rapidly to the sludge in a biological
system (TSD at 11, Table II-2).  However, pollutants that are  initially          onto the sludge may
become "desorbed" (i.e., may detach from the sludge) and     through into the receiving stream if they
are not rapidly transferred through the cell wall and biodegraded.

The ability of complex,  organic pollutants such as phthalate       and poly nuclear aromatics to remain
absorbed prior to being converted to simpler compounds for transfer through the cell wall can be affected
by many conditions in the treatment system, including the         of other pollutants, electrolytes, oils
and greases and other more highly adsorbent compounds  ("Report to Congress on the Discharge of
Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment Works," February 1986, (EPA/530-SW-86-004), p 4-5).
This can cause the pollutants to desorb prior to conversion and biodegradation    pass through  the
POTW to  the receiving water.  EPA believes this phenomenon explains why organic pollutants which  are
generally considered highly adsorbable can sometimes be found at detectable levels in the POTW effluent.
For example, anthracene and phenanthrene have high estimated  octanol-water partition coefficients and
therefore would be expected to adsorb rapidly to sludge (TSD at 11, Table II-2),  POTW Number 6 from
the 50 POTW Study shows an average influent concentration of anthracene and phenanthrene of 62.2 ppb
and an average effluent concentration of 16,2 ppb, while POTW  Number  52 has  a much higher average
influent concentration of 225.3 ppb for anthracene and  195.8 ppb for phenanthrene, both reduced to  not

                                             111-10

-------
detected at 10 ppb (1987 Public Record it 115910-115976),       on      dita, the           of these
pollutants to adsorb to the sludge      not       to be §     Indicator of PGTW removal performance.
EPA believes thit external conditions in i biologicil treatment lystem can affect the ability of i PGTW
to remove more complex pollutants by adsorption or biodegradation.

The overall removal data for the 13 remanded pollutants appears to confirm that octanol/water partition
coefficient is not a reliable indicator of     through.  Phenol has the lowest octanol/water partition
coefficient of the 13  pollutants but is rapidly and virtually completely removed by biological systems,
including  PGTW systems.  In contrast, bis{2-ethylhexyl)phthalate and di-n-buty! phthalate have among
the highest octanol/water partition coefficients, but achieved lower POTW removal levels (TSD at 11,
Table 11-2).  In fact,  the only pollutants among the 13 remanded that were detected in POTW effluents
in the 50 POTW study — bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, di-n-butyl phthalate and fluonnthene — also had the
highest octanol/water partition coefficients of the 13 pollutants (TSD at  11, Table II-2),

EPA believes that a pollutant's estimated biodegradation rate is the     theoretical indicator of whether
it wil!  pass through POTW biological treatment systems.  As a result, EPA continues to conclude that
diethyl phthalate,  dimethyl phthilate,  and pyrene pass through based  on its traditional      through
methodology. These pollutants are structurally more complex and consequently less readily biodegradable
than phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenoI, and are therefore more likely to      through POTW biological
treatment systems.  Moreover, EPA     not have data demonstrating that these pollutants are adequately
treated by POTWs,

Based on these conclusions, final PSES and PSNS limitations are not being promulgated for phenol and
2,4-dimethylphenol because the Agency has  concluded  that only these  two of the 13 remanded  PSES
pollutants  do not pass through POTWs.

D.     REVISED  BAT  SUBPART  J  AND         COMPLIANCE   COSTS  AND  LAND
       REQUIREMENTS
1.     Revised Baseline Costa
For the December 6,  1991 Proposal, EPA presented a set of "revised baseline" OCPSF      based on
the correction of minor inconsistencies discovered in the basis for the 198? Promulgation cost estimates.
The basis for these revised baseline     is presented below.
                                            ffl-11

-------
The compliance cost estimates and corresponding economic                summarized in the November
5,  1987' Federal  Register notice did not include estimated       stripper and  chemical  precipitation
upgrade costs. During development of the OCPSF guidelines, the       stripper upgrade costs were
developed for existing in-place treatment for      direct                 without end-of-pipe biological
treatment and nine indirect dischargers. The                       with the      stripping upgrades
are presented in Table III-2.

The chemical precipitation upgrade      were          for 20 direct and nine indirect discharging
with chemical precipitation  in place.  The                         with      chemical precipitation
upgrades are presented in Table III-3.

In addition, another BAT (direct) plant, Flint 399, was       for a complete lime precipitation system
since its in-place precipitation unit utilizes sodium hydroxide to facilitate the recovery of zinc; therefore,
the plant would not be able to improve its system with the methods used for  costing other plants.  The
costs associated for the complete lime precipitation        for this plant are also shown in Table 111-3,

Prior to promulgation a separate  economic  impact            of       upgrade       generally
demonstrated insignificant incremental economic impacts for      plants (1987 Dev. Doc., pp. VIII-118
to 120 and VIII-174 to 181).  However, at this time, EPA is including      upgrade      in the cost
estimates for the final regulation,

The revised total cost           for all the  plants          by the steam stripping  and chemical
precipitation upgrades  along with the total cost          at promulgation are  presented in Table III-4.

The Agency also reassessed the procedures     to estimate the BAT and PSES     of compliance. The
procedures generally included the use of reported or projected raw waste concentrations for each toxic
pollutant present in each plant's product/process waste streams. Then, depending on the pollutant groups
and pollutant concentrations, the Agency  selected in-plant and/or end-of-pipe treatment technology for
cost estimating purposes (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-7 to 28).  For example,       stripping was  costed
for volatile pollutants above selected concentrations and chemical precipitation for metals above selected
concentrations. The treatment technology reassessment, which discovered several errors in transferring
individual unit operation costs into the final economic impact analysis, resulted in revised plant costs for
one direct discharge plant and 22 indirect discharge plants. These corrections increased costs for some
plants and decreased costs for others. For example, the technology      for  plant 1718*s cost estimate

                                              ra-12

-------
                            • ' "•   TABLE III-2     x"  :'  -
        COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
BAT (Direct Plants)
Plant No.

105
913
1785






Capital Cost
($)*
4,350
18,000
3,800






O&M
Cost ($)*
70,000
600,000
48,000







Plant No.

72
283
494
702
1657
1740
2635
4014
4047
Capital Cost
($)*
2,600
9,000
7,800
3,000
8,600
3,300
9,000
2,600
2,600
O&M
Cost ($)*
9,000
420,000
1
20,000
295,000
30,000
420,000
5,500
5,500
* Cost estimates are presented in 1982 dollars
1987 Dev. Doc. p. VIII-120
                                    111-13

-------
                                   TABLE 1II-3




    COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
BAT (Direct Plants)
Plant No.
63
190
485
695
775
871
1059
1348
1522
1572
1769
1785
2030
2292
2429
2447
2474
2692
2739
O&M Cost* ($/year)
4,750
1,700
3,500
60,000
4,750
3,750
14,500
1,000
48,000
25,000
29,000
7,000
1,600
1,000
1,000
1,000
2,850
1,000
1,000
PSES (Indirect Plants)
Plant No.
72
206
212
293
905
1126
1357
1534
1848










O&M Cost* ($/year)
,000
,000
,000
,600
,000
1,600
1,000
3,500
1,000










PLANT NO.
399
CAPITAL COST* ($)
2,000,000
O&M COST*
($/YEAR)
335,000
LAND COST* ($)
9,100
* Cost estimates are presented in 1982 dollars.




1987 Dev. Doc. p. VIII-181
                                      111-14

-------
                                   TABLE m-4
          REVISED PLANT-BY-PLANf COST ESTIMATES FOR PLANT! WITH
          STEAM STRIPPING AND CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
BAT CPirect Plants):

PLANT
NO.
63
105
190
399
485
695
775
871
913
1059
1348
1522
1572
1769
1785
2030
2292
2429
2447
2474
2692
2739
COST ESTIMATE* AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL CAPITAL
COST(ir
0
1,079,74*
731,177
0
1.864959
2383,893
54Q,06»
45UG3
9*3,72?
0
0
811,772
0
7,87J,173
804,333
U I 2^98
623,152
577,550
0
744217
0
117,139
TOTAL 0AM
COSTS
(S/Y1AR)»
0
2,052382
ljtm,083
0
2,951,001
114,490
644,01*
39.242
195,760
0
0
4JW2,Q4S
0
9^I9,S72
136,003
IJ87J96
160,101
114539,
0
423,814
0
86.578
UUNB COSTS
dr
0
319,712
66,000
0
114,488
94,475
3.15J
6,002
38,423
0
0
22J73
0
157,155
19,561
79,420
3SJ02
62,203
0
28,73)
0
8035
COST iCTlMATES1"
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS (S)*
0
4,350
731,177
2,000,000
1JI6.9S9
2J83.843
540,068
4JU03
983,727
0
0
811,771
0
7,175,173
101, 1 JJ
U12^»8
623,131
577350
0
740J17
0
117,139
TOTAL 0AM
COOTS
*
117,576
48,464
32,778
$73,681
182,383
284,996
51,776
82,770
2,341,077
43.073
45,580
590,903
131,476
26.019
613,123
68,576
91,673
LAMB COST
(SJ*

21. 2$2
13. $14
949
68, JSi,
7.103
$,491
- 1,31$
10.3S3
53,330
8.S14
4, 139
25,693
20,347
289
50.626
1, 323
1,392
(1)  Cose egtinatan inciuda both •(*«• stripping uid oh«kical precipitation upgrades cose where
*    Cost «stiaat«« ar« pr«s«tt»
-------
a combination of in-plant biological treatment and contract hauling at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp.
VIH-B71), but should have been  based  on contract hauling alone.   The basis  for plant 2057's cost
estimate was steam stripping and in-plant biological treatment at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-
B72), but  should  have  been based on steam  stripping alone.  However, in the case of other plants
such as plant 293, cost estimates at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VHI-B46) were based on steam
stripping and in-plant biological but should have also included activated carbon and cyanide destruction
(1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-B68). These technology corrections were also included in the new baseline
analysis for the current remand study  and are presented in Table  IH-5.  The revised total cost estimates
based on these corrections versus the cost estimates at promulgation for the plants that were affected by
the corrections and are shown in Table III-6.

The Agency also reassessed the flow basis used to estimate costs of compliance and found several errors
and inconsistencies in rounding off or truncating reported flows.  For the new  baseline analysis, the
Agency corrected the flows used to estimate costs of compliance  for 14 indirect discharge plants.

Corrections of these errors also increased costs for  some plants and  decreased costs  for others.   For
example, the flow for plant 249 was truncated to 0.0162 MOD at  promulgation, but should have been
0.01623 MOD; and for plant 438, the flow was rounded off to 0.051 MOD at promulgation, but should
have been 0.0508  MOD.  The flow corrections  for all  14 indirect plants are presented in Table III-7.
The revised cost estimates for these 14 plants affected by the flow corrections versus the as-promulgated
cost estimates  are also shown in Table III-7.

2.      Revised  In-plant Biological Treatment  Costs
Revised compliance  costs for  BAT Subpart J direct dischargers and  PSES indirect dischargers were
developed based on in-plant biological treatment systems with 3.5 to 17.2 day detention times (84 hrs.
                                     »
to 413 hrs.).  The principal basis for the revised designs includes an analysis of the OCPSF record
support related to  biological treatment design and performance  for the 19 remanded BAT Subpan J
pollutants.  OCPSF facilities with biological treatment in-place and with relatively high phenol raw waste
concentrations were identified  from the Verification, 5 CMA/EPA Plant Study, and the EPA 12 Plant
Sampling Studies  as  well as the 308 Questionnaire Data Base.   When  available,  the aeration basin
detention time, and the average influent and effluent phenol concentration for each of these plants were
identified.  Table III-8 presents the results of this analysis.  Based on the information obtained, it was
                                             HI-16

-------
                      TABLE III-S  TECHNOLOGY CORRECTIONS
 A.  Direct (BAT} Suboart J Plants:
PLANT NO.
488
2660
TECHNOLOGIES COSTED AT
PROMULGATION"*
CP, SS, PB
AC, CH
ON
CP, SS, PB, AC, CN
No costs (zero discharge)
B.  Indirect (PSES) Plants:
PLANT NO.
58
161
293
41?
607
797
1172
1191
1320
1659
1666
1716
1718
1838
1848
2057
2129
2232
2507
2677
4042
4072
AT
PROMULGATION"1
PB
SS, CP
SS, PB
PB
CP, AC
CP, AC
SS, CP
SS, CP, PB
SS, CH
CP, AC
CP, AC
CP, AC
PB, CH
SS, BP, CH
CH Cost = $592,249
SS, PB
CP, AC
Monitoring Cost =$29, 539
PB
SS, CP, PB
PB
SS, CP
FOR REVISED BASELINE
COST'"
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
SS, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
SS, PB, CH
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
CH
CH
CH Cost = $396,317
SS
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Cost =$26, 82?
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
Monitoring Only
CP, AC, SS, CN, PB
(1)     CP = Chemical Precipitation
       SS = Steam Stripping
       AC = Activated Carbon
       CN = Cyanide Destruction
       PB = In-Plant Biological
       CH = Contract Hauling
                                        111-17

-------
      TABLE III-6 REVISED COST ESTIMATES BASED ON TECHNOLOGY CORRECTIONS

A.  Direct (BAT) Plants:
PLANT
No.
488
2660
COST ESTIMATES AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)*
893,795
12,586
TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
($/YEAR)*
109,571
18,853
LAND
COSTS ($)*
34,598
6,437
REVISED COST ESTIMATES
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($}*
1,154,248
0
TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
468,093
0
LAND
COSTS
($)*
109,650
0
B. Indirect (PSES) Plants:
PLANT
No.
58
161
2930
417
607
797
1172
1191
1320
1659
1666
1716
1718
1838
1848<"
2057
2129
2232
2507
2677
4042
4072
COST ESTIMATES AT PROMULGATION
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)*
34,492
845,849
694,026
91,684
418,470
358,393
787,371
839,997
454,324
488,007
408,385
455,843
74,324
454,719
43,397
525,695
407,442
1,050,903
73,357
913,257
88,716
204,416
TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
(S/YEAR)*
31,778
185,652
180,783
33,044
258,962
82,077
91,247
78,013
10,583
521,563
225,344
394,172
32,282
10,410
25,019
62,236
222,266
396,647
32,245
123,267
32,902
74,951
LAND
COSTS ($)*
1,342
16,526
7,103
23,250
19,007
6,596
8,989
3,581
2,988
32,462
105,779
29,601
1,784
8,460
289
11,176
24,552
18,899
3,489
5,026
5,308
4,316
REVISED COST ESTIMATES
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS ($)*
0
1,578,954
1,247,793
0
988,390
892,176
686,681
941,311
488,265
1,093,815
972,755
1,044,991
0
0
43,397
454,324
971,267
1,050,903
0
1,194,141
0
905,710
TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
($/YEAR)*
0
2,291,710
2,292,150
0
336,991
149,820
205,649
228,119
42,435
618,591
301,179
481,746
0
0
26,019
29,682
297,915
396,647
0
920,690
0
170,314
LAND
COSTS
($)*
0
78,272
26,785
0
29,710
11,198
14,714
91,402
4,327
49,392
166,578
45,385
0
0
289
7,056
38,692
18,899
0
14,997
0
10,817
NOTES:
 *  Cost estimates presented in 1982 dollars,
(1) Revised cost estimates include upgrades cost also.
                                           111-18

-------
                    TABLE III-7 FLOW CORRECTIONS
PLANT NO.
249
310
438
1194
1237
1326
1891
1971
2288
2293
2341
2495
2501
2776
FLOW AT PROMULGATION
(MOD)
0.0162
0.0214
0.051
0.0017
0.007
0.0161
0.233
0.016
0.00179
0.0053
0.455
0.12
0.00794
0.00543
FLOW AT REVISED
BASELINE COST (1990)
(MOD)
0.01623
0.02143
0.0508
0.00179
0.00702
0.01612
0.2326
0.0161
0.0018
0.00526
0.4547
0.1201
0.00795
0.00551
         REVISED COST ESTIMATES BASED ON FLOW CORRECTIONS


PLANT
No.



249
310
438
1194
1237
1326
1891
1971
2288
2293
2341
2495
2501
776
COST ESTIMATES AT
PROMULGATION

TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS
($)*
858,441
538,978
579,776
486,918
508,835
530,181
734,548
858,066
487,507
503,406
,162,583
985,375
839,491
927,294

TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
($/YEAR>*
86,674
60,478
87,484
42,078
46,872
43,045
290,010
84,780
42,354
46,420
335,800
222,026
77,377
207,907

LAND
COSTS
($)*

6,528
7,994
3,957
11,555
51,844
3,403
5,986
3,676
10,208
51,142
29,891
21,924
5,048
33,901
REVISED COST ESTIMATES


TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS
($)*
858,497
539,026
579,571
487,507
508,894
530,218
734,356
858,254
487,571
503,268
,162,478
985,442
840,018
928,028

TOTAL
O&M
COSTS
($/YEAR)*
86,676
60,480
87,473
42,078
46,872
43,047
290,000
84,787
42,354
46,420
335,795
222,029
77,377
209,287

LAND
COSTS
($/YEAR)
*
6,529
7,995
3,955
11,562
51,852
3,404
5,984
3,678
10,209
51,125
29,886
21,927
5,048
33,983
Cost estimates presented in 1982 dollars.
                                 Ill-19

-------
                                                  TABLE III-8




                 DETENTION TIME VERSUS AVERAGE INFLUENT PHENOL CONCENTRATIONS ANALYSIS
Plant #
1650V
2430 V
948 F
384 T
2221 V
2536 T
948 V
2631 V
296 V
12 F
267 F
2394 T
1609 V
1769 P
1890 V
2445 P
1494 V
306V
2711 V
1293 T
Average Influent Phenol
Concentration (ppb)
117.33
157.50
239,24
266,18
487,00
501,13
509,67
709.00
730.67
760.71
1,645.55
1,847.25
1,864.50
2,108.33
2,917.00
5,810.00
18,500.00
53,916.70
237,500.00
836,292.77
Average Effluent Phenol
Concentration (ppb)
10.9
11,17
10,2
ND (Not Delected)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
14.9
10.7
58.5
ND
...
10.8
—
ND
13.3
ND
ND
Detention Time (Hours)
72 to 1008 hours
4.5 hours
72 hours
16.6 hours
30,6 to 35.7 hours
25.2 hours
72 hours
45 hours*
136.8 hours
62/41 (summer/winter)
8.4 hours
129.6 hours
24 hours
8 hours
360 hours
6 hours
18 hours
36 hours
130 hours
412.8 hours
Source Document far Detention Time
308 supplemental
308 supplemental
Verification report
12 plant report
308 questionnaire C12
12 plant report
Verification report
Verification report
Verification report
308 questionnaire C12
308 supplemental
12 plant report
12 plant report
308 supplemental
Verification report
308 questionnaire C12
308 supplemental
Verification report
308 questionnaire C12
12 plant report
Detention time calculated based on system volume and average of flow reported in report
                                                     111-20

-------
 determined that plants with raw wastewater phenol concentrations of up to 50 mg/1 would comply with

 the numerical phenol limitations with biological treatment system with detention time up to 72 hours

 (however, 84 hours or 3.5 days was used as a safety factor), plants with raw waste phenol concentrations

 up to 300 mg/1 would comply with detention times up to 130 hours (5.4 days), and plants with raw waste

 phenol concentrations over 300 mg/1 would comply with detention times up to 413 hours (17.3  days).

 Similar assessments for the remaining 18 remanded  pollutants were conducted to determine necessary

 detention time as a function of reported or modeled raw waste concentrations.  Table III-9 presents the

 analysis of this assessment. Based on the information presented on Table III-9 it was determined that the

 costing methodology for revised in-plant biological treatment is as follows:


        •      For  Pollutant #34  (2,4-Dimethylphenol),  all BAT Subpart J plants with raw  waste
               concentrations greater than 10 mg/1 will be costed for an in-plant biological treatment
               system with a detention time of 413 hours; plants with raw  waste concentrations above
               trigger levels but below 10 mg/1 will be costed for an in-plant biological treatment system
               with a detention time of 84 hours.

        •      For Pollutant #55 (Naphthalene), all  BAT Subpart J and  PSES plants with raw waste
               concentrations greater than 3 mg/1 will be costed  for an in-plant biological treatment
               system with a  detention time of 413 hours; plants with raw  waste concentrations above
               trigger levels but below 3 mg/1 will be costed for an in-plant biological treatment system
               widi a detention time of 84 hours.

        •      For Pollutant  #80 (Fluorene), all BAT Subpart  J  and PSES plants with raw  waste
               concentrations greater than 0.5 mg/I  will be costed for an in-plant biological treatment
               system with a detention time of 413 hours; plants  with raw waste concentrations above
               trigger levels but below 0.5 mg/1 will be costed for an  in-plant biological treatment
               system with a detention time of 84 hours.

       •      For the remaining 15 remanded  BAT Subpart J  pollutants  (excluding phenol)  and the
               remaining 9 PSES pollutants, all BAT Subpart J  and PSES plants with  raw waste
               concentrations above trigger levels will be costed for an  in-plant biological treatment
               system with a detention time of 84 hours.


Raw waste concentrations for phenol and the remaining 18 remanded pollutants were then obtained for

each plant from the pi ant-by-plant pollutant loading  estimates described in Chapter VIII of the 1987

Development Document.


Based on the analyses described above, a detention time was then assigned to  each BAT Subpart J and

PSES plant for  purposes of estimating the  revised cost of compliance for the remanded pollutants.  As

a result of these assessments, 24 BAT Subpart J and 176 PSES plants were assigned an 84 hour detention
                                             HI-21

-------
                    TABLE 111-9




DETENTION TIME ANALYSIS FOR THE REMAINING POLLUTANTS
Pollutant No.
1
(Acenaphthene)
34
(2,4~Dimethylpheno!)
39
(FluOraothcfic)
55
(Naphthalene)
66
(Bis[2-Ethy!hexyll
phthalate)
68
(Di-n-Butyiphthalate)
70
(Diethylphthaiate)
71
(Dimethylphthalate)
72
{Benzo(ar)Anthracene)
Plant No.
12 F
1293 T
306V
12 F
3033 T
306V
1293 T
851 V
1293 T
306V
2631 V
695V
2430V
3033 T
384 T
1650V
851 V
12 F
1293 T
948 F
948V
948 F
948V
948V
948 F
948V
948 F
1293T
306V
Average Influent
Concentration (ppm)
0.102
0.876
3.850
0.697
4.592
9.967
29.868
0.133
1.572
5,225
0,232
0,250
0.327
0,520
1.040
1.411
2.255
2,275
20.964
1.097
4.396
0,377
2.265
0,433
1,220
0.134
0.207
0,308
i.585
Average Effluent
Concentration (ppro)
ND (Not Detected)
ND
0.013
0,013
0,014
0.0102
ND
0.0102
0.0115
0.0158
0.017
ND
0.0112
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.012
ND
0.043
0.053
0.013
0,03
0.061
0.023
0.037
ND
ND
0.056
Detention Times
(hours)
62
413
36
62
NA
36
413
34
413
36
45
4,5
17
72
34
62
413
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
413
36
Source Document for Detention
Time
308 Questionnaire C12
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
308 Questionnaire C12
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
308 Supplemental Questionnaire
12 Plant Report
308 Supplemental Questionnaire
Verification Report
308 Questionnaire C12
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
                      111-22

-------
TABLE IH-9 (CONTINUED)
DETENTION TIME ANALYSIS FOR THE REMAINING POLLUTANTS
Pollutant No,
76
(Chrysene)
77
( Acenap hthy lene)
78
(Anthracene)
80
(Fluorene)
81
(Phenanthrene)
84
(Pyrene)
Plant No,
1293 T
384 T
306V
1293 T
1650V
306V
851 V
1293 T
306V
1650V
851 V
1293 T
1650V
2313 T
851 V
1293 T
306V
851 V
12W T
306V
Average Influent
Concentration (ppm)
0.266
0.312
1.082
0.472
0.641
9.758
0.494
0.694
2.105
0.167
0.475
1.232
0.166
0.612
2.452
3.285
8.450
0.246
1.023
3.083
Average Effluent
Concentration (ppm)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.013
0.0107
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.025
ND
ND
0.017
0.0165
0.0103
0.016
Detention Times
(hours)
413
17
36
413
72
72
34
413
36
42
34
413
72
72
34
413
36
34
413
36
Source Document for Detention
Time
12 Plant Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
308 Supplemental Questionnaire
Verification Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
308 Supplemental Questionnaire
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
308 Supplemental Questionnaire
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
Verification Report
12 Plant Report
Verification Report
111-23

-------
 time, and 6 BAT Subpart J and 26 PSES plants were assigned a 413 hour detention time. The detention
 times assigned for each BAT Subpart J and PSES plants are shown in Table 111-10,

 The Agency also investigated the effect of higher detention times on the land requirements for estimating
 the land costs associated with the revised model in-plant biological treatment systems.  Land requirements
 for small  facilities (flow <0.5 mgd) and costs were estimated applying the same methodologies used at
 promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp. VIII-35 to 56 and V.III-187 to 196).

 For the  large facilities (flow  k 0,501  mgd)  the  land  requirement calculated applying the same
 methodologies used at  promulgation were considered excessively high (104 acres  for a 5.0 mgd flow).
 An alternative way for estimating land requirements for large plants was investigated and an alternative
 method was presented  in the December 6,  1991  Proposal.

 A search  of the  literature1 revealed that modern design of aeration tanks requires  that the width of the
 tank be at least  1,5 times its depth and widths as great as 2.15 times the depth have been successfully
 used.  The length of the aeration tanks although not critical are generally  8 to 18 times their widths.
 Furthermore, for tanks using diffusers,  greater widths are permissible.  Most diffused-air aeration tanks
 in the United States have liquor depths of about 15 feet, but it appears that there probably is not much
 difference in power requirements per million gallons per day of wastewater treated over a practical range
 in depths. In addition, it has been shown that the transfer efficiency  increases with diffuser depth because
of increased oxygen partial pressure and increased contact time between the bubble and mixed liquor.
Selection of the  most economical  depth for aeration design must then take into consideration available
area, land cost and the difficulty and cost of construction.  The most economical  depth, especially for
large facilities, may be considerably more than 15 feet.

Based  on this information, land  requirements  for large in-plant biological treatment systems were
calculated based  on 20 feet deep by 45 feet wide diffused aeration tanks.  The revised in-plant biological
treatment land requirements are presented in Table III-ll.
      1   "Sewage  Treatment  Plant  Design" American Society  of Civil Engineers  and
          Water  Pollution  Control  Federation   (WPCF   Manual of Practice No.  8
          pg.129-134).
                                            111-24

-------
                TABLE HMO PLANT-BY-PLANT DETENTION TIME ASSIGNMENT




A. BAT Subrart J Plants:
84 Hours
76
105
114
412
446
657
814
859
913
942
1249
1439
1569
1618
1688
1785
2030
2047
2073
2268
2419
2527
2735
2767
130 Hours






413 Hours
225
260
447
2400
2590
2786






B.  PSES Plants:
84 Hours
10
22
33
49
51
72
94
110
119
120
149
155
161
163
196
206
212
214
221
240
249
262
266
283
293
326
334
354
433
438
458
468
492
494
522
536
543
567
607
611
624
658
661
706
717
724
743
749
768
771
791
797
814
819
862
877
887
905
987
992
1018
1052
1053
1057
1083
1085
1086
1091
1117
1126
1181
1191
1197
1202
1219
1236
1237
1249
1264
1310
1313
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1426
1432
1450
1478
1504
1560
1575
1595
1608
1622
1628
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1744
1751
1773
1788
1793
1826
1853
1876
1891
1894
1899
1931
1971
1993
2004
2007
2037
2070
2093
2117
2129
2176
2184
2232
2241
2243
2250
2259
2261
2288
2293
2311
2318
2341
2348
2350
2442
2465
2469
2485
2487
2498
2517
2524
2539
2548 •
2565
2635
2646
2677
2714
2736
2741
2756
2776
2793
4001
4006
4007
4008
4014
4024
4026
4032
4044
4047
4050
4057
4070
4072
130 Hours












































413 Hours
79 1163
220 1172
310 1173
430 1194
592 1220
830 1234
944 1437
1047 1507
1094 1528



































1534
1645
1832
1904
2084
2666
2748
4027




































                                       111-25

-------
                              TABLE III-ll

               REVISED LAND REQUIREMENT ESTIMATES FOR
                IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
REVISED LAND REQUIREMENTS FOR
IN^PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
A. Small Faciliites: Flow < 0.5 MOD

FLOW (MOD)

0.001
0,005
0,010
0.050
0.10
0.5
td = 84 hours
Land Requirement in
Acres
0.075
0.075
0.100
0.200
0,275
0.350
td = 130 hours
Land Requirement in
Acres
0.075
0.100
0.125
0.250
0.375
1.25
td = 413 hours
Land Requirement in
Acres
0.075
0.150
0.200
0.500
0.850
3.25
B. Large Facilities: Flow > 0.501 MGD
0.75
1.0
1,5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
2.2
2.8
4.1
5.3
7.7
10. 1
12,5
3.1
3.9
5.7
7.5
10.9
14.4
17.9
8.9
11.7
17.3
22.9
34.2
45.1
56.2
* td = detention time
                                111-26

-------
The  Agency  then developed cost estimates  based  on the new detention  times  using  the same

methodologies as those used at promulgation (1987 Dev. Doc. pp.  VHI-40 to 44, VII-187 to 196).  AH

costs estimates were generated using the CAPDET design program and are presented in Table III-12.

Cost equations were developed from the costs presented in Table Ifl-12 using the formula:


                     Cost = EXP (A + B (LN (FLOW)  + C (LN (FLOW)2)))

                     where Flow = wastewater flow in million gallons per day (MOD)


A simple regression analysis was performed on the data and the resulting coefficients to be used in the

cost equations are as follows:
Detention
Time (hours)

84
130
413
Small Facilities (< 0.50 MOD) Capital Cost Equations

A                                 B
13.601423
13.869229
14.614746
                                   0.495704
                                   0.534216
                                   0.621062
                            0.006896
                            0.011285
                            0.018345
Detention
Time (hours)

84
130
413
Detention
Time (hours')

84
130
413
Detention
Time fhours)

84
130
413
 Small Facilities

A

10.895981
10.916619
10.979743
                                        0.50 MOD) O&M Cost Equations
1

0.195023
0.196361
0.192164
                     Large Facilities (^ 0.501 MOD) _Camtal Cost Equations
15.937751
16.260803
17.334281
                                   B

                                   0.850382
                                   0.899157
                                   0.998243
Large Facilities (S> 0.501 MOD) O&M Cost Equations

A                                 B
12.953531
13.186191
14.027799
                                   0.747813
                                   0.765472
                                   0.807600
                                                               0.018721
                                                               0.018704
                                                               0.017507
                            0.038533
                            0.022164
                            0.009300
                            0.035124
                            0.028102
                            0.015157
                                           111-27

-------
                                      TABLE IIM2
REVISED CAPITAL AND O&M COST FOR
IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS
SMALL FACILITIES: FLOW < 0.5 MOD

FLOW (MOD)


0.001
0.005
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.5
td = 84 hours

CAPITAL
COST {$)
36,102
72,640
95,471
193,556
261,944
581,049

O&M COST
($/YEAR)
33,207
33,858
34,021
34,953
35,524
49,322
td = 130 hours

CAPITAL
COST ($)
44,601
87,942
114,023
233,064
324,073
733,979

O&M COST
(I/YEAR)
33,598
34,238
34,477
35,540
36,245
50,239
td = 413 hours

CAPITAL COST
($)
72,640
139,568
189,968
406,610
576,732
1,470,963

COST
(S/YEAR)
34,870
35,733
36,762
37,876
38,810
53,588
LARGE FACILITIES: FLOW :> 0.501 MOD
0.75
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6,565,929
8,351,329
11,802,309
15,397,620
22,195,087
29,445,593
36,097,246
341,867
422,220
573,540
722,754
1,001,554
1,277,468
1,538,101
8,963,250
11,444,568
16,720,920
21,699,793
31,808,299
42,173,774
51,645,705
429,486
531,214
730,876
918,061
1,278,526
1 ,629,747
1,960,910
25,426,593
33,663,672
50,522,129
67,338,461
102,813,111
138,458,709
170,742,915
982,196
1,234,987
1,719,570
2,182,090
3,052,376
3,912,749
4,709,662
Cost estimates are presented in 1982 dollars.
                                        rn-28

-------
The corresponding cost curves are presented in Figures IIH through 111-12,  A       of
analyses were completed to      in performing various economic impact inilyses to respond to public
comments on the December 6, 1991 Proposal, These     estimation        are presented below.

3.      The Initial Analysis
This analysis was performed to estimate the economic                  with only the portions of the
regulation that were unaffected by the Court's remand decision. This involved updating the applicability
of BAT Subpart I and Subpart J and PSES       on the April 1991 survey results, estimating revised
compliance costs for those plants whose Subpart applicability had         and then eliminating all in-
plant biological-related treatment     for the BAT Subpart J and PSES plants. In addition, for the plants
that switched from BAT Subpart I to BAT Subpart J      on the April 1991 survey results, the end-of-
pipe (BOP) biological treatment costs estimated for compliance with BPT and the in-plant BAT treatment
costs (with  the  exception of  any  in-plant  biological treatment       were retained to serve as a
conservative cost estimate to cover whatever these       did to comply with BPT/BAT Subpart J without
installing EOF biological treatment. This        is conservative       it is unlikely    plants chose
a more expensive alternative to the model technology to achieve compliance. Finally, it    includes the
corrections as outlined in Sections III,D.I of this document,  "Revised         Costs™,  This "initial
analysis" estimates the cost of compliance with the entire OCPSF rale with the exception of the remanded
limitations and standards based on current information on plant status. The compliance      associated
with the "initial analysis" are presented  in Appendix II1-B,

4,      The RIA Analysis
This analysis was performed to determine if an RIA  was required for the             that were to be
promulgated and involved estimating revised  in-plant biological treatment      for the 19 remanded BAT
Subpart J and 11 PSES parameters for  the all affected PSBS plants and BAT Subpart J plants. These
plants were determined based on the results of the April 1991 survey. The  "RIA Analysis" presents the
cost of this rale segregated from the     of the remainder of the OCPSF regulation. The
with the RIA Analysis are presented in Appendix III-C,

5.     The Preamble Economic Impact Analysis
This analysis was performed to         the economic impacts associated with the OCPSF regulation as
amended by this rale and involved adding the costs from the Initial Analysis and the RIA Analysis. The
                                            111-29

-------
                                  FIGURE 111-1
                       Total Capital Cost Curve vs.  Flow
                       for Small In-Plant Biological
                       Treatment Systems
                       Detention Times  84 hours
Flow (MGD)
         rn
                                                                4  OS  t

-------
„-
---
9.
8_
7_
6-.
5
4..
3.
?
1*

._
—
—
_
_



---
P











—



K-
pital Cose (1982 Dollars) [|j j | |[
n
L
^
c
1
^














J -
~
-i
o
j
i
-<














._
-


-







.-,
•"-
=
















-













S?






























^





























































7




























































1

















HI
-- 	 : ]












Mimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
	

— 	 - 	













HI











£
i !?::::::. T. :•












^ - I
	 f H
.. 	 	 -pi

"^ 	 iiftir
















—






















,^

—














DW











^
























^

-















_








f


-


_












	 ,











-


—











(MG'D)
|



-








^



~


-





















'





_












;
^





-




-















|
=F:
L-b.
1-






**'





\








-„-






• 	 • •* 	
	 	 	 	 	 -i
	 •- - 	 ; '••
i1
t i '
t • *
t • '







::::::! Total
	 for Sn
	 Treatn


TV 1_ j^_- i_













	 	 	 : ,i !. 	
J ' '
" . . _. 	 	 	












FIGURE H
Capital Cost
tail In-Plant
ent Systems
ion Time: 130











H











—













-^

^











—















_,













-



























r"













4.











(--
-2
Curve vs. F
Biological
hours

















































































	 «• » v ^ - p J! , . .-
-;-::=: = ::::: :












low :::
















H
:::•:: •:::::









t


Mm
Mm












I 1 1


	 ....
6789  D-Bl
6   7  8  9 «.!

-------
w
                                                    rM-'f-—t-, t  «i«:
                                                                              FIGURE JII-3
                                                                 Total Capital  Cost Curve vs.  Flow
                                                            HJ;    for Small  In-PI ant Biological
                                                                 Treatment  Systenii




                                                                 Detention  Timei  413 hours

-------
                                                              Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow
                                                              for Small In-Plant Biological
                                                              Treatment Sys terns

                                                              Detention Time: 84 hours
                                             Flow (MGD)
4 OBI
                                       O'Ot

-------
                                                                            FIGURE 111-5
                                                                Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow
                                                                for Small In-Plant Biological
                                                                Treatment Systems
                                                                Detention Time:  130 hours
O.OOl
                                        O. ol

-------
CO
01
     co
     oc
     _
     o
     Q
     co
     Q
    W
    3

    O
                                                                                        FIGURE III-6
                                                                           Annual  0  6s M Cost Curve vs.  Flow

                                                                           for Small In-Platit Biological

                                                                           Treatment Systems
                                                                           Detention Times 413 hours
                                                    Flow (MGD)
          0,oo»
                                                  o.et
                                                                                             e-i

-------
                                     FIGURE fll-7
                        Total Capital COst Curve vs. Flow
                        for Large In-Plant Biological
                        Treatment Systems
                        Detention Time: 84 hours
flow (MGD)
                    3-0
S-*

-------
Co
                                                                                  FIGURE (1-8
                                                                      Total Capital Cost Curve vs.  Flow
                                                                      for Large In-Plant Biological
                                                                      Treatment Systems
                                                                      Detention Timei  130 hours
                                                       Flow (MGD)
                                                             1

-------
CO

                                                                      Total Capital Cost Curve vs.  Flow
                                                                      for Large In-Plant Biological
                                                                      Treatment Systems
                                                                      Detention Time:  413 hours
                                                        Flow (MGD)

-------
            FIGURE 1II-1Q
Annual 0 & M Coat Curve vs. Plow
for Large In-PLant Biological
Treatment Systems
Detention Time: 84 hours
                                             5-0

-------
                                                                FIGURE 111-11
                                                     Annual 0 & M Cost Curve vs. Flow
                                                     for Large In-Plant Biological
                                                     Treatment Systems
                                                     Detention Time;  130 hours
t-o
                                                                                                 S.O

-------

                                                       Annual 0 & M Cost  Curve vs. Flow
                                                       for  Large In-Plant Biological
                                                       Treatment Systems
                                                       Detention Times 413 hours
                                     -L8.LJ-U--t-U.-Ll '-
                                     tTinliilHiTtrfTi
                                     •  Flow 
-------
 revised BPT, BAT, and PSES costs estimated for the Preamble Economic Impact Analysis are presentedin
 Appendix III-D while the technologies  associated with  these revised BPT,  BAT and PSES costs are
 presented in Appendix III-E.

 6.     Land Availability
 For the December 6, 1991  Proposal, EPA  investigated whether land availability would be a constraint
 on the ability of OCPSF plants to install in-plant biological treatment.  EPA's investigation included the
 land requirements for treatment of all 13 of the remanded PSES pollutants,  including phenol and 2,4-
 dimethylphenol, which are not being regulated in the final regulation. At that time, 20 of the 242 indirect
 discharge plants costed for in-plant biological treatment were projected to require more than one acre of
 land.   EPA  projected land requirements  for individual facilities based on the modeled raw  waste
 concentrations  for the facilities developed hy the  Agency for purposes of costing compliance with the
 1987  OCPSF guideline.  The Agency visited the  eight indirect discharge facilities with land estimates
 greater than one acre in the three-state area of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. Indirect discharge
 facilities  were selected because their typical location in urban areas makes them  more likely than  direct
 dischargers to have land-availability constraints. EPA believes the combination of large land requirements
 and an urban setting makes these eight plants a "worst case"  sample of land availability, A summary of
the results from the site visits is presented in Table 111-13.

 Five of the plants visited had sufficient land  based on the land requirements projected from their modeled
 raw waste concentrations (the remaining three had  from 78 to 96 percent of the projected requirements).
The remaining three had enough land based on their actual reported raw waste concentrations (the three
plants had from 1.9 times to 3.7 times  more than the  required land).  EPA generally was conservative
 in projecting raw waste characteristics in order to  err on the side of overestimating rather than
underestimating plant compliance costs.  EPA thus believes its raw waste projections will often be higher
than actual loadings (April 19, 1993 Memorandum to the OCPSF Record "Estimation of BAT and  PSES
 Compliance Costs").  Based on this assessment, the Agency concluded that land availability was  not a
constraint for installing the model treatment technology (56 FR 63904).

CM A comments on the December 6, 1991 Proposal asserted that EPA overestimated the land available
for the construction of biological treatment systems in  its survey of eight indirect discharge facilities by
including in its analysis parcels of non-contiguous land and  land that is obstructed by railroad tracks,
buildings and other physical obstacles. (CMA Comments at 39-41). This is not true. Each of the  eight

-------
                                    TABLE 111-13

                 LAND AVAILABILITY OF SELECTED OCPSF PLANTS
PLANT NO.
257
2756
1853
2300
1706
1667
2485
814
LOCATION
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
Delaware
Delaware
New Jersey
New Jersey
New York
ESTIMATED
LAND
REQUIREMENT
REVISED IN-PLANT
BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT
1.93/(0.55)*/(0)**
1.61
8.77/(2.16)*»
1.93/(0)**
1.8
1.257(0.38)**
6.64/(1.68)**
2.197(1.55)**
LAND AVAILABLE
(ACRES)
1.5
5
8
11
5.2
1.2
>20
13
( )*   Land requirement calculated based on reported raw waste concentrations.

( )**  Revised  land  requirement  based  on  Agency decision not to regulate  phenol  and  2,4-
      dimethylphenol forPSES.
                                       IIW3

-------
facilities EPA surveyed has sufficient contiguous, unobstructed land for the installation of the model
biological treatment system costed by EPA at proposal.  Furthermore,  the available land is configured
such that it can  accommodate the costed biological treatment systems (Plot  pians are contained in the
Confidential Record).

Three plants for which CMA  asserted the record shows insufficient contiguous land — Plants 257, 1853,
and 1667 — are  the plants for which EPA determined that there is sufficient land based on the plants'
reported raw waste concentrations (id.)-  CMA apparently overlooked  this portion of the analysis and
based its comments on the land estimates based on the plants' projected raw waste concentrations. As
described in more detail below, all of the plants EPA visited have more than sufficient contiguous land
to install in-plant biological treatment systems to comply with the land  requirements estimated by  EPA
for compliance with the 13 remanded pretreatment standards.

Furthermore, based on the Agency's decision not to  promulgate pretreatment standards for phenol and
2,4-dimethylphenol, the estimated land requirements are lower for six of the eight plants visited than the
requirements estimated at proposal for these  plants based  on their projected  raw waste concentrations.
Two plants no  longer require  in-plant biological  treatment  (257 and  2300),  reducing  their  land
requirements to  zero.  The estimated land requirements for four additional plants were reduced by 29,
69, 75 and 74 percent (plants 814, 1667, 1853 and 2485, respectively).  The estimated land requirements
for the remaining two plants have not changed from the 1991 estimates.

Addressing the plants individually, the eommenter states that the available land claimed by the Agency
for Plant 257 was made up of three parcels, that one parcel would require demolishing two buildings and
that another parcel is crisscrossed by railroad tracks.   At the time of the  site visit, plant personnel
informed EPA that plans called for the demolition of the two buildings in question and in fact demolition
was already underway at the time of the site visit; the Agency reasonably concluded that the  land made
available by the  demolition of these two buildings would be available,  and notes  that the pretreatment
standards  to which this plant was to be subject do not become effective until three years after the
promulgation of today's amendments.  The area made available by the demolition of these buildings in
addition to the contiguous, open area designated as "A" to the left of the railroad tracks on  the plot plan
submitted by the facility will more than accommodate EPA's land requirement estimate of 0.55 acres for
Plant 257,  This land is contiguous and is not intersected by the railroad tracks. Finally, based on the
Agency's decision not to promulgate pretreatment standards for phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol, Plant 257
no longer is projected to install in-plant biological treatment,

                                             111-44

-------
 The commenter also claims that "part" of one of the parcels of land at Plant 1706 is unavailable because
 of a nearby flare stack.  But the commenter does not explain, and  EPA does not understand, how a
 nearby flare stack would prevent installation of a biological treatment system.  Nor did it indicate how
 much  of the four-acre parcel in question it considered to be unavailable, and EPA has  no basis to
 conclude that the presence of a nearby flare stack renders unavailable the 1.8      estimated as necessary
 for Plant 1706 to install the costed biological treatment system.

 The commenter also states that  the Agency unrealistically utilized two parcels of land (1 acre and 0.2
 acres) to meet  the estimated land requirement of 1,25 acres for Plant 1667 (CMA Comment at 41).  In
 addition to stating that the two parcels of land are not contiguous, the commenter states that the 0.2 acre
 parcel contains a 2 story brick building and the 1 acre parcel has a railroad track running through it.
 Again, the commenter has overlooked portions of the Agency's analyses contained in its Record, Even
 if the railroad track bisected the 1 acre parcel,  the Agency's  revised land estimate of 0.38  acres
 on the facility's reported raw waste concentration and/or the Agency's decision not to regulate phenol and
 2,4-dimethyIpheno! under PSES (each factor reduces the original land estimate to 0,38 acres) could still
 be accommodated by either one of the two 0.5  acre parcels.  Moreover, the Agency's Record clearly
 states that the 2 story brick building was confirmed as not in  use and available (1991 Proposal Record,
 p R01236).

 In a related argument, the commenter argues that EPA has included land in its analysis that is unavailable
 because of contamination and related factors. EPA disagrees with this analysis of the record, as explained
 below.

 The  commenter states that personnel from  Plant 2756 informed EPA that the availability of its land
 depended on  getting clearance from the state agency because  contamination was suspected.  However,
 the plant provided no information during EPA's site visit or in  comments regarding the likelihood, nature
 or extent of the suspected  contamination, the procedures involved in obtaining clearance from the state,
 or the extent to which the  contamination might preclude the installation of a biological treatment system
to comply with today's regulations within  the three  years allotted.  The Agency  has conservatively
 estimated that 32 percent of the facility's unused land (equal to the 1.61 acres required) will be available
to accommodate the installation of in-plant biological treatment.

The  commenter  also states that "...  Four  of the eight acres identified for Plant  1853 were under
 investigation for possible contamination, EPA was told by plant personnel that the availability of the land

                                              in-45

-------
 was dependent on the results of the investigation..." (CMA Comment at 41).  However, the Agency's
 Record shows that the uneontaminated 4-acre parcel at the site will accommodate EPA's estimated revised
 land requirement of 2,16 acres, based on reported  raw waste concentrations for Plant  1853 and/or the
 Agency's decision not to regulate phenol and 2,4-di methyl phenol under PSES (each  factor reduces the
 original land  estimate to 2.16  acres).   In addition, EPA has insufficient information regarding the
 "possible" contamination to evaluate its effect on compliance with today's amendments.

 The commenter also states that plant personnel informed EPA that of the 130 acre site for Plant 2485,
 some unspecified portion of the plant site was under investigation for contamination  and 30 percent of
 the site was considered fresh water wetlands. Since 30 percent of the total plant site totals  39 acres and
 since no accurate estimate of the extent of the contamination at the 130 acre plant site could be made by
 plant personnel, the Agency has conservatively estimated  the amount of land  available at 20 acres or
 about 15 percent of the total plant site, which  is more than adequate for the 6.64 acres projected to be
 required. EPA also notes that no comments have been received to date regarding the results of the site
 investigation of potential contamination which was scheduled for completion in  1991.  Finally, based on
 the Agency's decision not to promulgate pretreatment standards for phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol, the
 land requirements for Plant 2485 have been reduced from 6.64 acres to 1.68 acres.

 The commenter also states that plant personnel at Plant 814 informed EPA that 11 of the 13 acres EPA
 included in  its available  area  was  under  investigation  for  possible  contamination.   Subsequent
 correspondence from  Plant 814 confirmed the presence of contamination but did not detail the extent of
the contamination, only that remedialion would  be necessary and "... a large portion of these areas will
 not be available for future construction other than that related to remediation..." (1991 Proposal Record,
p  ROI210).  However, even according to the plant's information, 2.3 acres of land are  not under
 investigation for contamination.  Although this land is comprised of two separate parcels, the larger of
the two alone is sufficient to  install the costed biological treatment system.   Based on the Agency's
decision not to promulgate pretreatmeni standards for  phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol, this plant only
requires  1.55 acres of land  to install  the Agency's current model treatment system.   Subtracting the
smaller  of the two available parcels (designated as area "J" on the  facility plot plan, estimated at 0.5
acres) from the 2.3 acre total,  approximately  1.8 contiguous, uneontaminated acres  remain available,
which will  accommodate the current land requirement (1991 Proposal Record,  p R01243).  Moreover,
only 14 percent of the 11  contaminated acres would be required to install the entire treatment system, not
counting any of the 2.3 acres which  the facility admits is available.  The information that "a large
portion" of the 11 acres  is unavailable does not provide a basis to conclude that the  facility could not

                                             111-46

-------
install a biological treatment system to comply with the promulgated pretreatment standards within three
years.

Overall,  EPA reasonably concluded that each  of the plants visited should have sufficient contiguous,
unobstructed, uncontaminated land to       the       biological treatment systems.  In addition,  even
if EPA's analysis indicated a lack of contiguous, available land, this would not  necessarily preclude
installation of the costed biological treatment systems. Individual        of a plant's treatment system,
including separate aeration basins, can be physically located on non-contiguous parcels, or on different
portions of a single parcel.  In the OCPSF industry, plant manufacturing and/or treatment areas are often
segmented or separated by such things as utility roads, railroad tracks, canals, parking lots, warehouses,
or other  unrelated parcels of land.  EPA cannot perform a detailed evaluation, in  a national guideline,
of how individual  facilities  in  the  industry can     comply with  the  promulgated  limitations and
standards.  Especially with considerations as inherently plant-specific as land availability and potential
contamination and remediation requirements, EPA can only       whether, for the industry as a whole,
sufficient land should be available to comply with  the requirements of the guideline.  EPA has performed
such an assessment and has concluded that     availability will not be a constraint on compliance  with
today's limitations and standards. To the extent that an individual plant determines, after making a
faith effort to use the land available to it, that it  is unable to comply with the requirements of today's
rule, the  plant may apply for an PDF variance.
                                             111-47

-------
E.     FINAL BAT SUBPART J AND PSES LIMITATIONS

The final BAT Subpart J and PSES limitations are presented below.
                                              BAT Subpart J Effluent Limitations
                                                    (micrograms per liter)

                                          Maximum for               Maximum for
Effluent Characteristics                      any one day               monthly average

Acenaphthalene                                47                         19
2,4-Dimethylphenol                             47                         19
Fluoranthene                                   54                         22
Naphthalene                                   47                         19
Phenol                                        47                         19
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate                        258                         95
Di-n-butyl phthalate                             43                         20
Diethyl phthalate                               113                         46
Deimethyl phthalate                             47                         19
Benzo(a)anthracene                             47                         19
Benzo(a)pyrene                                 48                         20
3,4-Benzofluoranthene                           48                         20
Benzo(k)fluoranthene                            47                         19
Chrysene                                      47                         19
Acenaphthylene                                47                         19
Anthracene                                    47                         !9
Fluorene                                      47                         19
Phenanthrene                                   47                         19
Pyrene                                        48                         20
                                          IIM8

-------
                                        Pretreatment Standards for Existing and New Sources
                                                      (mierograms per liter)

                                           Maximum for                 Maximum for
Effluent Characteristics                       any one day               monthly average

Acenaphthene                                    47                           19
Fluoranthene                                    54                           22
Naphthalene                                     47                           19
Bis (2-ethyIhexyI) phthalate                       258                          95
Di-n-butyl phthalate                              43                           20
Diethyl phthalate                                 113                          46
Dimethyl phthalate                               47                           19
Anthracene                                      47                           19
Fluorene                                        47                           19
Phenanthrene                                    47                           19
Pyrene                                          48                           20
                                           I1M9

-------
 IV.    NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND PMETREATMENT STANDARDS
        FOR NEW SOURCES
 In the 1987 OCPSF promulgation, the Agency promulgated NSPS for all direct discharging sources based
 on the best available demonstrated technology,  as required by CWA § 306 (52 FR at 42545). NSPS was
 established for the three conventional pollutants regulated under the OCPSF guideline on the basis of BPT
 model treatment technology, and  for the 63 OCPSF-regulated priority pollutants on the basis of BAT
 model treatment technology.  The numerical standards are equivalent to the BPT and the BAT limitations
 (52 FR  42545). EPA also promulgated PSNS on the  same technology basis as  PSES; the numerical
 standards for 47 priority pollutants that were determined to pass through or otherwise interfere with the
 operation of publicly owned treatment works  (POTWs) are equivalent to the PSES standards (52 FR
 42549).

 The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) challenged the final NSPS and PSNS standards arguing,
 in part,  that the  Agency failed to give adequate consideration to better pollution control technologies that
 could be used by new sources.

 On March 30, 1989, the Fifth Circuit rejected  all but one of NRDC's challenges to the NSPS standards
 and remanded the NSPS standards to EPA "for consideration of whether zero discharge limits would be
 appropriate for  new plants in the OCPSF industry because of the existence of recycling" (870 F.2d at
 264).  However, the Court left the standards in place during the Agency's response to the remand (870
 F.2d at 266).

 The Agency has reconsidered the issues related  to establishing new source zero discharge standards based
on process wastewater recycle and, as proposed, has decided not to revise the existing NSPS and  PSNS
 standards for the same reasons presented in its December 6, 1991 Proposal.  EPA received comments
from NRDC urging EPA to promulgate zero discharge standards based on recycle of process wastewater,
 and from numerous industry comments supporting EPA's proposal to retain the existing NSPS and  PSNS
 standards.   As explained more fully  in Section VIILB, of the Preamble to the Final Regulation, the
Agency  has concluded that it has no basis to impose a zero discharge technology-based NSPS standard
on any OCPSF source, and that, even  if it were to undertake an extensive data collection and technical
development effort, it is unlikely EPA could impose a zero discharge  standard on more than a few  of the
25,000 product/processes in the OCPSF industry. First, the "concentration-based" approach which  forms

                                           IV-l

-------
the framework of the OCPSF guideline limits the opportunities for the promotion of recycling and re-use
of wastewater through a national guideline, in contrast to the "mass-based" approach adopted in other
guidelines. The Agency explicitly recognized this limitation during the guideline development process,
but opted for this approach nonetheless, because it provided the basis for a guideline with more expansive
coverage.  This was a rational regulatory decision made by the Agency, Moreover, because the OCPSF
record was imprecise with regard to its use of the term "recycle," both NRDC and the Fifth Circuit in
its remand order, misinterpreted the support in the database for zero discharge through recycling.  In fact,
the record contains very few reports  of complete recycle and does not  demonstrate that recycle is  a
demonstrated technology on which EPA can base a zero discharge standard.
                                             IV-2

-------
                    APPENDIX I-A




GUIDANCE FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX MATRICES

-------
APPENDIX I-A  GUIDANCE FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX MATRICES

Several commenters stated that they were unable to measure some of the regulated pollutants in OCPSF
wastewater at the concentrations required by the regulation due to matrix interferences, i.e.,  that the
composition of wastewater samples complicates measurement of OCPSF-regulated pollutants at the low
levels required to show compliance with the rule. They suggested that EPA provide notice that relief is
available to the regulated community under this regulation when a permittee is unable to measure
pollutants due to matrix problems.

At the time of promulgation of the OCPSF guideline in 1987, EPA found that for well-designed, well-
operated treatment systems, matrix interferences should not present a problem. The limitations were
based upon data  that demonstrated that the pollutants have been and thus can be measured at  the
regulatory levels (52 FR 42563). EPA's determination that the regulated pollutants could be measured
at the compliance levels was upheld by the Fifth Circuit (CMA v. EPA.. 870 F.2d at 231).

Since promulgation of the OCPSF  guideline,  the Analytical  Methods Staff of the Engineering and
Analysis Division has been assisting EPA Regions and States in evaluating claims of matrix interferences
and other  analytical difficulties associated with OCPSF compliance monitoring.  Since 1990,  the
Analytical Methods Staff has issued a series of draft reports that provide guidance to control authorities
and laboratories for accommodating matrix-related problems that complicate laboratory measurements of
the analytes of interest. These documents have been updated and  expanded in one final publication, the
May 1993 "Guidance on Evaluation, Resolution, and  Documentation of Analytical Problems Associated
with Compliance  Monitoring," (EPA 821-B-93-001) that is available from  Mr. William A. Telliard,
Chief,  Analytical  Methods Staff, Engineering and Analysis Division (WH-552), USEPA, Washington,
DC 20460. The document includes (1) a checklist of laboratory data required to support a claim that a
permittee was unable to measure pollutants due to matrix problems, (2) guidance for analysts attempting
to identify and quantify pollutants in wastewaters discharged from plants manufacturing OCPSF products,
(3) cost estimates for resolving matrix interferences,  (4) guidance for reviewing data from the analysis
of organic compounds using EPA 600/1600 series analytical methods, (5) case histories of data submitted
for claims of matrix, interferences under the OCPSF rule, and (6)  guidance on contracting for analytical
services.
                                            I-A-I

-------
The Agency's past experience  is that nearly all matrix interference problems can be resolved when
industries and their laboratories apply the philosophy and techniques suggested in the draft documents.
Based  on this experience,  EPA does  not  believe matrix interferences will present  a problem in
demonstrating compliance with the OCPSF guideline.

Finally, EPA  notes that this guidance regarding matrix interference is beyond the scope of the Fifth
Circuit's remand and today's rule.  As stated above, the Fifth Circuit upheld EPA's determination that
trie OCPSF-regulated  pollutants  can  be  measured at the compliance levels, and  no issues relating to
measurement  were remanded.    The above discussion  is  guidance only,  and it  relates only  to
implementation and enforcement issues; it does not provide a basis to challenge today's amendment.
                                            I-A-2

-------
                      APPENDIX I-B

 GUIDANCE FOR THE APPROPRIATE FLOW     FOR
CONCENTRATIONS INTO MASS-BASED LIMITATIONS AND

-------
APPENDIX  I-B   GUIDANCE FOR THE                 FLOW         FOR
CONCENTRATIONS INTO MASS-BASED LIMITATIONS AND STANDARDS
The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, referring to supporting correspondence from the State of
New Jersey, complained about conflicting guidance and differing interpretations of the appropriate flow
basis for calculating the mass-based permit limits. They          that the Agency clarify its guidance
for (1) determining the appropriate flow basis for establishing the permit limitations and standards as well
as (2) the appropriate flow basis for converting compliance monitoring concentration data into mass-based
figures.

Regarding the first issue — the appropriate flow basis for establishing permit limits — the promulgated
OCPSF effluent limitations guidelines and standards listed in 40 CFR 414 are concentration-based and
thus do not regulate flow.   As required by the regulation, the permitting or control  authority must
multiply a reasonable estimate of a plant's regulated        wastewater discharge by the concentration
limitations to develop mass limitations for     NPDES or industrial user permit,

The appropriate process wastewater flow to be used must be determined by the permitting or control
authority on a case-by-case basis using current information provided by the applicant and other available
data.  EPA  strongly urges the permit  writer or control authority to  develop an appropriate
wastewater flow for use in computing the mass effluent or internal plant limitations based on water
conservation practices.  The factors that should be considered in developing the appropriate process
wastewater flow include:  review of the component flows to ensure that the claimed flows are,  in fact,
process  wastewater flows as defined by the regulation; review of plant           to ensure that sound
water conservation practices are being followed (examples include  minimization of process water uses;
cascading or countercurrent washes or rinses, where possible; reuse or recycle of intermediate process
waters or treated wastewaters at the process area and in wastewater treatment operations (e.g., pump
seals, and equipment and area washdowns)); and review of barometric condenser use at the process level
(barometric  condensers often generate relatively large volumes of slightly contaminated wastewater;
replacement of barometric  condensers  with  surface  condensers can  reduce  wastewater volumes
significantly and result  in collection of condensates that may be returned to the process). (1987 DD,  p
IX-9 - 10)
                                            I-B-1

-------
Assuming proper  water conservation is being practiced, the 1987  OCPSF  Development Document
accurately advises the control authority  to "use the plant's annual average process wastewater flow to
convert the concentration-based limitations into mass-based limitations" (p IX-10).  To clarify, the annual
average flow is defined as the average of daily flow measurements calculated over at least a year. These
average flows could be based on a single year's data; however, if available, multiple years' data are
preferable to obtain a representation of annual average flow.  The regulated OCPSF process wastewater
flows, as defined by 40 CFR 401.11(q), are the process waste streams that are subject to 40 CFR Part
414.

Based on current guidance issued by the Office of Water Enforcement and Compliance, the permitting
or control authority is advised to establish, for each direct or indirect point source discharge,  a single
estimate of the regulated long-term average of daily flow measurements based on three to five  years of
facility data. In the event that no historical or  actual process wastewater flow data exists, such as for a
new source, the permitting or control  authority is advised  to  establish  a reasonable  estimate of the
facility's projected flow.  Historical or  projected daily maximum, weekly maximum,  or  monthly
maximum flows and design-based or plant-capacity Abased flows are not recommended as appropriate bases
for determining a facility's regulated long-term or annual  average  of daily flow measurements  and
corresponding mass limits. The permitting or control authority is advised to  establish a flow rate that
is  expected  to be representative during  the  entire term of the permit or  other  individual control
mechanism.  If a plant is planning for significant changes in production during the effective period of the
permit,  the  permitting or control authority may consider establishing multiple tiers of limitations as a
function of the significant, projected changes in production.  In addition, or in the alternative, a permit
may be modified during  its term, either at the request of the permittee (or another interested party) or
on  EPA's initiative,  to  increase or decrease  the  flow basis  in response to  a  significant change in
production (40 CFR  124.5, 122.62). A change in  production could be an "alteration" of the permitted
activity or  "new  information"  that would provide the  basis for  a permit modification  (40 CFR
122.62(a)(l), (2)).

Guidance  for determining appropriate  process wastewater  flow is  presented in several  documents
published by the EPA Office of Wastewater Enforcement and  Compliance, Washington, DC:  "Guidance
Manual for the Use of  Production-Based Pretreatment  Standards  and  the Combined Wastestream
                                             I-B-2

-------
Formula," 1985 (NTIS Order No. PB92-114438) and "Training Manual for NPDES Permit Writers, 1993
(EPA 833-B-93-003).

Confusion as to the recommended basis for determining appropriate process wastewater flow has arisen,
however, due to several OCPSF guidance memoranda that present guidance that is in conflict with the
guidance presented in the OCPSF preamble and the above-mentioned guidance documents.  Specifically,
two EPA guidance memoranda recommend, as a basis for establishing long-term average flow, that the
permit writer or control authority use "the highest monthly average flow during  the past twelve (12)
months or the highest yearly mean of the twelve monthly average flows during the past five (5) years."
These  incorrect  examples were  listed in the February  16, 1989 memorandum to Regional Water
Management Division Directors and NPDES Authorized State Directors from James R. Eider, Director,
Office  of Water Enforcement and Permits, entitled "NPDES Permitting Strategy for OCPSF Direct
Dischargers" (pp 29,  40, & 44), and in the October  12, 1988 memorandum to Regional Water
Management Division Directors and NPDES  State Directors from Mr. Elder entitled "Questions and
Answers Regarding the OCPSF Effluent Limitations  Guidelines" (p 4),  This guidance establishes an
inappropriate basis for determining permit limits because the promulgated OCPSF maximum daily and
maximum monthly average limitations were derived by multiplying the long-term average  performance
level of well-designed, well-operated treatment systems  by  the respective variability factors for the
treatment system.  The  variability factors already include, among other components,  the  variability
associated with day-to-day and month-to-month production and flow variations. As a result, the OCPSF
limits and standards are,  in general, considerably less stringent than the long-term averages achieved by
the plants on which the limits and standards  were based, and plants that design their operations and
treatment systems to achieve the long-term averages for individual pollutants should be able to achieve
the OCPSF limits and standards even during high-flow days and months.  The data from any given day
or month may not be representative of the plant's annual or long-term flow. Use of the highest monthly
mean to set permit limits would "double count" the effect of flow variability, since the potential for high
flow periods is already accounted for in the promulgated limits and standards.  The approach presented
in the two memoranda from Mr. Elder results in an overly generous permit limit.  Therefore, the time
period  of the measure of production or flow should correspond to the time period used to derive the
promulgated limitations, which is an annual average or long-term average measure.
                                            I-B-3

-------
Regarding the second issue — the correct flow basis for determining compliance -- the Agency intends
that compliance with the OCPSF standards should be evaluated based on the actual total applicable
OCPSF-regulated flow discharged during the period for collecting the effluent sample, typically 24 hours.
The cumulative 24-hour flow corresponding to the day on which sampling is performed, when combined
with concentration data from 24-hour sampling, gives the best indication of the actual mass of pollutants
discharged on a given day. The OCPSF mass-based permit limits are calculated using the regulated long-
term or annual average of daily flow measurements, adjusted downward as appropriate based on potential
for flow reduction, as discussed above. The limits in 40 CFR  Part 414 are expressed as maximum for
any one day and maximum for monthly average values.  Since  the limits in Hie permits are mass-based,
the compliance data must also be  mass-based. A daily mass value is defined as the total mass discharged
over a 24-hour period (unless the operating day is less tlian 24 hours).  Similarly, the monthly average
is derived from averaging the available daily mass values in each calendar month.  Compliance with the
mass-based limits should be based on the actual total applicable OCPSF-reguIated flow discharged on the
day of sampling, not on the long-term average flow rate that provided the basis for establishing the permit
limitations and standards.

Therefore, to determine compliance for OCPSF facilities, the measured concentration of the pollutant in
question in the effluent sample should be multiplied by the total  applicable OCPSF-regulated flow during
the effluent  sampling period.  For example,  if analytical data from a 24-hour sample period for  a
particular  plant demonstrates  a  pollutant  concentration of 0.055  mg/l,  and the measured process
wastewater flow for  the same 24-hour period is 0.600 million  gallons, then the plant's reported  mass
compliance value for that day is 0.275 pounds of the pollutant.

EPA notes that this guidance regarding the proper flow basis is beyond the scope of the Fifth Circuit's
remand and today's rule. This guidance simply addresses conflicts in existing guidance and reaffirms that
the contemporaneous guidance presented in the 1987 OCPSF Development Document correctly reflects
EPA's judgment regarding appropriate implementation of the OCPSF guideline. The above discussion
is guidance only, and it relates only to implementation and enforcement issues; it does not provide a basis
to challenge today's amendments.

-------
                          III-A

          TECHNICAL
     FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS AND
          SYNTHETIC       POINT
CATEGORY DECEMBER 1, 1992      OF AVAILABILITY OF
                NEW INFORMATION

-------
     TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT
FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS, PLASTICS AND
     SYNTHETIC FIBERS POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF NEW
              INFORMATION
       Engineering and Analysis Division
              Office of Water
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
             401 M Street, SW
            Washington, DC 20460
             November 30,1992

-------
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                    Page

i.      Background	  I

II.     Technical Approach and Analysis	  3

       A.     Removal Mechanisms for 47      Pollutants	  3

       B.     Extent of Biodegradation of 13 PSES Pollutants Controlled
              by In-Plant Biological Treatment	  9

              1.      Biodegradation Principles for Organic Chemicals	  9
              2.      Biodegradation of Phenols  ,,	 10
              3.      Biodegradation of Phthalate Esters	 10
              4.      Biodegradation of Polynuclear Aromatics	 13
              5.      Summary of Biodegradation Potential of 13 PSES Pollutants
                     Controlled by In-Plant Biological Treatment	 13

       C.     Occurrence and Fate of Phenol and 2,4-Dimethylphenol at OCPSF
              Facilities and POTWs	 W

              1.      Frequency of Occurrence of Phenol and 2,4-Dimethylphenol	 14
              2,      Predicted POTW Headwords Concentrations of Phenol
                     and 2,4-Dimethylphenol	 15
              3.      Ability of POTWs to Biodegrade Phenol and 2,4-Dimethylpheno	20
              4.      POTW Performance Data	23


       D.     Summary of Technical Findings	 30

in.     References	.31

-------
                                    L  BACKGROUND

       A summary of the regulatory history of the 0CPSF guidelines ii       In the December 6, 1991
proposal (56 FR 63897), Briefly, on November 5,1987, EPA promulgated effluent limitations, guidelines,
and standards under the Gean Water Act for the OCPSF industiy (52 FR 42522). The          were
challenged by industry petitioners and the Natural Resources Defense Council in consolidated litigation
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (CMA v. EPA. 870 F,2d 177, rehearim
in part. 885 F,2d 253), The Court upheld most of the provisions of the guidelines, but remanded several
portions for further proceedings by EPA, including 19 best available technology economically achievable
("BAT") limitations and 13 pretreatment standards (including phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol) (SIS F,2d
at 265). EPA based these limits and standards on data demoratrating removals achieved by end-of-pipe
biological treatment systems, which typically have longer detention times than in-pi ant biological treatment
systems, but used a detention time more typical of in-plant biological treatment        to        the
cost of the technology Qd,). The Court concluded that EPA had not demonstrated that the
could eliminate pollutants as effectively as the end-of-pipe        with longer         times on which
the limitations and standards were based (id.).

       The December 6,1991, proposal responded to the Court's remand; for the  remanded limitations,
EPA re-costed the treatment technology  based on the longer detention times of the end-of-pipe
on which the limitations were based and proposed the same limitations.  EPA explained in the preamble
to the proposal that it was soliciting comments only on the costing and related issues,       on the fact
that the Court had found the limitations to be achievable except for the discrepancy  between the detention
times of the costed treatment system and the treatment systems on which  the limitations were based.
Notwithstanding the limited scope of the proposal, a large number of the comments on the proposal
challenged EPA's determination on the original 1987 OCPSF promulgation that phenol, one of the 13
pollutants for which pretreatment standards were remanded - passes through POTWs. Several comments
raised the same issue with respect to 2,4-dimethylphenoL Despite the fact that the comments were not
solicited, EPA has evaluated them and, as explained above, concluded that they may have merit

       EPA recognized in developing the OCPSF rule that the methodology for determining     through
might tend to understate removals of pollutants from POTWs where both  POTW and direct discharge
effluents  were below  the analytical minimum level  EPA proposed several modifications of the  pass

-------
through analysis to address this phenomenon, including applying a "removal differential" under which EPA
would determine  that a pollutant passed through only if the analysis found a difference in removals
achieved toy direct dischargers and POTWs thai exceeded 5% or 10% (48 Fed. Reg, at 11841-42 (March
21, 1983); 50 Fed, Reg. at          (July  17,       51 Fed, Reg. at          (December 8,
However, after carefully reviewing comments received on      notices arguing, among other things that
this approach would bias the analysis  against a finding of      through, EPA decided to employ its
historical approach to pass through,  with one variation.

        In previous effluent guidelines, EPA had made     through determinations      on data from
POTWs with influent concentrations greater than 20 ppb (52 FR 42546).  In the final OCPSF rule, EPA
edited its database to exclude POTWs at which the influent concentrations were less than ten times the
analytical minimum level (typically 100 ppb), unless there was no plant in the data base with influent
concentrations that high, in which case EPA retained the 20 ppb cut-off (D.D. at VI-33). With respect
to pollutants for which EPA had influent data that were at least ten times the analytical minimum level,
this editing rule eliminated the significant underestimation of removals that could occur when comparing
lower influent concentrations to the analytical minimum level,  EPA determined  and the Fifth Circuit
agreed, that with this modification, the  methodology represented a reasonably conservative, permissible
approach to determining pass through (270 F.2d at 246),

       EPA is considering  augmenting this methodology for phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol because
commentors have focused EPA's attention on these pollutants, and EPA agrees they may not     through
POTWs even though the pass through analysis employed at promulgation indicated they did.  EPA has
re-evaluated data  from the database used in  promulgating the 1987  OCPSF rule, and has collected
additional data, related to removal of phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol by POTWs.  In addition, EPA has
performed an analysis based on the chemical structures of phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol in relation to
other pollutants to determine their fate in biological  treatment systems.

       The following sections present the results of this analysis.

-------
                             .  TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
        The following sections discuss the fate of all pollutants which were regulated under PSES and
the basis for reconsidering the regulation of phenol and 2,4-dtaethylphenol.

A.     REMOVAL MECHANISMS FOR THE 47      POLLUTANTS
       PSES regulations were promulgated for 47 toxic pollutants is put of the final OCPSF regulation.
The remaining 79 toxic pollutants were eliminated from regulatory consideration       on ihe various
sections of Paragraph 8 of the NRDC Settlement Agreement. The regulated      pollutants ire removed
from wastewaters by a variety of removal mechanisms and fall into four general groups:

       *      Pollutants which are primarily volatile and removed by stripping
       *      Pollutants which are primarily biodegradable,
       »      Pollutants which are generally adsorbable and can be removed by adsorption,
       *      Pollutants which can be removed primarily by settling or filtration such as, metals.

       Table n-1 presents the 47 toxic pollutants regulated under PSES and the technology      for the
final PSES limitations. These technologies generally take advantage of the chemical characteristics of
each pollutant, e,g. volatile pollutants are removed via steam stripping, metals are removed via chemical
precipitation.   Also used as a technology basis was in-plant biological treatment,  which included a
biological treatment system with longer detention times than i POTW and a biomass which is acclimated
to the toxic  pollutants being discharged.  As noted in Section I, the       regulations for these 13
pollutants were remanded by Ihe Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

       Since the promulgation of the final OCPSF regulation, the subsequent remand of the PSES
limitations for the 13 pollutants controlled  by in-plant biological treatment and  the  reproposal in
December, 1991, no additional data has been submitted for alternatives to in-plant biological treatment
for polynuelear aromaties (PNAs) and phthalaie esters (PEs); however, as noted in previous sections,
commentors have noted that biological treatment systems at POTWs can effectively treat phenols without
any adverse effects, regardless of the results of the pass through analysis.

-------
                                       TABLE EH

LIST OF REGULATED TOXIC POLLUTANTS AND THE TECHNOLOGY       FOR
            1
            4
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            II
            12
            B
            14
            16
            23
            25
            26
            27
            29
            30
            32
            33
            34
            38
            39
            44
            45
            52
            55
            56
            57
            58
            60
            65
            66
            68
            70
            71
            78
            so
            81
            S4
            85
            86
            87
            88
           121
           122
           128

Acenaphlhene
Benzene
Carbon TetrachtariiJe
Chlorobemene
1,2,4-Trichlorobeniene
Hexachloroethane
1,2-DkhIoroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Bexaehloroethane
IJ-Diehloroelhane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Chforoethane
Chloroform
1 ,2-Dichlorabenzene
13-Diehlorobenzene
1,4-Diehlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroeihylene
1 JS-Trans-Diehloroeihy tern
I J2-Diehlarapropane
13-Dichloropropene
2,4-DimeihylphenoI
Elhylbenzene
Fluoranihene
Meihylene Chloride
Methyl Chloride
Hexachlorobuiadiene
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
4,6-Dinirro-o-Cresoi
Phenol
Bis<2-lthyIhexyI)Phihalale
W-N-buryl Phthalaie
Diethyl Phthalaie
Dimethyl Phthalaie
Anthracene
Fluorenc
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloitiethylene
Toluene
Trichloroelhylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Cyanide
Total Lead
Total Zinc
                                                     TECHNOLOGY BASIS
In-Plant Eiological
Steam Slripping
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping*
Steam Stripping"
In-Plant Biological
Steam Stripping*
In-Plant Biological
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping*
In-Plant Biological
Steam Stripping & Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
Activated Carbon
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Ptant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
In-Plant Biological
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Steam Stripping
Siearn Stripping
Alkaline Chlorination**
Hydroxide Precipitation**
Hydroxide Precipitation**
  *   Steam stripping performance data transferred based on Henry's Law Constant groupings
 **   Metals and cyanide limitations based on hydroxide precipitation and alkaline chlorinaUon,
     respectively, only apply at the process source.

-------
       The Agency has investigated these commeniors' claims regarding the biodegradability of phenol
and 2,4-dimethyiphenoI. EPA has also examined the ability of POTWs to biodegrade the remaining 11
PSES pollutants which are controlled by Ln-plant biological treatment;;;'The results of this analysis are
discussed in the  following section.

B.     EXTENT OF BIODEGRADATION OF THE REMANDED 13 PSES POLLUTANTS
       The following sections describe the mechanisms behind biodegradation of organic chemicals and
how these mechanisms act on the three main groups of remanded pollutants-phenols, PNAs and ph thai ate
esters.

1.     Biodegradation of Organic Chemicals
       All of the 13 remanded pollutants share the same aromatic structure, represented by the so-called
benzene nucleus. The degradation of aromatic compounds by aerobic bacteria initially involves chemical
reactions catalyzed by extra-cellular enzymes.  These reactions occur in several steps and result in cleavage
of the benzene nucleus to form compounds that will transfer through the cell wall and be compatible with
the intra-cellular tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle.  Assimilated into this cycle, these compounds serve as
substrates for growth and energy production via oxidative phosphorylation (Krebs cycle).

       Before the benzene nucleus can be cleaved, it generally must have at least two hydroxyl groups
that are either ortho  (as in catechol) or para (as in hydroquinone) to one another. If the substrate
(aromatic molecule) does not meet this requirement, one or both hydroxyls must be substituted in the
proper position.  Enzymes that catalyze placement of one hydroxyl group on a benzene nucleus are called
monooxygenases (or sometimes hydroxylases). Dioxygenases catalyze the substitution of two hydroxyl
groups on adjacent carbons of the aromatic  ring.  In general, monooxygenase-catalyzed reactions are
completed more quickly than dioxygenase-catalyzed reactions because only one hydroxyl group needs to
be substituted for conversation of the compound.

-------
2,     Biodegradation of Phenols
       In general, biodegradation rates for phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenoI arc among the highest of all
organic chemicals.  Both already have one hydroxyl groyp on a benzene nucleus; this facilitates the
substitution of a second hydraxyl group and the resulting monooxygenase-eatalyzed reaction converts the
phenol and 2,4-dimethyIphenol to catechols. The resulting catechols then undergo mter-hydroxyl cleavage
of the benzene nucleus  by extra-cellular enzymes secreted by the biomass microorganisms to form
unsaturated dicarboxylie acids or semialdehydes which are capable of being transferred through the cell
wall and metabolized by the biomass.  Rgure n-1  illustrates      chemical and biological processes,

3.     Biodegradation of Phthalate  Esters
       Phthalate esters are considered biodegradable but at a much slower rate than the phenols. This
occurs because phthalate esters must first be hydrolyzed into phthalic  acid.  An extra-cellular enzyme
secreted by the biomass microorganisms catalyzes the hydrolysis of the diesters to phthalic acid and
alcohol.  The phthalic acid then undergoes a dioxygenase-catalyzed reaction (substitution of 2 hydroxyl
groups on the benzene nucleus) converting  the phthalic acid to  catechols and  carbon dioxide. The
catechols then to follow the same steps  detailed above for the phenols, undergoing inter-hydroxyl cleavage
of the benzene nucleus by  extra-cellular enzymes secreted by  the  biomass  microorganisms.  The
unsaturated dicarboxylic acids or semialdehydes formed arc then capable of transfer through the cell wall
and can be metabolized by the biomass.  Rgure D-2 illustrates these chemical and biological processes.

4-     Biodegradation of Polynudear Aromatics
       Polynuclear aromatics (PNAs) are more chemically complex than both phenols and phthalate esters
and are generally more difficult to biodegrade. Specifically, PNAs initially have no hydroxyl or earboxyl
substituents and require more than one benzene  nuclei to be sequentially  broken in order to form
compounds which are capable of being transferred through the cell wall and metabolized by the biomass.
This requires  extended detention times under favorable conditions for biodegradation of PNAs to occur.
Extended detention times are often present at OCPSF biological treatment systems but seldom occur at
POTWs whose detention  times generally range from four to eight hours. Therefore, while complete
biodegradation of PNAs can occur at  OCPSF biological treatment systems, due  to the lower detention
times at POTWs, PNAs are not adequately biodegraded in biological treatment systems at POTWs.

-------
                                    FIGDRE  II  -  1

                           BIQBEGRABATIQN  OF   PHENOL
Phenol
(Hydroxybenzene)
                                                 Imer-hydroxyl
                                                 •MM.*.,*.* *.*.*. *<*«.«.*.*.,* **

                                                 bond breaking
Catechol
(o-Dihydroxybenzene)
                                                           or
                                                                      Unsaturated
                                                                      Dicarboxylic acid
         0

Semialdehyde
                                                                                      SOURCEt H. Wise,  USEPA  (1992)

-------
                 FIGURE  II - 2

        BIODEGRADATION  OF PHTHALATE  ESTERS
            P
           C-OR
           C-OR
            v\
            o
     PhthaJate
     Ester
                 Hydrolysis
                      2H,O
 P
C-QH
                                       C-OH
                                        'O
                              Phthalic
                              Acid
                                               + 2 ROH
                                                             Alcohol
 o
(f-OH
             OH
             O
     Phthalic
     Acid
                    Dioxygenase
                                   Catechol
                                                   2C°2
        OH

        OH
Catechol
(o-Dihydroxybenzene)
          Inter-hydroxyl
          __»»»—«.»*——«——'-- ff
          bond breaking
                                     P
                                    C-OH
      or
                              Unsaturated
                              Dicarboxylic acid
                                                                      O
            Semialdehyde
                                                              SOURCE:  II.  Wise,  IJSEPA (1992)

-------
       Biodegradation of naphthalene, acenaphthene and fluorene, in addition to being limited by the
shorter POTW biological treatment system detention times is further reduced by air stripping in ihe
biological treatment systems at both POTWs and OCPSF facilities.  The removal/fate mechanisms for
these PNAs are supported by the observed air stripping percentages at POTWs, e.g., naphthalene at 30%,
and Henry's Law Constant values that are one to two orders of magnitude higher than the other PNAs.

5.     Summary of Biodegradation Potential of 13 Remanded PSES Pollutants
       To further confirm the biodegradability of the 13 remanded PSCS pollutants, the Agency searched
a number of data sources.  The most extensive information source was the "Report to Congress on thq
Discharge of Hazardous Wastesjo Publicly Owned Treatment Worics" (EPA/53Q-SW-86-Q04). also known
as the Domestic Sewage Study. This study, which evaluated the fate and effects of the discharge of
hazardous waste to municipal sewers, predicted the overall removal of hazardous constituents by POTWs
and the mechanisms by which they were removed using all available sampling data, laboratory research
and the physical/chemical constants associated with the pollutants of interest Sampling data reviewed was
primarily from the "Fate of Priority Pollutants; inPublicly Owned Treatment Works" (EPA 440/1-82/303),
also known as the 50 POTW Study. This data base was also  used to estimate POTW removals for the
OCPSF pass-through analysis.  Data from laboratory research performed at  the EPA Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory in Cincinnati, Ohio, were also reviewed. Finally, physical/chemical constants such
as Henry's Law Constants (HJ and Octanol Water Partition Coefficients (K^J were consulted to confirm
the data collected and to identify removal trends for those pollutants with incomplete or missing data. The
propensity of an organic chemical  to evaporate or air strip from wastewater depends upon both the
chemical's volatility (tendency to escape as a gas) and its solubility in wastewater. A relative measure
of this propensity is indicated by Henry's Law Constants.  The higher the value of this number, the greater
the propensity of an organic pollutant to be removed (transferred) from the wastewater by evaporation/air
stripping.  The relative propensities of organic chemicals in wastewater to be sorted upon  an organic
substrate may be estimated by comparing their individual octanol-water partition coefficients. An organic
chemical  that partitions itself equally between the octanol and water phases will have a K^ of 1. Organic
chemicals with values greater  than 1  will favor partitioning (transfer) from  wastewater  to organic
substrates.

-------
       Table II-2 presents pollutant fate data collected from the Domestic Sewage Study for the 13
remanded PSES pollutants as well as the median influent and effluent concentrations for the POTW and
OCPSF data bases used for the pass-through analysis, the median POTW and OCPSF percent removals
calculated  in the pass-through analysis and  Henry's Law Constants and Octanol  Water Partition
Coefficients obtained from the RREL Treatability Data Base (Version 4.0). Also included when available
are estimated biodegradation rate constants which were developed for the "CERCLA  Site  Discharges to
POTWs Treatabilitv Manual" (EPA 540/2-90-007).

       Using the overall removal and pollutant fate data collected as well as the individual pollutant
biodegradation rate constant, Henry's  Law  Constant and Octanol Water Partition  coefficient values
presented in Table 11-2 and, based on the  previous discussions of biodegradation mechanisms, two
pollutants-phenol, and 2,4-dimethylphenol,--are capable of being biodegraded in well-operated biological
treatment systems at POTWs. The following section discusses if biodegradation of these  compounds
actually occurs at POTWs.
C.     OCCURRENCE AND FATE OF TWO REMAINING  PSES POLLUTANTS AT OCPSF
       FACILITIES AND POTWs
       After determining that the two remaining PSES pollutants—phenol and, 2,4-dimethylphenol,-are
highly biodegradable, the remaining task is to determine if OCPSF discharges containing these pollutants
are adequately controlled both on a technological basis, i.e., POTW biological treatment systems, and a
regulatory basis, i.e., General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403).  This  section will discuss the
frequency of occurrence of these pollutants in OCPSF discharges to POTWs,  the maximum estimated
influent concentrations of these pollutants to be treated at POTWs and the observed performance of
POTWs in biodegrading these pollutants at the maximum estimated influent levels.
                                            10

-------
                    TABU II-2
POLLUTANT CHARACTERISTIC AND TUATAIIUTY DATA POM
           f Ml 13 KRS TOXIC roLLUTANTS
§£lS
NMrf
Drookyl FheaeMJ
N^hMk.
AoettfMtKat
FIuortraK
AfldH*c«*
HutttMhfttt
n»«d>«
fyitm
W«V*&yO*wtW*i»>**
Di-n-Bujyt ftulHlii*
Di«hy< !%*.!•«
Dteeihyt FMulac
tar
to
10
19
to
to
to
to
10
to
10
10
10
10
V: M^*"POTW
iM|MMt-
3313)
ms
i«jj
m.n
J3J
58JJI
J9J
193.IS
HA
213.01
4I,»
24J
P-J
'.'*g£
10.0
(0.0
(0,O
to.o
to,o
to,o
173
to.o
NA
«OC
10.25
10.0
10.0
:'-[• tiiniiia nrnr. -: :
IdhMM
tot.o>
2644J
10402
iii,o
166A3

-------
 1.      Frequency of Occurrence of the Two Remaining PSES Pollutants
        Phenol and 2,4-dlmethylphenol are commonly used chemicals or products of organic chemicals,
 plastics, and synthetic fibers processes,  230 OCPSF facilities out of a total of 393 OCPSF indirect
 dischargers have been estimated to have detectable levels of phenol in their waste water discharges to
 POTWs,  46 OCPSF facilities have been estimated to have detectable levels of 2,4 -  dimethylphenol.
 Tables II-3 and II-4 present OCPSF product/processes whose process wastewaters contain phenol and 2,4-
 dimethylphenol,  respectively.   (Note:  These tables are not  complete inventories of product/process
 wastestreams containing these pollutants but rather  a select sample.)  Also  included are  estimated
 concentrations for these pollutants.  The concentrations listed were observed  at the process prior to
 commingling with other process wastewaters at the plant and discharge to  either an on-site treatment
 system or a POTW.

       These concentrations were used to estimate OCPSF raw waste and current discharge loadings to
POTW. Current loadinp of phenol and 2,4- dimethylphenol to POTWs have been estimated as follows:
              Phenol -              7,560,962 Ibs/yr,
              2,4-DimethyIphenol      93,052 Ibs/yr.

       By using the individual OCPSF plant loadings for each of these pollutants and knowing the POTW
that each plant discharges to, a conservative estimate of the influent concentration at the POTW headwords
can be calculated if the total flow to the POTW can be obtained.  The following section discusses how
this analysis was performed and its results.

2.     Predicted POTW Head works Concentrations of Phenol and 2,4 - Dimethylphenol
       Using OCPSF facility  responses to the 1983 308 Questionnaire, a total of 195  and 40 OCPSF
indirect dischargers projected to discharge phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol respectively , were linked to
their respective POTWs, Using EPA*s Permit Compliance System (PCS) Data Base, the estimated average
daily flow for each identified POTW was then determined.
                                             12

-------
                                           TAIU 11-]
                                             UAiTISTieAM WITH PillO.
 PRQCUCT/PROCIW HANI
 »>MITM»HENOL I miim IU.T/MOCIM Mill IIVIIM
 H-miat  ciimMD/riACTiauiTim OP MIIIB XTLINII
 ALKTL PHBNOlS/NOMrL-OCm ALKfUTIOi OP MUOL
 ETHOXTUTW/AICTLPHEHOL I ITMrLIII OXIDE
 UUCTLtC AC1B/PMCUI UHNII IIVIIU
 OliaiOft/BliT. Of COAL TAI LISNT ill
 PITCH TAK IfllBMi/IIP.MOi SMI, TM LIINT ill DilTItLATI
 EPOKT RtllNI/imMLOraWfDIlM MB IWfUW IIII1I
 EPCXT IMIMt/iMailDATlai OF Pf&TWII
 lEJUlMI/QItT. Or ITX MTRATT-CCAl. TAI (.1IMT 0{L
                      Pin COA1 TAI »1SIILUIT1
              OP 1TI BXTHACT-COAt TAI L19NT OIL
 mexii,mxra/ioTTQM n« ixTiAcr-nu. TAI HINT OIL
 POt-TCAWKUATEf/MOMH UVOII IE VI ft
 OMOC7iS2«*L TAI
 eroxr  uti MI/IP icikQieNTDiii *  HWHIW). A
 HOJfYL  miMflL/ALftUTlOi OP MIIKU. WITH P19TUMI T1MI
 MLTISTtt rtlEI/PHJ IPIIHIIKI P1QM PU8CHAUD lltll
 pKiNOLie «Ei;«/Fm.Tcn»u(iATiaK op P«WX UITH FQMALOINTC*
 ALKTLPKIMI.I, T-ANTL/AinLATlOl Of PMim. MITN IMiNTUil
 EPCIT
PNIKOL  COiOIHTIATlM
       CM/U

      I699S.10
 m.ri»Ten iniH/FokTiaa, nai TPA i ITNTLENI
 •ISP«»Ol-A/eOB)HIUTlC« OP ACtTMl UITH MtMOi.
 CTClCKOW«/HTDIfi5IIUT[aK Of IIN1III
 *CITALfilNTBl/iT-PK»gCT OP AfiRttJll IT PUCPTLItt WtO
 *«OLI:«/OXIBATJOK Of PKOPTLM
 «TMYU HLICTUTI/llTHIFICATtn Of U1.:CTLIC ACID
 CMiat»uu«i/p«oceu umii uvini
 ITX-«IKa«,TOUaiH,rrUKItNl)fl0)/PT«(XTH« iAMLIM Pl« BLIPIII MBUPACTIM
 B£MZOIC ACID/OK1WTIOK OP TIN.UM
 AUTO •llIN/COMIlllATlOi POtYMIlZlTtOK
 ALLTL AIWWL/IBOX OP AOttUtl AM «e*IUTAilOi
 MTKTL ITHTL rtTa
-------
                                              TABU 11-1
                                 PdCBUCT/MOCHI UAITEITRIAMt WITH PHIWL
 PRODUCT/ PHOCIia NAME

 ETHYLEW/PYROLYaii OP  MAW HA AMD-Oil CAS OIL                                                IJBJ
 PHOPTLEHG/PYROLYtU OF MAPHTMA AMD (W GAB OIL                                               1,83]
 BE1ZTL ALCQtWL/HYDROUUI  OF BENZYL CHLQRIDI                                                1.73^
 ETHTLBENZEHE/BINZIME ALKYLAT1QN  LIO. PHAti                                                  1.443
 DIHEWL  TEftEPMTHALATE/ESTEf IF1CAT10N OF TPA«MiTNMOL                                       1,426
 ADIPOHtTRlLi/AJtMQMOLYtlJ AND DEHYDRATION OF WIPIC AC 10                                     1.24)
 IT THEME- HIT AfilEUE  miM/ EMULBIQN POLYMERIZATION                                            u.924
 CAMWUCTAfl/FBOW CYUOHEXAXI VIA CTCLOHIIAWMI ANA OXIME                                    0.721
 WYDIOXYITKYL  CllLUtOSE/ETHOKTVATIOII OF ALKALI CSI.LW.Ott                                     0.643
 *-«TMYLITTIPNE/iY-«a> OF ACITOMil'HEHOt BY CXMEM QXIO                                    0.316
 ACETONE/ CUNIMC  0X1 DAT 10* AH0 ACID CAT. CLE4VA8I OF CUK1NE HYDlOPtlUMIOi                      0.3W
 PNEWJL/C^IU OXIOATIQM AHO CLEAVAtt                                                        0.386
 •AM MIIN/IUSPEMI10N POLYKUIZATIOi                                                         0 374
 ETHVLIHI  GLVCOL/HTDROLYSlt Of iTHYLSMI CM IDE                                                D.IJ4
 ETHTLlMt  OTIDE/OlKiCT  OTIDATKK  01 GTHTLUI                                                 0,25*
 PETROLEUM HTDIOCWaC*  REI1MI/FKM CS-Cfl UHiATUUTEl                                         0.354
 TOLrMrMOPYLfM QLTCOL/UACTIWI OF PIOPTLf« QLTCOL 4 PBWT OX I OB                           0,124
 POLYITYBEKE « COPOLTMBI/BULK raLYNEflllATION U-0 RUUCt                                     0.124
 N-BUTTL ALCOHOL/HYDROO£«ATIOM Of i-tUTYRALClHTOC. QUO PBDC£8«                               0.220
 B£MZiNi/OtrT  Of IT1 EXTIACT.CAT. IIFORfUTE                                                  0.1M
 TOLUENE/OUT  OF |TX IKTRACT-CAT  UPOtMTI                                                   0 182
 XT LI NEI,MI NED/WHOM |TM EKTIMT-CAT ROFOWMTE                                              0,1|i
 POLYNiRie HITHYLEMC DIANILIHB/RMCTION OF ANILINE t FOWALWHTOI                             0.14}
 MROPfNTOMOIC  ALICD/FRON inftJTTUME VIA OMO PtOClH                                         0.141
 NODACtTLIC flMR/POCTACITLOKITHILI « COMWOMll                                              0,109
 ACITYLEHH/PAJITIAL OXIDATION Of WTIUHE                                                      0.10?
 All HERlN/iNUtRIQM  POLTM*rZATIW                                                           0,096
 MUROfCHUHB/NlTlunOi  Qt  ICHZENE                                                           0.091
 POLT1TTRINB * COPOLY«H/ILt» POLYMtllaTIOIf W-0 tlttMB                                     0.090
 TIICHL01KTHTUNI/CHLOI.OF EDC AMD OTHER CHLONINATED NC                                     O.OQ2
 PHTMIIC  AMHYORlOe/QXIDATlOi OF NAPUTHALINf                                                 0.073
ADIPIC ACID/OXIDATION OF CTCLOMXAUOL                                                       0.071
 VINYL ACITATE/VAPQi fMAM  RX OF ETHYLEND & ACETIC ACID                                      0.066
 GLYCEK1MI  (SYMTHfTIO/HYOROXYUTION OF ALLTL ALCOHOL                                        O.OAJ
 IEMZYL ULORtOI/CMLOAlNATIOH Of TOLUWf                                                     0.060
•UTYLIENZYL PHTHAUTC CRTU/PHTMA1IC AVKYO. * ICHZYL CMLOtlBI » BJTAWJJ.                      0.060
 MIHO BEI1HI                                                                                0.041
ACfTALMHYSC/niDATIOM  Of  ETKYLEM UITH CUCL2 CATALYIT                                      0.044
• tl 2-ETKYLWm PHTHALATE IITtM/ElTEIll>ICATraM Of MTUAUCANKYD  •  J-ITMTL  NEXAM             O.Q4S
Dl -ETHYL  PHTMA1AT1  IITEt/lSTfMIflCAnOH V PNTMAL1C AMHYO.  UtTH ITMAMOL                      0.049
ANYL ACETATIiyilOl OF ACETIC ACID I MtTL ALCOWXI                                            0.042
HtTHYL MTHAClYLATE/WTHANOlYlIS Of ACErOU aAMOMYDftlH                                     0.341
ACRYLIC AnD/«0« ACOYLEHI.CAtlON KWCKlOft AMD HAYEB                                       0. O6
DlKltEHC/DINIRIUTlOH OF KJTIM-ACfTlC AGlb                                                 0,016
 1CC-BUTYL ALCOHOL/ 1 NO tKCCT HYDRATIOH OF lUTOtB                                             0,034
 2,4-TCUIEHf BlISOCYANATB/moSGEUATN OF 2,4-TOtUIHl DIAMtW                                   0,029
KNZIHE/HYDftOOEAl.KTLIZATIOi Of TOLUJUI AW/01 KYLDU                                        0.025
 HTORflQUI HONE/OXIDATION  OF MIL IKE VIA OUIKME                                               0-014
 FtHYBTKVLCHf  RIB I MB/ HI ON PMMUU PCLTHElIUkTlOM CLOPC )                                     0.024
 AMILINE/HITBaUM2IHe MvoaOfiBMATlON                                                          0-023
 TOUffW/OIST  Of BTX BXT-f>YROLYIII CAULINC                                                  0.019
 XTLflMfl*NIxe&/IOTTQN 1TX CXT-fYIKtt.Y8lt UBOLtMB                                             O.U19
 IIOMEJIE/lXTHACTlVt OUT Cf PTBOLYZATE                                                      5.U18
 BTHOKYLATEI/CIVCU-LINCAJI ALCOHOL* AW ETHYLBKI OXIDE                                      0,017

                                              14

-------
                                            TAflll II -I
                               MOMCT/WCIM IMTIITIEAM urn mwu.

                                                                                nnoi CONUNTUTIW
MQOUCT/PMCm HANf
 TiTWITkftltt CLfC8L/«« ITWIIHI OLWOL ITILL »ffBH                '                   0.017
 ACETIC ACIU/fflUBAnot QF ACITAlflilWBI                                                    C.Oli
 •INItM/BUT or ITX IXTItACT-PYlOlYm fiASGUH                                            0.013
 p-STLINE/tSCMiftlZAT-CfiTimUZAT Of HI IE XVLE1II                                         fl.P1!
 PITCH TAX RESIDUE,  ROD  mCN/BIlTIUTIQN Of COW. ?Ai COM HUT E                            0.011
 CZLLULOK ACITATit  HIHI/MIUKlMfl FMM ACITTLATD CSLLU                                   O.OOf
 MUTETHTIUI leilHI/SClUTlM Ptt.t«IIZATll*(»Pf >                                         O.OM
 •UTADtfNt /HTO»OL Of tftCNLMMf VIA ALLTL CMlQIiM                                   0.000
 HOKirrUMt/iKTIACT riON C4 mOLVlATI                                                   0.000
 N-CHLOIC»IT10MMtllI/CKL«IWTIOK W XITftOfMU*                                         0.000
NAL1IC MHYORJDl/liMtKI iMIMT!Oi                                                       0.000
 NCTMACtrLIC ACID tlTIII/MlTYNITIIAaiYLATII * ESTIIinCATlO* OF WWEaTLi: AT 10 II            0,000
 METHYL CKUalM/CHLOIIKATIC* 01 NfTHAIM                                                  0.300
MTKVL IIOWTYt OUUiHAL/PIOCtSt UNIt IIV1IW                                             O.MO
MITNYUNI CHLQI»f/CNll»!IUITtQi OP MTNAW                                                i.OOO
NTUM A UlIl/FOLYCaOENIATIOi FKM CMVQLAtTIN                                           0. JOO ^
o*DtCMLOinitNZiiii/CNk,QiiiiArim OP tnifm                                                 o.joo
ONO Ai«K,DI«-AlCOWX»/A«TL ALCOHOL (Hii0)                                               O.OM
P-D1CHLC»OittJIH/C*Lt»I«ATIa( OP KNUNI                                                 0.000
pOkroxvNiGpnnt ai.YCOi/PMP«Tunoi OP «.Yaim                                        o.ooo
WtYWOFTLUl •fllN/SOiUTIQi MLTKUiaTlO*                                               0.000
POLTV1XYL AiCOMO. IttlH/ttLI FOLtN(tCTIIAiOLWP VHTLACfTAtl - CAUtTlC tCTKAJWtTI            0.080
TO.TV1NTL CHUM2BI/WII PIXTWUMTIOH                                                   0.000
POCYVJWTl CNLMIOI/BtA.Uai MLfNUllATlOi                                                Q.OOC
PtOPTLIM OMIDI/PUM PtflPYUlU VIA CNUWWTOIIK                                           0.000
TeTlACKLOMeTHTLJM/CHLOiJIUTIM Of {DC AMD OTKR CHLSlillAYtt NYWMX1MOW                  0.000
 TETMITKTl LIM/ALCYL HALlDI * iat«-llAO ALLOff                                          0.000
 142-DICHLflMiTWUII/i!RECT CNLOilWTtC* Of ITKTUNI                                        O.tOO
1,2,4-TlICMl.QMIIinENI/CHLOilllATUM OP 1,4-OIDIt.QtCMtt.                                   O.COO
                                                  15

-------
                                              TA14.I t!-4
                                          UUTISTUMN vm
                                  MILUTAIIT
 MOOUCT PSOCEM HAM
 CREOWTE/OJ1T. OF COAL TAI LIOHT OIL
 PITCH TAD ftESlMJf/'lEP.FtON COAL TAt LI6MT Oft. DtSTILUTi
 BiNZIHi/OlST. OF 1TI EXTUCT-CUAL TAI L1SNT OIL
 KAPHTHALEHI/ItfAWTIOH FION COAL TAR 01ITULATI
 TOLUDH/Dlir. OF ITX IXTUCT-CWL TA* LtBHT OIL
 XYLEm.NtXID/MTTON ITX EKTSACT-CML TAft LIQNT OIL
 £THTLI«/M»«.rSi« OF NAPHTHA ANB*Ot SAI OIL
 MOPTLINC/FYIOLflft 9F KAPUT HA AW OS CAS OIL
 C11-CH PHTHALATI BIT««/1ITI«1FICATIOB Of PHTMALIC AMIirDRIBI * CM-CH ALCOHOL I
 COAL TAI F1QDUCT* <»HC.)/«iAl TAI DlBTILLtTIM
 P-XTL£«/18Ort«lUT-«TITALLtZAT OF MliU IfLINU
 MLCtC AMNVOAIDi/UHUiCI OK1MTIOH
 MCTHAMOL/L.P. •TTHES1I FUM MAT GAS VIA •₯• QAt
 AC£TTLINI/BY
-------
        By aggregating the loadings for the OCPSF facilities discharging to a POTW, an estimated total
 annual loading to the POTW (in Ibs/yr) for each pollutant can be detemiined. Using this loading estimate
 and  the average daily flow lo the POTW, an influent concentration for each pollutant at Ihe POTW
 headwords can be calculated as follows:
              HC    =         TAL
                            APF X 365 days/year x 8.34
              where: HC =  Estimated POTW Headworks
                            Concentration (in mg/1)
                     TAL = Total Annual Pollutant
                            Loading (in Ibs/year)
                     APF * Average POTW Flow
                            (in million gallons per day)
       The results of this analysis, which are presented in Table H-5, show that a total of 11 POTWs had
estimated influent headwords concentrations greater than 1,000 ppb out of a total of 105 POTWs included
in the analysis.   A total of  10 POTWs  had estimated influent headwords  concentrations of 2,4-
dimethylphenol greater than the analytical minimum level of 10 ppb, with only 2 being greater than 100
ppb. Two POTWs showed influent headworks concentrations of phenol greater than 10,000 ppb (one of
these POTWs also showed 2, 4 - dimeihylphenol greater than 10,000 ppb); based on the size and location
of the POTWs and the basis for the OCPSF loadings estimates (one POTW's cumulative headworfcs
loading was made up of loadings from four OCPSF facilities with Part A loadings estimates (DD at VIII-
260) which were estimated conservatively on the high side), these two POTWs were contacted to confirm
the accuracy of their estimated influent headworks concentrations.  Representatives from both POTWs
(located in Tennessee and New Jersey) confirmed that the predicted influent headworks concentrations
were overestimates; although actual influent head worics concentration data were not available for these two
POTWs, plant contacts believed that influent phenol concentrations were well below 1000 ppb.

       Based on the results of this analysis, a concentration range of phenol of 1,000 to 4,000 ppb will
generally be the highest raw waste level that the average POTW receiving OCPSF wastewaters will have
to treat The following section discusses the ability of POTWs receiving OCPSF wastewaters to treat
phenol and  2,4 - dimethylphenoL
                                            17

-------
IIIULT8
Tilll 11-5
MTU
              *S*LTC1I





























PQTU
1
I
3
4
s
ft
7
i
9
10
11
12
13
14
1!
1*
17
1ft
........................ cnonicai mim
CCPJf PLmnti &f«rt»rfing J
Wjjy to thit POTVI
t 4064
2 1753
3 326
4 24il
5 1U8
ft 196
7 4009
8 ',10,509
Q tt?A
18 1677
t» 1417
i? 240,2S4i
II 293
It 149, 1085, 1S4i
15 SI, 72, 164*. 1714, 1744,402*
It 1016
1? 7«l
1« A044
19 611
20 161
2! 2184
12 461
23 260ff
24 400ft
21 413, 1361, 1606, 187ft
16 2007
2? 1160
OCPSF Plant* DiMhMjInj
to till! Mm
1117
1191
2037
929, 1931,2033,22*1 ,4066
79 220 321 1171,1421, 1791 j20f^jZ***
2101
1108
JI*
2300,2449
279*
1107
111
1888
196
1711
1812
4009
1U1
.L Currant
I Clta/TK)
o.ot
61.77
117.73
200,74
0.00
72SI.3I
0.01
111.14
7174.12
3301.64
11711.11
1443.07
9729.32
591.21
7336,42
0.01
4ft.33
0.00
9.01
0.00
2S74I.6f
1166.24
2Q.I1
!40,!2
•170.01
162.14
77.21
^Inai^.iiiB t BHCMm \ .«
••naat rtitHBLJ •-
Amnt Currtni
ImA Cibt/TB)
497.01
24,36
1444.14
1ft3074.H
34777.11
0.71
0.02
9461.61
2555.00
3J6.SI
7083.M
0.00
9.00
44556.25
1.12
0.00
0.01
13J4.U
y^j ...........................................
Baity Flow Conetntrv Ion
(MSD)
311,00
37.10
IS. 60
90.00
10.00
13.10
s.so
1200.00
27,00
40.00
fio.oo
i&a.oo
40.00
120.00
330.00
l.ftfl
4.00
16. JO
71,00
4a.oo
113.00
110.00
3,71
1.10
0.03
6.10
17.18
Dally Flow
CMB)
1.30
6,00
24.00
345,00
37.10
1.81
227. OH
IS.ftfl
90.00
11.00
1.00
36.00
10.00
13.SO
40.00
ft.M
l.SO
37, QQ
CW./IJ
0.000
0.001
0.013
0.001
0.000
0.17?
0.000
0,000
0,096
0,019
: OM
0 011
0.010
0.002
0.007
0.000
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
O.OS!
0.001
0.002
0,021
43.771
0 013
0.001
Cone«ntr*tian
0.1li
0.001
0,011
0.139
0.305
0.000
0.000
0.111
0.009
0.007
1.127
0,000
0.000
1.164
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.012
     18

-------
          win ii-i
IIIULTt 01 Wrtf NIWUMKS MUirtll

POTW
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
21
29
10
31
32
33
14
Jl
36
17
31
39
M
4t
42
43
44
4S
46
47
49
SO
It
12
$3
14
33
M
17
M
99
60
61
62
63
64
63
66
67
68
69
{«
CCPIF Plant! Dfiehirifpn
to tut* POTV
1083,2517
»10
n
510,508,791,2050,2232,1601,16*6
1234,2021
1317
1126
1224,1677
1313
1220
2319
2631
1899
2288
»M»I
\m

-------
                                     TMIB II-1
                          «DSUITS OP POTW MUDUOMCS MILTIII
                             Chwiul Nu*ws*l<  PHEHOU
                                     CeentinuKi)
       OCPIF Pltnts DfMlurf ing
             to thii  POTV            load (llM/YKI
 70       1111                              •IJ.Ol
 71       IW                              I75.W
 72       1120                              657.0*
 m       32&1                              3*1.13
 74       1069                           209167.04
 7f       199,702                        13111,Tl
 76       1314                                5.78
 77       21ft4t«Q14,4070                  I9110,9t
 78       4014                             1434.10
 79       4Alr749,1!34t2241               3ASIS.il
 •0       Ift09                             2U1.B*
 •1       9ft?                             11i0.17
 Kt       1147                                D.M
 13,       ftSO                                6.46
 §4       400*                             4711,04
 0S       4047                            222S9.I*
 •A       1771,266*                         IS.20
 §?       1211                               17.12
 V«       1QS7                              126,09
 f)9       M/,975                        lli?i.92
 iO       93                                1!.U
 »1       201•                            19101,41
 92       214                             4772.9*
 91       1277                             1602.72
 94       4S3f!3&1,1*Qt,1ft7i              SSSM.4*
 95       1202                              190,40
 96       29*                            24170.2*
 97       951                                0.99
 98       2219                             13*e.*f
 99       2007                             2324.16
100       22SO                             1101.1*
101       974                               40.73
102       249,722                        107*7.11
r.i       494ft                                o.oo
K4       USO                              ld!,*l
i:S       249S                            12M5.13
1:*       iii.re*                       i74o*9.7t
107       1540                              AU.U
                                       20
Oifly Pin
CMB1}
91,00
1.40
14.M
135.00
160.00
90.00
12,00
111,00
4,4i
120,00
3.71
1.00
1.67
104,30
1.30
3,71
190.00
li.QO
42.71
200,00
10,00
i.OO
40,00
AS, 00
0.05
7.1*
30.00
20.00
12Q.OO
*.IO
24.90
10.00
10.00
0,40
1.00
120.00
11.19
mii
Cencmcntfon
Une/ii
O.flOS
o.ai?
D.01I
O.D01
O.Mi
0.049
0,000
0,013
0.10?
0.100
0-151
0.041
0,000
a, MO
O/M
1.PSO
0.000
O.bOO
O.U01
0.091
O.C01
1.DM
0,039
0,043
401,203
0,009
Q.16B
a.m
0.004
O.'l?
O.C21
0,001
O.t.71
0,000
O.US3
o.fii
3.109
0.013

-------
 3.      Ability of POTWs to Biodcgrade the Two Remaining PSES Pollutants
        In theory, most organic pollutants can be biodegraded with adequate detention times and favorable
 operating conditions.  The general design equation for an activated sludge system is:
                                 So - Se            Se
                                   Xvt             So
               where: So     = influent concentration
                      Se     = effluent concentration
                      Xv     = mixed liquor volatile suspended solids
                      k      = biodegradation rate constants
                      t      = detention time
        Given that pollutant influent concentration will remain fairly constant with steady industrial user
discharges, that permit conditions fix the pollutant effluent concentration and that the POTW is already
buili with a given aeration basin volume and detention time, the parameters k, biodegradation rate constant
and Xv, mixed  liquor volatile            solids,  generally  will  control  the removal  of organic
pollutants.

        The biodegrtdation rate constant, k, is a measure of the growth rate of biomass microorganisms
based on a given substrate or food source and varies depending on the composition of the wastewater to
be treated.  When designing a biological treatment system, laboratory-scale pilot studies are performed on
the wastewater to determine the value to be         to the biodegradation rate constant  However, after
the rate constant has been established and the treatment system has been designed and constructed,
changes in the composition of the wastewtter to be  treated are accommodated by adjustment of operational
parameters such  as mixed liquor suspended solids.

       Table n-6 presents biodegradation rate constants for various types of wastewaters; in general the
higher the value of k, the more biodegradable the wastewater. For example,       processing wastewater,
which contains simple carbohydrates and         that are      to biodegrade, has a biodegradation rate
constant of  36.0 day"1, while wastewaters generated in the manufacture of cellulose  acetate, a  more
chemically complex compound, has a biodegradation rate constant of 2.6  days*1.  Rate constants for
organic chemicals intermediates wastewaters, which can include a wide variety of compounds, range from
5.8 to 20.6 days*1.
                                              21

-------
                                     TABLE
                    BIODEGRADATION RATE CONSTANTS FOR
                        VARIOUS TYPES OF WASTEWATERS
Potato processing
Peptone
Sulfite paper mill
Vinyl acetate monamer
Polyester fiber
Formaldehyde, propanol, methanol
Cellulose acetate
AZO dyes, epoxy, optical brighteners
Petroleum refinery
Vegetable tannery
Organic phosphates
High nitrogen organics
Organic intermediates

Viscose rayon and nylon

Soluble fraction of domestic sewage
                                             36,0
                                              4.03
                                              5,0
                                              5.3
                                             14,0
                                             19.0
                                              2.6
                                              2,2
                                              9.1
                                              1.2
                                              5.0
                                             22.2
                                             20.6
                                              5.8
                                              8.2
                                              6.7
                                              8.0
     Source:
Eckenfelder, Biological Waste Treatment
                                      22

-------
       QCPSF waste waters with known concentrations of phenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol are highly
biodegradable and, in fact,  appear to be comparable in biodegradability to domestic sewage based on
biodegradation rate constants.  For example, from Table II-3, polyester fiber is listed as generating raw
waste water with a phenol concentration of 340,300 ppb; polyester fiber is also listed in Table II-6 as
generating wastewatere with an associated biodegradation rate constant of 14.0 days"1 which would be
considered more biodegradable than domestic sewage at 8.0 days"1.  Also, production of methanol is listed
in Table II-4 as generating raw waste water with a 2,4-dimethylphenoI concentration of  10,000 ppb;
methano! production is also listed as generating wastewatere with an associated biodegradation rate
constant of 19.0 day"1 which would also be considered more biodegradable than domestic sewage.

       Thus, even at concentrations higher than those  estimated to occur at POTW head works, phenol
and 2,4-dimethylphenol should biodegrade more easily than the typical constituents of domestic sewage,
which POTWs were specifically designed to handle.

4.     POTW Performance Data
       In 1978, EPA initiated a program to study the occurrence and fate of the then  129 priority
pollutants in 40 POTWs.  This study was subsequently expanded to include ten additional  plants to
support the Agency's database. In 1982, EPA published the findings of the 50 POTW Study (EPA 440/1-
82/303), which provided the data that was the basis  for the pass through determination for priority
pollutants in the QCPSF guidelines and the proposed pesticide guidelines.

       Sampling data collected during the 50 POTW Study showed that biological treatment systems at
POTWs are capable of reducing influent phenol concentrations of over 1,000 ppb to below the analytical
minimum level in the effluent The main reason for the finding of  pass through for phenol and 2,4-
dimethylphenol at promulgation of  the OCPSF guideline  was  the significantly higher influent
concentrations used to calculate direct discharger removals in comparison with concentrations used to
calculate POTW removals.  Table n-7 presents the data to perform this  comparison.

       Out of a total of 28 POTWs that had phenol detected at least once in their influent, only 15
POTWs had average influent phenol concentrations greater than 20 ppb and only eight POTWs had
average influent phenol concentrations greater than  100  ppb.   Of these eight, six  had  concentrations
between 100 and 500 ppb, and only two had concentrations between 500 and  1,000 ppb. In contrast, out
of 25 OCPSF direct discharge facilities that had phenol concentrations detected in their  influent, 23
OCPSF plants had influent concentrations greater than 20 ppb and 19 OCPSF plants had influent phenol

                                             23

-------
                TAJU 1I-?
OOW AND fOlU  HFLUMT AMD IPFUillT fATA tOt
  PHIiOt MO  ZtVPIEMTHTLPMNOL Ulf§  IN TNI
    MUII»THI&UIM AJULYtlS AT PUWLUTIM

1 081.
OCPIP or
Kuwei IKFLUUT
2394T 4
MS6T II
SOB3T 13
M4T 11
2481F 7
948P 34
267F 12
12F 7
12WT 11
1769F> 4
iuif 10
2221₯ S
17! 1V 3
4MV
695V
1*W
Mav
•B3V
1890V
•1890V
16S1V
IMV
3WV
• Ml.
WJTW OP
MNIU 1MFUXMT
1ft
18
19
21
26
30
31
36
38
92
n
55
98
19
66

MIMIII MINI MM
liFiUMT liFUJIUf
C*OL5  UW
10
10
«
ii
440
14
213
220
44
M
2S
10
sao
23
10
-' PUkLUlA
HEAM
INFWWT
{FPD
1847
19!
5M9
22?
29
233
1638
741
836293
1S84
5840
292
221M7
48
16*7
11T
ItO
64
84
2ff?
TOP
Tit
13917
MAN
mauiMT
itm
44.833
25.133
130,000
54.647
900,335
123.667
si.is
448.311
195.667
J60.CHXI
11.1*7
43.900
799.000
M.82S
242,100
ni**ia, c
wmw
liFLUiMT
(PW)
2088
SIS
lit*
161
23
14f
1419
6S1
847027
1093
its
210
230000
IS
5600
111
172
a
s«
1717
680
6M
1809Q
imm
tNFUKir
fPW»
43.i
10.8
iii,o
u.o
775.8
64.1
55,0
ws.o
tao.o
244.0
48.0
42.3
m,s
52.0
120.0
HUlUt' •' B
PUXINW
INFI.UINT
CW8)
2997
?1i
11941
9SI
S4
1040
4300
1477
97S672
4140
10000
487
241090
71
7390
191
167S
67
ISO
6734
•10
1297
7S2SO
MXiMM
IKFUJWT
CPPf)
71
•1
300
7*
1400
382
110
720
320
TOO
97
«
1200
140
6SO |
t! ECU Ml l.iniT(FI>l}BlD
* on. Nmi
sf tftuxm
IFFUINT (>OL)
20 10
IS
12 2
11
f
33 3
11 2
7 4
11
4 2
10 4
1
2
I 1
3 3
I 1
6
2 1
3 2
3 2
3
3
S 1
» 081. NUMIi
or emunrr
IFFLUINT <>CL)
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
]
0
0
0
0
1
0
0

NtllMM
IPFimiT
IPPIJ
13
to
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
to
10
10
fO
10
100
!0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NIMIMM
IFFLUtlT

-------
                                         OCPSF MP POTW tNPLUIHT AND IFFLUiiT DATA fOt
                                           PHENOL AM M»8Hi*T1iflPllliQi, USCB IN TNI
                                            PAM-THBOJW ANM.TI1S AT PUMULMTIOI
M3ST
  UF
 30A₯
                                 P«.LyTIlT*'l*.  2,4-flllKTIIYLPMENOL* " ilTKTIW LIMIT(ffl)s1
         f Oil.    NUMIEft    MINIUM    MIAM     MUM    HUMUN
           OF     INPiUENT  IKFLUINT  1HPLUUIT   IMFUIUT  1IPLUMT
        INFUJINT    (>CL)     (PPB)     (PPB:     (PPtJ     (PP1)
11
 7
H
 I
11
 7
14
 I
  M6
1431ft
 4lfl
  •f?
2WM
 9967
  611
uar
 MOO
8787
1114
                                                          14SM
         *OM.    MMUI    HIIHWN    HEM    U»l«l    NMtlMM
 POTy       OF     INFLUENT  HFLUilT  ilFLIffNT   INFLUIMT  UfLUIIT
HUHUI  IHFLUIMT    C»OL>     (PP1)     £fPi)     CMNI}
                                                           • Ht.    IUMHI    ilNMff    MIAN     HHIAH    MM MM
                                                             OF    IFFLUfNT  EFFLyiNT  IFFLUEHT  EFFUJEKT  IPFLUtMT
                                                          IFFLUIIIT    C>DL)     (W9>     (PN)     
-------
concentrations greater than  100 ppb.  Of these 19, only four plants had influent phenol concentrations
between 100 and 500 ppb, five had influent phenol concentrations between 500 and 1000 ppb, and 10 had
influent phenol concentrations greater than 1000  ppb.  The direct discharge  facility  with  the highest
percentage removal (99.9988%)  had an influent concentration of over 836,000 ppb, which was 836%
higher than the  highest POTW  influent concentration.  For 2,4-dimethylphenol, the  median percent
removal of this pollutant demonstrated by direct dischargers was 99,8%.  This was based on data from
four OCPSF plants with average  influent concentrations ranging from 697 to 29.368 ppb, and with 30 of
37 effluent values of 10 ppb.  For POTW performance, EPA had  a single observation of a POTW with
an average influent concentration of 20.5 ppb and an average effluent concentration below the analytical
minimum  level, which was  also  assigned a value  of 10 ppb.  Thus, POTW removal was calculated at
51.2%, and the pollutant was determined to pass through.

       Given  the far higher influent concentrations  for the direct dischargers in comparison with the
POTWs, and the fact that many of the effluent values for both the direct dischargers and POTWs were
below the analytical minimum level, it was inevitable that the analysis would conclude that phenol and
2,4-dimethytphenol pass through.

       Stating that the analysis in the proposal did  not present a fair comparison of percent removals, the
Allied Signal Co. and other commenters on the December 6, 1991 proposed rule identified three POTWs
currently treating wastewaters with high OCPSF contributions of phenol while still discharging below the
analytical  minimum level.  The Agency solicited data  from these  POTWs.   A discussion  of their
submissions is presented below.

A,     Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
       The Northeast Water Pollution Control Plant (NEWPCP) in Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania currently
receives wastewater containing phenol from two OCPSF facilities; NEWPCP identified Allied Chemical
as the major contributor of phenol to its system.

       The NEWPCP operates under NPDES Permit Number PA0026689, issued by the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources.  Unit operations of the plant  include grit removal, primary
gravity settling, activated sludge (both fixed film and suspended in one system), secondary gravity settling,
anaerobic digestion after dissolved air flotation and  raw sludge thickening and chlorination of the effluent
prior to discharge to the Delaware River.
                                             26

-------
       The NEWPCP has indicated no problems in handling and treating its current phenol levels.  Allied
Chemical phenol loadings to the NEWPCP average 239.57 pounds per day which equate to an average
concentration at the NEWPCP headwords of 162.71  ppb,  (Allied is currently required to monitor its
discharge for phenol every 2 hours, 24 hours per day.)  Data submitted by the NEWPCP indicate that
effluent phenol concentrations were not detected above the analytical minimum level by either the 4AAP
Method (50 ppb) or GC/MS Method 625 (5 ppb and 10 ppb).

       Control of phenol  discharges  to the NEWPCP by Allied is set out in the local wastewater
discharge permit  issued to Allied under NEWPCP's pretreatment program.  In addition to setting
monitoring  requirements, local limitations for phenol have been set at levels that NEWPCP feels will
adequately protect the facility.

B.     Hope welL Virginia
       The Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (HRWTF) currently receives wastewater
discharges containing phenol for two OCPSF facilities, HRWTF identified one of these dischargers as
the Allied Chemical facility in Hopewell, Virginia.

       The HRWTF operates under        Permit Number VA                by the Virginia State
Water Pollution Control Board,  Unit operations of the plant consist of screening, grit removal, primary
settling, covered aeration basins and secondary settling tanks.  Primary sludge is thickened in gravity
thickeners with the overflow being returned to the head of the aeration basins.  Waste secondary sludge
is thickened with the underflow being sent to the gravity thickeners. Thickened sludge is sent to sludge
holding tanks where it is pumped through heat exchangers to a sludge heat treatment unit.   Heat treated
sludge  is  sent to a decant tank and then through vacuum filters to incineration, with decant and filtrate
water being returned to the gravity thickeners.

       The HRWTF has reported no  problems in handling and treating its current levels of phenol.
Current industrial  loadings  of phenol to the HRWTF as calculated from industrial user data is 132,31
pounds per  day which equates to an average concentration at the HRTWF headworks of approximately
500 ppb.  Data submitted by HRWTF indicate that effluent phenol concentrations were not detected above
the analytical minimum  level by GC/MS Method 625, which ranged from 1,5 ppb to 50 ppb,

       Control of all industrial discharges to the HRWTF is set out in local wastewater discharge permits
issued under HRWTF's approved pretreatment program. This program has been audited and found to be

                                             2?

-------
 satisfactory by the State Water Pollution Control Board. Pretreatment Program Annual Reports for 19S9,
 1990, and 1991 state that "...there were no known Industrial user discharges which interfered with the
 Regional plant and caused a violation of any requirement of the NPDES permit,"

 C.     Sheboygan,  Wisconsin
       The  Sheboygan, Regional Wastewiter Treatment Facility (SRWTF) in  Sheboygan,  Wisconsin
 currently receives wastewater containing phenol from two OCPSF  facilities; SRWTF identified PLENCO
 as the major contributor of phenol to their system.

       The  SRWTF operates under  NPDES Permit Number WI 0025411, issued  by the  Wisconsin
 Department of Natural Resources,  Unit operations of the plant include bar screens, grit removal, primary
 clarification, diffused aeration activated sludge, secondary clarification and effluent chlorination; primary
 sludge is thickened in gravity thickeners and combined with thickened waste secondary sludge (dissolved
 air flotation) prior to anaerobic digestion,

       The SRWTF has indicated no problems in handling and treating its current levels of phenol.
PLENCO concentrations measured at  their discharge manhole ranged from not detected (10 ppb) up  to
a high of 10,842 ppb. Phenol concentration measured at the SRWTF heidworks ranged from 23.3 ppb
up to a high of 4043 ppb. Data submitted by SRWTF indicate that phenol concentrations in their effluent
discharge during this same sampling period were never found above the analytical minimum level for
GC/MS  Method 625 (5 ppb and 10 ppb) demonstrating removals of at least 99.8 percent.  Control  of
phenol discharges to  SRWTF by PLENCO ts set out in their approved pretreatment programs.

       These three POTWs represent typical POTW performance in Heating phenol; each has classic
textbook secondary treatment which consists of primary and secondary clarification along with some form
of biological treatment  80 percent of the POTWs sampled in the 50 POTW study had the same treatment
train (The remaining 20% had some form of advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) in addition to this
treatment train). In addition, EPA believes these three POTWs represent examples of typical pretreatment
programs.  All three  POTWs report having approved pretreatment programs with wastewater discharge
permits issued to significant industrial users (SIUs) that specify monitoring and reporting requirements and
in some situations, discharge limitations for certain pollutants.  It should  be  noted that  despite the
relatively low phenol concentrations in the raw wastewaters of two  of  the three  POTWs,  fairly
sophisticated pretreatment programs were developed and are in place; it seems that the presence of SIUs
with large  discharges  and  not the  POTW  influent  concentrations  of toxic pollutants  drives the

                                            28

-------
implementation of effective pretreatment programs.  The Agency believes that POTWs with significant
industrial contributions have established local pretreatment programs that will ensure that pass through of
pollutants will not occur.

       The data from these three POTWs are consistent with the performance shown in the 50 POTW
Study data, with 13 POTWs out of 15 POTWs with influent phenol concentrations above 20 ppb having
effluent concentrations below the analytical minimum level. The 50 POTW Study plant (#28) with the
highest average influent phenol concentration,  90S  ppb,  consistently removed phenol to below the
analytical minimum level, thus achieving at least 98,8 percent removal.

       Of the two POTWs  with measurable phenol in the effluent, one (#36) had 3 of 6 effluent phenol
concentration values greater than the analytical minimum level with an average phenol percent removal
of only 93 percent Although this POTW was initially selected for sampling in the 50 Plant POTW Study
because it was considered a good performer, there is evidence that the POTW  was not a well-operated,
good performer during the sampling period. At the time of the sampling, this POTW was receiving 2.5
million gallons  per day (MGD)  over its design capacity.  In addition. BOD  and TSS effluent
concentrations for this POTW  (87 ppm and 38 ppm, respectively) were significantly above secondary
treatment requirements of 30 ppm for both BOD and TSS.

       The other POTW (#58) had  only one effluent phenol concentration value above the analytical
minimum level out of a total of six effluent phenol concentration measurements with an average percent
removal of at least 98 percent  This  POTW was a good performer during the sampling period attaining
BOD and TSS effluent concentrations of 16 and 11 ppm, respectively.

       Overall, EPA's data from the 50 POTW Study and the three additional POTWs show only four
phenol effluent data points  above the analytical minimum level out of a total of 83 measurements, and
three of these points are from  a plant that does not appear to have been well operated. Eleven direct
discharge plants out of  a total of 25 OCPSF facilities that had phenol detected in their influent had
measurable  phenol in one  or more effluent measurements, with removals  ranging from  91.5% to
99.9988%.  While seven of these plants showed  phenol removals slightly higher than that demonstrated
by any POTW (ranging  from  99.3% to 99.9988%, compared to  99.2% for the Sheboygan Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility), these levels of removals could not be demonstrated by POTWs because.
as explained above, none had influent concentrations high enough to demonstrate removals at these higher

-------
levels.  Overall, EPA believes the data demonstrate comparable removals of phenol by direct dischargers
wiih BAT-level treatment and POTWs.

D.     Summary of Technical Findings
       Based on the analyses presented above, EPA believes that phenol and 2,4-dimelhylphenol are
simple, easily  treated, highly  biodegradable compounds that are  readily consumed (treated) by the
microorganisms cultured  in biological  treatment systems.   Thus,  a well operated POTW biological
treatment system should be able to rapidly achieve almost complete biodegradation of phenol and 2, 4 -
dimethylphenol, and should therefore achieve  removal  levels that are  essentially equivalent to those
achieved by direct dischargers employing BAT-level treatment. Based on these conclusions, phenol and
2,4-dimethylphenol should not  be considered to pass  through POTWs and should not be regulated by
categorical pretreatment standards.
                                             30

-------
                            in REFERENCES
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Organic
Chemicals,  Plastics  and  Synthetic  Fibers  Point  Source  Category,  Volumes  I and  H,
EPA 440/1-87/TO9, October 1987

Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicity Owned Treatment Works,
EPA/530-SW- 86-004, February 1986

CERCLA Site Discharges to POTWs Treatability Manual, EPA 540/2-90-007, August 1990

Fate  of  Priority  Pollutants in  Publicly  Owned  Treatment  Works,  EPA 440/1-82/303,
September 1982

Wastewater Treatment Plant Design, Joint Committee of the Water Pollution Control Federation
(WPCF) and the American  Society of Qvil Engineers, WPCF Manual of Practice No. 8, 1977

Operation of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF), WPCF
Manual of Practice No.  11,1976

Environmental  Engineering,  Howard S. Peavy, Donald  R,  Rowe, George Tchobanoglous,
McGraw-Hill, 1985

Biological Waste Treatment, W. W. Eckotfelder, McGraw-Hill

Letter to George M. Jed, USEPA, from City of Philadelphia,  Mr. Thomas F. Healey, Manager,
Industrial Waste, September 17,1992

Leoer to George M. Jen, USEPA, from Gty of Hopewdl, Virginia, Mr. Mark A. Haley, Director,
September 14, 1992

Letter to Dave Griffin,  Plastics Engineering Company (PLENCO), from  Donohue Engineers,
Architects, Scientists, Loren C. Trick, Project Manager, May 19,1989
                                    31

-------
            APPENDIX m-B




BAT AND PSES INITIAL ANALYSIS COST DATA

-------
BAT Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
61
63
76
83
87
1D1
102
IDS
112
114
154
159
177
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
3S2
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
444
447
451
481
485
466
488
500
518
523
525
569
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
583212
B81544
912274
0
1277396
32B468
541052
0
0
903191
0
865094
328468
0
1011495
862959
731177
821587
401831
454726
354104
366729
0
849575
1411929
60026
384432
0
594489
8973044
405958
6856767
2969660
450142
461491
2000000
456840
3551871
868975
110889
785050
1186543
0
498116
1866959
872185
1154248
328709
1950998
72315
0
0
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
0
77154
128618
115757
4750
1524624
31298
196316
0
0
2084544
0
330915
33389
0
103592
451849
1072783
757824
76617
28989
50601
54659
0
109273
651263
31856
67491
0
119654
3754917
63704
3047519
841368
33874
47794
335000
47620
3621418
154617
34022
49105
897933
0
37693
2954508
102024
468093
38823
2281636
42686
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
8994
4324
4653
0
39928
310
1937
0
0
280375
0
20022
2412
0
21556
27831
66000
86733
2557
2124
8063
3248
0
15994
13206
626
5018
0
21801
96349
1466
248419
37964
2736
8211
9100
35205
129088
28737
6542
3386
15644
0
2374
114488
27793
109650
5380
14440
7095
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
3536
37220
0
193544
11724
0
0
0
276731
0
472694
74440
0
48386
0
0
193544
375178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776832
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
10608
82256
163396
329397
0
0
0
O&H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
762
8016
0
41683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
0
10421
0
0
41683
80801
0
82966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
888306
0
0
0
0
234725
1683
0
6052
135655
0
0
0
2285
17715
35190
70942
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
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
0 ,
44530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
33782
Z6827
268Z7
29539
41206
26827
26827
Z6827
Z9539
29539
29539
41Z06
29539
29539
41Z06
3378Z
Z68Z7
33782
29539
51259
29539
26827
Z9539
41206
41206
29539
51259
65286
26827
26827
36574
26827
51Z59
29539
Z9539
26827
41206
26827
29539
41206
Z9539
29539
29539
26627
29539
29539
29539

-------
BAT Initial  Analysis  Cost Data
PLAWT
NUMBER
580
602
60S
614
633
657
659
662
663
6M
669
682
663
695
709
727
74.1
758
775
802
811
814
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
913
93fl
942
948
962
970
973
984
990
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
116439
0
655540
3284 68
809133
652872
454557
1247646
858500
919793
0
697987
1403937
2383893
0
471403
0
0
540068
551554
0
1462857
837227
0
3377409
0
0
451103
552177
0
0
448303
2743896
743895
115653
0
1291236
782986
469119
82B624
328468
328468
454719
454779
349821
0
972717
0
458705
0
438206
139529
2219293
TOTAL
OW COSTS
34318
0
1052470
34168
73458
134407
52002
428399
692391
530584
0
146981
781729
244490
0
84419
0
0
648766
106422
0
1074671
151315
0
3155331
0
0
42992
305539
0
0
78050
1079582
754798
84916
0
448579
67022
83791
275200
32299
35924
22B68
79839
49140
0
207113
14500
113196
0
65409
35574
246146
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
2395
0
14970
1578
12751
23673
2826
22673
18605
10537
0
15825
40680
94475
0
5792
0
0
3151
6680
0
22443
4430
0
138805
0
0
6002
6730
0
0
8660
101930
26684
1951
0
13690
2865
6785
45089
1695
1112
2736
6443
8310
0
14621
0
8284
0
6155
1079
24383
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
87095
2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866856
0
0
651406
0
0
0
984190
0
604877
346146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
850672
55830
642303
604825
55830
115382
0
585659
355451
0
524713
0
488885
0
37220
0
278325
0 & H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
18757
577
133111
0
164729
24850
154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
161902
0
0
0
244612
0
150337
74549
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
0
211427
12024
159639
130260
12024
24850
0
145561
76553
0
186355
0
105290
0
8016
0
98849
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124684
0
0
0
151402
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
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
51259
51259
51259
29539
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
33782
41206
29539
33782
41206
41206
33782
33782
29539
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259

-------
BAT Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
1139
1KB
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
1569
1572
1609
1616
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1696
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
479801
835903
833465
0
332097
635556
850371
0
0
0
544754
2953691
1199794
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
4106377
454719
373116
1470942
350850
482849
8463828
1004495
811772
328468
425575
841538
0
905355
331423
576429
461959
778349
D
912609
20575507
0
0
73357
343107
4893992
449881
778349
328468
841150
671437
378121
7875173
1035891
501 701
TOTAL
C4H COSTS
60911
185891
4798387
0
41724
99018
88671
0
0
0
69758
1186459
466637
2625061
1000
0
67752
580864
2354667
14197
56619
1876635
718244
89871
2288557
252421
4140048
36119
75044
138813
25000
288820
41307
1291980
66188
41593
0
479951
4527482
0
0
32245
46699
1257500
13302
56004
31437
105982
139572
58125
971 8672
243484
146697
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
12220
4611
23760
0
2210
24064
15310
0
0
0
1879
117597
24908
58497
0
0
3220
9225
147923
8460
3606
68080
42480
8602
84297
45473
22573
2583
11239
5073
0
19941
3524
4296
6231
2855
0
10155
1058025
0
0
694
7103
26851
13086
9912
826
21038
15144
6076
157155
13226
10258
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
604423
0
0
214015
521080
24565
0
0
0
0
617015
409104
541551
0
0
772315
772315
287695
0
513636
195405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118546
217737
186100
0
502470
206571
0
0
1359
0
232625
1732309
0
0
0
307065
276873
0
33684
36348
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
0 S H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
214665
0
0
46092
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
153354
88108
116633
0
0
166332
166332
102177
0
110621
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25531
46894
40080
0
108216
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
66132
98333
0
7254
7936
721
141079
117835
0
309342
188550
CONTRACT
HAULIHG COSTS
0
0
0
44530
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
33782
41206
41206
33782
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
33782
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
57597
26827
29539
29539
51259
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
57597
29539
29539
33782
26827
51259
26827
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
41206
29539
51259

-------
BAT Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
444655
7827V2
618340
1389291
326468
529854
386297
1135742
686981
826194
1251214
0
599338
0
0
674383
0
454719
1120249
328468
378242
0
785050
1006755
63318
362960
657716
0
0
355187
674950
861504
670350
1717297
783187
458966
794313
564000
1430431
1521382
414832
623153
0
0
0
424577
864597
2093797
0
341793
0
426189
32B46S
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
77041
44868
705348
881655
31617
113692
63117
1255931
106868
75304
628168
0
119580
0
0
80766
0
17720
1350740
34770
59210
0
50058
2060393
35647
63158
216786
0
0
50962
135546
222780
139270
1113595
42842
66378
66472
115855
2902047
2272954
118514
161108
0
0
0
90041
1 1 7054
2526055
0
46190
0
71906
31298
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
13785
8886
36Z8
27052
631
19606
5875
11405
27170
5583
61880
0
5777
0
0
9318
0
2736
69884
3724
6012
0
5652
30819
1953
6065
29974
0
0
3103
5916
7759
6606
57123
5329
8085
9040
12674
61784
53161
3459
35602
0
0
0
6312
7232
109087
0
7518
0
3452
624
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
546210
9863
0
183867
41873
290316
15204
308740
666238
7072
121523
0
311449
0
0
0
0
0
0
96772
57691
0
14330
878392
0
34801
816281
0
0
392671
0
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
280267
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
0
0
0
411281
1489
566116
0
297202
0
874670
16563
O&M
SLUDGE COSTS
135756
2124
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
66493
143486
1523
26172
0
110613
0
0
0
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
202880
0
0
84569
0
68936
140610
372148
1210
2265
60360
154661
14026
202503
1964
0
0
0
0
88577
321
121923
0
64008
0
188376
3567
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
268Z7
51259
29539
33782
33782
33782
41206
33782
26827
29539
33782
29539
51259
26827
29539
29539
33782
41206
26827
29559
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26S27
26327
29539
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
26827
33782

-------
BAT Initial  Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2365
2363
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2626
2631
2633
2668
2673
2678
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2816
3033
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
537219
54329B
464098
0
1228402
0
0
328468
577551
6501134
415461
0
1160796
356565
0
740217
106B738
870231
1614132
521479
366452
0
328466
1718347
0
0
1207405
785050
422449
0
1268164
672524
0
818854
339V27
0
0
1257905
613699
458155
1477470
117139
464278
506967
328468
778726
458155
917047
328466
1080229
1236899
62529
189850
TOTAL
0AM COSTS
47124
104153
52884
0
182965
0
0
32929
117539
6661361
68897
1000
1420471
63076
0
426664
320795
417182
1128181
190457
54573
0
32169
2295209
0
0
376056
41593
70859
0
2667176
139875
0
84752
45444
1000
0
1803263
669010
40786
597552
875 78
82458
94189
31298
67022
40786
157462
31404
865104
268670
31909
38322
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3521
5081
2830
0
13864
0
0
1874
62203
215084
3285
0
31753
2973
0
28735
17744
56775
57991
3733
9703
0
723
31514
0
0
Z3701
8900
3394
0
37870
26412
0
12964
2365
0
0
39263
14248
4960
44941
8235
5650
18345
1646
6555
8157
33873
1321
6742
16958
4280
5836
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
948787
0
0
524449
0
0
66810
0
344970
800230
0
691866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
0
53411
465250
0
0
407559
1861
848616
0
289758
398549
0
4094
282872
0
0
990259
0
0
571430
0
623084
796051
21774
55830
0
9119
35731
575544
792876
0
0
0 & M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
235813
0
0
186261
0
0
14389
0
122518
172344
0
171958
3327
0
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
11503
100200
0
0
87775
401
182765
0
62405
141547
0
882
60922
0
0
246121
0
0
202947
0
154862
197852
4689
12024
0
1964
7695
143047
281595
0
0
CONTRACT
HAUL IMG COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
a
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
33782
41206
26827
51259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
41206
26827
29539
51259
29539
41206
29539
29539
33782
2953V
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539

-------
                                        BAT Initial  Analysis  Cost  Data
 PLANT
NUMBER

 4DQ2
 4010
 401B
 4021
 4037
 4040
 4051
 4055
    TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS

          0
          0
          0
     992916
     542838
    1137313
     553899
     332273
      53273

  225638806
  TOTAL
O&H COSTS

        0
        0
        0
   238249
   109519
   745696
    72254
    41828
    60681

123017104
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
41090
17926
38271
14185
1578
20687
CAP 1 TAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
27171
158929
72579
0
215876
0
O&H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
5852
34223
15631
0
46493
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
Z6827
29539
26827
29539
Z9539
26827
29539
                                          619437B
56447691
                                                                        15079793
1073173
9047340

-------
PSES"Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
TV
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
1S8
161
162
163
166
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
2U
249
257
262
266
276
283
285
292
293
297
299
302
310
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
328468
454351
838120
1158657
527873
6310032
762984
1284376
78Z792
0
0
126249
609506
0
0
890205
897722
0
503698
855663
454324
826189
964222
0
1700118
0
957582
97912
1546498
333811
454324
5703BO
0
46352
1229290
572588
1244195
489168
8529556
0
900479
702046
884891
823404
655540
6182704
0
836315
1370183
328466
340166
454712
722381
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
31298
32339
74081
737121
211506
1110003
156290
967461
44438
0
0
118269
49394
0
0
158512
140753
0
43340
77070
22613
67843
228716
0
2292917
0
218398
254896
1771089
1291428
10462
49320
0
34901
306572
46503
150504
103636
1742469
0
87538
1529422
128711
74097
1052470
743893
0
98522
2293361
33502
45542
36424
64072
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
451
7848
11933
11836
3608
74627
97412
59222
6371
0
0
20925
64822
0
0
133606
21157
0
18439
4347
34272
3446
35100
0
83596
0
34291
14951
73757
13412
34272
13787
0
860
11004
57081
9043
7899
100470
0
6653
44291
117513
6493
15244
80500
0
14996
28320
3260
1843
278B
13098
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
3722
0
3461
52666
0
139575
0
116126
4224
0
0
0
0
0
0
7444
3722
0
0
9305
0
3722
14330
0
298691
0
11166
0
227414
0
0
0
0
0
182378
0
133062
0
213085
0
30148
74440
2419
2419
0
0
0
64018
0
76301
284733
0
0
0 & H
SLUDGE COSTS
802
0
745
11343
0
30060
0
25010
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
1603
802
0
0
2004
0
802
3086
0
64328
0
2405
0
48978
0
0
0
0
0
39278
0
28657
0
45892
0
6493
16032
521
521
0
0
0
13788
0
16433
61322
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
89060
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1157780
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
0
22265
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HON1TORING COSTS
29539
26BZ7
26827
26827
29539
41206
Z6827
Z9539
29539
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26327
29539
Z9539
29539
29539
26827
Z9539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26327
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
33782
29539
41206
29539
26327
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827

-------
PSES Initial  Analysis Cost  Data
PLANT
NUMBER
321
326
334
348
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
438
449
451
458
468
492
494
508
522
529
543
544
567
592
605
607
618
624
658
661
667
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
749
768
771
777
791
796
797
814
830
845
846
862
874
880
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
454324
986711
346329
0
1185345
0
0
901018
0
42169485
1086496
654024
0
0
7708191
888651
51712
542307
0
1347880
454324
553646
0
839052
728736
0
1026181
0
9126969
1064238
881439
0
3000
515331
422301
460286
1195361
498503
892807
914467
874295
6S68W
0
51Z322
0
906836
5965508
62290
408855
0
1264502
866397
0
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
10410
265703
74064
0
816919
0
0
436183
0
2030712
465081
88519
0
0
1894189
105285
32471
286402
0
1155668
11526
51355
0
101627
64784
0
337820
0
1606568
102242
125809
0
20000
45324
43021
45359
4746667
42933
162068
82156
120197
590259
0
44084
0
150513
1128834
34628
226882
0
1046233
335120
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
34272
31942
4447
0
46075
0
0
8888
0
709662
15519
4423
0
0
559957
4889
2431
11697
0
62622
2736
4666
0
7089
16158
0
29818
0
152704
20885
6383
0
0
10114
11241
3062
25664
9895
7421
5281
26365
40983
0
8394
0
11076
41968
5816
6529
0
56858
21295
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
19354
1675
0
84303
0
0
55830
0
748510
46525
0
0
0
0
16377
0
0
0
120965
0
0
0
1861
0
0
29032
0
263145
50433
1787
0
0
0
0
0
472694
0
7816
26426
1489
61599
0
0
0
4839
604877
0
20657
0
111697
478277
0
0 & H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
4168
361
0
18156
0
0
12024
0
186036
10020
0
0
0
0
3527
0
0
0
26052
0
0
0
401
0
0
6252
0
56673
10862
385
0
0
0
0
0
101803
0
1683
5691
321
13266
0
0
0
1042
150337
0
4449
0
24056
103006
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
102419
0
89060
0
0
0
22265
0
0
164761
0
222650
0
0
0
13359
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
133590
0
0
142496
0
133S90
0
0
26718
ANNUAL
MONITOR IMG COSTS
3378ci
29539
33782
26827
?6827
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
26827
26827
51259
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
26B27
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
268Z7
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
26B27
26827
26827
29539

-------
PSES Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
887
905
912
917
929
931
932
944
958
975
976
987
988
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
1053
1057
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1188068
523889
0
328468
454324
0
0
70364
0
454719
473643
31708
0
571672
783 187
356808
333002
1035194
0
1148662
950444
844090
29S38
0
422716
0
838784
39321
694350
1356486
762934
457746
486388
1388966
475122
1140424
12512548
60899
0
609675
792566
970141
545470
0
841185
568015
1372926
553161
328468
434036
642231
1081319
536188
TOTAL
OUt COSTS
288290
83463
0
31351
10295
0
0
34628
0
19450
118860
32471
0
56046
42404
78386
42241
148806
0
141110
89666
84506
32471
0
70934
0
74097
32471
109625
1176154
1077848
39842
45522
2364293
126133
114112
210464
34628
0
470739
84182
228860
44928
0
74134
57237
4807680
46415
31298
1819206
52824
106108
47595
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
9275
10226
0
2095
34272
0
0
3552
0
2124
4038
1064 '
0
4474
8687
4597
6053
8063
0
53794
4147
1209
735
0
4781
0
8802
3196
80194
38810
69366
2167
1625
57473
8948
19813
48045
12704
0
36416
7428
9377
12135
0
8858
13714
86775
3312
313
11597
12400
21961
51292
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
198755
0
0
33498
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4653
3722
223320
88584
0
0
45408
6588
0
0
850477
0
3536
0
0
145158
0
0
0
0
0
9863
0
0
0
46711
26054
14516
0
0
3908
0
0
0
4839
0
0
57133
0
0 S H
SLUDGE COSTS
42805
0
"0
7214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1002
802
48096
19078
0
0
9780
1419
0
0
183166
0
762
0
0
31262
0
0
0
0
0
2124
0
0
0
10060
5611
3126
0
0
842
0
0
0
1042
0
0
12305
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
129137
0
0
218197
4453
200385
0
0
0
400770
178120
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
0
89060
66795
0
62342
0
267180
0
0
0
8906
0
0
0
0
0
223986
178120
0
' 0
0
51210
0
0
0
0
- o
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
RON !TO» IMG COSTS
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539

-------
PSES Initial  Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
1249
1253
1755
1264
1277
1310
1313
13H
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1371
1386
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1718
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1029111
454324
454719
884691
782792
1557381
28208
0
501815
8877B5
572056
936204
28208
905097
508635
1300614
0
0
652080
925372
0
1096862
28208
882449
900140
1287795
533208
615016
0
813332
0
454479
884891
795401
0
0
28208
601768
47664
1035239
784293
1014583
919622
947272
657531
5591066
1151806
1007179
1192611
6097260
1094181
0
0
TOTAL
Q&W COSTS
112348
15794
27484
128711
51607
13052723
32471
0
43128
94672
43908
187088
32471
148521
43766
1013283
0
0
113060
92522
0
159394
32471
126646
91582
212558
44935
48592
0
179737
0
34298
128711
95553
0
0
32470
65959
25803
355617
69261
92314
165423
102996
1074092
732489
619556
301977
252633
1137104
482658
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
20143
8460
2124
27404
3334
21744
826
0
4202
14371
3477
12078
3108
29332
S342
20632
0
0
22286
17069
0
10922
6097
10160
5145
54190
11618
5264
0
15858
0
2736
24193
3438
0
0
3108
6967
2420
14116
11491
14925
131776
13371
15332
26848
50306
166784
33636
33346
45928
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
24565
0
0
2419
24193
148880
0
0
0
23263
0
7816
0
3908
0
122454
0
0
174190
65879
0
0
0
2233
29776
0
0
0
0
253468
0
0
2419
136970
0
0
0
0
0
31451
93050
33312
5583
6700
0
546210
67740
24193
304274
0
48944
0
0
0 ft N
SLUDGE COSTS
5291
0
0
521
5210
32064
0
0
0
5010
0
1683
0
842
0
26373
0
0
37515
14188
0
0
0
481
6413
0
0
0
0
54589
0
0
521
29499
0
0
0
0
0
6774
20040
7174
1202
1443
0
135756
14589
5210
65531
0
10541
0
0
COMTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
115778
0
48983
0
0
0
115778
0
0
0
222650
44530
0
0
14250
0
115778
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
75701
0
0
0
75701
44530
262727
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133590
0
ANKUAi
MONITORING COSTS
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
29539
             10

-------
PSES initial  Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
1740
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1626
1632
1833
1636
1843
1846
1853
1661
1874
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2010
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
40/361
783231
826584
884891
2257611
365591
783 187
519234
634649
880044
0
7E2792
466333
0
0
1077619
580427
795824
0
0
43397
7780971
375681
1005368
0
0
892291
971648
976873
44007030
459292
862406
471124
454324
455222
454324
900065
0
0
545396
454324
702349
929589
875984
0
0
873822
0
454324
2081696
793256
328468
654280
TOTAL
08* COSTS
95668
61376
66288
128711
7860591
63768
59247
44877
62389
124117
0
42739
86018
0
0
446297
45654
94115
0
0
26019
1681480
57177
298711
0
0
291299
240640
120020
3668304
43282
75312
4524A6
178W
39756
12406
85649
0
0
49906
15971
51561
178248
2428793
0
0
74706
0
29662
3999167
85650
32940
68111
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
12352
44824
9498
27404
98815
3387
3703
4311
16553
124800
0
3270
7687
0
0
16555
10085
5392
0
0
289
145118
3426
13259
0
0
8466
37880
17659
734492
2798
55070
29913
8460
4957
2124
3751
0
0
4571
3600
81880
33722
14540
0
0
55144
0
7056
104847
10493
3087
131138
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
722068
44664
6532
2419
660655
1303
28473
D
0
19354
D
5397
0
0
0
37220
0
100494
0
0
0
746004
40384
23635
0
0
0
16005
89328
273759
0
8166
24379
0
0
0
9491
0
0
0
0
0
8168
297760
0
0
4094
0
0
444640
36922
AADQA
OQVTQ
0
0 S, M
SLUDGE COSTS
155510
9419
1407
521
142284
281
6132
0
0
4168
0
1162
0
0
0
8016
0
21643
0
0
0
185910
6697
5090
0
0
0
3447
19238
97227
0
1764
5250
0
0
0
2044
0
0
0
0
a
1764
64128
0
0
882
0
0
96192
7952
14429
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
a
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155855
89060
0
0
0
129137
44530
396317
0
0
0
178120
71248
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
178120
111325
0
0
0
0
31171
84607
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HON1TOR1NG COSTS
26627
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
33782
26627
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26627
29539
26627
26827
26627
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
26627
26627
26827
33782
33782
26627
33782
29539
29539
29539
33782
             11

-------
PSES Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2343
2350
2359
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
24fl5
2487
2495
2498
2501
250 7
2517
2521
2524
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1214161
0
949125
340647
1005368
0
884429
742090
613322
0
0
1155073
1422177
2289594
856975
0
902715
1289010
0
500676
526731
905212
882117
875983
1381989
577963
544630
909702
454324
0
402421
0
121867
703983
834882
783187
789713
1003573
832561
6102520
1206920
808270
868827
782792
0
964664
0
866432
1190941
1137440
1700075
0
0
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
546905
0
106449
45736
29871 1
0
83219
2351856
80174
0
0
397803
527241
4709998
74098
0
176125
1120787
0
43047
47113
472469
77343
74893
337211
113686
328371
166512
10295
0
65201
0
341512
148658
98240
47269
101712
295353
74063
1083901
877659
184394
75896
45566
0
93303
0
74402
833188
584668
2550120
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
34381
0
18175
1856
38731
0
4859
19326
5083
0
0
21716
236385
38645
6803
0
34095
21785
0
9912
50230
8066
58940
4838
46828
7760
31732
12260
4860
0
11567
0
26581
26272
18076
39980
4355
10253
4027
97359
7829
12906
11587
3484
0
13581
0
4108
52053
36187
79840
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
232625
0
65135
288455
23635
0
21588
0
0
0
0
26054
660655
524802
2419
0
9305
120593
0
0
0
649489
13827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
0
710902
0
0
437085
1563
14888
120965
23263
2605
452223
91561
78162
9863
14814
0
54527
0
3350
60669
62902
288455
0
0
O&H
SLUDGE COSTS
50100
0
14028
62124
S090
0
4649
0
0
0
0
5611
142284
113026
521
0
2004
25972
0
0
0
139879
2978
922
59719
101849
6Z52
2244
0
0
153106
0
0
155233
337
3206
26052
5010
561
97394
19719
16834
2124
3190
0
11743
0
721
13066
13547
62124
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
138043
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
44530
111325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
0
142496
0
0
0
0
222650
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
26837
26827
33752
33782
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
26827
33782
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
            12

-------
PSES Initial Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2581
2408
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
40 14
4022
4023
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4048
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
328468
84565
6405815
782792
4592B2
0
1079430
0
580427
1267935
323468
505281
39243
814895
781792
937016
1194885
9342187
1074510
485880
647543
4171026
0
0
0
0
969477
798660
975771
671472
988307
0
161361
0
738562
363505
1122802
1210395
887229
0
328468
1537378
0
465914
0
838784
0
855184
0
0
343829
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
0
0
32496
209379
785653
44626
57682
0
165947
0
44923
921733
36211
143156
73800
74064
171741
101097
140087
1882475
213155
96366
119265
838656
0
0
0
0
290214
100687
247360
97065
127971
0
69268
0
2282384
63769
549639
144097
130753
0
34584
1758984
0
94438
0
74097
0
74771
0
0
74064
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
988
8736
59184
9033
3112
0
15366
0
3639
15456
4277
6960
6260
11441
8944
17269
13793
185390
33422
8849
6126
76755
0
0
0
0
33136
13412
59205
9737
86137
0
1176
0
6771
1171
48074
35244
29243
0
2744
19641
0
1881
0
2826
0
12547
0
0
4048
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
59347
0
139575
2978
0
0
3722
0
0
109799
120034
0
0
1303
0
55458
0
535084
10254
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22016
119104
16935
0
55830
0
1210
0
0
1117
58063
76673
2233
0
93794
191869
0
16749
0
3536
0
6588
0
0
1563
O&H
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
12782
0
30060
641
0
0
802
0
0
23647
25852
0
0
281
0
11944
0
132991
2208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4741
25651
3647
0
12024
0
261
0
0
240
12505
16513
461
0
20200
41322
0
3607
0
762
0
1419
0
0
337
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
4453
89060
0
0
0
0
0
23499
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218197
89060
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
0
0
44530
0
24046
0
133590
0
22265
93513
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
33782
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29S39
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
337B2
              13

-------
PSES Initial  Analysis Cost Data
PLAHT
NUMBER
4072

TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
924008
381860942
TOTAL
MM COSTS
171007
129991306
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
10718
9121323
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
7258
20247968
0 8 M
SLUDGE COSTS
1563
4605802
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
10833259
ANNUAL
MONITORING O
29539
11098169
            14

-------
           APPENDIX III-C




BAT AND PSES RIA ANALYSIS COST DATA

-------
BAT RIA Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
76
105
114
225
260
412
446
447
657
BK
859
913
942
1249
1439
1569
1618
1688
17B5
2030
2047
2073
2268
2400
2419
2527
2590
2735
2767
2786

TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
252052
297579
253372
790910
382240
185445
134851
18292055
11304160
4762754
6919904
397900
383833
201116
292673
194525
223839
7063911
510552
317109
183568
558577
311072
155182
154508
5240412
73128
14018248
102017
1409588
75367080
TOTAL
OM COSTS
3751B
39032
37562
44194
38190
35286
33678
755653
551323
257920
358044
42261
41818
35808
38870
35588
36571
364583
45696
39673
35223
47104
39476
34752
34280
280483
34628
666365
32824
51295
4125698
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
6889
60439
11405
13670
22560
33795
1963
107682
168975
25775
2434B
21010
19904
8629
13780
2938
7205
103336
19266
15106
7653
36112
14708
2663
3964
80937
3616
227194
4574
81960
___=^ _.•••»•• —
1152056
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0 S H
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
0

-------
PSES FHA Analysis  Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
10
22
33
49
51
72
79
94
no
119
120
149
155
161
163
196
206
212
214
220
221
240
249
262
266
283
293
310
326
334
354
43D
433
43S
458
468
492
494
522
536
543
567
592
607
611
624
658
661
706
717
724
743
749
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
54933
178776
5756909
289619
199405
50327
155182
64515
45 284
49374
70871
79736
513686
308416
76565
271605
115661
46352
408317
117869
442785
7637509
117687
37968
40612
6173704
311378
268057
90195
63142
186004
41028499
132115
195933
6919904
61730
51712
534507
219258
162987
99322
36544
274412
107516
47389
8125233
280710
35952
61007
422301
44179
65850
131280
TOTAL
O&H COSTS
32470
35065
304610
38769
35751
32471
34752
32471
32471
32471
32470
32492
45789
39389
32475
38171
33145
32471
42587
34628
43653
390477
33197
32471
32470
323893
39486
36309
32608
32471
35304
1448808
33597
35635
358038
32470
32471
46402
36417
34822
32768
32471
36412
32946
33157
412320
38474
32471
32471
43021
32471
32470
33573
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3352
1791
51447
58262
8545
3282
30550
15170
2375
5353
1261
3911
14127
14802
3827
12251
5327
860
7618
22809
5965
84173
2253
13328
1779
80500
5608
8238
3620
1312
6981
664833
1927
2226
441516
1191
2431
11697
9543
3389
1678
826
10272
3501
1111
129133
11504
735
3058
11241
2839
844
1917
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O&H
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
PSES RIA Analysis Coat Data
PLANT
NUMBER
768
771
791
797
814
619
830
662
877
887
905
944
987
992
1018
1047
1052
1053
1057
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1117
1126
1163
1172
1173
1181
1191
1194
1197
1202
1219
1220
1234
1236
1237
1249
1264
1310
1313
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
1426
1432
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
31708
190590
57998
50327
4762754
8463379
62290
211407
197851
368502
44179
70364
31708
116953
190228
661727
167257
61298
29838
55597
39321
231251
220797
480384
32064
315972
313614
7687B8
60899
142692
85640
91146
57998
113691
460246
98837
187907
297026
81864
201116
37968
241205
28208
47491
104993
117337
65850
28208
49374
53916
204321
259349
142185
TOTAL
O&M COSTS
32471
35457
32471
32471
257908
427372
34628
36153
35699
41331
32471
34628
32471
331 78
35445
42440
34688
32471
32471
32470
32471
36820
36466
39757
32471
39636
37058
43902
34628
33913
32547
3462B
32471
33095
441 86
34626
35104
39014
32508
35808
32471
37154
32471
32471
32888
33186
32471
32471
32471
32471
35915
37762
33897
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3108
8122
2508
1227
25775
56207
5816
9141
3167
5071
1202
3552
1064
1738
2775
44914
1670
341
735
2477
3196
43640
5852
30587
455
11273
12154
40884
12704
6039
1083
4143
2508
5254
26807
1188
6514
12412
17020
8629
3108
4732
826
1214
4671
1353
1334
3100
3269
2456
3008
11750
6019
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o a H
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
n
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

-------
PSES RIA Analysis Cost Data
PLAMT
NUMBER
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1560
1575
1595
16GB
1622
1628
1645
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1744
1751
1773
17B8
1793
1826
1832
1848
1853
1876
1891
1894
1899
1904
1931
1971
1993
2004
2007
2037
2070
2084
2093
2117
2129
2176
2184
2232
2241
2243
2250
2259
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
569017
28208
36544
116953
773454
78489
160297
37968
28208
146674
111339
331396
57212
120688
5017226
156338
99322
336498
5462456
135121
0
37968
37123
64515
180325
34725
129024
126103
0
6482593
98535
397575
83245
190952
42858273
79219
117273
91072
248045
62441
V0635
403544
399517
296693
165566
98535
101637
113691
267422
514560
435821
73788
70871
TOTAL
O&N COSTS
41103
32471
32471
33178
43964
34628
34797
32471
32470
34035
33037
36825
32470
34628
269961
34338
32768
40304
290838
33685
0
32471
32470
32471
35116
32471
33508
34628
0
338079
32753
42251
32521
35469
1501079
32488
33187
32621
37384
32471
32615
42438
38471
39003
34634
3Z753
32616
33095
38032
45815
43439
32471
32471
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3611
6097
1162
1738
46156
3636
2528
2744
3108
3043
1672
7501
14543
4811
19386
6595
19244
16726
28274
5745
0
3108
3052
1323
8093
13328
2062
4199
0
96054
1528
5679
4242
7186
693389
16712
1352
1583
47608
3698
18099
21857
96866
14859
6988
4463
1562
1699
9004
137613
8423
2089
3900
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 & H
SLUDGE COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
195932
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
                        HA Analysis Cut Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2241
2288
2293
2311
2318
2341
2348
2350
2442
2465
2449
2485
2487
2491
2517
2524
2139
2548
2161
2635
26*6
2666
2677
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2793
4001
4006
4007
4008
4014
4024
4026
4027
4032
4044
4047
4050
4057
4070
4072
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
218949
46352
72*07
91930
92796
541550
115661
74354
34087
97741
49374
5114088
193101
85640
181477
83245
190409
111242
328153
6268347
264928
126103
194348
31708
301423
154046
708716
4935083
196283
181669
102508
85168
211375
154508
30793
35037
1*593?
369750
39321
271239
91072
55597
71997
606*2
59527
TOTAL
tm COSTS
34406
32471
32471
32761
32649
46S13
331*5
32471
32470
32737
32470
274530
3S140
3254?
35154
32521
31451
34177
40033
328251
37949
3*628
35582
32*71
39290
34261
43092
266090
35646
35161
32834
32541
36152
342BO
32470
32471
34012
37985
32470
38159
32621
32470
32471
32471
32471
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
3162
2856
11918
19191
1602
31*97
4987
1410
2135
1179
1119
74470
120?
3198
5669
1309
8114
4702
16140
36354
8895
1515
2206
3108
5460
6500
11498
71652
8394
2881
4052
6650
508*
27955
1064
1064
6149
20406
3383
3310
1125
795
3711
1183
1176
CAPITAL

0
i* 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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C S M

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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
191730775
13735953
4189312
329522

-------
                APPENDIX m-D




IPX, BAT, AND     PREAMBLE ANALYSIS COST DATA

-------
List of BPT Co»t Data by Option I

PLAIT
t
12
ii
61
63
76
S3
87
101
102
105
112
114
11*
119
177
180
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
187
392
S94
399
412
4tS
44}
444
446
447
451
481
48*
486
488
500
SIS
TQTAl
CAPITAL COSTS
2148497
180874
0
84151
0
281449
381862
265566
*
0
323707
V
241351
0
358407
818190
357748
0
0
229464
1735676
866127
0
276418
0
0
68749
113202
106642
2425129
0
249389
0
0
0
0
2219937
117697
1872048
0
296959
•7942
233064
834724
27229
0
I9451S
0
1373260
3746
TOTAL
DIM COSTS
184672
18790
0
33440
0
34471
41663
42407
»
0
40812
.
283S7
0
69134
77191
40346
0
0
39653
185623
82093
0
43077
0
0
332H
8618
33670
299145
0
28887
0
0
0
0
262234
33793
201524
0
36804
33470
39920
62989
32795
0
21206
0
124032
2001
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
141330
2797
0
1347
0
4672
2044
1936

0
38018
*
6566
0
2006
82527
7774
0
0
2693
88293
' 87754
0
8326
0
0
661
0
2038
301084
0
1520
0
0
0
0
7000
27282
, 34159
0
8590
1798
4320
4891!
944
0
9336
0
284601
0
CAP If At
SLUDGE COSTS
1100630
61274
0
37220
0
744400
746261
539690
.
0
578275
a
472694
0
139389
816179
658794
0
0
388949
1138637
910330
0
580632
0
0
22332
0
67368
1057344 .
0
289013
0
0
0 .
0
1685950
8S743
1117344
0
857921
42877
401976
333141
1861
0
101611
0
933020
0
0 ft B
SLUWJI COSTS.
3908M
13627
0
8016
0
160320
160721
116232
.
0
143725
»
101803
0
30020
202855
141883
0
0
83767
404394
226260
0
125050
Q
0
4810
0 .
14S09
375522
0
62244
0
0
0
Q
627S88
18036
416125
0
184769
9234
86573
11S319
401
0
21884
0
331371
0
COUTRACT
MMIIIN6 COSTS

^
^
.
•*
.
f
*
4453
*
.
111II5
»
»
.
.
.
,
*
,
.
.
*
».
.
»
*
.
.
.
*
„
.
«
*
.
*
,
*
,
*
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
*
.

-------
list of IPT Cost Data  by Option  I

PLANT
523
525
569
580
401
602
60S
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
691
TOT
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
915
93*
942
948
962
978
975
984
990
992
1012
1020
1033
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
256452
0
200710
6044S4
72640
106642
785103
117697
188254
0
631575
584467
179503
0
110138
1085016
0
109905!
.
1507133
899892
381354
342597
0
0
654241
218681
26890
1109521
1015264
0
909184
113017
13128
302001
233064
513324
893264
265564
236664
0
99200
446372
0
429711
0
60872
572058
0
*
TOTAL
DIM COSTS
29711
0
17442
17750
13117
13674
76098
13782
20688
0
59683
20379
24522
0
31721
152559
0
439795
.
117189
82239
42615
47561
0
0
89646
38745
70000
116141
97928
0
84912
46650
J379
44924
40018
68914
124634
42407
40150
0
33598
62014
0
10874
0
33204
63566
4312
*
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
6170
0
9S82
3630
1744
1576
12794
2843
5061
0
3424
0
5161
0
S931
18792
0
97195
»
85264
101117
8132
4059
0
0
6845
2875
0
21610
197B2
0
5348
9504
0
6651
7070
15085
24811
1936
11486
0
1499
5701
0
S6SO
0
1452
4965
0
,
CAPITAL
SLUOSI COSTS
311718
0
292177
711085
26054
66475
336260
87095
106077
0
758625
0
124687
0
70718
951020
0
2533003
P
791820
298780
744400
915612
0
0
607062
346146
0
722008
809200
0
398813
761149
0
707180
407519
396174
996374
539690
413142
0
55830
330717
0
644326
0
16042
96901?
0
,
0 1 M
SLUDGE COSTS
67134
0
62926
176734
5611
14317
It 9425
18757
22846
0
188550
0
26854
0
15230
354182
0
1231398
,
281220
106114
160320
197194
0
0
215602
74549
0
256426
201120
0
141641
163927
0
152304
87775
140704
353869
116232
88971
0
12024
117454
0
160142
0
3455
240841
0
*
CQHTIACT
MAULING COSTS

.
*
m
.
.
,
,
,
.
*
a

.
.
,
,
.
1115^0
,
,
.
.
,
»
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
»
.
.
.
,
.
89060

-------
List of BPT Ceil Data  by Option  1

PUUIT
1039
1059
1061
1062
106?
1131
1117
Tilt
1148
1149
1117
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1119
1323
1327
1140
1343
134S
1349
1389
t407
1409
1414
143*
1439
1444
1464
1494
1520
1122
1S24
1532
1569
1S72
1609
1616
16t?
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
1456
1670
1664
1668
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
617531
0
498529
225869
0
553812
1647
176578
697317
10000
11640
0
1S4239
SU79
0
44428
110333
796191
0
294565
0
17680
653981
0
0
170074
15000
236664
409598
908830
1174131
0
795831
215088
1023139
223316
1392807
734465
261944
971301
0
157632
453201
688818
1B3SOSO
11769?
*
10000
1068593
..TOTAL
UK COSTS
0
21643
0
55630
39313
0
68369
1713
13701
9W67
14000
19000
0
19037
6*28
0
33202
33703
82652
0
34938
0
44100
44654
0
0
15107
30000
40244
53586
91177
101012
0
37713
3848?
101572
2S861
HQ9Q3
59464
42102
81891
0
34229
60038
52168
260709
3378?
*
13000
106304
TOTAL
LAW COSTS
0
0
0
7271
•224
0
3342
0
2078
19203
0
0
0
5002
0
0
105t
899
73103
0
S721
0
0
19703
0
0
4700
3428
1176?
11954
1S421
105959
0
0
6486
124121
2165
349)
81394
7911
33603
0
2771
12533
44999
56409
6406
.
0
112509
CAPITAL
SLODil C01TS
0
0
0
T3I39!
372200
0
31U5I
0
3i32f1
674763
0
0
0
148380
0
0
21402
74626
617015
0
766732
0
0
636234
0
0
20471
62510?
418725
976806
469813
592543
0
0
334980
399869
374061
91S872
768740
521080
400001
0
1693S1
312S05
759637
1348463
85606
,
0
3494!?
0 I H
SLU06I COSTS
0
0
0
183522
80160
0
111682
0
139671
239646
0
0
0
31064
0
0
4609
16072
153354
0
165130
0
0
158131
0
0
4409
155365
90180
24277?
16685?
210444
0
0
72144
142016
80561
321278
191064
112224
142063
0
36473
110988
188801
655544
1843?
*
0
!241tt
CWTiACT
MAUL I Hi COSTS

,
*
*

*
*
*
*•
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
#
*
*
*
m
*
•
•
9
*
*
*
4.
*
*
*
*
•
*
*
*
»
.
*
«
,
*
,
*
,
«
4453
.
m

-------
Hit of BPf CMt Bali by Optien I

PIAHT
1695
169f
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1776
1785
1802
1839
1869
1S77
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
20S5
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
68750
16S9&4
188703
0
1685179
305671
322330
0
68749
364027
810485
243874
0
0
135942
1031804
0
0
916147
132307
0
46613
0
1869736
56877
806271
171655
942791
342907
225869
200321
99208
72640
0
168427
676510
0
2S059S
27229
218681
110338
0
0
1871009
48749
154027
0
839183
117697
TOTAL
out COSTS
0
33251
15610
20581
0
169888
45132
1300000
0
33280
46822
65211
407ffi
0
0
33984
1 0f 344
0
0
117666
33947
0
5812
0
207459
33124
70103
16343
80047
43678
39313
21837
33586
13317
9530
34578
59533
0
29771
32795
38887
33703
0
0
163118
33057
34191
0
82156
33781
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
7510
4523
1774
0
18180
9258
0
0
1597
6082
97501
11905
0
0
1904
20182
0
0
23834
3085
0
0
0
9856
2547
44444
4700
456S
9236
10966
5756
2564
2837
0
3188
71332
0
1137
944
4082
2100
0
0
316833
2374
7870
0
18434
6334
CAP ITU
StUOSI COSTS
C
24193
61135
9ii33
0
1266912
721061
0
0
22332
7S8*2S
282416
447198
0
0
120034
1369261
0
0
800087
111660
0
0
0
1216685
14888
930580
37220
351040
662533
372200
232625
57691
260S4
0
193544
50878S
0
S32246
1861
333590
74440
0
0
1090072
9305
156324
0
671636
87467
Oil* CONTRACT
SLUOOf COSTS HAULING COSTS
0
5210
14028
11142
0
4499i2
155510
0
0
4810
188550

96312
0
0

340320
0
0
24669!
24048
0
0
0
4S3122
3206
231288
8016
124674
164667
80160
50100
12425
S611
0
41683
126454
0
114629
401
76152
16032
0
0
387146
2004
33667
0
166930
18838

-------
List of 3PT Cost Data by Option I

PLANT
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
2461
2471
2474
2481
2927
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2991
ZSS6
2573
2990
299]
2626
2631
2633
2647
2660
2668
2673
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
1073402
0
0
316209
106642
324073
20180
0
0
179597
204318
128667
0
397686
329541
828090
154750
172020
1187913
1356450
233064
189968
0
0
1690709
0
0
1029998
0
251092
0
309342
1758608
236664
276438
0
150420
696361
0
218670
276498
0
908572
0
0
1086614
952932
0
218681
189968
TOTAL
QftM COSTS
109277
0
0
39690
33853
46472
54000
0
0
35630
37634
33900
0
51820
37851
66044
9942
34986
104361
118223
40049
36510
0
0
152499
0
0
86321
0
41370
0
45427
134850
40244
43180
0
34148
53394
0
24812
43256
0
87132
0
0
101045
78105
0
38745
36956
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
20036
0
0
3060
3178
7337
0
0
0
3270
10761
6785
0
6836
18&3
27970
0
3267
69897
11726
4355
5802
0
0
6636
0
0
8598
0
13248
0
16361
382142
4400
14583
0
2064
26126
0
5833
8415
0
3922
0
0
146635
137946
0
4776
10129
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
640582
0
0
546210
42059
826284
0
0
0
26054
299249
107938
0
918442
576724
308010
0
206199
641110
659850
409420
256818
0
0
979217
0
0
390631
0
479394
0
7U400
1227321
418725
588076
0
150741
556325
0
334980
593659
0
421512
0
0
450282
447906
0
346146
258679
0 & N CONTRACT
SLUDGE COSTS HAULING COSTS
227507
0
0
135756
9058
177955
0
0
0
5611
A4U9
23246
0
228271
124208
109676
0
44409
227694
234350
88176
55310
0
0
347775
0
0
138735
0
103246
0
160320
435891
90180
126653
0
32465
138270
0
72144
127855
0
149703
0
0
159920
159077
0
74549
55711

-------
PLANT
                   List of 8PT Cost Data by Option I

    TOTAL          TOTAL         TOTAL        CAPITAL          0 & M           CONTRACT
CAPITAL COSTS    O&M COSTS    LAND COSTS    SLUDGE COSTS    SLUDGE COSTS    HAULING COSTS
2678
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
6018
4021
6037
4040
4051
4055

916456
0
712482
0
374284
143192
0
797094
0
416596
0
258323
327767
0
995226
298203
0
294684
236664
247481
324070
0
0
11582
0
52838
227522
0
96911856
75978
0
59792
0
45170
34072
0
63463
0
54622
0
41792
46704
0
88807
36991
0
44545
40150
41173
46534
0
0
1205
0
33114
26136
0
U806125
35720
0
45282
0
8897
4498
D
56810
0
12164
0
777B
16473
0
78256
1927
0
14525
7113
12166
6110
0
0
0
0
4237
1422
0
••••• 91 WMW9
4567824
304824
0
642303
0
508785
131573
0
961155
0
1011500
0
502470
844894
0
409450
867226
0
681126
413142
468972
831867
0
0
0
0
11166
215876
0
86107601
108260
0
159639
0
126454
28337
0
243858
0
251400
0
108216
181963
0
145419
184773
0
146693
88978
101002
179158
0
0
0
0
2605
46493
0
^^^^^^^^^^^^ mmmmmmmmmmmmm
24534145 342881

-------
SAT Prearrfcl* EconoBic Iifwct Analysts Cost Dais
PLANT
NUHEf
1
12
15
61
61
76
S3
87
101
toz
tos
112
114
1S4
159
177
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
2S9
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
45t
481
489
486
488
500
3tt
523
52S
569
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
583212
881544
912274
0
1529448
328468
54 1052
0
0
1200770
0
1118466
328468
0
1011495
862959
731177
821587
1192741
454726
354104
366729
0
1231815
1411929
60026
384432
0
594489
8973044
40S958
6856767
2969660
450142
461491
2000000
642229
355 1871
860975
110889
9l990t
1947I9M
0
498116
1866959
872185
1154248
328709
1950998
72315
0
0
TOTAL
om COSTS
0
77154
128618
115757
4750
1562142
31298
196316
0
0
2123576
0
368477
33389
0
103592
451849
10727S3
757824
120811
28989
50601
54659
0
147463
651263
31856
67491
0
119654
3754917
63704
3047519
841368
33874
47794
335000
829M
3621418
154617
34022
82713
1653586
0
37693
2954508
102024
468093
38823
2281636
42686
0
0
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
8994
4324
4653
0
46817
310
1917
0
0
340814
0
31427
2412
0
21556
27831
66000
86733
16227
2124
8063
3248
0
38554
13206
626
5018
0
21001
96349
1466
248419
17964
2726
8211
9100
69000
129088
28737
6S42
5349
123326
0
2374
114488
27793
109650
5380
14440
7095
0
0
CAPITAL
SLUOGi COSTS
0
0
3536
37220
0
193144
11724
0
0
0
2F6731
0
472694
74440
0
48386
0
0
193544
373178
0
385227
470833
0
81884
776832
0
111660
0
661521
329397
3908
358431
1827258
0
0
0
0
660906
7816
0
28101
545805
0
0
0
10608
82256
163396
129397
0
0
0
0 t H
SLUOCE COSTS
0
0
762
8016
. 0
' 4'l683
2525
0
0
0
59599
0
101803
16032
0
10421
0
0
41683
80801
0
12966
101402
0
17635
193075
0
24048
0
164416
116988
842
127299
88*306
0
0
0
0
234725
1683
0
6052
13565S
0
0
0
flfl
177U
35190
70942
0
0
0
CONTRACT
MAULIN6 COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
111325
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
0
44530
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
NOMITOilNG COSTS
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
29539
41206
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
41206
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
33782
29539
51259
2953?
26S27
29539
41206
41206
29539
51259
45286
26827
26S27
36574
26827
51259
2953?
29539
26827
41206
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539

-------
IAT Prtwfclc Economic  Impact Analysis Cost
PLANT
NUMBE*
580
602
608
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
81 1
814
825
844
asi
359
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
962
970
973
984
990
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
10S9
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
116439
0
655540
328468
809133
11957032
45*557
1247646
858500
919793
0
697987
140393?
23S3893
0
471403
0
0
540068
55155*
0
6225611
837227
0
3377409
6919904
0
451103
552177
0
0
448303
2743896
1141795
115653
383833
1291236
782986
46*119
828624
324*68
328*68
454719
454779
349821
Q
972717
0
4SC73S
0
438206
139329
221929S
TOTAL
OM COSTS
34318
0
1052470
34168
73458
685730
52002
428399
692391
530584
0
146981
781729
244490
0
84419
0
0
648766
106422
0
1332591
151315
0
3155331
355044
0
42991
305539
0
0
78050
1079582
797059
84916
41818
448379
67022
•3791
275200
32299
35924
22861
79839
49140
0
207113
14300
113196
0
65409
35374
246146
TOTAL
LAMD COSTS
2395
0
14970
1578
12751
192648
2826
22673
18605
10517
0
15825
40680
94475
0
5792
0
0
3151
6680
0
40218
4430
0
138805
24348
0
6002
6730
0
0
8660
101930
47694
1951
1990*
13690
2865
67S5
45089
1695
1112
2736
6443
8310
0
1*621
0
S284
0
6155
1079
24383
CAPITAL
SLUDSi COSTS
0
0
0
a 7095
2680
374795
0
764871
115382
716485
0
429694
866856
0
0
651406
0
0
0
984190
0
604877
346146
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
560371
372200
464270
0
0
8S0672
55830
642303
604825
55830
115382
0
S8S6S9
355451
0
524713
0
488885
0
37220
0
278323
0 & H
SLUOCi COSTS
0
0
0
18757
577
133111
0
164729
24850
154308
0
152609
215450
0
0
161902
0
0
0
244612
0
150337
74549
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
139276
80160
164889
0
0
211427
12024
159639
130260
12024
24450
0
145561
76513
0
186355
0
103290
0
8016
0
988*9
CONTRACT
HAUL INC COSTS
0
57889
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1246S4
0
0
0
151402
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
89060
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
HOB (TORINO COSTS
2953?
295IP
41206
29539
29539
29539
337B2
29539
26827
26827
29539
51259
51259
51259
29539
51259
41206
29539
29539
29539
337B2
41206
29539
33782
41206
41206
33782
33782
29539
29539
26827
51259
41206
41206
29539
29539
51259
26S27
29539
41206
26827
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
41206
26827
29539
29539
29539
51259

-------
IAT PrtMbl* fsononfc Jupict  Arwly»i« Cost Dati
PLANT
iwati
1139
114S
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1444
1444
1494
1120
1522
1124
1532
1569
1572
1609
1616
1617
161S
1624
1643
1647
1450
1656
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
!714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
479B01
835903
833445
0
332097
435556
1011487
0
0
0
544714
2953691
1199794
1740987
0
0
411405
1002773
410437?
454719
373«6
1763615
350850
482849
8443828
1004495
111772
328448
421575
1034043
0
901355
331423
176429
48S778
778349
0
912409
2057550?
0
0
73357
7407018
4893992
449881
778349
328468
841150
671437
378121
7871173
1035891
1012253
TOTAL
Q&N COSTS
60911
1S5S91
479830?
0
41724
99018
124479
0
0
0
69758
1184459
46643?
2625061
1000
0
67752
580844
231444?
14197
54619
1911105
718244
89871
2288557
212421
4140048
34119
7S044
174401
25000
288820
41307
1291980
10475f
41593
0
479951
4527482
0
0
32241
411282
1257500
13302
56004
3143?
105982
139572
58125
9718472
243484
192393
TOTAL
UNO COSTS
12220
461 1
23760
§
2210
24064
23939
0
0
§
1879
117597
24908
53497
0
0
3220
9225
147923
8460
3404
81860
42480
8402
8429?
45471
22173
2583
11239
8011
0
19941
3524
4296
13434
2815
0
10155
1058825
0
0
694
110439
26851
13084
9912
826
21030
15144
4076
157155
13226
29524
CAPITAL
SLUDil COSTS
0
604423
0
0
214011
5210815
24565
0
0
0
0
617011
409104
141151
0
0
772311
772315
287«S
0
513434
1fS405
0
0
340219
30334
0
118544
2177S?
184100
0
502470
204571
0
0
1319
0
232425
1732309
0
0
0
307061
276873
0
33684
34848
3350
397230
547134
0
871002
758625
0AM
SLUDGE COSTS
0
Z14C4!
0
0
46092
112224
5291
0
0
0
0
113354
88108
1 14433
0
0
" 144332
144332
102117
0
110421
42084
0
0
120831
6533
0
25S31
46894
40080
0
108214
44489
0
0
293
0
50100
645153
0
0
0
66132
98333
0
72S4
7934
721
141079
117135
0
309342
188550
CONTRACT
MAUL I KG COSTS
0
0
0
44530
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
4453
133590
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MHtTOItHO COSTS
33782
41206
41204
33712
2482?
2482?
33782
2482?
29539
29539
24B2?
41206
3S7S2
337S2
26127
2682?
26827
29539
41204
24827
33712
29539
2682?
29539
41204
29539
1759?
2682?
2fSS9
29539
51259
29539
24827
29539
2682?
33782
2482?
2*539
17597
29539
29539
33712
29539
51259
24827
24827
26827
29539
41206
2482?
41204
29539
11259

-------
BAT Prvmfclc Economic Impact Analysis Cost Dat*
PLAKT
NUMBER
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1986
2009
2020
2026
2030
204?
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
21*8
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
222?
2228
2234
2242
2234
2268
2272
2281
2292
22%
230?
2313
231!
2316
2322
2328
234$
2393
2360
2364
TOTAi
CAPITAL COSTS
444*55
712792
618340
1389291
328466
529854
386297
1135742
686981
826194
1251214
0
599331
0
0
674383
0
454719
1437351
512036
378242
0
7850SO
1565332
63311
362960
617716
0
0
35511?
674950
861504
670350
171729?
71311?
458966
794313
564900
1741503
1521382
414432
623113
0
0
0
424577
864597
209379?
0
3417*3
0
426189
328468
TOTAL
QIN COSTS
77041
44868
701348
8ai655
31617
113*92
63117
1251931
106868
75104
628160
0
1195 SO
0
Q
80766
0
17720
1390413
6f9tS
59210
0
50058
210749?
3S64?
63158
216786
0
0
50962
131146
222780
139270
1113595
42842
66378
66472
1158SS
2941523
2272954
118514
161158
0
0
0
90041
117054
2S2605S
0
46190
0
71906
31298
TOTAL
LUIS COSTS
13785
SB86
3628
27052
631
19606
5875
11401
27170
5583
61880
0
5777
0
0
9318
0
2F36
S4990
11377
6012
a
5652
66931
1953
6065
21974
0
0
3103
5916
7759
6606
S7123
S32f
8085
'9040
12674
76492
53161
3459
35602
0
0
0
6312
7232
19908?
0
7118
0
3452
624
CAPITAL
SLUOCI COSTS
5462 10
9A63
0
183867
41173
290316
15204
301740
666238
7071
121523
0
311449
0
a
a
0
0
a
96772
5?6»1
0
14330
87H392
0
34S01
816281
0
0
3926F1
0
320092
395910
1047842
5620
10515
28026?
622275
65135
814763
9119
0
0
0
0
411281
1489
566116
0
297202
0
874670
16563
0 * K
SlUDGC COSTS
135 7S6
212*
0
39599
9018
62525
3275
6M93
143486
1523
26172
§
110613
0
a
a
0
0
0
20842
12425
0
3086
189178
0
7495
202880
0
0
84569
0
68931
140610
372148
1210
2265
60360
1S4661
14028
202503
1964
0
0
0
a
WS77
«1
121923
0
64008
0
188376
356?
CQHTIACT
HAUL 1X5 COSTS
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
NOHITCMlNe COSTS
29139
2682?
51259
29539
33782
33712
31782
41206
33782
26B2?
29539
33712
29139
512S9
26827
29139
29539
33712
41206
2682?
29139
26827
29139
29S39
29539
29539
29139
2682?
3S7S2
29539
2682?
2682?
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
51259
29539
29539
26B2?
2682?
29539
2682?
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
2682?
33782
                10

-------
BAT Preanfcle Econontc  Impact Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
24SO
2441
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
253 1
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2571
2SM
2592
2626
2631
2633
2666
2673
2478
2692
J693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2719
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
27B6
2799
2816
2816
3033
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
537219
543298
4M098
0
1228402
0
15S1B2
482976
577551
6501134
415461
i 0
1160796
356565
0
740217
1066738
6110643
16U132
521479
366452
0
328468
1718347
0
0
1207405
858178
422449
0
126B164
672524
0
816854
339927
0
0
1257V05
613699
458135
15495718
117139
464378
506987
430485
778726
458155
917047
1738056
1080229
1236899
62529
189850
TOTAL
OlH COSTS
47124
104153
52884
0
182965
0
34752
67209
117539
6661361
6BB97
1000
1420471
63076
0
426664
320795
697665
1128181
190457
54573
0
3Z169
2295209
0
0
376056
76221
70859
0
2667176
139875
0
84752
45444
1000
0
1803263
669010
40786
1263917
87578
82458
94189
64122
67022
40786
157462
82699
865104
268670
31909
38322
TOTAL
LAW COSTS
3521
5081
2830
0
13864
0
2663
5838
62203
215084
3285
0
31753
2973
0
28735
17T44
137712
57991
3733
9703
0
723
31514
0
0
23701
12516
3394
0
37870
26412
0
12964
2365
0
0
39263
14248
4960
272135
8235
5650
18345
6220
6555
8157
33873
83281
6742
16958
4280
5836
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
948787
0
0
524449
0
0
66810
0
344970
800230
0
691866
15446
0
0
930580
329925
363445
0
468972
0
S3411
465250
0
0
407559
1861
848616
0
289758
398549
0
4094
282872
0
0
990259
0
0
571430
'o
623084
796051
21774
55830
0
9119
35731
S 75544
792876
0
0
0 & N
SLUDGE' COSTS
0
235813
0
, -0
186261
0
0
14389
0
122518
172344
0
171958
3327
0
0
231288
117175
129080
0
101002
0
11503
100200
0
0
87775
401
1B2765
0
62405
141547
0
882
609Z2
0
0
246121
0
0
202947
0
154862
197852
4689
12024
0
1964
7695
143047
281595
0
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
KHITCHING COSTS
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
41206
33782
29539
41206
33782
41206
26827
51259
51259
51259
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
41206
26827
29539
26827
26827
29139
41206
41206
26827
29539
51259
29539
41206
2«39
29539
33782
29139
29539
41206
41206
29539
29539
                11

-------
                                BAT  Preanfct* iecnomic  [rrpact Analysis Cost Data
 PLANT       TOTAL
NUMBER   CAPITAL COSTS

 4002              0
 4010              0
 4017              0
 4018         992916
 4021         542838
 4037        1137313
 4040         553899
 4051         332273
 4055          53273
TOTAL
OUt COSTS
0
0
0
238249
109519
745696
72254
41628
60661
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
0
41090
17926
18271
14185
1578
20687
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
27171
t5892f
725??
0
215876
0
0 J «
SLUDGI COSTS
0
0
0
5852
34229
15631
0
46493
0
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29539
29539
26827
29539
J6827
29539
29539
26827
29539
           301005884     127142802      7346434      56447691       15079793        1073173           9050052
                                                 12

-------
PSES Preanfcle Economic  lopact Analysis Cost Data
PLAflT
MUMBCR
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
as
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
155
158
161
162
163
166
160
196
199
203
206
209
212
ZK
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
276
283
2BS
292
293
297
299
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
328466
454351
8381 20
1158657
527873
6310032
762984
1284376
782792
0
0
126249
609506
0
0
890205
897722
0
503698
853663
454324
826189
964222
1612273
0
1700118
0
757582
97912
0
1546498
333011
454324
570380
0
46352
1229290
572388
1244191
489168
892949*
0
900479
702044
884891
823404
655540
6182704
0
836315
1370183
328460
340166
TOTAL
OJM COSTS
31298
32339
74081
737121
211506
1110003
156290
967461
44438
0
0
118269
49394
0
0
158512
140753
0
43340
77070
22613
67843
228716
670083
0
2292917
0
218398
254896
0
1771089
1291428
10462
49320
0
33471
306572
46503
150504
1036M
1742469
0
87530
1529422
128711
74097
1052470
743893
0
98522
2293361
33502
45542
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
451
7848
11933
11836
3608
74627
97412
59222
6371
0
0
20925
64822
0
0
133606
21157
0
18439
4347
34272
3446
35100
30023
0
83596
0
34291
14951
0
73757
13412
34272
13787
0
860
13004
57001
9043
7899
100470
0
6653
44291
117513
6493
13244
BC5CO
0
14996
28820
3260
1843
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
3722
0
3461
52666
0
139575
0
116126
4224
0
0
0
0
0
0
7444
3722
0
0
930S
0
3722
14330
738017
D
298691
0
11166
0
0
227414
0
0
0
0
0
182378
0
133062
0
213085
0
30148
74440
2419
2419
0
0
0
64016
0
76301
284733
0 & N
SLUDGE COSTS
002
0
745
11343
0
30060
0
25010
910
0
0
0
0
0
0
1603
802
0
0
2004
0
802
3086
159118
0
64328
a
2405
0
0
48978
0
0
0
0
0
39278
0
26657
0
45892
0
6493
16032
521
521
0
0
0
137S0
0
16433
61322
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
222650
0
0
89060
0
0
0
44530
0
0
0
0
a
0
89060
0
133990
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
356240
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
0
22265
0
ANNUAL
MOHITQUING COSTS
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
51259
26827
29539
29539
26B27
33782
29539
33782
26827
29539
26827
Z9539
26827
26B27
295 J9
29539
29539
29539
29539
26627
29539
29539
29539
29539
26B27
29539
26827
26027
26827
2W39
33782
29539
337B2
33782
29539
41206
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
29S39
26827
29539
                      13

-------
PSES Preamble Economic Inpact  Analysis  Coat  Data
PLAHT
NUHBEt
302
310
321
326
334
343
354
357
417
423
428
430
433
430
449
451
458
468
492
494
502
508
522
529
536
543
544
547
592
605
607
611
618
624
658
Ml
467
702
706
717
720
722
724
743
749
768
771
777
m
796
777
814
819
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
454712
722581
454324
986711
846329
0
1185345
0
0
901018
0
42169485
1066496
654024
0
0
7708191
868651
51712
542307
0
0
1347180
454324
1051020
553646
0
839052
728736
0
1026181
901500
0
9126969
1064230
601439
0
3000
515331
422301
440286
1199561
498503
892807
914467
874295
686809
0
512522
0
906836
5965308
15913299
TOTAL
OUt COSTS
36424
64072
10410
265703
74064
0
816919
0
D
436183
0
2030712
465081
68519
0
0
1894189
105285
32471
286402
0
0
1155660
11526
242260
5135S
0
101627
64784
0
337820
144991
0
1606960
102242
125809
0
20000
45324
43021
45359
4746667
42933
162068
02156
120197
590259
0
44084
0
150513
1125834
3748429
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
2788
13098
34272
31942
4447
0
46075
0
0
aaaa
0
709662
15519
4423
0
0
559957
4689
2431
11697
D
0
62622
2736
17583
4666
0
7089
16158
0
29818
9978
0
152704
20685
6303
0
0
10114
11241
3062
25664
9895
7421
S281
26365
40983
0
8394
0
11076
41966
122621
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
19354
1675
0
84303
0
0
55830
0
748510
46525
0
0
0
0
16377
0
0
0
0
120965
0
13529
0
0
1861
0
0
29032
2419
0
263145
50433
1787
0
0
0
0
0
472694
0
7816
26426
1409
61599
0
0
0
4839
604077
268163
0 ft N
SLUDGE COSTS
0
0
0
4168
361
0
18156
0
0
12024
0
186036
10020
0
0
0
0
3527
0
0
0
0
26052
0
2914
0
0
401
0
0
6252
521
0
56673
10062
305
0
0
0
0
0
101003
0
1683
5691
321
13266
0
0
0
104Z
150337
95240
CONTRACT
HAULING COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
222650
0
0
0
0
44530
0
0
102419
0
12468
89060
0
0
0
0
22265
0
0
164761
0
0
222650
0
0
0
13359
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
44530
0
133590
0
0
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
29519
26827
33782
29539
33782
26827
26827
295 J9
26827
29519
26827
41206
29539
26827
26827
26&17
51259
J3782
29519
13782
29539
29539
29539
26827
33782
26B27
26G27
26827
33782
26827
29539
26B27
29539
41206
33782
29539
29539
2VS39
26627
26627
29539
41206
26627
29519
26827
29539
29539
29539
26627
268Z7
29539
41206
41206

-------
PSiS Prwntolt feonomie Inpaet  Analysis Cost Data
PLAMT
NUMBER
830
945
844
862
874
877
880
887
909
912
917
929
931
932
944
956
958
975
976
987
988
991
992
997
1006
1011
1018
1026
1047
1052
toss
tosr
1064
1069
1076
1083
1083
1036
1091
1094
1107
1lt7
1126
1162
1163
1172
1175
1175
1181
1t88
mt
1194
1195
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
62290
608855
0
1264502
866397
1276593
0
1188068
523S89
0
328468
454324
0
0
70364
0
0
454719
473643
31708
0
0
571672
783187
356808
333002
1035194
0
1148662
950444
S44Q90
29838
0
422716
0
838784
39321
694390
135648*
762934
457746
486388
1388966
475122
1140424
1251348
60899
0
609675
792966
970141
949470
0
TOTAL
OM COSTS
34628
226882
0
1046233
335120
930268
0
288290
83463
0
31351
10299
0
0
34628
0
0
19450
118640
32471
0
0
56046
42404
7BU6
42241
148806
0
141110
89666
84506
32471
0
70914
0
74097
32471
109629
11761J4
1077848
39842
45922
2364291
124133
114112
210464
34628
0
470739
84182
228860
44928
0
TOTAL
LAMB COSTS
5816
6529
0
S68S8
21295
21985
0
9275
10226
0
2095
34272
0
0
3551
0
0
2124
4038
1064
0
0
4474
8687
4597
6053
8063
0
53794
4147
1209
735
0
4781
0
8802
3196
80194
38810
69166
2167
1629
57473
8948
19813
48045
12704
0
36416
7428
9377
12135
0
CAPITAL
SLUOGI COSTS
0
20657
0
11W7
471277
65879
0
198755
0
0
33498
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4653
3722
223320
88584
0
0
45408
6588
0
0
850477
0
3536
0
0
145198
0
0
0
0
0
9863
0 .
0
0
46711
26094
14516
0
0
0 t M
SLUDGE COSTS
0
4449
0
24056
103006
14188
0
42805
0
0
7214
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1002
802
48096
19078
0
0
9780
1419
0
0
183166
0
762
0
0
31262
0
0
0
0
0
2124
0
0
0
10060
9611
3126
0
0
CONTRACT
MAULING COSTS
142496
0
133590
0
0
0
26718
0
0
129137
0
0
218197
4453
200385
71148
0
0
0
400770
17B120
4451
0
0
0
0
0
222690
0
0
0
89060
66795
0
62342
0
267180
0
0
0
8906
0
q
0
0
0
223986
178120
0
0
0
51210
0
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
33782
29539
2682?
26827
26827
33782
29539
29539
26S27
26827
19539
26S27
26827
29539
33782
26827
29539
33782
26827
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
337S2
337J2
29539
29539
26827
26627
33782
26827
29539
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
29539
29539
29539
33782
26827
                    15

-------
PSE5 Preamble Economic  tnpaet Analysis Coat Data
PLAKT
NUMBER
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1341
1371
1386
U26
1432
1433
1437
U50
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1S48
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1593
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
841185
$4*015
1372926
553161
328468
434036
642231
1081319
536188
1029111
454324
454719
884891
782792
1557381
28208
fl
501815
887785
572056
936204
2S208
905097
508635
1300614
0
a
652080
925372
0
1096862
28204
882449
900140
1287795
533208
615016
0
813332
0
454479
884891
795401
0
0
28208
0
601768
47664
1035239
784293
1014583
919622
TOT At
DIM COSTS
74134
57237
4807680
46415
31298
1819206
52824
106108
47595
112348
15794
27484
128711
51607
13052723
32471
0
43128
94672
43908
187088
32471
148521
43766
1013283
0
0
113060
92522
0
159394
J2471
126646
91582
212558
4493S
48392
0
1797SF
0
34298
128711
955SI
0
0
32470
0
65959
29803
355617
69261
92314
16S423
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
8858
13714
86775
3312
313
11597
12400
21961
51292
20143
S460
2124
27404
3334
21744
126
0
4202
14371
3477
12078
3108
29332
8342
20632
a
0
22286
17069
0
10922
6097
10160
5145
54190
11618
5264
0
15858
0
2736
24193
3438
0
0
3108
0
6967
2420
14116
11491
14925
131776
CAPITAL
StUOCE COSTS
3908
0
0
0
4839
0
0
57133
0
24565
0
0
2419
24193
148880
0
0
0
23263
0
7816
a
3908
0
122454
0
0
174190
65879
0
0
0
2233
29776
0
0
0
0
253468
0
0
2419
136970
0
0
0
0
0
0
31451
93050
33312
SS83
GSM
SLUDCi COSTS
342
0
0
0
1042
0
0
12305
a
5291
0
a
521
5210
32064
0
0
0
5010
0
1683
0
842
0
26373
0
0
37515
14188
0
0
0
481
6413
0
0
0
0
54589
0
0
121
29499
0
0
0
0
0
0
6774
20040
7174
1202
CONTRACT
HAUL IMS COSTS
a
0
a
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
115778
0
48983
0
a
0
115778
0
0
0
222650
44530
0
a
14250
0
115778
0
0
0
0
0
8906
0
75701
0
0
0
75701
44530
262727
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AtmUAL
MONITORING COSTS
26827
26827
26627
33782
29539
26827
33782
33782
29539
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
33782
26827
26827
26827
33782
29539
337B2
29539
33782
29539
26827
26827
29539
26827
29539
29539
26827
29539
26827
33782
26827
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
                     16

-------
Pfil PrtMbli Icanwiie  Impact Analysis  Cast Data
PLANT
XUMSED
164!
1653
165?
1419
1666
1647
1706
1716
1718
1740
1742
17«
1744
1741
1751
1764
1773
1780
1793
1797
1801
180!
1808
1811
1826
1832
1831
1838
1843
1648
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
194S
1948
1970
197!
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
torn
CAPITAL COSTS
947272
657531
5591066
1151806
1007179
1192611
6097260
1094181
0
407361
783231
826584
884891
2257611
365591
783187
519234
634649
880044
0
781792
446333
0
0
1077619
580427
79S824
0
0
43197
7780971
375681
100S368
0
0
892291
971648
976873
44007030
459292
862406
471124
4S4314
435222
454524
900063
0
0
545396
454124
702369
929589
875984
TOTAL
CMW COSTS
102996
1074092
732489
619556
301977
252633
1137104
482658
0
95668
61376
68288
128711
7860591
63768
59247
44877
62389
124117
0
42739
86018
0
0
446297
45634
94115
0
0
26019
1681480
S7177
2987tt
0
0
29129?
240640
120020
3688304
43282
7SH2
452464
17194
39756
12404
8S649
0
0
49906
15971
51S81
178248
2428793
TOTAL
IMS COSTS
11171
11332
26848
53306
166784
33«36
33346
45928
0
123S2
44S24
9498
27404
98815
3317
3701
4311
16SS1
124800
0
1270
7687
0
0
16553
10085
5392
0
0
289
141118
3426
13259
0
0
8488
37880
17659
734492
2798
55070
29913
8460
4957
2124
3751
0
0
4571
3600
81880
33722
14540
CAPITAL
SLUDGE COSTS
6700
0
146210
677*0
24193
304274
0
48944
0
722068
44664
6532
2419
660655 *
1303
28471
0
0
193S4
0
$1*7
0
0
0
17120
0
100494
0
0
0
748004
40384
23431
0
0
0
16005
89328
27175*
0
8188
24379
0
0
0
9491
0
0
0
0
0
8188
297760
0 1 H
sunee COSTS
1443
0
11575ft
14519
5110
6SS31
0
10541
0
155510
9619
1407
521
142284
281
6132
0
0
4168
0
1162 -
0
0
0
8016
0
21643
0
0
0
181910
8697
5090
0
0
0
1447
19Z31
9722?
0
1764
5?,50
0
0
0
2044
0
0
0
0
0
1764
64128
CONTIACT
HAUL INC COSTS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
133590
0
0
0
0
0
222610
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
155855
89060
0
0
0
129137
44130
396J17
0
0
0
178120
71248
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178120
111325
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
KNITOiING COSTS
29S39
4120ft
41236
29539
29539
26827
41206
29539
29539
26827
29539
2«27
29539
21531
26827
13712
26827
29539
29539
29139
29539
26S27
26627
13782
29S39
33782
29539
29539
26827
29539
41206
29539
29539
29S39
29539
26827
29539
26827
41206
29539
26827
29539
26827
26827
26827
2«»
29539
26827
26827
26827
29539
26827
26827
                    17

-------
PSES Prcaobl* Economic lopKt Analysts Cost 6«t«
PUNT
NUMBER
2022
Z033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
2093
2108
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2Z32
2241
2243
2250
2253
22S9
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2348
2350
2359
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
2495
2498
2501
TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
0
873822
0
414124
2081896
793256
328468
854280
1214161
0
949121
349647
1005368
0
884429
742090
613322
0
0
1151073
1422177
2219594
856975
0
902715
1289010
0
500676
526731
905212
882117
875983
1381989
577963
544620
909702
454324
0
402421
0
121867
703983
834882
783187
789713
1003573
832561
6102520
1206920
808270
868827
782792
TOTAL
am COSTS
0
0
74706
0
29682
1999167
85650
32940
68111
546901
0
106449
45736
298711
0
83219
2351856
80174
0
0
397803
S27241
4709991
74098
0
176125
1120787
0
43047
47113
472469
77343
74893
337211
113686
328371
186512
1029S
0
65201
0
341512
148658
98240
47269
101712
29S353
74063
1083901
877659
184394
75896
4S566
TOTAL
LAND COSTS
0
0
55144
0
7056
104847
10493
3087
131138
34381
0
18175
1856
38731
0
4859
19326
5083
0
0
21716
23*381
38645
6803
0
34095
21785
0
9912
50230
8086
58940
4838
46828
7760
31732
12260
4860
0
11567
0
26581
26272
18076
39980
4355
10253
*027
97359
7829
12906
11587
3484
CAPITAL
SLU80I COSTS
0
0
4094
0
0
446640
36922
66996
0
232625
0
65135
288455
23635
0
21588
0
0
0
0
26054
660655
524802
2419
0
9305
120593
0
0
0
649489
13827
4280
277289
286771
29032
10422
0
0
710902
0
0
437085
1563
14888
120965
23263
2605
452223
91561
7B162
9863
14814
0 1 M
SLU06I COSTS
0
0
812
0
0
96192
7952
14429
0
50100
0
14028
62124
5090
0
4649
0
0
0
0
5611
142284
113026
521
0
2004
25972
0
0
0
139879
2978
922
59719
101849
6252
2244
0
0
153106
0
0
155233
337
3206
26052
5010
561
97394
19719
16834
2124
3190
COBT1ACT
MAUL I MS COSTS
31171
84607
0
222650
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171120
0
0
0
0
138043
0
0
0
0
222650
0
0
44530
111325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35624
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8906
ANNUAL
MONITORING COSTS
2682 F
33712
31782
26S2F
33782
29539
29539
29539
33712
19539
26627
29539
26S27
29539
26827
29539
41106
29539
29539
29539
26827
29539
29539
33712
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
26827
26827
26827
33782
33782
41206
29539
26827
26827
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
33782
29539
26827
41206
33782
29539
26827
26827
                     18

-------
PSES Preamble Ecanonic  inpact Analysis Cost Data
PLANT
MUK&EI
2507
2517
2521
2S24
2539
2548
2565
2571
2571
2511
2606
2608
2609
2634
2631
2636
2641
2642
2646
26*7
2666
2477
2679
2680
268S
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
1794
27%
2809
2810
2814
400!
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026
4027
4032
4042
• TOTAL
CAPITAL COSTS
0
964664
0
866432
1190941
1137440
1700075
0
0
0
0
0
S2846S
8456S
6605813
782792
459282
0
1079430
0
580427
1267935
328468
107106?
505281
39243
814395
781792
937014
1194883
9842187
1074510
485880
6475*3
4171026
0
0
0
0
969477
798640
975771
471471
988307
0
361861
0
738562
343509
1122802
1210399
887229
0
TOTAL
OSN COSTS
0
93303
0
74402
03188
584668
2550120
0
0
a
0
0
324M
209379
785653
44424
57482
0
145947
0
44923
921733
34211
890232
143114
73800
74064
171741
101097
140087
1882475
113155
94344
119249
838454
0
0
0
0
290214
100487
247340
97049
127971
0
69248
0
2282384
63769
949639
144097
130753
0
TOTAL
LAND COST!
0
1J5I1
0
4108
51651
161 17
79840
0
0
0
0
0
988
8736
59184
9033
3111
0
15864
0
3639
15456
4277
28271
6960
6240
11441
8944
17269
11793
185390
38422
8849
6124
76711
0
0
0
0
33134
13412
59209
9737
84137
0
1174
0
6771
1171
48074
3S244
29243
0
CAPITAL
fLUKI COSTS
0
54527
0
3350
60649
62902
2884!!
0
0
, 0
0
0
5934?
0
139571
2978
0
0
3722
0
0
1OT799
120034
11164
0
0
1303
0
95418
0
535084
10294
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22016
119104
16933
0
S5830
0
1210
0
0
1117
58043
76473
2233
0
o a N
SLUDGE 'COITI
0
11743
0
721
13Q&6
13547
62124
0
0
a
a
0
12782
0
30060
641
a
0
802
0
0
23447
25892
2409
0
0
281
0
11944
0
132991
2208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4741
25451
3447
a
12024
0
261
0
0
240
12909
16513
481
0
CONTRACT
MMJLINi COfTS
0
0
142494
0
a
0
0
222650
0
4453
4453
89040
0
0
i
0
0
28499
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
218197
89040
0
0
0
0
0
89060
0
0
0
178120
0
0
0
0
ANNUAL
KNITOXING COSTS
26827
2612?
26827
33782
26827
29539
26827
29139
29539
26827
29539
33782
Z9S39
26827
29S39
29539
29539
26827
29539
2953f
31782
29S39
29539
29539
29139
29539
29539
29539
26827
29519
412C6
29539
29539
26827
41206
26827
29139
26827
33782
33782
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
29539
41206
2682?
29539
29539
29539
26827
                     19

-------
                  M»fS Pftmblc Economic  inpaet Analysts Cost Data
PLANT
NUMBER
4043
4044
4 046
4047
4048
4Q5Q
4052
4057
4064
4066
4D70
4072
TQUL
CAPITAL COSTS
328*68
1S37178
0
465914
0
831784
0
ass id*
0
0
843829
924001
TOTAL
DIM COSTS
34584
1758914
0
94418
0
7*09?
0
74771
D
0
74064
171007
TOT At
LAND COSTS
1744
19641
0
1881
0
2326
0
1254?
c
0
40U
10711
CAPITAL
SLUOBf COSTS
«794
191869
C
16749
0
353(5
0
6588
0
0
15i3
71S8
OIK
SLUDCf
2C200
41322
0
3607
0
762
0
141t
0
0
33?
1Si3
CQKT1UCT
KMJLINi COSTS
0
0
44530
0
2404i
0
133590
0
22261
935 13
0
0
• •<•( •>••••••<• ti ii <•
ANNUAL
MOM I TOil MS COSTS
29S39
29539
33712
19539
26827
2612?
26127
2612?
2fS3f
29S»
33712
29139
4034*6494
13MWW
                             9II19K
21347941
48S01ia
                                                                           10344W1
                                                                              11442458
                                                  20

-------
              APPENDIX m-E

BPT, BAT, AND PSES TECHNOLOGIES COSTED FOR
    THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS COST DATA

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
.........
1
12
15
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
159
177
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
2SB
BU CAC

2SB

CAC
BU CAC
AS
CH

CAC
CH
CAC

AS
2SB
BU CAC


AS
2SB
2SB

AS


2SB
BU
AS
2SB

BU CAC




BU CAC
AS
BU CAC

CAC
AS
AS
AS
2SB

-------
  TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
        FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
          AS
          AS
          AS
485
486
488
500
518
523
525
569
580
601
602
608
614
633
657
659
662
663
664
669 }
682 j
683 1
695 |
709 I
727 j
741 |
758 j
775 j
802 1
811 j
814 j
825 |
844 j
851 I
859 j
866 j
871 |
876 j  AS
883 |
888 (
908 i
909 I
913 1
938
942
               2SB
                      BU   CAC
                      BU
                      BU   CAC
                      BU   CAC
               2SB
        BU

        BU

        BU
        BU
          AS
          AS
               2SB
               2SB
CAC

CAC

CAC

CAC


CAC

CAC
                      BU   CAC
                           CAC
                      BU   CAC
                                 CTPP
                                        CH
                                 CTPP
          AS
                      BU

                      BU
             CAC
               2SB
               2SB
                           CAC
                           CAC
          AS
          AS

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
948
962
970
973
984
990
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTED

AS


BU

AS
BU



BU

BU
2SB

BU
BU
BU





BU

2SB
2SB
AS




AS


BU

AS

BU
2SB

BU
2SB


CAC

GAG


CAC





CAC


CAC

CAC
CAG



CAC






CAC





CAC


CAC
CAC












CTPP
CH










CTPP
CTPP










CTPP




CTPP








-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1
| PLANT
| NUMBER
[ 1532
I 1569
j 1572
| 1609
j 1616
1 1617
| 1618
J 1624
t 1643
i 1647
| 1650
j 1656
| 1670
j 1684
] 1688
I 1695
I 1698
1 1714
| 1717
I 1724
i 1753
| 1766
| 1769
| 1774
| 1785
1 1802
J 1839
| 1869
| 1877
| 1881
| 1890
I 1905
j 1910
| 1911
| 1928
{ 1937
I 1943
I 1973
| 1977
| 1986
| 2009
J 2020
| 2026
| 2030
j 2047
BPT TECHNOLOGY
AS
CAC
BU CAC
2SB
2SB
2SB

2SB
CAC
2SB
CAC
2SB
CH
CTPP
AS

2SB
CAC
BU CAC

BU CAC
2SB
CTPP

CAC
2SB
AS
1
1
| 2SB
BU CAC
1
1
j BU CAC
1 AS
I
I BU ]
I
j BU CAC
AS
2SB
| BU CAC
j BU CAC
J CAC
| AS

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED HITH BPT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1
PLANT
NUMBER
2049
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
| 2376
| 2390
2394
2399
; 2400
| 2419
2429
| 2430
| 2445
| 2447
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CAC
AS
AS
CTPP |
AS
2SB
1
CAC |
2SB 1
2SB j
AS


2SB
2SB
2SB
1
2SB
AS
BU CAC


CAC
2SB
2SB
CTPP


CTPP
AS
2SB

CAC
BU CAC
2SB
BU
2SB 1
2SB I
BU CAC
AS
AS |
1
1
BU CAC |
I 1

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
	
2450
2461
2471
2474
| 2481
[ 2527
i 2528
| 2531
} 2533
I 2536
| 2537
1 2541
| 2551
I 2556
1 2573
[ 2590
I 2592
| 2626
| 2631
| 2633
J 2647
| 2668
1 2673
j 2671
I 2692
J 2693
\ 2695
1 2701
| 2711
| 2735
| 2739
I 2763
J 2764
J 2767
1 2770
| 2771
| 2781
| 2786
j 2795
J 2816
I 2818
1 3033
| 4002
] 4010
} 4017
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTE0

BU CAC

2SB

AS
AS
AS
AS

2SB
2SB

CAC
AS

BU CAC


2SB
AS
AS
2SB
2SB

2SB

BU CAC
AS
1
2SB
1
CAC

; AS
| AS
1
| AS
[ CAC
[
2SB
| 2SB
| 2SB
I AS
1

-------
    TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BPT COST
          FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
| PLANT
] NUMBER
1.. .......
1 4018
1 4021
I 4037
I 4040
| 4051
| 4055
BPT TECHNOLOGY COSTED


BU

2SB
Btl CAC
I
NOTES:
       AS
      2SB
       BU
      CAC
     CTPP
       CH
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
SECONDARY STAGE BIOLOGICAL
BIOLOGICAL UPGRADES
CHEMICALLY ASSISTED CLARIFICATIOH
CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF POLISHING PON
CONTRACT HAULING

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BAT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
1
12
15
61
63
76
83
87
101
102
105
112
114
154
159
177
183
190
205
225
227
250
254
259
260
267
269
284
294
296
301
352
384
387
392
394
399
412
415
443
444
446
447
451
481
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS CN BP
CPU
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
SS BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SSU AC CN BP
CH
CP SS BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
SS BP
CPU AC CN BP
CP AC BP
CP CN BP
SS
CP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS CN BP
BP
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP BP
CP SS BP
CP
SS
SS
CPU
SS BP
CP SS BP
CP SS AC CN
BP
CP SS BP
CP SS CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BAT COST
      TOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
f
I
i
1
I
1
I
I
i
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
I
t
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
PLANT
NUMBER
485
486
488
500
518
523
525
569
5iO
602
608
614
633
65?
651
662
663
664
669
682
683
695
709
727
741
758
775
802
811
814
825
844
851
859
866
871
876
883
888
908
909
913
938
942
948
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTEO
CPU SS AC CN IP
CP SS CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
CP
CP SS AC CN BP
CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
IP
CM
SS
CP
CP SS BP
CP B?
SS
CP SS IP
CP SS
CP SS
CM
CP
CP SS IP
CPU IP
CH
Cf
MONITORING ONLY
MONITORING ONLY
CPU SS
CP
ONLY
CP SS CN IP
CP SS
MONITORING ONLY
SS CN IF
IP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS IP
CP SSU BP
CH
IP
CP SS IP

-------
TECHNOLOCIES ASSOCIATED UITH BAT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
962
970
973
984
990
992
1012
1020
1033
1038
1059
1061
1062
1067
1133
1137
1139
1148
1149
1157
1203
1241
1249
1267
1299
1319
1323
1327
1340
1343
1348
1349
1389
1407
1409
1414
1438
1439
1446
1464
1494
1520
1522
1524
1532
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP SS
CP
CP CN
CP
CP
SS
CP
cp

CP
CPU
CP CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP

CP
SS
CP
SS

CP
CP
CP SS CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS CN
CP SS CN
CP SS
CP SS AC
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS
CP SS
SS
CP
CP SS AC
AC
SS
CP SS AC
CF SS AC CN
CPU SS
CP
CP


BF





CH
BP



BP
BF
BF
BP


CH

BP
BP



BP
BP
BF





BF


BF



BF


BP
                    10

-------
TICHMOLQCIIS ASSOCIATI8 WITH BAT
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1
PLANT BAT TECHNOLOGY
NUM1IR
1569 CP SS
1572 ere
1609 CP SS
1616 CP
1617
1618
1624
1643
1647
1650
16S6
1670
1684
1688
1695
1698
1714
1717
1724
1753
1766
1769
1774
1785
1802
1839
1869
1877
1881
1890
1905
1910
1911
1928
1937
1943
1973
1977
1966
2009
2020
2026
2030
2047
2049
SS
SS
CP SS
MONITORING OSLY
CP SS
CP SS CN
MONITORING COSTS ONL₯

'
CP
CP SS
SS
CP SS
CP
CP SS AC
CP
CP
ere ss AC
CP
ere ssu
CP
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC CN
CP
CP CH
CP
cp AC or
CP
CP SS
CP SS AC CH
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
SS
CTO SS AC CN
CP
CP CM
II




BP



BP

CH
BP CH
BP
BP



BP




BP



BP

BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP




BP


BP
BP

                  11

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BAT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
2055
2062
2073
2090
2110
2148
2181
2193
2198
2206
2221
2222
2227
2228
2236
2242
2254
2268
2272
2281
2292
2296
2307
2313
2315
2316
2322
2328
2345
2353
2360
2364
2365
2368
2376
2390
2394
2399
2400
2419
2429
2430
2445
2447
2450
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
CP SS BP
CN
CP BP
CP CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CH
CP
SS BP
CP SS
CP
CP SS
CP SS
CP BP
CP SS
CP BP
CP SS AC BP
CP SS BP
CP AC BP
CPU SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP CN
CP SS AC CN BP
CP SS AC CN BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP
SS BP
CP
SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
BP
CP BP
CPU SS AC CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
CPU
CP SS
                  12

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BAT COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
2461
2471
2474
2481
2527
2528
2531
2533
2536
2537
2541
2551
2556
2573
2590
2592
2626
2631
2633
2668
2673
2678
2692
2693
2695
2701
2711
2735
2739
2763
2764
2767
2770
2771
2781
2786
2795
2816
2818
3033
4002
4010
4017
4018
4021
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED
CP BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CPU SS CN BP
CP SS
CP CN BP
CP SS BP
SS
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP
CP SS AC CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS CN BP
CP SS BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS BP
CP
CPU
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS
SS
SS
CP SS BP
CPU CN
CP
CP
CP BP
CP SS
SS
CP SS AC CN BP
CP BP
CP SS
CP IP
BP
BP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP SS AC CN BP
CP CN BP
                 13

-------
    TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH BAT COST
          FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1 1
| PLANT |
| NUMBER |
| 4037 | CP
| 4040 |
| 4051 [ CP
| 4055 |
1
BAT TECHNOLOGY COSTED |
1
____._...._._.__._._ ____._. ~ t
	 I
SS AC CN BP |
SS CN BP |
1
AC BP |
NOTES:
       CP  - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
       CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
       SS  - STEAM STRIPPING
       SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
       AC  - ACTIVATED CARBON
       CN  - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
       BP  - IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL
       CH  - CONTRACT HAULING
                       14

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH FSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
2
5
10
22
30
33
49
51
52
58
71
72
79
88
93
94
110
111
119
120
122
143
149
155
158
161
162
163
166
180
196
199
203
206
209
212
214
220
221
232
240
244
249
257
262
266
PSES
CP

CP
CP

CP

CP
CP
TECHNOLOGY COSTED

SS
SS
SS
SS

SS
SS
SS
MONITORING

CPU



ssu
SS

MONITORING
CP
CP


CP

CP
CP
CP

CP

CP


CP


CPU
SS
SS

SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS

SS


SS

SS
SS
MONITORING
CPU
CP

CP

CP

SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
MONITORING
CP
CP
CP
CP
SS

SS
SS



AC

AC

AC

COSTS

AC


COSTS
AC
AC





AC


AC

AC
AC

AC
AC


COSTS






COSTS

AC
AC








CN

ONLY

CN


ONLY

CN




CN
CN
CN

CN

Of


CN



ONLY






ONLY


CN



BP
BP

BP

BP



BP
BP


BP
BP

BP
BP


BP
BP

BP

BP


BP


BP

BP
BP
BF
BP

BF

BP

BP
BP
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
\
CH {
1
1
CH [
I
I
1
CH 1
1
i
1
1
I
I
CH }
1
CH j
1
1
CH \
1
1
i
i
t
CH |
1
1
I
[
I
1
1
i
1
I
                     15

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH      COS1
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
[ PLANT
| NUMBER
1
I 276
I 283
| 285
1 292
| 293
| 297
[ 299
| 302
1 310
I 321
I 326
| 334
] 34S
[ 354
1 357
I 417
| 423
| 428
1 430
1 433
1 438
} 449
j 451
J 458
1 468
| 492
| 494
f 502
| 508
| 522
| 529
I 536
J 543
| 544
j 567
j 592
] 60S
| 607
[ 611
] 618
j 624
| 65S
| 661
1 667
| 702
j 706
TECHNOLOGY CQSTID





f
1
I


I
1
1
I
1

1
!
I



CP
CfU
CP
CF



CP
CF
ss
SSTJ

SS
SS


ss
SS
SS
SS
SS
HQNITQRIIG
CP

SS

HONITORING
CP

CP
CP

SS

SS
SS
SS
MOHITORINS
1

1
1
1
1
I
1
!
]
t
1
t
1
1
i
I
i
i
i
i
i

i


CP




Cf

Cf


CF


CF
CP

CF
CP
CF




SS
SS

ssu


SS
SS
SS
SS

SS
SS

SS
SS

SS
SS
SS

ssu
SS



AC





AC

COSTS
AC

COSTS



AC

costs







AC

AC


AC


AC
AC



AC





CK
CK





m

QNLI


QNLf


CK
CN

ONLY

CN
CH




CM

CM





CM
CN



CH



IP


IP



IF

IP
IP

IP




IP
IP
IP


IP
IP
IP
IP


BP

BP
IF

BP
BP

BP
BP

BP
BP
BP


BP

CI


CI








CH


CH |




CH


CH

CH
CH




CH


CH


CH



CH


                   16

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSQCIATE& WITH fSIS COSf
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
I PLANT J
j miMBER |
j _ „ _______ t ,
I 	 ** r
I 717 t
I 720 1
j 722 |
I 724 j
I 743 |
1 749 I
{ 768 ]
| 771 |
| 777 |
1 791 {
1 796 1
1 797 |
1 814 |
1 81S |
1 *30 |
1 84S 1
1 846 |
1 862 |
1 874 |
j 880 |
1 877 (
1 887 |
1 90S 1
} 912 I
J 917 1
{ 929 t
j 931 |
1 932 1
1 9*4 t
1 956 I
i 95S i
J 975 I
I 97ft |
\ 987 |
| 988 |
I 991 i
t 992 i
1 997 I
) 1006 {
l 1011 i
! 1018 {
) 1026 {
[ 1047 J
i 1052 [
| 1053 t
1 1057 i
PSES


CF

CF
CP
CF
CF



CF
CP
CF

CP

CF
CP

CP
CF
CPU

CP





TECHNOLOGY

ss
SS CN
SS
SS AC
SS
SS AC CN
AC

SS

SS AC CM
SS CN
SS AC CM

AC

SS AC
SS

SS AC CM
SS
SS AC


SS





BF


BP
BF
BF
BP
BF

BF

IP
BF
BF
BP


BF


BP
BP
BF





§P










CH

CH



CH

CH


CH



CH


CH
CH
CH
CH
HOHITORINC COST ONLY






CP
CP
CP
CP


CP
CP

SS
SS



SS
SS
AC

SS CN

SS
SS
SS



BP


BP



BP

BP
BP
BP
BP


CH
CH
CH





CH



CH
                      17

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
1064
1069
1076
1083
1085
1086
1091
1094
1107
1117
1126
1162
1163
1172
1173
1175
1181
1188
1191
1194
1195
1197
1202
1219
1220
1223
1224
1234
1236
1237
1249
1253
1255
1264
1277
1310
1313
1314
1320
1322
1326
1351
1352
1356
1357
1361
PSES

CP

CP


CP



CPU

CP



CP
CP
CP

TECHNOLOGY COSTED



SS

SS
SS AC CN
AC
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS CN
SS


AC
SS
SS AC CH
SS




BP
BP
BP
BP
BP

BP
BF

BP
BP
BF

BP

BP
BP

CH

CH

CH



CH





CH
CH



CH
MONITORING COST OMLY
CP



CP


CP

CP


CP
CP
CP

ss
SS
AC
SS

AC
SS
SS
SS
SS CN
SS
SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS

BP
BP
BP
BP


BP
BP
BP
BP


BP

BP
BP















CH
MONITORING COST ONLY

CP

CP

CP
CPU
CP
SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN

SS AC CN
SS
SS AC CM
BP
BF
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
CH



CH



                    18

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
1371
13S6
1426
1432
1433
1437
1450
1478
1504
1507
1528
1534
1535
1539
1548
1556
1560
1562
1564
1566
1575
1593
1595
1601
1608
1621
1622
1628
1645
1653
1657
1659
1666
1667
1706
1716
1718
1740
1742
1743
1744
1748
1751
1764
1773
1788
PSES
	 . 	

CP
CP



CP
CP


CPU

CP


CP
CP



TECHNOLOGY COSTED



SS

SS

SS AC
SS
SS
SS
SS

SS

SS
SS AC
SS



MONITORING COST


CP
CP
CP
CP
CP

CP
CP
CP
CP

CP

CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP
CP


SS

SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC
SS
SS
ssu
SS AC
SS AC
SS
SS
SS AC

ssu
SS
SS
SS AC
SS AC

SS
SS
SS


CM


CN

CN








CN




DULY

CN
CN


CN
CN

CN
CN
CN


CN



CN
CN







BP
BP

BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BF
BP




BP



BP

BP

BP

BP
BP
BP

BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP




BP

BP

BP
BP
CH
CH


CH

CH





CH

CH



CH
CH
CH















CH





CH



f
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
\
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
j
i
i
f
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
f
I
i
i
i
                   19

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
1793
1797
1801
1805
1808
1812
1826
1832
1833
1838
1843
1848
1853
1861
1876
1887
1888
1891
1894
1899
1904
1924
1931
1936
1945
1948
1970
1971
1974
1988
1993
2001
2004
2007
2018
2022
2033
2037
2050
2057
2070
2075
2080
2084
2093
2108
1

1
1



i
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
PSIS
CP
TECHNOLOGY COSTED
SS AC CN

IP


MONITORING COSTS ONLY
CP



CP

CP


CPU
CP
CP
CP



CP
CP
CP

CP
CP



CF
SS
SS


SS AC CN
SS
SS


CN
SS CN
CN
SS AC CN


SS
SS AC CN
SS
SS
SS
SS
AC
SS
SS
SS
SS




BP
BP




BP

BP


BP
BP
BP
BP

BP




BP


CH
CH



CH
CH
CH



CH
CH











| MONITORING COSTS ONLY
1
1
1
1
1
f
1
J
1
1
1
J
1
\
I
1




CP
CP


CP


CP
CP
CP

CP

SS
SS
SS
SS AC CN
AC


SS

SS
SS AC CK
SS

SS
SS

BP

BP
BP



BP


BP


BP
BP
CH
CH




CH
CH

CH






| MONITORING COSTS ONLY
                  20

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
1
1
t
I
1
i
1
1
!
!
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
i
I
t
i
i
i
I
i
t
i
PLANT
NUMBER
2117
2123
2129
2147
2176
2177
2184
2191
2214
2232
2241
2243
2250
2253
2259
2261
2262
2288
2293
2300
2311
2318
2341
2346
2348
2350
23S9
2402
2411
2426
2432
2436
2442
2459
2462
2465
2469
2485
2487
249S
2498
2501
2507
2517
2521
2524
PSES TECHNOLOGY CQSTED
CP SS
CP
CP SS AC CN

CP SS
SS
SS CN
MONITORING COSTS ONLY

CP SS CN
CP SS
CP SS AC CN
CF SS

CP SS AC
CP SS AG

SS
SS
cp ss
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS
CP
CP AC
CP SS AC
SS

CP
MONITORING COSTS ONLY
AC
CP
CP SS AC
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS AC CN
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS AC
CP SS
CP SS
CP SS
MONITORING COSTS DULY
CP SS

CP SS

IP

BP

BP

BP


BP
BP
BP
BP

BP
EP

BP
BP

BP
BP
BP

BP
BP






BP


BP
BP
BP
BP

BP


BP

BP
1
i
i
i
I
CH I
I
1
I
\
CH |
1
i
1
1
CH 1
1
i
CH I
CH I
1
I
\
I
i
I
1
1
I
CH |
1
1
i
{
1
t
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
CM 1
!
I
CH I
i
                  21

-------
TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
      FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS
PLANT
NUMBER
2539
2548
2565
2571
2578
2581
2606
2608
2609
2634
2635
2636
2641
2642
2646
2647
2666
2677
2679
2680
2685
2699
2714
2736
2741
2748
2756
2776
2779
2793
2794
2796
2805
2810
2814
4001
4003
4006
4007
4008
4009
4014
4022
4023
4024
4026
PSES
CP
CP
CP

TECHNOLOGY COSTED
SS
SS
SS

MONITORING



CP

CP
CP


CP





SSU
SS
SS

SS
MONITORING

CP
CP
CP


CP

CP

CP
CP



SS
SS

SS
SS

SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

MONITORING
MONITORING


CP
CP
CP

CP

CP


SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

SSU
MONITORING

CP
CP
SS

SS
AC
AC
AC

COSTS




AC





COSTS

AC

AC

AC




AC
AC


AC
COSTS
COSTS


AC

AC




COSTS


AC

CN


ONLY










ONLY

CN

CN






CN
CN



ONLY
ONLY




CN

CN


ONLY


CN
BP
BP
BF







BP



BF

BP
BP




BP
BP
BP
BP
BP
BP

BP





BP

BP
BP
BP

BP


BP
BP



CH

CH
CH
CH





CH



















CH
CH





CH



CH

                  22

-------
    TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATED WITH PSES COST
          FOR THE PREAMBLE ANALYSIS  ,
PLANT
NUMBER
4027
4032
4042
4043
4044
4046
4047
4046
4050
4052
4057
4064
4066
4070
4072
PSES TECHNOLOGY
CP SS
CP SS AC
MONITORING COSTS
CP
CP SS AC

cp ssu

CP SS

CP SS


CP SS
CP SS AC
COSTED
CN
CN
ONLY

CN

CN







CN

BP
BP


BP

BP

BP

BP


BP
BP






CH

CH

CH

CH
CH


NOTES:
       CP  - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION
       CPU - CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION UPGRADES
       SS  - STEAM STRIPPING
       SSU - STEAM STRIPPING UPGRADES
       AC  - ACTIVATED CARBON
       CN  - CYANIDE DESTRUCTION
       BP  - IN-PLANT BIOLOGICAL
       CH  - CONTRACT HAULING
                      23

-------