United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4303)
EPA 821 -R-94-004
March 1994
&EPA
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards For The
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging,
And Repackaging Industry
-------
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Industry
Dr. Lynne G. Tudor, Economist
Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch
Engineering amd Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The most credit must be given to Janet Goodwin for her knowledge, experience,
cooperation, and leadership as project officer, and to Shari Zuskin and the whole pesticide
team for their professional manner, conscientious effort, and contributions.
Credit must also be given to Abt Associates for their assistance and support in
performing the underlying analysis supporting the conclusions detailed in this report Their
study was performed under Contracts 68-CO-0080 and 68-C3-0302. Particular thanks are
given to Michael Fisher and Robert Sartain.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 1: Introduction .
Section 2: Methodology '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 21
Section 3: Results Using Original 272 PAIs 31
Qo/*<-ir\n A ~D A««i1*n T Jf,««~_ A J j :.*.: i ». T m-it^ **>** »*« «j.i.
4.1
Section 4: Results Using Additional Non-272 PAIs
Section 5: Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Values wjth Promulgated Rules '"'''''' ]!'j
Appendix A: Original 272 Pesticide Active Ingredients Considered for Regulation '.'' " A 1
Appendix B: Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients B 1
Appendix C: Results of Compliance with the Existing 1978 BPT Regulation C 1
Appendix D: Sensitivity Analysis of POTW Removal Efficiency ... D'l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Weighting Factors Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria 2.3
Table 2: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES,
Subcategory C Facilities 3.1
Table 3: Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under PSES,
Subcategory C Facilities 3-2
Table 4: Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under PSES,
Disaggregated by Primary Market, Subcategory C Facilities 3.4
Table 5: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES,
Subcategory E Facilities 3.6
Table 6: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES of Option 3/S',
Considering Non-272 PAI Costs but not Non-272 PAI Removals,
Subcategory C Facilities 4.1
Table 7: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES of Option 3/S',
Considering Non-272 PAI Costs and Removals, Subcategory C Facilities 4.2
Table 8: Industry Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only) Copper Based Weights 5.2
Table B-l: Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients B.2
Table C-l: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under BPT,
Subcategory C Facilities c>1
Table C-2: Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under BPT,
Subcategory C Facilities C-2
Table D-l: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES,
Subcategory C Facilities, Assuming 50 percent POTW Removal Efficiency for PAIs . . . D.2
Table D-2: Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under PSES,
Subcategory C Facilities, Assuming 50 percent POTW Removal Efficiency for PAIs . . . D.3
Table D-3: National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES,
Subcategory E Facilities, Assuming 50 percent POTW Removal Efficiency for PAIs . . . D.4
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This analysis is submitted in support of the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (PFPR) Industry. The report analyzes the
cost-effectiveness of six alternative Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) regulatory options
for Subcategory C facilities based on the original 272 pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) studied for
regulation. An additional Subcategory C PSES option covering all PAIs (except sodium hypochlorite)
is analyzed. Also, two PSES regulatory options for Subcategory E facilities are evaluated.
Section 2 of the report defines cost-effectiveness, discusses the cost-effectiveness methodology,
and describes the relevant regulatory options. Section 3 presents the findings of the analysis covering
only the original 272 PAIs. Section 4 provides the results of the analysis of the option including non-272
PAIs. In Section 5, the cost-effectiveness values are compared to cost-effectiveness values for other
promulgated rules. Four appendices are also included. Appendix A lists the original 272 pesticide active
ingredients on which this analysis is based. Appendix B lists the toxic weighting factors for these 272
PAIs. Appendix C describes the cost-effectiveness results for direct discharging facilities to comply with
the existing Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) regulation. Finally,
Appendix D provides a sensitivity analysis of POTW removal efficiencies for PAIs.
-------
-------
Section 2
Methodology
This section defines cost-effectiveness, describes the steps taken in the cost-effectiveness analysis,
and characterizes the regulatory options considered in the analysis.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used hi setting effluent limitations guidelines to compare the
efficiency of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory option. Cost-
effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of a pollution control option in an industry or
industry subcategory per incremental pollutant removal, The increments considered are relative to
another option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment, Pollutant removals are measured in copper-
based "pounds-equivalent," The cost-effectiveness value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing
the next pound-equivalent of pollutant. While not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness
analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic pollutants. Cost-
effectiveness analysis is not intended to analyze the removal of conventional pollutants (oil and grease,
biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids). The removal of conventional pollutants is
therefore not addressed in this report,
Three factors are of particular importance in cost-effectiveness calculations: (1) the normalization
of pounds of pollutant removed to copper-based pounds-equivalent; (2) the incremental nature of cost-
effectiveness, and (3) the fact that cost-effectiveness results are used for comparison purposes rather than
on an absolute basis. First, the analysis is based on removals of pounds-equivalent - a term used to
describe a pound of pollutant weighted by its toxicity relative to copper. These weights are known as
toxic weighting factors. Copper is used as the standard pollutant for developing toxic weighting factors
because it is a toxic metal commonly released in industrial effluent and removed from that effluent. The
use of pounds-equivalent reflects the fact that some pollutants are more toxic than others. Also, by
expressing removals in common terms, the removals can be summed across pollutants to give a
meaningful basis for comparing cost-effectiveness results among alternative regulatory options or different
regulations.
Second, cost-effectiveness analysis is done on an incremental basis to compare the incremental
or marginal cost and removals of one control option to another control option or to existing treatment.
2.1
-------
The third point is that no absolute scales exist for judging cost-effectiveness values. The values
are considered high or low only within a given context, such as similar discharge status or compared to
effluent limitations guidelines for other industries.
Cost-effectiveness analysis involves a number of steps, which may be summarized as follows:
Determine the relevant wastewater pollutants;
Estimate the relative toxic weights of priority and other pollutants;
Define the pollution control approaches;
Calculate pollutant removals for each control option;
Determine the annualized cost of each control option;
Rank the control options by increasing stringency and cost;
Calculate incremental cost-effectiveness values; and
Compare cost-effectiveness values.
These steps are discussed below.
Pollutant Discharges Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Some of the factors considered in selecting pollutants for regulation include toxicity, frequency
of occurrence, and amount of pollutant in the wastestream. The cost-effectiveness of the Pesticide
Formulator, Packager, and Repackager (PFPR) effluent limitations guidelines is based on 272 pesticide
active ingredients (PAIs). A list of these pollutants is shown in Appendix A. Because priority pollutants
generally do not appear in PFPR wastewater, no priority pollutants are included in the analysis.
Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants
Cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among the regulated pollutants by
using toxic weighting factors (TWFs). These factors are necessary because different pollutants have
different potential effects on human and aquatic life. For example, a pound of nickel (TWF=0.036) in
an effluent stream has significantly less potential effect than a pound of cadmium (TWF=5.12). The
toxic weighting factors are used to calculate the pound-equivalent unit - a standardized measure of
toxicity.
2.2
-------
In the majority of cases, toxic weighting factors are derived from both chronic freshwater aquatic
criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the
consumption of fish.1 These factors are then standardized by relating them to copper.2 The resulting
toxic weighting factors for each PAI are provided in Appendix B, Some examples of the effects of
different aquatic and human health criteria on weighting factors are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Weighting Factors Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria
Pollutant
Copper**
Hexavalent
Chromium
Nickel
~
Cadmium
Benzene
Human
Health
Criteria*
fog/1)
3,400
4,600
170
12
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria
fc«/l)
12.0
11.0
160.0
1.1
265.0
Weighting
Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/3,400 + 5.6/11
5.6/4,600 + 5.6/160
5.6/170 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/12 + 5.6/265
Toxtc
Weighting
Factor
0.467
0.511
0.036
5.12
0.488
Criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Using the above calculation, the greater
the values for the criteria used, the lower the toxic weighting factor, Units for criteria are
micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.
* Based on ingestion of 6,5 grams of fish per day.
** While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 ng/1), the cost-
effectiveness analysis uses the old criterion (5.6 /tg/1) to facilitate comparisons with cost-
effectiveness values for other effluent limitations guidelines. The revised higher criteria for
copper results in a toxic weighting factor for copper not equal to 1.0 but equal to 0.467.
*A complete discussion of the development of the toxic weighting factors can be found in Toxic Weighting
Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients and Priority Pollutants Final Report, July 13, 1993, located in the
Administrative Record.
2While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 j»g/l), the cost-effectiveness analysis uses
the old criterion (5.6 /tg/1) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations
guidelines. The revised higher criterion for copper results hi a toxic weighting factor for copper equal to 0.467,
not 1.0.
2.3
-------
As indicated in Table 1, the toxic weighting factor is the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios:
the "old" copper criterion divided by the human health criterion for the particular pollutant, and the "old"
copper criterion divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using the values reported in
Table 1, 10.96 pounds of copper pose the same relative hazard in surface waters as one pound of
cadmium, since cadmium has a toxic weight 10.96 times (5.12/0.467 = 10.96) as large as the toxic
weight of copper.
Pollution Control Options
This analysis considers the cost-effectiveness of a Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources
(PSES) regulation applicable to indirect discharging facilities. Two Subcategories of facilities are
examined: Subcategory C (Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Facilities), and
Subcategory E (Refilling Establishments). Six PSES regulatory options are evaluated for Subcategory
C facilities, and two PSES options are evaluated for Subcategory E facilities. The six options examined
for Subcategory C facilities are as follows:
Option 1 consists of end-of-pipe treatment for the entire wastewater volume now
generated by PFPR facilities through the Universal Treatment System3 and discharge to
POTWs.
Option 2 adds pollution prevention by recycling wastewaters generated from cleaning the
interiors of formulating and packaging equipment and raw material and shipping
containers into the product to recover product value in the wastewaters. Other
wastewaters are still expected to be treated through the Universal Treatment System and
discharged to POTWs.
Option 3 employs the same technology and pollution prevention practices as Option 2
but achieves zero discharge of all process wastewater by recycling the wastewater back
to the facility after treatment through the Universal Treatment System.
3The Universal Treatment System consists of chemical emulsion breaking, hydrolysis, chemical oxidation,
sulfide precipitation and activated carbon filtration treatment technologies.
2.4
-------
Option 3/S corresponds to Option 3 except that certain non-interior source wastewater
streams are exempted from the regulatory requirements. Specifically, for facilities that
process sanitizer chemicals, the zero discharge requirement would not apply to physically
separate, non-interior wastewater streams that contain only six sanitizer. chemicals.
These non-interior wastewater streams include exterior equipment and floor wash, leak
and spill cleanup, safety equipment rinsate, contaminated precipitation run-off, laboratory
wastewater, air pollution control wastewater, and DOT test bath water. The zero
discharge requirement would apply to the interior wastewater streams of these facilities
including discharge from cleaning the interiors of drum/shipping containers, bulk
containers, and other equipment.
Option 4 incorporates the pollution prevention aspects of Options 2 and 3, but instead
of treatment, adds off-site disposal to an incinerator of the rest of the wastewater.
Option 5 disposes of all wastewater through off-site incineration.
The two options considered for Subcategory E facilities are:
Option 1 assumes that contaminated wastewater is used as make-up water in the
application of pesticide chemicals to the field.
Option 2 disposes of wastewater through off-site incineration.
Calculation of Pollutant Removals
The reductions in pollutant loadings to the receiving water body were calculated for each control
option. At-stream and end-of-pipe pollutant removals may differ because a portion of the end-of-pipe
loadings for indirect dischargers may be removed by the POTW. As a result, the at-stream removal of
*
pollutants due to PSES regulations are considered to be less than end-of-pipe removals. The cost-
effectiveness analysis is based upon removals at-stream. >
For example, if a facility is discharging 100 pounds of cadmium in its effluent stream to a POTW
and the POTW has a removal efficiency for cadmium of 38 percent, then the cadmium discharged to
2.5
-------
surface waters is only 62 pounds. If a regulation results in a reduction of cadmium in the effluent stream
to 50 pounds, then the amount discharged to surface waters is calculated as 50 pounds multiplied by the
POTW removal efficiency factor (1 - 0.38, or 0.62). Cost-effectiveness calculations reflect the fact that
the actual reduction of pollutant discharge to surface waters is not 50 pounds (the change in the amount
discharged to the POTW), but 31 pounds (= 62 - 31), the change in the amount ultimately discharged
to surface waters.4
Annualized Costs for Each Control Option
Full details of the methods by which the costs of complying with the regulatory options were
estimated can be found in the Technical Development Document. A brief summary of the compliance
cost analysis is provided below.
Two categories of compliance costs were analyzed: (1) capital costs, and (2) operating and
maintenance costs (including sludge disposal and self-monitoring costs). Although capital costs are one-
time "lump sum" costs, operating and maintenance costs occur annually. The capital equipment is
conservatively estimated to have a productive life of ten years. Using a real weighted average cost of
capital, the capital costs are amortized to account for the cost of financing the investment (through equity
and debt) over the ten-year period.5 Total annualized costs are equal to annualized capital costs plus
operating and maintenance costs. For ease of estimating costs, EPA assumed that non-manufacturing
PFPR facilities have no treatment in place. For the PFPR/manufacturing facilities, it is assumed that,
if possible, the facilities will build on existing treatment. The reported costs are the full costs of
compliance to society, some of which will be borne by the government in the form of decreased tax
receipts. The analysis therefore overstates the burden of the regulations on industry.
4POTW removal efficiencies are not available for PAIs and are assumed to be zero. A laboratory study of the
PAI removal performance that would be achieved by biotreatment at well-operated POTWs applying secondary
treatment is reported in the Domestic Sewage Study (see the Technical Development Document). However, the data
used for that analysis were derived under laboratory conditions, and therefore tend to overestimate POTW removal
efficiencies and are considered to be inappropriate for the cost-effectiveness analysis. A sensitivity analysis based
on 50 percent POTW removal efficiency for all PAIs is considered in Appendix D.
For details on the real weighted average cost of capital, see the discussion of the facility impact analysis in
Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pesticide Formulating,
Packaging, and Repackaging Industry (Thereafter the Proposed EIA).
2.6
-------
Compliance costs were estimated in terms of 1988 dollars. For the purpose of comparing cost-
effectiveness values of the options under review to those of other promulgated rules, the compliance costs
used in the cost-effectiveness analysis are deflated from to 1981 dollars using Engineering News Record's
Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment factor is:
Adjustment factor =
1981 CCI
1988 CCI
3535
4519
= 0.7823
Stringency and Cost Ranking
The regulatory options are ranked to determine relative cost-effectiveness. Options are first
ranked in increasing order of stringency, where stringency is aggregate pollutant removals, measured in
pounds-equivalent. If two or more options remove equal amounts of pollutants, these options are then
ranked in increasing order of cost. For example, if two or more options specify zero discharge, the
removals under each option would be equal. The options would then be ranked from least expensive to
most expensive.
Calculation of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Values
After the options have been ranked by stringency and cost, the incremental cost-effectiveness
values can be calculated. Cost-effectiveness values are calculated separately for Subcategories C and E.
For a given subcategory, the cost-effectiveness value of a particular option is calculated as the incremental
annual cost of that option divided by the incremental pounds-equivalent removed by that option.
Algebraically, this equation is:
CE ,
PEt -
where:
CEk
ATC
Cost-effectiveness of Option k;
Total annualized compliance cost under Option k; and
Removals in pounds-equivalent under Option k.
2.7
-------
The numerator of the equation is the incremental cost in going from Option k-1 to Option k. Similarly,
the denominator is the incremental removals associated with the move from Option k-1 to Option k.
Thus, cost-effectiveness values are measured in dollars per pound-equivalent of pollutant removed. The
incremental change can be from another regulatory option or from a baseline scenario.
Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values
Two types of comparisons are typically done using cost-effectiveness values. First, compliance
costs and pollutant removals may be plotted to derive a marginal cost curve to determine which options
offer the most cost-effective regulatory control. The cost-effectiveness value calculated in the move from
one option to another represents such a marginal cost curve. Second, the cost-effectiveness of regulatory
options incremental to the baseline scenario can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of controls
relative to previously promulgated effluent limitations guidelines for other industries.
2.8
-------
Section 3
Results Using Original 272 PAIs
The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on EPA's estimates of the full societal cost of compliance
and wastewater pollutant removals associated with six Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)
options for indirect discharging Subcategory C (Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, Repackaging Facilities)
and two PSES options for Subcategory E (Refilling Establishments).
Subcategory C
Table 2 presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds and total pounds-equivalent of
pollutants removed for the six options.
Table 3 '
National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES ,
StmCATEGOITC C FACILITIES
Option
Option I
Option a
Option 3/S
Option 3
Option 4*
Option 5*
Anmialuied
Cost, MM $
(198t dollare)
$25.4
$21.8
$20.4
$21.8
$224.1
$281.8
Pound
Removals
111,653
111,683
111,793
111,996
111,996
111,996
Pound-
Equivalent
Removals
12,127,075
12,127,666
12,134,031
12,134,051
12,134,051
12,134,051
These options result in additional costs with no additional removals.
Table 3 presents the incremental cost-effectiveness values for the six options considered for
Subcategory C. As the table shows, the cost-effectiveness of Option 1 is $2.10 per pound-equivalent of
pollutant removed. Option 1 is very cost-effective when compared to the cost-effectiveness values of
other effluent limitations guidelines. Movement from Option 1 to Option 2 and from Option 2 to Option
3/S is cost-effective relative to Option 1 because costs are reduced while removals increase. Movement
from Option 3/S to Option 3 is substantially less efficient than movement from Option 1 to Option 2 or
3.1
-------
from Option 2 to Option 3/S. The average cost-effectiveness of Option 3 is $1.79 per pound-equivalent
and for Option 3/S is $1.68. Options 4 and 5 are not cost-effective as they result in additional costs with
no additional removals relative to Option 3. Option 3/S is the most cost-effective option. Successive
improvements in weighted removals are achieved at progressively lower costs by moving from Option
1 through Option 2 to Option 3/S. Further movement from Option 3/S to Options 3, 4 or 5 provides
minor additional removals at substantially higher marginal cost.
Table 3 '',
Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under PSES
SDBCATEGORY C FACILITIES
Option
Incremental from Baseline to Option t
Incremental from Option 1 to Option 2
Incremental from Option 2 to Option 3/S
Incremental from Option 3/S to Option 3
Incremental from Option 3 to Option 4
Incremental from Option 4 to Option 5
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/lb,
$227.87
-$121,746*
-$12,513*
$6,790
undefined**
undefined**
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/Ib-eq.
$2.10
-$6,232*
-$215.86*
$71,252
undefined**
undefined**
Dollar values are in constant 1981 dollars.
* Options are ranked by increasing levels of pollutant removals. Negative cost-effectiveness
numbers mean that costs have decreased from the previous option, while removals have
increased, improving cost-effectiveness.
** These options result in additional costs with no additional removals. Therefore, the
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost/incremental removals) is undefined.
3.2
-------
EPA is not able to estimate cost-effectiveness values for the regulatory options by PAIs or groups
of PAIs for several reasons. First, wastestreams containing multiple PAIs are often commingled at PFPR
facilities. This commingling occurs because of the physical set-up of the PFPR lines and because
products are often made with more than one PAI. EPA estimated compliance costs on a facility-specific
basis, in part due to this commingling, therefore costs are not available at a PAI-specific level within a
facility.
EPA is able, however, to estimate cost-effectiveness values classifying facilities by their primary
markets. Question 19 of the Survey Introduction asked respondents to report the percentage of pesticide
revenue obtained from nine specific markets: agricultural, institutional/commercial, industrial, wood
preservatives, intermediate products, professional use, consumer home/lawn/garden, government use, and
additives. The analysis assumed that the market from which a facility received at least 50 percent of its
pesticide revenue is the primary market for that facility. The primary market a facility reports does not
necessarily relate to the PAIs used by that facility. Many PAIs appear hi products that have several uses,
and those products may be used in more than one market. Table 4 provides the estimated industry
incremental cost-effectiveness disaggregated by primary market. As the table illustrates, Option 3/S is
cost-effective when considered relative to other effluent guidelines.
3.3
-------
*»
a
i
S
i
1
.1
1
i
1
o
i
s
!
!
o
1
.1
I
inefficient*
*.
s
'S
00
s
o\
CO
8
6I9-
CO
00
GO-
VO
8
00
oo
vq
T i
6O-
s
*
*
ON
*
*
*
v-i
00
t-
#
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
-------
Subcategory E
Table 5 presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds, and total pounds-equivalent of pollutants
removed for the two options considered for Subcategory E facilities. Option 1, the proposed option, is expected to be
achieved with zero additional costs.
3.5
-------
'If* f ',^ >? r *' tj*
Tables - , '.."/-;
National Estimate Of Annualized Costs and Removals tinder PSES
jSUBCAIEGORY E FACILITJES
Option
Option 1
Option 2*
Annualized
Cost,
(1981 dollars)
$0
$1,507
Found
Removals
1.0
1.0
Pound-
Equivalent
Removals
1.3
1.3
"This option results in additional costs with no additional removals.
Because Option 1 is expected to be met with no additional compliance costs, its cost-effectiveness is zero. Option
2 requires additional costs but results in no additional removals, so its cost-effectiveness value is undefined. Therefore,
Option 1 is the more cost-effective option.
3.6
-------
Section 4
Results Using Additional Non-272 PAIs
EPA also estimated the cost-effectiveness of including under the proposed option all other PAIs not on the list
of 272 PAIs studied in detail. This section presents the estimated cost-effectiveness of including these additional PAIs
under the proposed PSES regulation for Subcategory C facilities. The regulatory option considered in this section is the
same as Option 3/S discussed in the preceding section, with the exception that its regulatory coverage is broadened to
include the additional non-272 PAIs. To distinguish the analysis of the proposed regulation including the non-272 PAIs
from the preceding analysis based only on the 272 PAIs, the following discussion refers to the regulation including
coverage of the additional non-272 PAIs as Option 3/S'.
Because toxic weighting factors are not available for the non-272 PAIs, two separate cost-effectiveness analyses
of Option 3/S' were performed. The first analysis assumes that no non-272 PAIs are removed from the wastestreams.
This is a highly conservative approach, because costs to treat the non-272 PAIs are included, but credit is not taken for
removal of those PAIs.6 The second analysis estimates an average toxic weighting factor for the non-272 PAIs based
on the toxic weighting factors of the original 272 PAIs. These analyses and results are discussed below.
Without Considering Non-272 PAI Removals
To conservatively estimate the cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S', EPA calculated the cost-effectiveness of the
option accounting for costs to remove non-272 PAIs but without considering the additional removals of non-272 PAIs.
Table 6 presents the total annualized compliance costs and removals under this assumption.
Table 6
National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES of Option
Considering Non-272 PAI Costs but not Non-272 PAI Removals
SUBCATEGORY C FACILITIES
Option
Annualized Cost,
MM $ (1981 dollars)
Pound Removals
Found-Equivalent
Removals
Option 3/S'
$43.9
111,793
12,134,031
6For a discussion of the compliance cost estimates under Option 3/S', see Chapter 12 of the EIA.
4.1
-------
Under this conservative assumption, the average cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S' is $3.62 per pound-equivalent.
Thus, Option 3/S' is very cost-effective when compared to the cost-effectiveness values of other effluent limitations
guidelines.
Considering Non-272 PAI Removals
A more realistic assessment of the cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S' would recognize the additional pollutant
removals achieved by the inclusion of the non-272 PAIs. Toxic weighting factors (TWFs) for these additional PAIs are
not available, however. To provide a surrogate for the TWFs for these PAIs, EPA assumed that the weighted average
toxicity of the pre-compliance loadings of non-272 PAIs is the same as that for pre-compliance loadings of the original
272 PAIs. Specifically, EPA estimated an weighted average TWF for the non-272 PAIs by dividing the pre-compliance
pound-equivalent loadings of 272 PAIs by the pre-compliance loadings in pounds. This ratio yielded a weighted average
TWF of 108.3436. The estimated pre-compliance loadings in pounds of non-272 PAIs was multiplied by this average
TWF to provide pre-compliance pound-equivalent loadings.
For the post-compliance analysis, all loadings are among the designated sanitizer PAIs, because Option 3/S'
specifies zero discharge of all PAIs other than the designated sanitizer PAIs. To estimate the toxic-weighted loadings
of the non-272 sanitizer PAIs hi post-compliance discharge, EPA assumed that the weighted average toxicity of these
loadings would be the same as the simple average of TWFs for the sanitizer PAIs among the original 272 PAIs.
Specifically, EPA multiplied the average TWF for 272 sanitizer PAIs (0.1953) by the post-compliance loadings of non-
272 sanitizer PAIs to estimate the pound-equivalent loadings of these PAIs. The quantity of pollutant removals due to
Option 3/S' was then calculated as the difference between the pre-compliance and post-compliance loadings. Table 7
presents the total and incremental estimates of compliance costs, pollutant removals, and cost-effectiveness, using these
average TWFs for non-272 PAIs.
4.2
-------
Table?
National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under JPSES of Option 37S%
Considering Non-272 PAX Costs and Removals
SUBCATEGORY FACILI33ES
Option
Option 3/S
Incremental From Option 3/S to
Option 3/iS'
Option 3/S'
Annualized Cost,
MM $ (1981
dollars)
$20.4
$23.5
$43.9
Pound
Removals
111,793
198,662
310,455
Found-
Equivalent
Removals
12,134,031
21,613,832
33,747,863
Cost-
Effectiveness, $
/ib-eq.
$1.68
$1.09
$1.30
Note: Toxicity of the non-272 PAIs is estimated as the average pre-compliance loading-weighted average toxicity
ofthe272PAIs.
As Table 6 indicates, Option 3/S' is very cost-effective when compared to the cost-effectiveness values of other
effluent limitations guidelines. Movement from Option 3/S to Option 3/S' is cost-effective; the incremental cost-
effectiveness value is $1.09 per pound-equivalent. The average cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S' is $1.30 per pound-
equivalent.
4.3
-------
-------
Section 5
Comparision of Cost-Effectiveness Values with Promulgated Rules
Table 8 illustrates the cost-effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines issued for indirect dischargers
in other industries. The proposed PSES rule for pesticide formulating, packaging, repackaging facilities is cost-effective
when compared to the cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations guidelines.
5.1
-------
Table 8
Industry Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for
Indirect Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only)
Copper Based Weights
(1981 Dollars)*
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Can Making
Coal Mining***
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics n
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonferrous Metals Mfg n
OCPSF
Pesticide Manufacturing
Pharmaceuticals
Plast. Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp & Paper *****
Pounds Equivalent
Currently Discharged
(To Surface Waters)
(OOO's)
1,602
1,152
252
N/A
2,503
34
75
260
2,136
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
89
3,187
38
5,210
257
340
N/A
1,565
9,539
Pounds Equivalent
Remaining at Selected
Option (To Surface Waters)
(OOO's)
18
5
5
N/A
10
4
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
5
19
0.41
72
19
63
N/A
96
103
Cost Effectiveness
Selected Option
Beyond BPT**
($/lb-eq. removed)
155
15
38
N/A**
10
10
14
14
116
9
****
6
111
10
90
15
12
34
18
1
N/A
14
65
* Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects
the cost-effectiveness at the time of regulation.
** N/A: Pretreatment Standards not promulgated, or no incremental costs will be incurred.
*** Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants
**** Less than a dollar.
***** Results shown for proposed rules, December 1993.
5.2
-------
Appendix A
Original 272 Pesticide Active Ingredients Considered for Regulation
This appendix provides the original 272 pesticide active ingredients considered for regulation.
A.I
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
1 Dicofol[l,l-Bis(cMorophenyl)-2,2,2-tricMoroethanol]
2 Maleic Hydrazide
3 EDB [1,2-Ethylene dibromide]
4 Vancide TH [1,3,5-Triethylhexahydro-s-triazine]
5 Dicbloropropene
6 Oxybiphenoarsine
7 Dowicil75 [l-(3-Chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-l-
azoniaadamantanechloride]
8 Triadimefon
9 Hexachlorophene (nabac)
10 Tetrachlorophene
11 Dichlorophene
12 Dichlorvos
13 Landrin-2 [2,3,5-trimethylphenylmethylcarbamate]
14 Fenac [2,3,6-Tricblorophenylacetic acid] or any salt or ester
15 2,4,5-T [2,4,5-Tricblorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester
16 2,4-D [2,4-Dicblorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester
17 2,4-DB [2,4-Dicblorophenoxybutyric acid] or any salt or ester
18 Anilazine [2,4-Dicbloro-6-(o-chloroanilino)-s-triazine]
19 Dinocap
20 Dichloran (2>6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline)
21 Busan 90 [2-Bromo-4-hydroxyacetophenone]
22 Mevinphos
23 Sulfallate [2-chloroallyldiethyldithiocarbamate]
24 Chlorfenvinphos
25 Cyanazine
26 Propachlor
27 MCPA [2-Methyl-4-cblorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester
28 Octhilinone
29 Pindone
30 Dichlorprop [2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) propionic acid] or any salt
or ester
31 MCPP [2-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionicacid] or any salt
or ester
32 Tfaiabendazole
33 Belclene 310 [2-(methylthio)-4-(ethylamino)-6-(l,2-
dimethylamino)-s-triazine]
34 Cloprop [2-(m-Chlorophenoxy)propionic acid] or any salt or ester
35 TCMTB [2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole]
CAS Number
00115-32-2
00123-33-1
00106-93-4
07779-27-3
00542-75-6
00058-36-6
04080-31-3
43121-43-3
00070-30-4
01940-43-8
00097-23-4
00062-73-7
02686-99-9
00085-34-7
00093-76-5
00094-75-7
00094-82-6
00101-05-3
39300-45-3
00099-30-9
02491-38-5
07786-34-7
00095-06-7
00470-90-6
21725-46-2
01918-16-7
00094-74-6
26530-20-1
00083-26-1
00120-36-5
00093-65-2
00148-79-8
22936-75-0
00101-10-0
21564-17-0
A.2
-------
Pesticide
Number
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
Pesticide Name
HAE [2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino) ethanol
Chlorophacinone
Landrin-1 [3,4,5-trimethylphenylmethylcarbamate]
Pronamide
Methiocarb
Propanil
Polyphase antimildew [3-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate]
3-(a-Acetonylfurfuryl)-4-hydroxycoumarin [Coumafuryl] or any
salt or ester
DNOC (4,6-dinitro-o-cresol)
Metribuzin
CPA (4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) or any salt or ester,
MCPB [4-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)butyricacid] or any salt or
ester
Aminocarb [4-(dimethylamino)-m-tolylmethylcarbamate]
Etridiazole
Ethoxyquin
Quinoliol sulfate (8-Quinoliol sulfate)
Acephate
Acifluorfen or any salt or ester
Alacblor
Aldicarb
Hyamine 3500 [Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride
* (50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16)]
Allethrin (all isomers and allethrin coil)
Ametryn
Amitraz
Atrazine
Bendiocarb
Benomyl and Carbendazim
Benzene Hexachloride
Benzyl benzoate
Lethane 384 [Beta-Thiocyanoethyl esters of mixed fatty acids
containing from 10-18 carbons]
Bifenox
Biphenyl
Bromacil or any salt or ester
Bromoxynil or any salt or ester
Butachlor
CAS Number
34375-28-5
03691-35-8
02686-99-9
23950-58-5
02032-65-7
00709-98-8
55406-53-6
00117-52-2
00534-52-1
21087-64-9
00122-88-3
00094-81-5
02032-59-9
02593-15-9
00091-53-2
00134-31-6
30560-19-1
50594-66-6
15972-60-8
00116-06-3
68424-85-1
00584-79-2
00834-12-8
33089-61-1
01912-24-9
22781-23-3
17804-35-2
00608-73-1
00120-51-4
00301-11-1
42576-02-3
00092-52-4
00314-40-9
01689-84-5
23184-66-9
A.3
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
71 Giv-gard [0-Bromo-/3-nitrostyrene]
72 Cacodylic acid or any salt or ester
73 Captafol
74 Captan
75 Carbaryl [Sevin]
76 Carbofuran
77 Carbosulfan
78 Chloramben or any salt or ester
79 Chlordane
80 Chloroneb
81 Chloropicrin
82 Chlorothalonil
83 Chloroxuron
84 Stirofos
85 Chlorpyrifos methyl
86 Chlorpyrifos
87 Mancozeb
88 Bioquin
89 Copper EDTA
90 Fenvalerate
91 Cycloheximide
92 Dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) or any salt or ester
93 Dienochlor
94 Demeton [O,O-Diethyl O-(and S-) (2-ethylthio)ethyl)
phosphorothioate]
95 Desmedipham
96 Diammonium ethylenebisdithiocarbamate
97 DBCP [Dibromo-3-chloropropane]
98 Dicamba [3,6-Dichloro-o-anisic acid] or any salt or ester
99 Dichlone (Phygon)
100 Thiophanate ethyl
101 Perthane [Diethyl diphenyl dichloroethane and related
compounds]
102 EXD [Diethyl dithiobis (tbionoformate)]
103 Diazinon
104 Diflubenzuron
105 Benzethonium chloride
106 Dimethoate
CAS Number
07166-19-0
00075-60-5
02425-06-1
00133-06-2
00063-25-2
01563-66-2
55285-14-8
00133-90-4
00057-74-9
02675-77-6
00076-06-2
01897-45-6
01982-47-4
00961-11-5
05598-13-0
02921-88-2
08018-01-7
10380-28-6
01495-19-18
51630-58-1
00066-81-9
00075-99-0
02227-17-0
08065-48-3
13684-56-5
03566-10-7
00096-12-8
01918-00-9
00117-80-6
23564-06-9
00072-56-O
00502-55-6
00333-41-5
35367-38-5
00121-54-0
00060-51-5
A.4
-------
Pesticide
Number
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
Pesticide Name
Parathion methyl
Dicrotophos
Crotoxyphos
DCPA [Dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalate]
Trichlorofon
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Diphacinone
Diphenamid
Diphenylamine
MGK 326 [Dipropyl isocinchomeronate]
Nabonate [Disodium cyanoditbioimidocarbonate]
Diuron
Metasol DGH [Dodecylguanidine hydrochloride]
Dodine (dodecylquanidine acetate)
Endosulfan [Hexachlorohexahydromethano-2,4,3-
benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide]
Endothall or any salt or ester
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Ethion
Ethoprop
Fenamiphos
Chlorobenzilate
Butylate
Famphur
Fenarimol
Fenthion
Ferbam
Fluometuron
Fluoroacetamide
Folpet
Glyphosate [N-(Phosphonomethyl) glycine] or any salt or ester
Glyphosine
Heptachlor
Cycloprate
Hexazinone
Isofenphos
CAS Number
00298-00-0
00141-66-2
07700-17-6
01861-32-1
00052-68-6
00088-85-7
00078-34-2
00082-66-6
00957-51-7
00122-39-4
00113-48-4
00138-93-2
00330-54-1
13590-97-1
02439-10-3
00115-29-7
00145-73-3
00072-20-8
55283-68-6
00563-12-2
13194-48-4
22224-92-6
00510-15-6
02008-41-5
00052-85-7
60168-88-9
00055-38-9
14484-64-1
02164-17-2
00640-19-7
00133-07-3
01071-83-6
02439-99-8
00076-44-8
54460-46-7
51235-04-2
25311-71-1
A.5
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
144 Isopropalin
145 Propham
146 Karbutilate
147 Lindane
148 IJnuron
149 Malachite green [Ammonium(4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha-
phenylbenzylidine)-2,5-cyclohexadien-l-ylidene)-dimethyl
chloride]
150 Malathion
151 Maneb
152 Manganous dimethyldithiocarbamate
153 Mefluidide [N-(2,4-dimethyl-5-(((trifluoromethyl) sulfonyl)-
amino) phenyl acetamide] or any salt or ester
154 Methamidophos
155 Methidathion
156 Methomyl
157 Methoprene
158 Methoxychlor
159 Methylbenzethonium chloride
160 Methylbromide
161 Methylarsonic acid or any salt or ester
162 Hyamine 2389 [Methyldodecylbenzyl trimethyl ammonium
chloride 80% and methyldodecylxylylene
bis (trimethylammoniumchloride) 20%]
163 Methylenebisthiocyanate
164 Quhimethionate
165 Metolachlor
166 Mexacarbate
167 Metiram
168 Monuron TCA
169 Monuron
170 Napropamide
171 Deet
172 Nabam
173 Naled
174 Norea
175 Norflurazon
176 Naptalam [N-1-Naphthylphthalamic acid] or any salt or ester
177 MGK 264 [N-2-Ethylhexyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide]
CAS Number
33820-53-0
00122-42-9
04849-32-5
00058-89-9
00330-55-2
00569-64-2
00121-75-5
12427-38-2
15339-36-3
53780-34-0
10265-92-6
00950-37-8
16752-77-5
40596-69-8
00072-43-5
15716-02-6
00074-83-9
00124-58-3
01399-80-0
06317-18-6
02439-01-2
51218-45-2
00315-18-4
09006-42-2
00140-41-0
00150-68-5
15299-99-7
00134-62-3
00142-59-6
00300-76-5
18530-56-8
27314-13-2
00132-66-1
00136-45-8
A.6
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
178 Benfluralin
179 Sulfotepp
180 Aspon
181 Coumaphos
182 Fensulfothion
183 Disulfoton
184 Fenitrothion
185 Phosmet
186 Azinphos Methyl
187 Oxydemeton methyl
188 Organo-arsenic pesticides
189 Organo-cadmium pesticides
190 Organo-copper pesticides
191 Organo-mercury pesticides
192 Organo-tin pesticides
193 Orihodichlorobenzene
194 Oryzalin
195 Oxamyl
196 Oxyfluorfen
197 Bolstar [Sulprofos]
198 Sulprofos Oxon
199 Santox (O-Ethyl O-(p-nitrophenyl) phenylphpsphonothioate
200 Fonofos
201 Propoxur (o-Isopropylphenylmetliylcarbamate)
202 Paradichlorobenzene
203 Parathioa
204 Pendimethalin
205 Pentachloronitrobenzene
206 Pentachlorophenol or any salt or ester
207 Perfluidone
208 Permethrin
209 Phenmedipham
210 Phenothiazine
211 Phenylphenol
212 Phorate
213 Phosalone
214 Phosphamidon
215 Picloram or any salt or ester
CAS Number
01861-40-1
03689-24-5
03244-90-4
00056-72-4
00115-90-2
00298-04-4
00122-14-5
00732-11-6
00086-50-0
00301-12-2
00095-50-1
19044-88-3
23135-22-0
42874-O3-3
35400-43-2
38527-90-1
02104-64-5
00944-22-9
00114-26-1
00106-46-7
00056-38-2
40487-42-1
00082-68-8
00087-86-5
37924-13-3
52645-53-1
13684-63-4
00092-84-2
00090-43-7
00298-02-2
02310-17-0
13171-21-6
01918-02-1
A.7
-------
Pesticide CAS Number
Number Pesticide Name
216 Piperonyl butoxide 00051-03-6
217 PBED (Busan 77) [Poly (oxyethylene (dimethylimino) ethylene 31512-74-0
(dimethylimino) ethylene dichloride]
218 Busan 85 [Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate] 00128-03-0
219 Busan 40 [Potassium N-hydroxymethyl-N-methyldithiocarbamate] 51026-28-9
220 KN Methyl [Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate] 00137-41-7
221 Metasol J26 [Potassium N-(alpha-(nttroethyl) benzyl)- 53404-62-9
ethylenediamine]
222 Profenofos 41198-08-7
223 Prometon 01610-18-0
224 Prometryn 07287-19-6
225 Propargite 02312-35-8
226 Propazine 00139-40-2
227 Propionic acid 00079-09-4
228 Propamocarb and Propamocarb HCL 24579-73-5
229 Pyrethrin coils
230 Pyrethrin I 00121-21-1
231 Pyrethrin H 00121-29-9
232 Pyrethrum (other than pyrethrins) 08003-34-7
233 Resmethrin 10453-86-8
234 Ronnel 00299-84-3
235 Rotenone 00083-79-4
236 DEF[S,S,S-Tributylphosphorotrithioate] 00078-48-8
237 Siduron 01982-49-6
238 Silvex [2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)] or any salt or 00093-72-1
ester
239 Simazine 00122-34-9
240 Bentazon 25057-89-0
241 Carbam-S [Sodium dimethyldithiocarbanate] 00128-04-1
242 Sodium monofluoroacetate 00062-74-8
243 Vapam [Sodium methyldithiocarbamate] 00137-42-8
244 Sulfoxide 00120-62-7
245 Cycloate 01134-23-2
246 EPTC [S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate] 00759-94-4
247 Molinate 02212-67-1
248 Pebulate 01114-71-2
249 Vernolate 01929-77-7
250 HPTMS [S-(2-Hydroxypropyl) thiomethanesulfonate] 29803-57-4
A.8
-------
Pesticide CAS Number
Number Pesticide Name
251 Bensulide 00741-58-2
252 Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1
253 Temephos 03383-96-8
254 Terbacil 05902-51-2
255 Terbufos 13071-79-9
256 Terbuthylazine 05915-41-3
257 Terbutryn 00886-50-0
258 Tetrachlorophenol or any salt or ester 25167-83-3
259 Dazomet 00533-74-4
260 Thiophanate methyl 23564-05-8
251 Thiram 00137-26-8
262 Toxaphene 08001-35-2
263 Merphos [Tributyl phosphorotrithioate] 00150-50-5
264 Trifluralin 01582-09-8
265 Warfarin [3-(a-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin] or any salt 00081-81-2
or ester
266 Zinc MET [Zinc 2-mercaptobenzotbiazolate] 00155-04-4
267 Zineb 12122-67-7
268 Ziram 00137-30-4
269 S-(2,3,3-trichloroallyl) diisopropylthiocarbamate 02303-17-5
270 Phenothrin 26002-80-2
271 Tetramethrin 07696-12-0
272 Chloropropham 00101-21-3
A.9
-------
-------
Appendix B
Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients
This appendix provides the toxic weighting factors (TWFs) used in the analysis. Toxic weighting
factors for pesticide active ingredients are listed in Table B-l.
B.I
-------
TABLE B-l. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PAI
_Ho.
A052
A053
A054
A055
A057
A058
A048
A059
A096
A018
A188
A1SO
A060
A186
A033
A061
A178
A062
A251
A240
A105
A064
A147
A063
A066
A088
A067
A197
A068
A160
A069
A259
A219
A03S
A217
A218
A021
A070
A130
A073
A074
A241
A075
A076
A077
A078
A079
A024
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS_N_O- Pollutant Name
30S60191 Acephate
50594664 Acifluorfen \Blazer
1597260S Alachlor \Lasso
116063 Aldicarb \Temik
584792 Allethrin
834128 Ametryn
2032599 Aminocarb \Matadl
33089612 Amitraz
3566107 Amobam
101053 AnUazine\Dyrene
637036 Arsenobenzene
3244904 Aspon
1912249 Atrazine
86500 Azinphos methyl \ Guthion, methyl -
22936750 Belclene 310
22781233 Bendiocarb \Ficam
1861401 Benfluralin \Benefin
17804352 Benomyl \Benlate
741582 Bensulide \Betesan
25057890 Bentazon
121540 Benzethonium chloride
120514 Benzyl benzoate
58899 BHC, gamma- \Lindane
608731 BHC, technical-
42576023 Bifenox
380286 Bioquin
92524 Biphenyl
35400432 Bolstar \Sulprofos
314409 Bromadl
74839 Bromomethane
1689845 Bromoxynil
533744 Busamid \ Dazomet \ Mylone
51026289 Busan 40
21564170 Busan 72
31512740 Busan 77 \PBED
128030 Busan 85
2491385 Busan 90
23184669 Butachlor
2008415 Butylate
2425061 Cap tafol \Difolatan
133062 Captan
128041 Carbam-S
63252 Carbaryl \Sevin
1563662 Carbofuran \Furadan
55285148 Carbosulfan
133904 Chloramben
57749 Chlordane
470906 Chlorfenvinphos \Supona
(ug/1)
320
850
10
2.5
0.021
32
0.60
13
891
0.0027
3.5
60
0.01
30
23.5
3.7
0.30
7
193,700
14
233
0.08
1
23.5
12
15
52
1,000
550
0.5
295
1.4
6
10
3
' 42.2
2.6
10.5
1
1.7
34
0.02
2.4
0.15
500
0.0043
10.95
(ug/1)
1,200
682
1,080
855
45
7,700
730
200
7,200
570
13,100
2600
0.625
0.460
1,235
57.0 *
1,320
32,600
8,000
3,800
4,000
4,500
110
6,200
0.0059
580
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
Chronic
0.017
0.0066
0.560
2.24
267
0.175
9.33
0.431
0.0063
2,074
1.60
0.093
560
0.187
0.238
1.51
18.7
0.800
2.89E-05
0.40
0.024
70.0
5.6
0.238
0.467
0.3733
0.108
0.0056
0.010
11.2
0.019
4.00
0.933
0.560
1.87
0.133
2.15
0.533
5.60
3.29
0.165
280
2.33
37.3
0.011
1,302
0.511
Human
0.005
0.0082
0.0052
-
0.0065
0.124
-
0.0007
0.0077
0.028
0.0008
0.0098
0.0004
0.0022
-
9.0
12.2
0.0045
0.098
0.0042
-
-
-
-
0.0002
0.0007
0.0015
0.0014
0.0012
0.051
0.0009
949
0.0097
Total
0.022
0.0066
0.568
2.25
267
0.182
9.3
0.555
0.0063
2,074
ND
1.60
0.101
560
0.187
0.239
1.52
18.7
0.800
2.18E-03
0.40
0.024
79
17.8
0.238
0.467 (a)
0.378
0.108
0.0056
0.108
11.2
0.019
4.0 (b)
0.933
0.560
1.87
0.133
2.15
0.534
5.6
3.30
0.165
280
2.33
37.4
0.012
2,251
0.521
B.2
-------
BAD
PAI
No.
A129
A080
A037
A046
A081
A082
A083
A272
A085
A086
A089
A043
A181
A109
A025
A245
A091
A141
A106
A092
A017
A110
A171
A236
A094
A187
A095
A103
A097
A098
A099
A011
A016
A005
A030
A012
A020
A001
A108
A093
A104
A044
A019
A112
A113
A114
A115
A116
CAS No. Pollutant Name
510156 Chlorobenzilate
2675776 Chloroneb
3691358 Chlorophacinone
122883 Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, 4- (CPA)
76062 Chloropicrin
1897456 ChlorothalonU
1982474 Chloroxuron
101213 Chlorpropham
5598130 Chlorpyrifos methyl
2921882 Chlorpyrifos \Duisban
14951918 Copper EDTA
117522 Coumafuiyl
56724 Coumaphos
7700176 Crotoxyphos \Ciodrin
21725462 Cyanazine
1134232 Cycloate
66819 Cycloheximide
54460467 Cycloprate \ Zardex
60515 Cygon \Dimethoate
75990 Dalapon
94826 DB, 2,4- salts and estere
1861321 DCPA \Dacthal
134623 Deet
78488 DBF
8065483 Demeton \ Systox
301122 Demeton-O-methyl
13684565 Desmedipham \ Betanex
333415 Diazinon \Spectracide
96128 Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
1918009 Dicamba
117806 Dichlone \Pfaygon
97234 Dichlorophen
94757 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-
542756 Dichloropropene, 1,3-
120365 Dichloiprop
62737 Dichlorvos
99309 Dicloran \Botran
115322 Dicofol \ Kelthane
141662 Dicrotqphos \Bidrin
2227170 Dienochlor \Pentac
35367385 Diflubenzuron
534521 Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
39300453 Dinocap \ Karathane
88857 Dinoseb \ DNBP
78342 Dioxathion
82666 Diphacinone
957517 Diphenamid
122394 Diphenvlamine
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value
ftur/n
7
1 inn
1,200
150
6,250
0.95
f1f!7fi
\ji\j i u
A -3
HO
324
1
0.041
12
-L^e
0.34
0.001
0.55
100
45
T\J
70
0.432
22
£t*&
550
20
ff)
02
*3 T^n
3,750
f-\ f\ri
0.27
0.1
0.4
6
0.009
810
1 C\C
195
0.14
36
80
4.5
2,340
n nni
U.UUl
147
0.53
21,5
0002
\J**J\J£*
n 1&
\jt±\j
3.3
0.15
O'i'j
\JfJ&
nno
\jt\jy
105
1,600
378
Value
Aip/1)
103
850
100,000
98
11.8
25
2,900
0*7
2,1
103,000
740
11,200
0.1
0.95
16,000
630
23,100
1,960
87 *
12
7,300
0.0098
1,080
940
765
*yr\
30
t fn
150
108,000
1,000
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
ChrOtllP TTlim-in fT₯_*_j
0.800 0.054
0.0047
0.037
0.001
c on
5.89
73.68 0.0066
1.30
0.017 5.60E-05
5.60 0.057
137 0.475
0.467 -
16.5 0.224
c? ff\r\
5,600
10.2
0.056 0.0019
0.124 -
0.080
13.0
2.55 0.207
0.010 5.44E-05
0.280 0.0076
0.090 0.0005
0.0015
20.7 56.0
56.0 5.89
14.0 0.0004
n noo
0.933
622 0.0089
0.0069
0.029 0.0002
AC\ n
4U.U
n -i c/:
0.156
0.0700 0.0029
1.24 0.064
0.0024
5,600 0.467
0.038 0.0008
10.6 571.429
0.26 0.01
3,294 -
35.0 0.0060
1.70. ' 0.0073
in *$
31.3
17.5 0.187
62.2 0.037
0.053
0.0035 5.19E-05
0.015 0.0056
luiai
0.854
0.0047
0.04
0.001
5.9
73.69
1.30
0.017
5.7
137
0.467 (a)
16.7 (c)
5,600
10.2
0.058
0.124
0.080
13.0
2.75
0.010
0.288
0.091
0.0015
76.7
61.9
14.0
0.933
622
0.0069
0.029
40.0
0.156
0.073
1.31
0.0024
5,600
0.039
582.0
0.27
3,294
35.0
1.70
37.3
17.7
62.3
0.053
0.0036
0.020
B.3
-------
TABLE B-l TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A10-5 RISK)
BAD
PA1
dfc_
A183
A119
A121
A007
A122
A123
A124
A199
A246
A125
A126
A127
AOSO
A003
AQ49
A102
A131
A014
A128
A132
A184
A182
A133
A090
A134
A135
A136
A137
A200
A071
A138
A139
A036
A140
A009
A142
A2SO
A162
A056
A072
A143
A144
A146
A220
A038
A013
A065
A148
CAS No, pollutant
298044 Disulfoton
330541 Diuron \DCMU
2439103 Dodecylgu
4080313 DowicH 75
115297 Endosulfai
145733 Endothall
72208 Endrin
2104645 EPN \Santox
759944 EPTC
55283686 Ethalfluralin
563122 Ethion \Bladan
13194484 Ethoprophos
91532 Ethoxyquin
106934 Ethylenedibromide
2593159 Etridiazole
502556 EXD
52857 Famphur \Famopb
85347 Fcnac \Chlorfenac
22224926 Fenamiphos
60168889 FenariroolV
122145 Fenitrothion
115902 Fensulfothio
55389 Fenthion \Baytex
51630581 Fen valerate \Pydrin
14484641 Ferbam
2164172 Fluometuron
640197 Fluoroaceta
133073 Folpet
944229 Fonofos
7166190 Giv-gard
1071836 Glyphosate
1333240 Glyphosine
34375285 HAE
76448 Heptachlor
70304 Hexachlorophene
51235042 Hexazinone
29803574 HPTMS
1399800 Hyamine2389
68424851 HyamineSSOO
75605 Hydroxydii
25311711 Isofenphos
33820530 Isopropalin
4849325 Karbutilate
137417 KN Methyl
2686999 Landrin I
2655154 Landrin H
112561 Lethane 384
330552 Linuron
Aquatic Hui
Life
Chronic Orga
Value
ime
-------
TABLE B-l. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS flPAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PAI
No.
A149
A150
A002
A087
A151
A027
A047
A031
A153
A263
A120
A221
A243
A154
A155
A040
A156
A157
A158
A159
A161
A167
A165
A045
A022
A166
A177
A117
A247
A169
A168
A172
A118
A163
A173
A170
A176
A152
A174
A175
A028
A273
A189
A190
A191
A192
A194
A195
CAS No. Pollutant Name
569642 Malachite green
121755 Malathion
123331 Maleichydrazide
8018017 Mancozeb
12427382 Maneb \ Vancide
94746 MCPA
94815 MCPB
93652 MCPP \Mecoprop
53780340 Mefluidide
150505 Merphos \Folex
13590971 Metasol DGH
53404629 MetasolJ26
137428 Metham sodium \ Vapam
10265926 Methamidophos
950378 Methiadathion \Supracide
2032657 Methiocarb
16752775 Methomyi \ Lannate
40596698 Methoprene
72435 Methoxychlor
15716026 Methyl benzethonium chloride
124583 Methylarsonic acid
9006422 Metiram
51218452 Metolachlor
21087649 Metribuzin
7786347 Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
315184 Mexacarbate \ Mexcarbole \ Zectran
113484 MGK264
136458 MGK326
2212671 Molinate
150685 Monuron
140410 Monurori'TCA
142596 Nabam
138932 Nabonate
6317186 NalcoD-2303
300765 Naled \Dibrom
15299997 Napropamide
132661 Naptalam
15339363 Niacide
18530568 Norea \Noruron
27314132 Norflurazon
26530201 Octhilinone
Organo antimony compounds
Organo cadmium compounds
Organo -copper compounds
Organo -mercury compounds
Organo tin compounds
19044883 Oryzalin
23135220 Oxamvl Wvdate
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
0.305
0.100
6,250
23
17
60
3.5
445
5,000
13
100
60
1.4
2,300
0.11
0.25
0.05
15.5
0.03
14
40,500
64
100
2,100
0.002
0.5
130
666
10.5
4,455
5,000
9.8
1.4
3.5
0.004
400
3,800
4.5
70
10,000
30
1.1
12
0.012
0.017
9.5
24
2,700
54,000,000
89,700
54,000,000
380
1,770
8,970
0.22
740
5,980
234
120
269,000
1,300
6.5
23,400
135,000
212,000
360
3,100
21^00
820,000
4,300
170
0.146
0.2
9,100
138,000
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
18.4 -
56 0.0021
0.0009 1.04E-07
0.243 6.24E-05
0.329 1.04E-07
0.093 0.015
1.60 0.0032
0.013 0.0006
0.0011 -
0.431 25.5
0.056 0.0076
0.093
4.00 -
0.0024 0.0009
50.9 0.024
22.4 0.0467
112 2.08E-05
0.361 0.0043
187 0.862
0.40 -
0.0001 -
0.088 -
0.056 0.0002
0.0027 4.15E-05
2,800 2.64E-05
11.2 -
0.043 -
0.0084 -
0.533 0.016
0.0013
0.0011 -
0.571 -
4.00 -
1.60 -
1,400 0.0018
0.014 0.0003
0.0015 -
1.24 6.83E-06
0.080 -
0.0006 -
0.187 0.0013
5.09 0.0329
0.467
466.7 38
329.4 28
0.589 0.0006
0.233 4.06E-05
ic 4
JLO^T
56
0.0009
0.244
0.329
0.108
1.60
0.013
00011
\J»\J\JJ. J.
25.9
0.064 (e)
0.093 (d)
400
^f\J\J
0.0034
50.9
22.4
112
0.366
188
040 ff\
\Jt*r\J ^1^
0.0001
0088
VMJOO
0.06
0.0027
2,800
11 2
J.JL*&r
0043
W«w*T»7
0.0084
0.549
0.0013
0.0011
0571
\J**J 1 JL
40 ftrt
t.U (O)
1 60
l.f\J\J
1,400
0.014
0.0015
1-24 (g)
0080
\J»\J\J\J
0.0006
Km
JN1J
0.188 (h)
5.12 (h)
0.467 (h)
505 (h)
357 (ft
'" W
0.590
0.233
B.5
-------
TABLE B-1 -TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
Nn
__; A'Ujffli ,, ,
A196
A203
A107
A248
A204
A205
A206
A207
A208
A101
A209
A210
A006
A211
A212
A213
A185
A214
A215
A029
A216
A244
A042
A228
A222
A223
A224
A039
A026
A041
A227
A225
A226
A145
A034
A201
A230
A231
A275
A051
A164
A233
A234
A235
A237
A239
A242
A023
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
f*AS N° Pollutant Name
42874033 Oxyfluorofen
56382 Parathion ethyl
298000 Parathion methyl
1114712 Pebulate \Tillam
40487421 Pendimethalin \ProwI
82688 Pentachloronitrobenzene \Quintozene
87865 Pentachlorophenol
37924132 Perfluidone
52645532 Permethrin \ Ambush \ Pounce
72560 Perthane \Ethylan
13684634 Phenmedipbam \Bentanal
92842 Phenothiazine
58366 Phenoxarsine, 10,10'-oxydi-
90437 Phenylphenol, o-
298022 Phorate \Famophos \Thimet
2310170 Phosalone \Azofone
732116 Phosmet \Imidan
13171216 Phosphamidon \Dimecron
1918021 Picloram
83261 Pindone
51036 Piperonyl butoxide
120627 Piperonyl sulfoxide
55406536 Polyphase \ Guardsan 388
25606411 PrevicurN \PropamocarbHCL
41198087 Profenofos \Curacron
1610180 Prometon \Pramitol
7287196 Prometym \Caparol
23950585 Pronamide
1918167 Propadilor
709988 Propaml
79094 Propanoic acid
2312358 Propargite/BPPS
139402 Propazine
122429 Propham
5825876 Propionamide,2-(m-Chlorophenoxy)
114261 Propoxur \Baygon
121211 Pyrethrin I
121299 Pyrethrin H
8003347 Pyrethrins
134316 Quinolinolsulfate
2439012 Quinomethionate/Oxythioquinox
10453868 Resmethrin
299843 Ronnel
83794 Rotenone \Mexide
1982496 Siduron
122349 Simazine
62748 Sodium fluoroacetate
95067 Sulfallate \CDEC .
(ug/1)
124
0.013
0.007
370
4.20
6.60
13
15,600
0.023
0.04
165
198
0.018
'59.9
0.006
1
0.1
0.14
1.35
8,630
18.0
17.7
7,030
11,750
0.008
86
25
3,600
8.5
23
2,500
1
875
400
1,050
0.650
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.74
0.0028
1
0.026
900
10
2,000
58
(ug/1)
18
125
39
372
27
29,000
4300
798
3.40
76
2,600
2,700
1,400,000
120
720,000
150
170
8,100,000
10,200
485
7,100
1,900
3^00
4,600
513
3,400
513
436
226
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
Chronic
0.045
431
800
f\ f\* g
0.015
1.33
0.8
0.431
0.0004
243.5
140
0.034
r\ f\io
0.028
311
0.093
933
Human
0.311
0.045
0.144
0.015
0.211
0.0002
0.0013
^
~
0.0070
1.65
f\ f\*^ A
5.60 u.u/t
56.0 0.0022
40.0 0.0021
4.15 4.00E-06
0.0006
0.31
f\ 'SI
-------
TABLE B-1. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PAI
No.
A198
A270
A252
A253
A254
A255
A256
A257
AGIO
A258
A084
A179
A271
A032
A100
A260
A261
A262
A008
A269
Alll
A015
A238
A264
A266
A004
A249
A265
A267
A268
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS No. Pollutant Name (ug/1)
38527901 Sulprofosoxon
26002802 Sumithrin \Phenothrin
34014181 Tebuthiuron
3383968 Temephos \ Abate
5902512 Terbacil
13071799 Terbufos \Counter
5915413 Terbuthylazine
886500 Terbutryn
1940438 Tetrachlorophene
58902 Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
961115 Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona \ Stirofos
3689245 Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
7696120 Tetramethrin \Neo-pynamin
148798 Thiabendazole \Mertect
23564069 Thiophanate ethyl
23564058 Thiophanate methyl
137268 Thiram
8001352 Toxaphene
43121433 Triadimefon
2303175 Tri-allate \Far-Go
52686 Trichlorofon \Dylox
93765 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4,5-
93721 Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid, 2,4,5
1582098 Trifluralin \Treflan
155044 Vancide 51Z \ Zetax
7779274 VancideTH
1929777 Vernolate
81812 Warfarin
12122677 Zineb \ Dithane Z
137304 Ziram \ Cvmate
52
0.17
5,600
0.5
3.5
0.01
46
8.2
18.3
10
4.3
0.08
0.7
365
4,950
89
1.05
0.0002
500
4.9
0.265
7.5
6
1.9
36.7
11.5
0.34
9.70
15
(ug/1)
188,000
70,000
74
26
3,000
1,200
192
47,500
2,800
472
0.0075
36,400
171
74,800
1,657
330
4.1
220
25
3,170
2.20E+08
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS (TWFs)
Chronic Human
0.108
32.9
0.0010 2.98E-05
11.2
1.60 8.00E-05
560 0.1
0.122
0.683 0.215
0.306
0.560 0.0019
1.30 0.0047
70.0 0.029
8.00
0.015 0.0001
0.0011
0.063 0.0020
5.33 0.012
28,000 747
0.011 0.0002
1.14 0.033
21 0.0001
0.747 0.0034
0.933 0.017
2.95 1.37
- -
0.1526
0.487 0.025
16.5 0.224
0.5773 1.77E-03
0.373 2.55E-08
Total
0.108 (k)
32.9
0.0010
11.2
1.60
560
0.122
0.898
0.306
0.562
131
70.0
8.0
0.015
0.0011
0.065
5.3
28,747
0.011
1.18
21
0.750
0.950
4.3
ND
0.153
0.512
16.7
0.579
0.373
Notes:
* These pollutants are volatile priority pollutants. Therefore, the human health criteria (organisms only)
has been replaced with the criteria for (water and organisms). See text for discussion.
a. The TWF for copper is reported for these compounds since the complexes could release copper into the environment
b. The TWF of metham sodium (vapam) is used for these compounds due to structural similarity.
c. The TWF of warfarin is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
d. The TWF of hyamine 2389 is used for these structurally similar quaternary ammonium compounds.
e. The TWF of dodecylguanidine monoacetate is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
f. The TWF of benzethonium chloride is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
g. The TWF of ferbam is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
h. The TWF for the base metals of these compounds is reported assuming the toxicity is mainly due to the bound metal.
i. The TWF for tributyltin oxide is reported for these compounds since it is the most probable PAI related pollutant in wastewaters.
j. The TWF of 2fluoroacetamide is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
B.7
-------
TABLE B-l. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
HAD
PAI
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
olIutant Name
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS (TWFs)
Chronic Human Total
k. The TWF of bolstar \sulprofos is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
B.8
-------
Appendix C
Results of Compliance with the Existing 1978 BPT Regulation
This appendix describes the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for direct discharging
facilities to comply with the existing 1978 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
regulation. The analysis is based on EPA's estimates of the full societal cost of compliance and
wastewater pollutant removals associated with six BPT options for direct discharging Subcategory C
facilities. These options are analogous to the PSES options described in Section 2.
Table C-l presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds and total pounds-equivalent
of pollutants removed for the six options.
Tahte C-l
National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under BPT
SUBCATEGORY C FACILITIES
Option
Option 1
Option!
Option 3/S
Option 3
Option 4*
Option 5*
Annualized
Cost, MM $
(miy
$5.9
$5.5
$5.5
$5.5
$103.6
$107.6
Pound
Removals
49,411
49,415
49,435
49,435
49,435
49,435
Pound'
Equivalent
Removals
72,258,866
72,259,368
72,259,886
72,259,886
72,259,886
72,259,886
These options result in additional costs with no additional removals.
Table C-2 presents the incremental cost-effectiveness values for the six options considered. As
the table shows, the cost-effectiveness of Option 1 is $0.08 per pound-equivalent of pollutant removed.
That is very cost-effective when compared to the cost-effectiveness of other effluent limitations guidelines.
Movement from Option 1 to Option 2 and from Option 2 to Option 3/S is cost-effective relative to Option
1 because costs are reduced while removals increase. Movement from Option 3/S to Option 3 results in
C.I
-------
no additional costs or removals, so the incremental cost-effectiveness value is undefined. Options 4 and
5 are not cost-effective as they result hi additional costs with no additional removals relative to Option
3/S. Option 3/S is the most cost-effective option. Successive improvements in weighted removals are
achieved at progressively lower costs by moving from Option 1 through Option 2 to Option 3/S. Further
movement from Option 3/S to Options 3, 4 or 5 provides minor additional removals at substantially
higher marginal cost.
Table C-2
Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness tinder BFt
StJBCATEGORY C FACILITIES
Option
Incremental from Baseline to Option 1
Incremental from Option 1 to Option 2
Incremental from Option 2 to Option 3/S
Incremental from Option 3/S to Option 3
Incremental from Option 3 to Option 4
Incremental from Option 4 to Option 5
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/lb,
$120.00
-$90,723*
$0
undefined**
undefined**
undefined**
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/lb-eq.
$0.08
-$813.34*
$0
undefined**
undefined**
undefined**
Dollar values are in constant 1981 dollars.
* Options are ranked by increasing levels of pollutant removals. Negative cost-effectiveness
numbers mean that costs have decreased from the previous option, while removals have
increased, improving cost-effectiveness.
** Option 3 results hi the same costs and removals as Option 3/S. Options 4 and 5 result in
additional costs with no additional removals. Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness
ratio (incremental cost/incremental removals) is undefined.
C.2
-------
Appendix D
Sensitivity Analysis of POTW Removal Efficiency
.This appendix describes a sensitivity analysis applied to the assumption in the PSES cost-
effectiveness analysis that pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) are not removed by POTWs. There is very
little empirical data on the PAI removals actually achieved by POTWs. The only data available on
POTW removal efficiencies for PAIs is from the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) (Report to Congress on
the Discharge of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, February 1986, EPA/530-SW-
86-004). The DSS provides laboratory data under ideal conditions to estimate biotreatment removal
efficiencies at POTWs for different organic PAI structural groups. These data, however, are not full-
scale/in-use POTW data and therefore, are not appropriate for use in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
For the sensitivity analysis it is assumed that POTWs remove 50 percent of the PAIs from the
wastestream. The results are discussed below for Subcategory C and Subcategory E facilities.
Subcategory C
Table D-l presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds and total pounds-equivalent
of pollutants removed for the six options under the assumption of 50 percent POTW removal efficiency
for PAIs.
D.I
-------
National Estimate of >
SUBC
Assuming 50 pen
Option ',
Option 1
Option 2
Option 3/S
Option 3
Option4*
Options*
TafotelM
\nnualized Costs
CATEGORY FJ
^atPOTWRdao
Annualized
Cost, MM $
(1981 dollars)
$25.4
$21.8
$20.4
$21.8
$224.1
$281.8
and Removals Under PSES
kCfflUBHES , ' \ ,,
val Efficiency tor PAIs t ^
Pound
Removals
55,827
55,841
55,897
55,998
55,998
55,998
Pound-
Equivalent
Removals
6,063,537
6,063,833
6,067,016
6,067,025
6,067,025
6,067,025
*These options result in additional costs with no additional removals.
Table D-2 presents the incremental cost-effectiveness values for the six options considered for
Subcategory C under the assumption of the sensitivity analysis. As the table shows, the cost-effectiveness
of Option 1 is $4.20 per pound-equivalent of pollutant removed. Option 1 is very cost-effective when
compared to the cost-effectiveness values of other effluent limitations guidelines. Movement from
Option 1 to Option 2 and from Option 2 to Option 3/S is cost-effective relative to Option 1 because costs
are reduced while removals increase. Movement from Option 3/S to Option 3 is substantially less
efficient than movement from Option 1 to Option 2 or from Option 2 to Option 3/S. The average cost-
effectiveness of Option 3 is $3.59 per pound-equivalent and for Option 3/S is $3.36. Options 4 and 5
are not cost-effective as they result hi additional costs with no additional removals relative to Option 3.
Option 3/S is the most cost-effective option. Successive improvements in weighted removals are achieved
at progressively lower costs by moving from Option 1 through Option 2 to Option 3/S. Further
movement from Option 3/S to Options 3, 4 or 5 provides minor additional removals at substantially
higher marginal cost. Thus, the assumption of 50 percent PAI removal efficiency at POTWs does not
alter the result that Option 3/S is the most cost effective option, and is cost-effective relative to
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines.
D.2
-------
Table 1^2
Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under FSES
SEUBCATEGCRY C FACILITIES
Assuming 50 percent PO1W Removal Efficiency for PAIS
Option
Incremental from Baseline to Option 1
Incremental from Option 1 to Option 2
Incremental from Option 2 to Option 3/S
', Incremental from Option 3/S to Option 3
Incremental from Option 3 to Option 4
Incremental front Option 4 to Option 5 \
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/Ib.
$455.73
-$243,491*
-$25,025*
$13,580
undefined**
undefined**
Cost-Effectiveness,
$/l!N*j»
$4.20
-$12,463*
-$431.72*
$142,503
undefined**
undefined**
Dollar values are in constant 1981 dollars.
* Options are ranked by increasing levels of pollutant removals. Negative cost-effectiveness
numbers mean that costs have decreased from the previous option, while removals have
increased, improving cost-effectiveness.
** These options result in additional costs with no additional removals. Therefore, the
incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost/incremental removals) is undefined.
Subcategory E
Table D-3 presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds, and total pounds-equivalent
of pollutants removed for the two options considered for Subcategory E facilities under the assumption
of 50 percent PAI removal efficiency for POTWs. Option 1, the proposed option, is expected to be
achieved with zero additional costs.
D.3
-------
National Estim
Assuming
lateof .
SUB<
50 pen
Option
Option!
Option 2*
This option results in
Annuaiized Costs
CATEGORY m m
:ent POTW Remo
Annuaiized
Cost,
(1981 dollars)
$0
$1,507
and Removals Under PSES
UailllES
val Effieteacy for PAfe
Pound
Removals
0.5
0.5
Pottnd»
Eqwvalent
Removals
0.6
0.6
additional costs with no additional removals.
Because Option 1 is expected to be met with no additional compliance costs, its cost-effectiveness
is zero. Option 2 requires additional costs but results in no additional removals, so its cost-effectiveness
value is undefined. Therefore, Option 1 is still the more cost-effective option, even assuming POTWs
can remove 50 percent of the PAIs in the wastestream.
D.4
------- |