vvEPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Office Of Water
           (4303)   ,
EPA 821-R-95-004
January 1995
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards For
The Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry

-------

-------
                  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
       for the Centralized Waste Treatment: Industry
                       Susan M. Burns, Economist
                  Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch
                    Engineering and Analysis Division
                     Office of Science and Technology
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Washington, DC 20460
                                               Recycled/Recyclable
                                               Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
                                               contains at least 50% recycled fiber

-------

-------
                                        CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
    1    Introduction ............	[[[I.....................	..........1-1



    2    Background of Methodology................	[[[ 2-1


         2.1   Pollutant Discharges Considered in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis	2-2


         2.2   Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants	2-2

               2.2.1    The Traditional Toxic Weighting Method	;	2-2

               2.2.2    The New Pollutant Weighting Method	2-9

         2.3   Pollution Control Options	2-15


         2.4   Calculation of Pollutant Removals	2-17

               2.4.1    Direct Dischargers	„	2-17

               2.4.2    Indirect Dischargers	2-17

         2.5   Annualized Cost for Each Control Option	2-21


         2.6   Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Values	2-23


         2.7   Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values	2-25



   3     Cost-Effectiveness Results	..	.....	....		3_1


         3.1   Results of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis	3-1


         3.2   Results of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Direct and Indirect Dischargers
               Together	;	3.5



   4     Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CWT Regulatory Options

-------
                                        FIGURES







Number                                                                            Page





    3-1   TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for Direct Dischargers	'.	3-6




    3-2   TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for Indirect Dischargers	3-7




    3-3   TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Direct Dischargers	3-10




    3-4   TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Indirect Dischargers	3-11




    3-5   TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for All Dischargers	3-14




    3-6   TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for All Dischargers	3-15
                                            IV

-------
                                        TABLES
Number                                                                           Page


    2-1   Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Pollutants Included in the Cost-
         Effectiveness Analysis	2-3


    2-2   TWFs Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria	2-9


    2-3   TWFs and PWFs for Pollutants Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis	2-10

    2-4   PWFs, The Alternative Weighting Approach	:	2-14


    2-5   Conceptual Differences between TWFs and PWFs	2-15


    2-6   Descriptions of the Individual CWT Control Options	2-16


    2-7   POTW Removal Efficiencies for Pollutants Included in the Cost-Effectiveness
         Analysis	2-18


    2-8   Summary of Weighted and Unweighted Pollutant Removals for Direct and
         Indirect Dischargers	2-22

    2-9   Total Annualized Costs of Compliance with Each of the Control Options for
         Direct and Indirect Dischargers	2-24

    2-10  Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Control Options for Direct Discharging CWT
         Facilities	2-26


    2-11  Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Control Options for Indirect Discharging
         CWT Facilities	2-27


    3-1   TWF Cost-Effectiveness  Comparison of All Regulatory Options for Direct
         Discharging CWT Facilities	3-2


    3-2   TWF Cost-Effectiveness  Comparison of All Regulatory Options for Indirect
         Discharging CWT Facilities	3-3


    3-3   TWF Cost-Effectiveness  Efficiency Frontier for Direct Discharging CWT
         Facilities	,:	3_g


    3-4   TWF Cost-Effectiveness  Efficiency Frontier for Indirect Discharging CWT
         Facilities	3.9


    3-5   TWF Cost-Effectiveness  Comparison of All Regulatory Options for All
         Dischargers	3_12

-------
                                                                                               1
                              TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
Page
   3-6  TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency-Frontier for All Dischargers	3-13

   4-1  Industry Comparison of BAT Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers (Toxic
        and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Removals Weighted Using Traditional
        TWFs;$1981)	4-2

   4-2  Industry Comparison of PSES Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers
        (Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Removals Weighted Using
        Traditional TWFs;$ 1981)	4-3
                                         VI

-------
                                      CHAPTER 1
                                   INTRODUCTION

       This analysis,  submitted in support of proposed effluent limitations guidelines  and
 standards for the centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry, investigates the cost-effectiveness
 of 24 regulatory options, representing all possible combinations of nine proposed control options
 for three subcategories of CWT operations. The measure of effectiveness used for comparing
 regulatory options is the ratio of nationally aggregated total annualized compliance costs to the
 estimated total mass in pounds of certain toxic pollutants, each weighted according to its relative
 toxicity, removed under each regulatory option. These removals include removals of all toxic
 pollutants for which toxic weighting factors have been developed. Some pollutants removed are
 specifically addressed by the regulation, and others are pollutants that are incidentally removed
 from CWT facility discharges as a result of complying with the regulation even though they are
 not specifically regulated under the proposed guidelines and standards. Pollutant removals are
 assessed for each regulatory option in terms  of the net reduction in  toxicity of pollutants
 discharged to surface waters.

       Several factors are of particular importance to understanding the results of the cost-
 effectiveness comparisons presented in this report.  First, the analysis is based on removals of
 standardized "pound equivalents"—a term used to describe a pound of pollutant weighted for its
 toxicity.  Using pound equivalents reflects the fact that  some pollutants are more toxic than
 others and permits  summing removals across pollutants.  A mass loading in pounds per year
 (Ibs/yr) of each pollutant removed is multiplied by its corresponding weighting factor to derive
 the pollutant's "toxic equivalent" loading (Ibs-equivalent/yr). The cost-effectiveness (in dollars
 per pound-equivalent removed) of various treatment options may be compared by summing these
 weighted load reductions across a group of dischargers and dividing the sum into the total
 estimated cost to the  same  group of  dischargers.   Comparisons may also be made on an
 incremental basis—by comparing the incremental cost and weighted removals of each regulatory
 option to those of another regulatory option or to an existing treatment.

       This analysis employs  two different approaches developed by EPA for weighting
 different pollutants according to their relative toxicity.   Each approach uses a different
 standardized measure of toxicity. The Agency uses  each of these approaches to calculate total
 pound-equivalent pollutant removals attributable to each regulatory option.  The first approach
 uses the toxic weighting factors (TWFs) previously used for effluent guidelines development.
 The second approach employs new pollutant weighting factors (PWFs) that were developed
following the recommendations of an intra-agency workgroup on PWFs. The results of the cost-
                                          1-1

-------

effectiveness analysis using the two approaches are similar, but not identical.  The results from
the TWF approach are summarized in the pages that follow.  The results from the PWF approach
are included in Appendix A.

       No absolute scale can be used to evaluate a cost-effectiveness value; cost-effectiveness is
a relative measure.  Comparison of cost-effectiveness values is not meaningful unless the costs
compared are taken from the same time period, or are adjusted to correct for inflation, and the
removals are estimated using a consistent toxic weighting approach.  Generally, lower cost-
effectiveness values are preferable to higher values, because they indicate lower average unit
costs of removals.  However, policy-makers  may have other  selection criteria that would
preclude choosing some regulatory options with low cost-effectiveness values. The Agency may
decide, for example, that regulatory options  with total costs above a certain level or with total
removals below a particular level are not suitable for proposal.

       Cost-effectiveness values are a useful tool for comparing the relative merits of regulatory
options proposed at the same time for the same group of dischargers in a specific industry. They
also provide a basis for comparing the efficiency of a  regulatory option currently  being
considered for one industry  with the efficiency  of effluent limitations guidelines. for other
industries that have been approved in the past.  This type of comparison is only possible using
the TWF weighting approach because previous guidelines have used the TWF approach.  Even
then, the comparison is imperfect, because the TWFs that have been used for effluent guidelines
development have been modified for some pollutants.

       Chapter 2 of this report discusses the methods used for this cost-effectiveness analysis. It
details the pollutants included in calculations of pollutant removals, lists the TWFs and  PWFs
used to estimate pound-equivalent removals expected under each regulatory option, and lists the
subcategory control options that are combined to create the 24 regulatory options. Chapter 2 also
includes a discussion of the required differences for estimating pollutant removals from direct-
discharging CWT facilities as opposed to indirect-dischargers (facilities  whose effluent receives
treatment at a publicly owned treatment works [POTW] before it is  discharged to surfaces
waters).   In addition, Chapter 2 describes how compliance costs were annualized,  how two
different cost-effectiveness values were calculated,  and how they can be used to compare the
merits of each regulatory option. Chapter 3 presents  the findings of this analysis and identifies a
subset of the 30 regulatory options that are demonstrably more  costly and less effective than
other options. Chapter 4 compares the  remaining most efficient options to other promulgated
rules.
                                           1-2

-------
                                      CHAPTER 2
                         BACKGROUND OF METHODOLOGY

       Cost-effectiveness calculations are used in  the effluent limitations  guidelines and
 standards development process to compare the efficiency of regulatory options in removing
 pollutants.   The Agency evaluates both overall cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-
 effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental (to another option or
 to a benchmark, such as existing treatment) annual  cost of a pollution control option in  an
 industry or industry subcategory per incremental toxicity-weighted pound of pollutant removed
 by that control option.  In other words, the cost-effectiveness value  represents  the unit cost of
 removing the next pound equivalent of pollutant.  While not required by the Clean Water Act
 (CWA), cost-effectiveness analysis offers a useful  metric  for comparing the efficiency  of
 alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants that are either directly regulated by
 the guidelines and standards or incidentally removed along with regulated pollutants.  EPA's
 cost-effectiveness assessment does not analyze removal efficiencies for conventional pollutants,
 such as oil, grease, biological oxygen demand, and total  suspended solids;  thus the removal of
 conventional pollutants is not addressed in this report.

       A cost-effectiveness calculation is simply a ratio  of the annualized  cost of a regulatory
 option for a group of dischargers to the pollutant loading removed from surface waters by the
 option for the same group of dischargers.  EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis  includes seven
 steps:
       1. Determine the relevant wastewater pollutants.
       2. Estimate relative toxic weights for pollutants.
       3. Define pollution control options.
       4. Calculate pollutant removals for each control option.
       5. Determine annualized cost for each control option.
       6. Calculate cost-effectiveness values (and adjust to 1981 dollars).
       7. Compare cost-effectiveness values.

These steps are discussed in the following sections.
                                          2-1

-------
2.1    POLLUTANT DISCHARGES CONSIDERED IN A COST-EFFECTIVENESS
       ANALYSIS
       In developing the effluent guidelines for the CWT industry, EPA identified 125 pollutants
of concern in CWT wastes.  These pollutants include pollutants regulated directly by the
guidelines and standards as well as selected nonregulated pollutants. Nonregulated pollutants are
included when they are removed incidentally as a result of a particular treatment technology,
even though  they  are not specifically limited.  Some of the factors considered in selecting
nonregulated pollutants of concern include toxicity, frequency of occurrence, and amount of
pollutant in the waste stream.  Not all pollutants of concern are included in cost-effectiveness
analyses, however, because TWFs have yet to be estimated for some of these pollutants.  Table
2-1 lists the pollutants of concern for the proposed regulation and identifies 89 pollutants that
have been assigned weighting factors and are included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.

2.2    RELATIVE TOXIC WEIGHTS OF POLLUTANTS
       EPA's cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among pollutants of
concern by using the TWFs and PWFs mentioned  in Chapter 1.  These weighting factors are
necessary because different pollutants have different potential effects on human and aquatic life.
In the past, cost-effectiveness analyses relied on  a single weighting  factor (TWF) for each
pollutant to calculate standardized pound-equivalent pollutant removals for each regulatory
option. To offer an alternative view of the relative health risks presented by diverse toxic
pollutants, EPA has developed a new standardized measure of toxicity with corresponding new
weighting factors (PWFs) for each pollutant.  This report, therefore, offers two alternative cost-
effectiveness analyses of the proposed regulatory  options:  one based on pollutant removals
estimated using the traditional TWFs and another with pollutant removals estimated using PWFs.
The following sections describe in greater detail the development of each of these weighting
factors and the conceptual differences between them.

2.2.1   The Traditional Toxic Weighting Method
       The TWFs that have been used to develop effluent guidelines and standards in the past
are derived from chronic aquatic life criteria (or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or
toxic effects levels) established for the consumption of fish.  For carcinogenic substances, the
human health risk level is 10~5, that is, protective to a level allowing 1 in 100,000 excess cancer
cases over background.  These toxicity levels are related to a benchmark value or toxicity level
associated with a single pollutant.  Copper, a toxic metal pollutant commonly detected and
removed from industrial effluent, is the benchmark pollutant (i.e., the basis on which others are
                                          2-2

-------
TABLE 2-1.  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND
          POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Classicals
C-025
7664417
C-002
C-004
57125
C-004d
16984488
18540299
14797558
C-007
18496258
C-012
C-020
14265442
59473040
C-009
Metals
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440428
7440439
7440702
Pollutant Name

Amenable Cyanide
Ammonia as N
Bod 5
Cod
Cyanide
D-Cod
Fluoride
Hex Chrom
Nitrate-Nitrite as N
Oil + Grease
Sulfide, Total
Toe
Total Phenols
Total Phosphorus
Tox
TSS

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Is Pollutant Included in Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis?

No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
                                                      (continued)
                            2-3

-------
TABLE 2-1.  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND
L AKM z    |gJ3;{jTA]NTS INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS

          ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Metals (continued)
7440473
7440484
7440508
7440553
7553562
7439885
7439896
7439921
7439932
7439943
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7723140
7440097
7440155
7782492
7440213
7440224
7440235
7440246
7704349
7440257
13494809
Pollutant Name

Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Gallium
Iodine
Iridium
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Lutetium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Rhenium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Is Pollutant Included in Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis?

Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No . •
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
                               2-4

-------
TABLE 2-1.  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND
          POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
          ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Metals (continued)
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440337
7440611
7440622
7440666
7440677
Organics
630206
71556
79005
75343
75354
96184
106934
95501
107062
123911
58902
608275
95954
88062
105679
78933
Pollutant Name

Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloro Ethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,4-Dioxane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Butanone
Is Pollutant Included in Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis?

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                                                         (continued)
                               2-5

-------
TABLE 2-1.  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND
          POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
          ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
95578
591786
91576
109068
67641
59507
108101
98862
71432
65850
100516
92524
117817
75274
75150
108907
67663
60297
101848
100414
96457
142621
78591
75092
108383
91203
Is Pollutant Included in Cost-
Pollutant Name Effectiveness Analysis?

2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
2-Propanone
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetophenone
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Diethyl Ether
Diphenyl Ether
Ethyl Benzene
Ethylene Thiourea
Hexanoic Acid
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
M-Xylene
Naphthalene

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
                                                      (continued)
                             2-6

-------
TABLE 2-1.  POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND
            POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS
            ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
124185
629970
112403
112958
630013
544763
593453
629594
68122
NA
95487
87865
108952
110861
106445
100425
127184
56235
108883
156605
75252
79016
75694
20324338
75014
Pollutant Name

N-Decane
N-Docosane
N-Dodecane
N-Eicosane
N-Hexacosane
N-Hexadecane
N-Octadecane
N-Tetradecane
N.N-Dimethylformamide
O+PXylene
O-Cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyridine
P-Cresol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Tribromomethane
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Vinyl Chloride
Is Pollutant Included in Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis?

Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
 Total number of pollutants of concern for CWT industry: 125
 Number of CWT pollutants of concern included in cost-effectiveness analysis: 89
                                    2-7

-------
 compared).  Although the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 ^g/L), the
 Agency continues to estimate TWF-weighted pollutant removals using the former water quality
 criterion (5.6 jo.g/L) to facilitate comparisons with the cost-effectiveness values calculated for
 other regulations. This is why the current TWF for copper is 0.467 rather than 1, the weighting
 factor that one would normally expect for a benchmark pollutant.

        In the traditional  method, a TWF for aquatic life effects and a TWF for human health
 effects are added for pollutants of concern.  The TWF is calculated by  dividing aquatic life and
 human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) for each pollutant, expressed as a concentration in
 micrograms per liter ([ig/L), into the former copper criterion of 5.6 jig/L and summing the
 resulting values:
 where;
       TWF
       AQ
       HHOO
            TWF = 5.6/AQ + 5.6/HHOO

original toxic weighting factor,
chronic aquatic life value (fXg/L), and
human health (ingesting organisms only) value (M£/L).
 Some examples of the effects of different aquatic and human health criteria on weighting factors
 are shown in Table 2-2.

       As indicated in Table 2-2, the TWF is the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios:  the former
 copper criterion divided by the human health criterion for the particular pollutant and the former
 copper criterion divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using the values reported
 in Table 2-2, 11.04 pounds of copper pose the same relative hazard in surface waters as one
 pound of cadmium because cadmium has a TWF 11.04 times as large (5.158/0.467=11.04) as the
 TWF of copper. Similarly, by the TWF method, 97.22 pounds of benzene present the same net
 risk as a single pound of lead, because the TWF for lead is 97.22 as large (1.75/0.018=97.22) as
 the TWF for benzene.  By multiplying the reduction in industry loadings (Ibs/yr) of each
 pollutant by each pollutant's corresponding copper-based TWF and summing this product across
 all pollutants of concern, the Agency can derive the total TWF-weighted pollutant removals (Ibs-
 equivalent/yr) attributable to each proposed regulatory option.

      TWFs and the alternative PWFs for all 89 pollutants of concern included in the cost-
effectiveness analysis are presented in Table 2-3.  The logic  and methods used to calculate the
PWFs are explained in the following section.
                                          2-8

-------
TABLE 2-2.   TWFs BASED ON COPPER FRESHWATER CHRONIC CRITERIA
Pollutant
Copperb
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
Human
Health
Criteria3
Oig/L)
-
-
4,600
84
710
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria
(>ig/L)
12.0
3.2
160.0
1.1
530.0
Weighting
Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/3.2
5.6/4,600 + 5.6/160
5.6/84 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/710 + 5.6/530
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.467
1.750
0.036
5.158
0.018
aBased on ingestion of 6.5 grams of fish per day. The human health risk level set for carcinogenic substances in
   TWF calculations is 10~5.
bAlthough the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 Ug/L), the cost-effectiveness analysis uses
   the old criterion (5.6 Ug/L) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations
   guidelines. The revised higher criteria for copper results is a TWF for copper not equal to 1.0 but equal to 0.467.
Note:   Criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Using the above calculation, the greater the values for the
        criterion used, the lower the TWF. Units for criteria are micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.
 2.2.2   The New Pollutant Weighting Method
        A slightly different approach is used for the alternative method for weighting pollutant
 removals in terms of their toxicity. PWFs are derived from either chromic aquatic life criteria, or
 human health criteria established for the consumption of water and fish.  For carcinogenic
 substances, the human  health risk level is 1Q-6, that is, protective to a level allowing 1 in
 1,000,000 excess cancer cases over background. In contrast to TWFs, PWFs are not related to a
 benchmark pollutant. PWFs are calculated in the following manner:

                                 PWF = tfAQ, if AQ < HHWO
                                              or
                               PWF = 1/HHWO, if HHWO < AQ
                                              2-9

-------
TABLE 2-3.  TWFs AND PWFs FOR POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-
          EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Classicals
57125
18540299
Metals
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439932
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7723140
7782492
7440224
7704349
7440257
13494809
Pollutant Name

Cyanide
Hex Chrom

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium • •
TWF
Traditional
Approach

1.08E+00
5.11E-01

6.44E-02
1.88E-01
4.03E+00
1.99E-03
1.77E-01
5.16E+00
2.67E-02
1.14E-01
4.67E-01
5.60E-03
1.75E+00
1.21E-02
1.44E-02
5.04E+02
2.01E-01
3.62E-02
5.60E+01
1.12E+00
4.67E+01
5.60E-06
5.96E-02
'•-••• 4.48E-02
PWF
Alternative
Approach

1.92E-01
9.09E-02

1.15E-02
7.17E-02
5.70E+01
l.OOE-03
3.16E-02
9.09E-01
4.76E-03
2.04E-02
8.33E-02
l.OOE-03
3.13E-01
2.16E-03
l.OOE-02
8.33E+01
3.60E-02
6.25E-03
l.OOE+01
2.00E-01
8.33E+00
l.OOE-06
1.06E-02
8.00E-03
(continued)
                            2-10

-------
TABLE 2-3.  TWFs AND PWFs FOR POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-
          EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Metals (continued)
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440337
7440622
7440666
Organics
630206
71556
79005
75343
75354
96184
106934
95501
107062
123911
58902
608275
95954
88062
105679
78933
95578
591786
Pollutant Name

Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Vanadium
Zinc

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,1-Trichloro Ethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1,4-Dioxane
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2-Butanone
2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
TWF
Traditional
Approach

1.40E-01
3.01E-01
2.93E-02
5.25E-03
6.22E-01
5.10E-02

2.35E-02
4.31E-03
1.38E-02
3.85E-04
1.75E-01
1.96E-03
4.42E+01
1.05E-02
6.19E-03
2.33E-04
6.45E-02
1. OSIi-02
9.8813-02
3.52E-01
5.2913-03
3.17E-05
3.2613-02
1.28E-04
PWF
Alternative
Approach

2.50E-02
5.38E-02
5.24E-03
9.38E-04
1.11E-01
9.09E-03

7.84E-01
7.69E-04
1.66E+00
2.58E-04
1.75E+01
5.05E-03
2.51E+03
1.82E-03
2.61E+00
3.15E-01
1.12E-02
1.93E-03
1.59E-02
6.31E-01
1.87E-03
5.73E-04
8.20E-03
2.28E-05
(continued)
                              2-11

-------
TABLE 2-3.  TWFs AND PWFs FOR POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-
          EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
91576
109068
67641
59507
108101
98862
71432
65850
100516
92524
117817
75274
75150
108907
67663
60297
101848
100414
142621
78591
75092
108383
91203
124185
629970
68122
Pollutant Name

2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
2-Propanone
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetophenone
Benzene
Benzole Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Bisulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Diethyl Ether
Diphenyl Ether
Ethyl Benzene
Hexanoic Acid
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
M-Xylene
Naphthalene
N-Decane
N-Docosane
N.N-Dimethylformamide
TWF
Traditional
Approach

1.81E-02
1.36E-04
7.63E-06
4.31E-03
1.25E-04
2.37E-04
1.84E-02
3.28E-04
5.61E-03
3.75E-02
1.10E-01
7.42E-02
2.80E+00
2.93E-03
2.08E-03
7.74E-05
2.63E-02
1.41E-03
3.41E-04
7.25E-04
4.23E-04
1.49E-03
1.53E-02
1.12E+00
1.06E-03
2.36E-06
PWF
Alternative
Approach

3.24E-03
2.43E-05
2.86E-04
7.69E-04
5.76E-04
2.96E-04
8.43E-01
5.82E-05
l.OOE-03
5.88E-03
5.69E-01
1.90E+00
5.00E-01
1.48E-03
1.76E-01
1.44E-04
4.69E-03
3.21E-04
6.08E-05
2.75E-02
2.15E-01
2.56E-04
2.70E-03
2.00E-01
1.89E-04
2.86E-04
(continued)
                             2-12

-------
TABLE 2-3.   TWFs AND PWFs FOR POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-
              EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
NA
95487
87865
108952
110861
106445
100425
127184
56235
108883
156605
79016
75694
20324338
75014
Pollutant Name

O+P Xylene
O-Cresol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Pyridine
P-Cresol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Vinyl Chloride
TW
Traditional
Approach

8.50E-03
3.28E-03
4.99E-01
2.803-02
1.26E-03
2.36E-03
8.59E-04
7.43E-02
1.28E-01
5.63E-03
9.25E-05
6.29E-02
9.58E-04
8.19E-06
1.29E-03
PWF
Alternative
Approach

1.50E-03
6.05E-04
3.55E+00
5.00E-03
2.88E-02
6.04E-04
1.49E-04 -
1.25E+00
3.94E+00
l.OOE-03
1.44E-03
3.70E-01
1.56E-04
1.46E-06
5.00E-01
 Number of CWT pollutants of concern included in cost-effectiveness analysis: 89
 where;
       PWF   =  pollutant weighting factor,
       AQ     =  aquatic life chronic value Qig/L), and
       HHWO =  human health (ingesting water and organisms) value (|ig/L).
       The resulting PWFs for the 89 pollutants included in the cost-effectiveness analysis are
 listed in Table 2-3. Some examples of how PWF aquatic and human health criteria influence the
 weighting factors derived using the alternative PWF weighting approach are shown in Table 2-4.
 As Table 2-4 shows, the PWF for each pollutant is the inverse of the more stringent of the two
 criteria-weighted ratios: it is equal to 1 divided by the pollutant's human health criterion when
                                         2-13

-------
           TABLE 2-4. PWFs, THE ALTERNATIVE WEIGHTING APPROACH
 Pollutant
Human Health   Aquatic Chronic                        Toxic
   Criteria3         Criteria        Weighting       Weighting
    (|ig/L)            ((ig/L)         Calculation        Factor
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
1,300.0
50.0
610.0
14.0
1.2
12.0
3.2
160.0
1.1
530.0
1/12.0
1/3.2
1/160
1/1.1
1/1.2
0.0833
0.3125
0.0063
0.9091
0.8333
 aBased on ingestion of 6.5 grams of fish per day. The human health risk level set for carcinogenic substances in
   PWF calculations is 10'6.
 Note:   Criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Using the above calculation, the greater the values for the
        criterion used, the lower the TWF. Units for criteria are micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.

 the human health criterion is smaller than the chronic aquatic life criterion, and it is equal to 1
 divided by the chronic aquatic life criterion when the human health criterion is greater than the
 chronic aquatic life criterion.  Thus, by the PWF weighting approach, 10.91 pounds of copper
 pose the same relative hazard in surface waters as 1 pound of cadmium, because cadmium has a
 PWF 10.91 times as large (0.9091/0.0833=10.91) as the PWF of copper.  This ratio  is roughly
 equivalent to the ratio of the TWFs of these two pollutants (5.158/0.467=11.04) presented above.

       For comparisons between some pollutants, however, switching to the PWF approach
 yields dramatically different results from those observed  using the TWF method.  For example,
 the PWF for benzene is more than 2.5 times greater than the PWF for lead, indicating that 2.5
 pounds of lead in surface waters are not as threatening 1 pound of benzene.  In the TWF method
 illustrated in Table 2-2, however, 97.22 pounds of benzene were shown to be about as harmful as
 1 pound of lead. This difference is primarily due to differences in the way the human health
 criteria are set for pollutants in each of the weighting approaches.  A major difference is that the
 PWF method is ten times as stringent in  its assessment of the health risk  associated with
 carcinogenic contaminants.  A second important difference is that the PWF approach sets  the
 human health criterion for each pollutant based on the potential health effects of the pollutant's
 presence in drinking water as well as the effect of ingesting organisms that have been exposed to
 the pollutant. This approach is in contrast to the TWF method, which only considers the health
effects of humans eating fish that have been chronically exposed to the pollutants.
                                          2-14

-------
       Table 2-5 summarizes the conceptual differences between the TWF approach and the
PWF approach to weighting pollutant removals with respect to each pollutant's relative toxicity.
This report will focus on a discussion of the relative cost-effectiveness of control options as
determined  using the TWF  method.  The PWF cost-effectiveness comparison results are
presented in Appendix A.
      TABLE 2-5. CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWFs AND PWFs
Feature
Standard TWF
                                                              Alternative PWF
Benchmark Value (numerator)  5.6 (former freshwater chronic
                                 criterion for copper)
Carcinogenic Risk Level         10'5 (1 in 100,000 excess
                                    cancer cases)
Human Health Exposure          Fish consumption only
Aquatic  Life  Effects  vs.
Human Health Effects
TWFs are added
                                   1
 10'6 (1 in 1,000,000 excess
      cancer cases)
  Drinking water and fish
       consumption
More stringent PWF is used
 2.3    POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
       The proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the CWT industry are
 intended to cover discharges generated during the treatment or recovery of hazardous and non-
 hazardous industrial  waste received from off-site.  The  proposed effluent guidelines and
 standards were developed for three subcategories;
       • metal-bearing waste treatment or recovery,
       • oily waste treatment or recovery, and
       • organic waste treatment or recovery.

       A total of nine control options, each applicable to one of the three subcategories to be
 regulated, can be combined to present 24 possible regulatory options.  Table 2-6 offers a brief
 description of each control option and identifies the subcategory of treatment to which it applies.
 Additional information on the  control options can be found in the Agency's Development
 Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste
 Treatment Industry (EPA-821-R-95-006).   Each regulatory  option combines  one control
                                         2-15

-------
    TABLE 2-6. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CWT CONTROL OPTIONS
               Control Control
  Treatment   Option  Option
 Subcategory Number  Name
                             Control Option Description
 Metals
Organics
1      MET1  Chemical precipitation, solid-liquid separation, and sludge
              dewatering. Pretreatment of cyanide-bearing wastes via
              alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions.

2      MET2  Selective metals precipitation, pressure filtration, secondary
              precipitation, solid-liquid separation, and tertiary
              precipitation. Pretreatment of cyanide-bearing wastes via
              alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions.

3      MET3  Selective metals precipitation, pressure filtration, secondary
              precipitation, solid-liquid separation, and tertiary
              precipitation. Pretreatment of cyanide-bearing wastes via
              alkaline chlorination at specific operating conditions.
Oils 1
2
3
4
OBLl
OIL2
OIL3
OBL4
Emulsion breaking.
Ultrafiltration.
Ultrafiltration, carbon
Ultrafiltration, carbon
carbon adsorption.


adsorption, and reverse osmosis.
adsorption, reverse osmosis, and
      ORG1  Equalization, air-stripping, biological treatment, and
              multimedia filtration.

      ORG2  Equalization, air-stripping, biological treatment, and
              multimedia filtration, followed by carbon adsorbtion.
option for each of the treatment subcategories. Thus, for example, ORG1MET3OIL4 combines
Control Option 1 for the Organics subcategory, Control Option 3 for the Metals subcategory, and
Control Option 4 for the Oils subcategory.
                                         2-16

-------
2.4    CALCULATION OF POLLUTANT REMOVALS
       The reduction in pollutant loadings released by each CWT facility to receiving waters has
been calculated for each control option. These at-stream pollutant removals are equal to end-of-
pipe (i.e., at the edge of the facility) pollutant removals for direct dischargers.  For indirect
dischargers, however, at-stream and end-of-pipe removals may differ because of treatment at the
POTW. Calculation of removals for direct and indirect dischargers is discussed below.

2.4.1   Direct Dischargers
       Current and post-treatment end-of-pipe annual pollutant loadings for each facility and
each control option have been estimated. Removals are calculated as the difference between
current and post-treatment discharges. Removals are then weighted using each of the TWFs and
are reported in pound equivalents.

2.4.2  Indirect Dischargers
       Indirect dischargers are treated differently from direct dischargers  in  the  cost-
effectiveness analysis. A portion of the end-of-pipe pollutant loadings for indirect dischargers
may be removed by the POTW where the CWT facility's sewage receives some wastewater
treatment before it is ultimately discharged to surface waters. Therefore at-stream loadings from
an indirect discharging facility  may be less than  end-of-pipe loadings.  The  comparison of
removals across control options in this analysis is based on 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 91.47 percent, then 91.47
pounds of the cadmium discharged by the facility would be removed from the facility's effluent
 when the wastewater is initially treated at the POTW.  The amount of cadmium that is ultimately
 discharged to surface waters would only amount to 8.53  pounds.  If the indirect discharging
 facility then changes its waste treatment operations to comply with the regulation and thereby
 dramatically reduces the amount of cadmium in its end-of-pipe discharges to the sewer system,
 only a portion of these end-of-pipe pollutant discharge reductions qualify as at-stream pollutant
 removals. Thus, if an indirect discharger cut its baseline indirect discharges of cadmium from
 100 pounds by 40 percent to 60 pounds, the net reduction in cadmium  discharged to surface
 waters attributable to the regulation is not 40 percent of its baseline  discharges to  the sewer
 system (40 pounds), but rather 40 percent of the 8.53 pounds of CWT facility's cadmium that are
 ultimately discharged to surface waters at baseline (3.412 pounds).  The POTW removals factors
 used in the analysis are shown in Table 2-7.
                                          2-17

-------
TABLE 2-7.  POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN
          THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Classical
57125
18540299
Metals
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440473
7440484
7440508
7439896
7439921
7439932
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7723140
7782492
7440224
7704349
7440257
13494809
7440280
Pollutant Name

Cyanide
Hex Chromium

Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Sulfur
Tantalum
Tellurium
Thallium
POTW Removal
Efficiency (%)

70.44
5.68

16.81
71.13
90.89
90.2
70.28
90.05
91.25
4.81
84.11
83
91.83
26
40.6
90.16
52.17
51.44
69.42
34.33
92.42
14.33
55.19
55.19
53.8
                                                        (continued)
                              2-18

-------
TABLE 2-7.  POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN
          THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Metals (continued)
7440315
7440326
7440337
7440622
7440666
Organics
630206
71556
79005
75343
75354
96184
106934
107062
95501
123911
58902
608275
95954
88062
105679
78933
95578
591786
91576
109068
Pollutant Name

Tin
Titanium
Tungsten
Vanadium
Zinc

1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2,3 ,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2,4 Dimethylphenol
2-Butanone
2-Chlorophenol
2-Hexanone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Picoline
POTW Removal
Efficiency (%)

65.2
68.77
55.19
42.28
77.97

23
90.45
55.98
70
75.34
5
17
89.03
88.98
73.95
33
41
28
65
51.22
91.83
62.03
87.82
28
84.68
                                                          (continued)
                               2-19

-------
TABLE 2-7.  POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN
          THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
67641
59507
108101
98862
71432
65850
100516
92524
117817
75274
75150
108907
67663
60297
101848
100414
142621
78591
75092
108383
91203
124185
629970
68122
136777612
95487
87865
Pollutant Name

2-Propanone
4-Chloro-3-Methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetophenone
Benzene
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl)Phthalate
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Diethyl Ether
Diphenyl Ether
Ethyl Benzene
Hexanoic Acid
Isophorone
Methylene Chloride
M-Xylene
Naphthalene
N-Decane
N-Docosane
N.N-Dimethylformamide
O+P Xylene
O-Cresol
Pentachlorophenol
POTW Removal
Efficiency (%)

83.75
63
87.87
95.34
94.76
80.5
78
96.28
59.78
91.93
84
96.37
73.44
7
86.53
93.79
84
62.13
54.28
65.4
94.69
9
88
84.75
95.07
52.5
13.88
                                                        (continued)
                             2-20

-------
TABLE 2-7.   POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR POLLUTANTS INCLUDED IN
              THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Organics (continued)
108952
110861
106445
100425
127184
56235
108883
156605
79016
75694
20324338
75014
Pollutant Name

Phenol
Pyridine
P-Cresol
Styrene
Tetrachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Toluene
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Vinyl Chloride
POTW Removal
Efficiency (%)

; 95.25
95.4
71.67
93.65
84.61
87.94
96.18
70.88
86.85
75.21
46.77
93.49
       Table 2-8 presents three different estimates of the annual mass loading of at-stream
pollutant removals anticipated from direct and indirect dischargers for each control option.  At
the top of the table, estimated total pollutant removals (Ibs/yr) for each control option are
presented for all (conventional, non-conventional, and toxic) pollutants of concern with no effort
to weight the individual pollutants removed  according to their toxicity.  The mass loading
reductions presented in this part of the table include expected removals of the 33 CWT pollutants
of concern that have been excluded from the  cost-effectiveness analysis because information
about their relative toxicity is lacking. The middle and lower sections of the table present the
weighted mass loading reductions attributable to each control option. These values are based
only on weighted removals of the 89 pollutants for which TWFs have been estimated.

2.5    ANNUALIZED COST FOR EACH CONTROL OPTION
       The methods  used to estimate the costs of complying with the regulatory options can be
found in Chapter 8, of the Agency's Development Document for Proposed  Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized  Waste Treatment Industry (EPA-821-R-95-006).
This section provides a brief summary of the compliance costs.
                                        2-21

-------
TABLE 2-8.   SUMMARY OF WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT
              REMOVALS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS

Weighting
Method
Unweighted








TWF








Control
Option
Name
MET1
MET2
MET3
OIL!
OBL2
OILS
OEL4
ORG1
ORG2
MET1
MET2
MET3
OIL1
OBL2
OILS
OBL4
ORG1
ORG2
Total Removals
by Direct
Dischargers
(IbsVyr)
9,329,643
27,609,319
28,739,622
0
21,004,158
23,108,164
23,300,182
5,372,689
831,011
(TWF Ib. eqjyr)
1,085,922
1,142,279
1,148,324
0
113,500
119,256
117,540
843,908
25,585
Total Removals
by Indirect
Dischargers
(IbsVyr)
3,528,937
6,080,565
6,322,709
0
11,263,808
11,586,370
11,619,866
1,458,139
1,391,288
(TWF Ib. eqVyr)
156,945
164,492
165,056
0
146,606
148,780
148,264
47,409
41,227
Total Removals
by All
Dischargers
(IbsVyr)
12,858,580
33,689,883
35,062,331
0
32,267,966
34,694,534
34,920,048
6,830,828
2,222,299
(TWF Ib. eqVyr)
1,242,867
1,306,771
1,313,380
0
260,106
268,036
265,803
891,316
66,812
Note: Ib. eq. = pound equivalent

       Three categories of compliance costs were evaluated:  capital costs (including RCRA
permit-modification costs), land costs, and operating and maintenance costs (including sludge
disposal and self-monitoring costs). While the capital and land costs are one-time "lump sum"
costs, the operating and maintenance costs were evaluated on an annual basis. Capital and land
costs were annualized using the real weighted-average cost of capital.1 The capital and land are
assumed to have a productive life of 20 years; therefore, the capital and land costs are adjusted to
account for the cost of financing the investment (through equity and debt) over  the 20-year
period. The adjusted total capital and land costs are then divided by 20 to arrive at annualized
'For details on the weighted average cost of capital see the Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent
  Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry (RTI, 1994).
                                         2-22

-------
costs. Total annualized costs are equal to annualized capital and land costs plus operating and
maintenance costs.  The following formula is used to calculate total anriualized costs:
                                            1 — C1 + RWACCV^O
              TAG = (LAND + CAPITAL) /      RWArr      +
                                                O&M
where;
       TAG      =  total annualized cost of compliance,
       LAND    =  total cost of new land,
       CAPITAL =  total capital costs of compliance,
       O&M     =  annual operating and maintenance costs of compliance, and
       RWACC  =  real weighted average cost of -capital.

       Table 2-9 presents total 1990-dollar and 1981-dollar annualized costs to direct and
indirect dischargers of each of the 10 proposed control options.

2.6    CALCULATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
       Typically, the cost-effectiveness value for a particular control option is calculated as the
ratio of incremental annual cost of that option to the incremental pound equivalents removed by
that option. The incremental effectiveness may be viewed both in comparison to the baseline
scenario and to another regulatory option.  Cost-effectiveness values are reported in units of
dollars per pound equivalent of pollutant removed.  For the purpose of comparing cost-
effectiveness values of options under review to those of other promulgated rules, compliance
costs used in the cost-effectiveness analysis are adjusted to 1981 dollars using Engineering News
Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI).  This adjustment factor is calculated as follows:
                                                    3535
                       1981 CCI
   Adjustment factor =  ^990
                                                  " 4732

 The equation used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness is
                                       TACk-
                                                         =  0-7470
                                CEk =
                                         PEk -
 where;
        CEk   =
        TACk =
        PEk   =
incremental cost-effectiveness of Option k,
total annualized cost of compliance under Option k, and
pound equivalents removed by Option k.
                                         2-23

-------

S
o
u
g


Cfl
1^

u
o>
t-
»M
TJ
r— 1

IW
hi
O
g?
C3
-C
u
.55
Q
-••"I
1
Q

"S s
13 zz .2 ** 5
§•3. Q O*
^^ i? rj ^
C*"^ CN ^5 ^"^ i^C
Co ^
^3 Q^


'•rt ^
^ N S g^
3 £ a ^ S
llt^s
-S3 ^
•g s
IIP!
la ~


T3 JH
ge ^
^ 1 1^1
-33
f— * N S3 ^~>
o 1 '"aJR §
^1 tUE
BO ^^
^^ ^^



'Si ^
g .3 .1 -g f
H IfSg
-33
"o C «
•^ •-!§ £
5o*
"o d oS
i -fa .2 •*
|I|
"S o
C n
o" o" vo"
•^J" t~~ vo
of t-T oo"
i — i i — i



T-H T-H OO
vo o) en
O in ON
r^ en" oC
CN T-H ON
oj^ oq^ ON
en" en" Tf"
CN CN
r^ en Tj-
o* vo vo
oq^ oq^ r~
CO" T-H" cT
of 06" od"




0 T-. 0)
OO O) O)
en ON o
cT en" Tt"
in en en
O^ ^ CO
* — i » — i
'— i Oi en
H H H
WWW
S S S


T-H CNI en


Ml
-3
•»— »
1
o T-H in o
•—I en o
ON" en" r^
^t" r—^ fN
^Q f-^ v~~
of of t-~-"
OJ O)


O VO OO O)
en CN rt
oo o ON
vo" rt-" T-T
^ O T-H
in^ •>*_ en^
en" o" vo"
en en
O en en rf
oo T-< vo
^ """!. °9.
CN t^ VO
O in oo
of vo" ON"
T-H 1 	 1



O VO Ol O)
O en o
ON en vo
 vo
01 01 in
oj^ vo -^j-
06" en" of
01 Tt vo
vo T-H cN
vo" r~"




o o vo o
en ON rf
ON vq^ en
o" en" T-H"
^- CN 01
oo 01 r~
oo" ON
233^;
d d d d
0000


T-H OJ en •«*



eq
5
00 CN
OO ON
" ^J1 II
en f"*) II
T-H f"^
of vo"



T-H 01
O) OO
vo^ en
of -3-"
•n en
oo o
of oo"
r~ oo
ON ON
oo O
r~^ of
en CN
°°- ^




CN in
VO O
T-^ en
Sof
oo
•* ON
01 -3-
a I
en" o"
ON oo
Ol OJ^
of




ON vo
if} r*""'
*^^* ^^
of of
ON in
en o
en"
O O
O O


T-< CN

cc
_o
Si
o
                                                                                              00
                                                                                             00

                                                                                             ON
                                                                                             •a
                                                                                              c
                                                                                             _o

                                                                                             '^
                                                                                              o



                                                                                              en


                                                                                              §

                                                                                             CJ
                                                                                             T3
                                                                                              8
                                                                                             (D




                                                                                             00
                                                                                             o
                                                                                             •o
                                                                                             oo

                                                                                             ON
                                                                                             S

                                                                                             "8
                                                                                            ¥
                                                                                            I
                                                 2-24

-------
       The numerator of the equation, TACk minus  TACk-i, is simply  the  incremental
annualized treatment cost in going from Option k-1 to Option k.  The denominator is similarly
the incremental removals achieved in going from Option k-1 to Option k. Thus, the incremental
cost-effectiveness of Option k  represents the unit cost of additional pound-equivalent removals
(beyond what is achievable by Option k-1), assuming that the removals achievable by Option k-1
can be removed for the average unit  cost of Option k-1. In other words, incremental cost-
effectiveness values show how much more it would cost per incremental pound-equivalent of
pollutant removed to raise the effluent guideline from one level of stringency to the next higher
level of stringency.

       The method of comparing total cost-effectiveness values of options to current treatment
uses the same formula and sets the benchmark costs (TACk-i) equal to zero. For the total cost-
effectiveness method, the benchmark pollutant loadings (PEk-i) are set equal to the current at-
stream loading.

2.7    COMPARISONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
       Two  types of comparisons  are  typically done using cost-effectiveness values.
Compliance costs (y axis) and pollutant removals (x axis) may be plotted in a scatter graph to
determine which options form the cost-effectiveness frontier by offering the most cost-effective
regulatory control.  Alternatively, a comparison of total cost-effectiveness values can be used to
assess the cost-effectiveness of controls relative to previously promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines for other industries.

       Cost-effectiveness values for individual control  options aloiae do not provide enough
information to guide the Agency in selecting an optimal regulatory option because each proposed
control option only applies to one  of the three subsets  of wastes treated in CWT  operations
covered by these (Phase I) guidelines. Three individual control options (one addressing each
subcategory of waste managed in in-scope CWT operations) must be combined to create each
regulatory option capable of meeting  the Agency's regulatory responsibilities. The  total cost,
total TWF removals, and the TWF-cost-effectiveness values associated with approval of each
individual control option for direct dischargers are presented in Table 2-10.  Table 2-11 presents
a parallel comparison for indirect dischargers. A more in-depth investigation of the relative cost-
effectiveness of  the Agency's regulatory options, options  that encompass all areas of CWT
operations, is presented in Chapter 3. This investigation involves comparing and presenting both
incremental and total cost-effectiveness values calculated for each possible combination of the
ten  control options that cover all  three subcategories of the Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry.
                                          2-25

-------
 TABLE 2-10. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
              DIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Treatment
Category
Metals


Oils



Organics
Control
Option
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
Total Costs
($1981)
2,278,827
8,541,863
8,840,764
0
628,228
6,143,622
7,262,456
293,191
2,280,094
Total Cost
($1990)
3,050,380
11,433,921
11,834,022
0
840,930
8,223,696
9,721,340
392,459
3,052,076
Total
Removals
(Ib. eq.)
1,085,922
1,142,279
1,148,324
0
113,500
1 19,256
1 17,540
843,908
25,585
TWF Cost-
Effectiveness
Costs
($//lb. eq.)
2.10
7.48
7.70

5.54
51.52
61.79
0.35
89.12
Incremental
TWF Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb. eq.)

111.13
49.45

5.54
958.19
^ t652.04) '
tV f «
"* " (2.43)
Note: The shaded area indicates that the option in question has fewer weighted removals than the preceding option.
     That is, incremental values are not meaningful. These costs do not include RCRA and monitoring costs.
                                      2-26

-------
TABLE 2-11. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
             INDIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Treatment
Category
Metals


Oils



Organics

Control
Option
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
Total Costs
($1981)
2,410,819
17,790,208
18,676,537
0
2,021,483
16,570,113
19,864,864
1,837,897
3,722,098
Total Cost
($1990)
3,227,061
23,813,521
24,999,938
0
2,705,906
22,180,332
26,590,602
2,460,162
4,982,305
Total
Removals
(lb.eq.)
156,945
164,492
165,056
0
146,606
148,780
148,264
47,409
41,227
TWF Cost-
Effectiveness
Costs
($//lb. eq.)
15.36
108.15
113.15

13.79
111.37
133.98
38.77
90.28
Incremental
TWF Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb. eq.)

2,037.92
1,569.66

13.79
6,692.49
*; (6;37&4?j V'

^;{awj3r ?
Note: The shaded area indicates that the option in question has fewer weighted removals than the preceding option.
     That is, incremental values are not meaningful. These costs do not include RCRA and monitoring costs.
                                       2-27

-------

-------
                                      CHAPTERS
                          COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS

       There are 24 possible combinations of the nine control options described in Table 2-6 that
include a control option for each waste subcategory covered by these guidelines. As described
earlier, two parallel cost-effectiveness analyses were performed on all 24 regulatory options.  In
each case the cost-effectiveness of the 24 regulatory options is analyzed separately for direct and
indirect dischargers.  Each analysis first investigates the relative cost-effectiveness of all 24
regulatory options and presents in tabular form total costs, total removals, and cost-effectiveness
and incremental cost-effectiveness values for each regulatory option. The relative removals of
the regulatory options are also displayed graphically.  This chapter concludes with tabular and
graphic comparisons of regulatory options for direct and indirect dischargers combined.

       Calculating incremental cost-effectiveness values involves sorting the regulatory options
in order of increasing removals. Incremental cost-effectiveness values are calculated by dividing
the incremental (to the regulatory option with the next lowest level of removals) total annualized
cost of compliance by the incremental removals, as described in Section 2.6. Regulatory options
that are cost-effective (superior) can be identified at this stage, because the total costs associated
with these  options are lower than the total  costs of all options with lower levels of removals.
When the costs and removals for each regulatory option are plotted  in a scatter graph, the
superior regulatory options form a cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier along the lower right-
hand edge of the cluster of points.

       Similar comparisons are made in a second set of tables that include only those options
forming the respective efficiency frontiers. The incremental cost-effectiveness values presented
in the tables comparing only  the regulatory options along each efficiency frontier are more
meaningful than in the tables that compare all 24 regulatory options, because the values reflect
the incremental unit cost of removals (in pound equivalents) to the superior regulatory option
with the next lowest level of removals.

3.1    RESULTS  OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
       Tables 3-1 and 3-2 compare the relative cost-effectiveness of all 24 regulatory options for
direct and indirect discharging facilities, respectively.  In each case, the Agency's preferred
control option combinations, Regulatory Option 1 and Regulatory Option 2, are identified.  The
names in Column 2 identify the control options from the three treatment subcategories that were
                                          3-1

-------
a
           .a
           S
              o
             «
              a.
             O
                oo en 
   >n ON -t oo en
   •* p p O t-j

   rf CS CN fO i-5
        00 ON Tf V)

             C^ ''vj*
iH O C5 t"; O

so cs r4 Tf cs cs" rf


r^SOVO   vOVOO^OVS

v~/r-Ts~'   ^^"'OO'I-H
                     o\ vo vo
                               en
                                       oo
                                                                cs
                                                                          00
3
   vo >n o
             en en
                CNCNCNcNCNCNCSCNCNeNCSCNri'—' i—ir7I'-Hrrrb.'-H'—'1^'—'it
                oooooooooooo^oo^o^^ooOo^
                r^r^r^r^r^r^r^r^fXi^r^r^P^p^p^P^r^P^P^r^ip^P^fXP^
                oooooooooooooooooooooooo
                                 §
                                 be
                     a

                    O
                     01
                                           3-2

-------
     GC
l-a
P» w
      .o

      ~o.
      o
n
^imi^iii
                    &f
                                                      OH O
              QQQQQQQ^QQQfc4QQQQ
                             a a,'a i—.
                             S 8 2  l|
        in CO I-H VO OO VO T—i ON t<
        oooooqvocNvqTtenTt

        T* TT en ON en ON .en r-- vd
        TtOTtvooNVooNvors
           povo^in^Tt n~>, ^ t~>. en

           ^ CN" I-H x~"' r-T    o" vo"
                            i—ieNr~-ooint^*-HC~~
                            oq o en i/> O TJ-_ en Tt

                            cnr~cnONTtvdeN*vo
                            •OOt~~
                            vp^ ON^ I-H_ 1-^cN^ en^ r-^ cn^

                            CN" I-H" I-H" Tt" Tt" VO" t-T VO"
                            I-H      »H CN ^-^00 ^-^

                                                     rf en rf

                                                     V5 cN v«
                                                     r- oo i>
                                                                     -So
         oo
                                                                      r- oo
                                                                      «n O
     ONONVpinvooNent^vpcNpi^^cNONinOTr'cn

     t~i-HinONcHcNeni/jTtvot— voTtinvot~~oooit~~ODONO
     r—icNOOenpot>-c—i cs >—• ^H
     r-H r-H r-H r^H                       r-H r-H r-H r-H       i-H ^H r—1 t*H
enrroNTtoinONvoenovor^OTjfnoN
t-~-i/}i—iooovot>eninvocNi-HONPOoooN
      r-cNONTto^CNONcnvoooi—(ONTt
                                                     >n
              in vo i—i
              O O 1-H TT-)

              CN CN CN CN
                            CN CN CN fi en Tt Tt in oo ON
                            >ninini/3inininin«/>i/i
                         ifienenenfienenenenrofi
                                            r~- tH ••* t-H ON 1/1
                                            o r^ 'o OD CN Tf
                                            vj o *-< vo r~- invoTtr-Hr^ooO'-HoooNi—IONONOO
           i—ioenocn<3oocnooNoO'-Htst~~'-HONTt
           ONinooenvo*-OONcN'TtONt~-enoenvovoON
                                                              oo
                                                        O ON oo
                                                        lt~- t-H ON
         oo

         °P»
         oo"
      vocNcNoooOr^pTtfn
fNI ^"^ ^3
ooo
ggg
  CN
  qq
  gg
I-H CN CN

OOO
rS. f£ c£

000
CN " CN
o o o

ooo
                                  3°M
                                  d«.  .
                               oo2o
                               i—i  en C fN
                               f_  f_ r^ f_,
                               ~  ~ W m
og
                                          en Tt en
                                            rv V'
                                                   
-------
 combined to create each regulatory option.  Thus, ORG2MET1OIL1, the regulatory option with
 the lowest level of removals using the TWFs, combines the following treatment subcategory
 control options:
        • Organics Option 2
        • Metals Option 1
        • Oils Option 1

        The costs in Column 3 represent the total annualized cost of compliance (TAG) of each
 regulatory option  (summed across all three subcategory control options and across all CWT
 facilities in the given discharge status). These costs include the sum of total annualized RCRA
 costs and monitoring costs for all facilities in the corresponding discharge status and have been
 deflated from 1990 dollars to  1981  dollars.  The land cost and capital cost components of the
 compliance costs and the RCRA permit-modification costs were annualized over 20 years for
 each facility using facility-specific estimates of RWACC, as explained in Section 2.5.  RWACC
 is the effective interest rate, adjusted to correct  for inflation, at which companies are able to
 borrow new investment capital.

       The removals in Column 4 are the total  TWF-weighted removals achievable by each
 regulatory option,  summed across all CWT facilities in the same discharging categories. The
 regulatory alternatives have been sorted in ascending order of total weighted removals.  The cost-
 effectiveness values shown in Column 5 were generated by dividing total costs associated with
 each regulatory alternative by the corresponding level of weighted removals.

       The incremental cost-effectiveness values in Column 6 show the incremental  cost-
 effectiveness of each regulatory option. These values were generated by dividing the change in
 total costs by the change in total removals from one regulatory option to the next (in order of
 increasing removals).  Regulatory options with negative values in this column preclude further
 considering the options directly above them in the table, because they achieve  greater total
 removals at lower total costs than the preceding option in the table.

       The labels in Column 7, "STATUS," indicate whether the regulatory option  is on the
 cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier. Regulatory options with "DROP" in this column  have
 higher total costs for fewer total removals  than at least one  other option in the table. These
options are not on the  cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier.  The regulatory  options  with
"KEEP" in this column  have lower total costs than all options with total removals less than  or
equal to their level of total removals and are on the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier.
                                          3-4

-------
       Figures 3-1 and 3-2 are scatter graphs of the costs and removals values shown for the
regulatory options in Tables 3-1 and 3-2.  Total costs are measured along the y axis and total
removals are measured along the x axis. The cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier is made up of
those superior options, symbolized by bold diamonds, plotted in the lower right-hand section of
the graph. The Agency's preferred regulatory options, REG OPT 1 and REG OPT 2, are tagged
with a  1 and a 2 respectively.  There are 6 regulatory options on the efficiency frontier for direct
dischargers and 7 regulatory options on the efficiency frontier for indirect dischargers when
removals are estimated using the TWFs. Both of EPA's preferred regulatory options are on each
of these frontiers.

       Tables 3-3 and 3-4 are organized in the same way  as Tables 3-1 and 3-2,  but Tables 3-3
and 3-4 only include the most cost-effective regulatory options from Table 3-1.  The incremental
cost-effectiveness values presented in these tables are more  meaningful  than those shown in
Tables 3-1  and 3-2, because they are based on the incremental costs and removals of moving
from the superior  regulatory option with the next lowest level of removals to the superior option
in question.

       Figure 3-3 is a close-up image of Figure 3-1 with the omission of all inferior regulatory
options.  Similarly, Figure 3-4 is a close-up image of Figure 3-2 Without any  of the inferior
regulatory options.  In each case the scales of both the y axis, along which costs are measured,
and the x axis, along which removals are measured, have been changed to permit a closer look at
differences in costs and removals across options.

3.2    RESULTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR DIRECT AND
       INDIRECT DISCHARGERS TOGETHER
       The Agency also investigated the relative cost-effectiveness of each of the 24 regulatory
alternatives with the constraint that both direct and indirect dischargers are assumed to face the
same regulatory alternative. Table  3-5 compares the relative cost-effectiveness of all options
when removals are estimated  using the TWF approach, and Table 3-6  compares  the cost-
effectiveness of seven regulatory options that form the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier.
Figure 3-5 is  a scatter graph  of the relative cost-effectiveness  of all  24 regulatory options.
Figure 3-6  is a larger scale image  of the relative cost-effectiveness of the seven regulatory
options forming the efficiency frontier in Figure 3-5.

       It is interesting to note that the same seven regulatory options form the efficiency frontier
regardless of weighting approach, when costs and removals for all dischargers are included in the
analysis (see tables and figures in Appendix A for comparison). Both of the Agency's preferred
options are on each of the efficiency  frontiers.
                                          3-5

-------
Figure 3-1. TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for Direct Dischargers


     20-
     18"
     16"
 ~  14-
 "vf
     12 +
 I
 §•

 I  10-

 1
 =1
 3   8-
      4 —
               X
      1,000
                     X
                                                                       X
                                                X
H	1—          I              I

 1,250          1,500          1,750          2,000

     Pollutant Removals (TWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
2,250
                    * Cost-Effective Options        x All Other Options


                    *1 = Regulatory Option 1       * 2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                        3-6

-------
Figure 3-2.  TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for
           Indirect Dischargers
ou
45-



40-


~ 35-
"co"
c
_g
I
5 3°"
I
to
o 25 -
O
•a
N
75
i 20-
<
1
o
*~ 15-
10-


5-
0 -














X
X
X
X


!




X
»
	 1 	 1 	 i 	 i i
X
X
X
xx
X 2
•
»






X
X *1

•







X
•

1
UT i j | | | 	 1 	 1
190 215 240 265 290 315 340 365
Pollutant Removals (TWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
* Cost-Effective Options x All Other Options
»1 = Regulatory Option 1 * 2 _ Regulatory Option 2


                                   3-7

-------
 c«

6
 w^
U oo

fi
H
       0
       Z!
       a
       O
           5*
            S*
           S*
          VO V) iH
                  GO V)
                  t- •<* i-l
                00 Tf O\ 00
                V) i-l TT V)
                O\       ON
        , co ^ NO ON ON
       VO OO «/l t^ OO TT

         TH rf Tt rf t>
             o\ v> \o i-i t»-
             r< oo oo to ce
          oo ff> o ve r--
            •\  «v »s »v  *^
          o\ m o\ o\ in
          C< Tf Tt ON O
          0\ O O 0 T-(

             r* rCrf rf
ON NO iH CO CO I

3^ r^ ^ r^ iH_ i
in ^f oC t^ NO" '
   co ^* ON ON ^
   l~« CS ON C< 00
  " rt oT oC «T i
           I-H r<
                             CO
                             CO
                          S
                          o
                          o
                          W)
                             I
                              O
                              a
                             •o
RCRA
                             oo
                             ON
                             •a
                              S
                                     3-8

-------
  o
  I
  a
  H
  U
 g
 K
c»
t/5


1
u
w^
H U
sg
Wj
tori
ro
H
                       CU OM A QH O< &4 On

                       8888$ 8 8
                  §T
            £U
                      ••*
                      ro
                         i-H ON «/> so ON so
                           SO iH l/> TT V)

                           SO    i-Too"' ^
           u
                  *
                        ^H l/> ^^ ffj ^^ 00
                        ^" ^ ^5 ^ ^^ f^l

                        vi vo og p oo cJ
                           se
                                 t- o
           S. ^v«
           !>• A 5s

                                    iH V)
                     g SO frj o (^ 00 •*

                      »v  .^'™J^ "^ O SO 
-------
Figure 3-3. TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Direct Dischargers

8

ts
3
"S
N
   20
    18-
    16-
    14-
    12-
 i   8-1-
 (0
     6~-
     4--
          X
                                                                      X
                                                    X
                                                  X
       1,925     1,950     1,975    2,000     2,025     2,050     2,075     2,100    2,125

                          Pollutant Removals (TWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
                       EPA Preferred Options       X All Other Options
                     »1 =
                      = Regulatory Option 1
                                                 2 =
= Regulatory Option 2
                                         3-10

-------
Figure 3-4. TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Indirect Dischargers
     50-
  w

  o
 0)
 _N

 15
 o
     45--
     40--
     35'
     30--
     25"
     20--
     15--
     10--
      5--
         X
                                                                         X
                                                                      X
                                                                         X
                                                                     X
       200     220     240     260      280      300     320     340     360


                          Pollutant Removals (TWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
                   >  EPA Preferred Options       x All Other Options


                   >1 = Regulatory Option 1        *2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                      3-11

-------
CO

3
               03

               2


               1/5
            42
            O

            H
 c
 o

i
 >-

2
 «j

1
 5T
tf

                                     &&&&
                                     -  ^  ^  g>
    t_lMl-lt-lt-(t-ll-ll-4l-ll-ll-ll-l&t-lt-lWI-l4>UtH&4>l-l
   PPPPPPPPPPPP^PPWPW^PS^^P
                     t--cNcn\of-o\ov>ON
                     voen-^-cnoocNcnvjo
                  OOOONVOVOVOOOVOOONON
                  t—
                 CN -^f CN O
                                              OO
                  o u~) vo o 'o cn en oo ^ *o oo vo
                  i—icNCN'—icNcNCNencNcncnen
   ON en cN *o cN v^ ON *O ON ON *O ON rn c^- C^- ON C*— C?\ ro O
   t-^OOONOOOOi-HOOOOONi—CONCNOOOOONOOOOFHONON
   \O >O i—i C~- ^ C~- *O cn CN VO ONCN^HOVOC^ONd'HOO

   ON cn co ON Vi r^ en ON o *—< *o oo Tf oo ^3" ^* ON c^ oo en
   f~~* ^** oo vo C^ C—* en en ^^ ^* ^J~ ^J* m ON c_' ^^ ON ^^ vi vo
   cnenen«n>o«nvovovovovovoi—I^HC
                                                                            f5
                                                                            r^
                                                                               OW
                  ON
                          C^3 ON ^J'
                          en cn >n
                          r- cn t-
                       •O >O ON "^t* OO
                       VO OO f- ON O
                       t~~ en i—i ON T3-
   ocNr-ONr-cncNONt--vo'*'—IQO
   oocNOcNOONt^^*ocnencNO
   ONVOoovoi-ivocNr-^cnoNVOi-i
   cn 
-------
31
o &>
           VO VO QO O
        o o i> r< (*5
           1-1 a\    tn
> o
HU
s0 ?5 _i

51*

   42
   22 -—

   58

   «s»
   H
      §
      M
      v

               <
              sr
              a>


                   VI TT JH
              SO O\ TT
              VO OS TT
          _ ON ON fO f}
         00 GO iH ON O
         i—( r* c^i-j^oo^

         rfrfrfo"
           t^ o r* I-H >«o •3;
           r< in irj oe r-~ o
         ON 'O se^ C^ r^ O^ rn
         06" oo" rT i-? 'O1 vT o
           in r* o oo vo irj
           t^ 00 TT >TJ TT \O
           i_) i-J i-3 J iJ i

         0000000
         i-H i-H FH C^ f5 fN fi
         H H H H H H H
         -1 a w a w w r -
         o o o o o o c

         ooooooc
                            oo
                            oo
                            CM
&
8
60

I

I
•a
                            -8
                                  3-13

-------
Figure 3-5.  TWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for All Dischargers
f(J
60-

^ 50-
I
§ 40-
Annualized Cost ($1
03
o
i
0
20-
•
>
10-
$
x x
x x


X
xx x
X «.1
X *
X


X
<
1 1 1 1 1
0 I l 1 1 1 1 	 1
1,300 1,500 1,700 1,900 2,100 2,300 2,500 2,7

Pollutant Removals (TWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
* Cost-Effective Options x All Other Options










00

*1 = Regulatory Option 1 * 2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                 3-14

-------
  Figure 3-6. TWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier Ifor All Dischargers
   60
   50 ~-
1   40
    30


T3


I

-------

-------
                                  CHAPTER 4
       COMPARISON OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED CWT
  REGULATORY OPTIONS WITH THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PREVIOUSLY
             APPROVED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS

      Tables 4-1 and 4-2 respectively compare the estimated cost-effectiveness of each of the
Agency's preferred regulatory alternatives for direct and indirect discharging CWT facilities to
the cost-effectiveness of BAT regulations that have been approved for direct dischargers in other
industries. This comparison is only possible using the cost-effectiveness values that are derived
with pound-equivalent removals estimated using the TWF weighting approach.  All costs are in
1981 dollars.
                                      4-1

-------
TABLE 4-1.  INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF BAT COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR
            DIRECT DISCHARGERS (TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL
            POLLUTANTS ONLY; REMOVALS WEIGHTED USING
            TRADITIONAL TWFSa; $1981)

Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Centralized Waste Treatment - RO 1
Centralized Waste Treatment - RO2
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonferrous Metals Mfg II
Offshore Oil and Gasb
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Petroleum Refining
Pulp & Paper
Textile Mills
Currently
Discharged
(Ib. eq.)
1,340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
3,372
3,372
9
NA
2,308
32,503
605
40,746
259
3,305
34
6,653
1,004
3,808
54,225
2,461
208
44
1,086
BAT=BPT
61,713
BAT=BPT
Remaining at
Selected
Option(s)
(Ib. eq.)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
9
8
1,267
1,261
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
2
313
12
2,328
9,735
371
4
41
63
BAT=BPT
2,628
BAT=BPT
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
($/lb. eq. rem.)
121
2
10
BAT=BPT
49
27
5
7
404
NA
84
<1
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
69
4
6
33
5
15
1
BAT=BPT
6
BAT=BPT
39
BAT=BPT
aTWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects the cost-effectiveness at the
  time of regulation.
^Produced water only, for produced sand and drilling fluids and drill cuttings, BAT=NSPS.
                                     4-2

-------
TABLE 4-2.  INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF PSES COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR
            INDIRECT DISCHARGERS (TOXIC AND NONCO1WENTIONAL
            POLLUTANTS ONLY; REMOVALS WEIGHTED USING TRADITIONAL
            TWFSa; $1981)

Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Centralized Waste Treatment - RO1
Centralized Waste Treatment - RO2
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonferrous Metals Mfg II
Offshore Oil and Gasb
Organic Chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp & Paper
Pollutants
Currently
Discharged
(lb. eq.)
1,602
1,152
252
NA
2,503
34
689
689
75
260
2,136
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
189
3,187
38
NA
5,210
340
NA
1,565
9,539
Pollutants
Remaining at Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option Selected Option(s)
(lb. eq.) ($/lb. eq. rem.)
18
5
5.0
NA
10
4
330
328
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
5
19
0
NA
72
63
NA
96
103
155
15
38
NA
10
10
70
110
14
14
116
9
<1
6
111
10
90
15
12
NA
34
1
NA
14
65
aTWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects title cost effectiveness at the
  time of regulation.
bNo known indirect dischargers at this time.
                                    4-3

-------

-------
APPENDIX A

-------

-------
A.1    RESULTS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS USING THE PWF TOXIC
       WEIGHTING METHOD
       This Appendix presents a second cost-effectiveness analysis of the nine control options
and the 24 possible regulatory options that can be created by combining individual options from
each of the treatment subcategories. The only difference between the analysis presented in this
appendix and the analysis presented in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report is the toxic weighting
approach used to estimate toxicity-weighted pounds of pollutant removals.  The analysis
presented here uses  PWF pound-equivalent removals as the measure of the effectiveness of
different control options and regulatory options, while the analysis presented in Chapters 2 and 3
uses the  traditional TWF approach. Table A-l presents the unweighted and PWF-weighted
pound-equivalent removals achievable by each individual control option.  Tables A-2 and A-3
present a PWF cost-effectiveness comparison of each of the individual control options.

       The PWF cost-effectiveness analysis of all regulatory options that follows offers very
similar results to the TWF comparison presented in Chapter 3. More regulatory options seem
cost-effective both for direct dischargers and for indirect dischargers  when  removals  are
estimated using the PWF approach than is the case when the analysis relies  on  removals
estimated with TWF approach. All of the regulatory options that were on the efficiency frontier
for either discharge status using the TWF approach are also among the most cost-effective for  the
same discharge status using the PWF approach.   There are several additional options that appear
cost-effective for each discharge category when the PWF weighting method is employed. When
the PWF cost-effectiveness is considered for all dischargers together the same seven regulatory
options are the most cost-effective.

       Tables A-4 and A-5 present the  PWF cost-effectiveness analysis  of all 24 regulatory
options with options sorted in ascending order of weighted removals based on the PWF toxic
weighting approach.  The regulatory options are ordered differently in Tables A-4 and A-5 than
they were in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, where options were sorted in ascending order of TWF removals.

       The organization of Tables A-4 and A-5 is identical to that of Tables 3-1 and 3-2, except
that removals are weighted using the PWF weighting  method. Note that there are 9 superior
regulatory options for direct dischargers and 13 superior options for indirect dischargers in this
analysis,  while there were only 6 and 7 superior options in the corresponding cost-effectiveness
comparisons with removals weighted using the traditional TWF approach.
                                         A-l

-------
TABLE A-l.
SUMMARY OF WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT
REMOVALS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS

Weighting
Method
Unweighted








PWF








Control
Option
Name
MET1
MET2
MET3
OIL1
OIL2
OILS
OIL4
ORG1
ORG2
MET1
MET2
MET3
OIL1
OEL2
OILS
OIL4
ORG1
ORG2
Total Removals
by Direct
Dischargers
ObsVyr)
9,329,643
27,609,319
28,739,622
0
21,004,158
23,108,164
23,300,182
5,372,689
831,011
(PWF Ib. eqVyr)
520,605
563,472
567,776
0
26,398
32,653
32,394
158,530
106,970
Total Removals
by Indirect
Dischargers
(IbsVyr)
3,528,937
6,080,565
6,322,709
0
11,263,808
11,586,370
11,619,866
1,458,139
1,391,288
(PWF Ib. eqVyr)
43,239
47,063
47,313
0
27,698
29,138
29,039
1,455,531
1455847
Total Removals
by AH
Dischargers
(IbsVyr)
12,858,580
33,689,883
35,062,331
0
32,267,966
34,694,534
34,920,048
6,830,828
2,222,299
(PWF Ib. eqVyr)
563,844
610,535
615,089
0
54,096
61,791
61,433
1,614,061
1,562,817
Note: Ib. eq. = pound equivalent
                                A-2

-------
TABLE A-2.  COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
              DIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Treatment
Category
Metals


Oils



Organics

Control
Option
1
2
3
1
2
3
4
1
2
Total Costs
($1981)
2,278,827
8,541,863
8,840,764
0
628,228
6,143,622
7,262,456
293,191
2,280,094
Total Cost
($1990)
3,050,380
11,433,921
11,834,022.
0
840,930
8,223,696
9,721,340
392,459
3,052,076
PWF Total
Removals
520,605
563,472
567,776
0
26,398
32,653
32,394
158,530
106,970
PWF Cost-
Eflfectiveness
($/lb. eq.)
4.38
15.16
15.57

23.80
188.15
224.19
1.85
21.32
Incremental
PWF Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb. eq.)

146.10
69.46

23.80
881.74



Note: The shaded area indicates that the option in question has fewer weighted removals than the preceding option.
     That is, incremental values are not meaningful. These costs do not include RCRA and monitoring costs.
                                       A-3

-------
TABLE A-3.  COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
             INDIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES


Treatment
Category
Metals


Oils



Ofganics



Control
Option
1
2
3
I
2
3
4
1
2


Total Costs
($1981)
2,410,819
17,790,208
18,676,537
0
2,021,483
16,570,113
19,864,864
1,837,897
3,722,098


Total Cost
($1990)
3,227,061
23,813,521
24,999,938
0
2,705,906
22,180,332
26,590,602
2,460,162
4,982,305

PWF Total
Removals
(Ib. eq.)
43,239
47,063
47,313
0
27,698
29,138
29,039
1,455,531
1,455,847

PWF Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb. eq.)
55.76
378.01
394.74

72.98
568.69
684.08
1.26
2.56
Incremental
PWF Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb. eq.)

4,021.97
3,540.86

72.98
10,106.08
;^3|42.9S») J

5,961.27
Note:  The shaded area indicates that the option in question has fewer weighted removals than the preceding option.
      That is, incremental values are not meaningful. These costs do not include RCRA and monitoring costs.
                                      A-4

-------
ft-Q
                 0

                V.
           > I

           OH t~-o\
                   VOVjD^ovo^ovo'O^O
g
(^ r~ ^
o o *—'
r- t> t>
^
r-
                                             en
                   >n «n
                                                                  o  o  o  c  vo w
                                                                                      v




                                                                           o-

                                                                          O

                                                                           OJD
                                                                           
-------
A-6

-------
       Figures A-l and A-2 are scatter graphs of the costs and removals for each option listed in
Tables A-4 and A-5, respectively.  Total costs are measured along the y axis, and total removals
are measured along the x axis.  Here again, the cost-effectiveness efficiency frontier is in each
case formed by the options plotted in the lower right-hand section  of the graph.  Superior
regulatory options and the Agency's preferred regulatory options are identified as they were for
the cost-effectiveness comparison with removals weighted using TWFs. Nine regulatory options
are on the efficiency frontier for direct dischargers, and 13 options are on the efficiency frontier
for indirect dischargers when removals are estimated using the PWFs.  The Agency's preferred
regulatory option is again on each of these frontiers.

       Tables A-6 and A-7 are organized in the same way as Tables A-4 and A-5,  but they
include only the superior regulatory options for the corresponding discharge status from Tables
A-4 and A-5.

       Figures A-3  and  A-4 are close-up images  of Figures A-l  and A-2; in each  case, all
regulatory options that do not lie on the efficiency frontier for the corresponding discharge status
are omitted.  Looking at the efficiency frontier for both types of dischargers,  the scale of the
y axis, along which  costs are measured,  and the scale of the x axis, along which removals are
measured, have been changed to permit a closer look at differences in costs and  removals across
options.

       Only 6 of the 24 regulatory options evaluated are on the efficiency frontiers for both
direct and indirect discharging facilities  regardless of the toxic  weighting method used to
estimate pollutant removals.  A total of 15 regulatory options are on at least one efficiency
frontier for direct or indirect dischargers using one of the two weighting approaches.

       Table A-8 compares the relative cost-effectiveness of all options with removals estimated
using the PWF approach, and all dischargers included. Table A-9 presents the relative cost-
effectiveness  of seven regulatory options that form the PWF  cost-effectiveness efficiency
frontier.  Figure A-5  is a scatter graph of the relative cost-effectiveness of all 24 regulatory
options with pollutant removals estimated  using the alternative PWF method.  Figure A-6 is a
larger scale image of the relative cost-effectiveness of the seven regulatory options forming the
efficiency frontier in Figure A-5.
                                           A-7

-------
Figure A-1.  PWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for
           Direct Dischargers
£U-

18-



16-
5=5 14~
1
~ 12-
00
O)
Ǥ.
•x
o 10-
O
^
Nl
1
1 8"
3
B
H 6-


4-
2-
o-
X
X
X
X
X
X
, »2

x
X
X
X x

x J
*
^
^ »






X
X
"

I I I I I
I I I I I




























600 625 650 675 700 725 750 775
Pollutant Removals (PWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
» Cost-Effective Options x All Other Options
»1 = Regulatory Option 1 »2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                   A-8

-------
Figure A-2.  PWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options 1for
             Indirect Dischargers
      50
  ta
  c
  o
  o

  8
  T3
  
-------
   CO
  CA
8 g »
y > *
*f Si*
 42
       00
    o v
           ce
               oo
   s-ooooooooc
    HH
THCJfl

HHH
HHHH
    ooooooooc

    ooooooooc
             O4

             o


             
-------
H
^
U
O

§
u
S2
a
H
u
I
PS
g

I
§
a
          "S
          5
      3!*
        —
        9
        U 00
        |3
          g
         |s
          &H
          ^^
          ^S
             O\
                               \«\
                               "r)
                               iH
            oo ON s<
                        c c i- i- r
             t^ rf oo


            "oo'oCo'
            HHHHHH
                         HHH
           ooooooooooooo

           DOOOOOOOOOOOO
                      DC
                      O)
                             *
                             bfi
                             
-------
Figure A-3. PWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Direct Dischargers

   20'
    15
I
9
8   10<
1
 c
S
     5~-
          X
      675
                                                               X


                                 x
                             X
                        700              725               750
                        Pollutant Removals (PWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
775
                   * EPA Preferred Options       X All Other Options

                   V = Regulatory Option 1        * 2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                      A-12

-------
Figure A-4.  PWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Indirect Dischargers


    45'
    40"
    35--
 1  30
 I  25'
 w
 o
 O


 |  20'
 CO
 "5s
    15--
    10--
     5
               X

              X
          X
          X
          *2
         X
                                                                  X
        X
       X
       »1
       X
 X

X
      1,495     1,500     1,505     1,510     1,515    1,520    1,525    1,530     1,535

                         Pollutant Removals (PWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
                    »  EPA Preferred Options       x All Other Options


                    *1 = Regulatory Option 1        * 2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                       A-13

-------
      .1
      •4-1
       D.
      O
       3
       CO





Qj  §
£-  f-
^ 73  «
    o  ~
 _lt_<~        ^.".J^cnof^oicn^t^r^oooiv^c^f-r-"    oo
 ^J ' |*  J^^i           " 1                       "1          "1
 t^ -*-J
                    CS                       


         J of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of of oJ



                                                                                        oo
    rr,                                                                                   CO
    >2                .         t                               _                      _   QQ
            ,     _| r-^  ^^ ^^ i^s     ,^ r^ »v  ~^ i^ t~^ ~-, ^x •»> /-^ i^ ~* v/-s »^ ^s f-.  ^_.
                                             \• t I. ^ '—• *. 'i \jA ^^ NJ ^^v1 ^ ^ >t^ '^w' w ^' Jl
          o 01  oo't-  cS t^ ffi"'—'  oi V3'op"r-^ oC v^f vcT -o  o vp  vo" w vp I-H" oo oj oi cr\ oj op iS en oj' ON ^*' u?' op rf' o iri  o
                                                                                        bO
01
          oooooooooooooooooooooooo
                                                                       a
                                                                      O
                                                                       2?
             a
             O
             »i
             5T
 o

T3
 §
<*!

I
1
 c

1
 £2
 CA
 O
u
                                           A-14

-------
g
o
tf
fe
^
o
fc
             ,
             -2
       £g
          =  a


          *? X5
o

Remova
tal
(Ib


            1
            1
                 di On fit DM ft &< C
                Tf oo IH oo t^. vj r-
                vo ON wi ^ c< i/i
                 •  •••••
                Tf OC t^ O O O
                      r
                   I> SO v*4 V) OO

                   «« Tf V) VJ ff)
                   T            <- i
                O O »\ O\ Tf 00 Tfr

                a\ o \o >o r^ «n os
                 *\  *\  «X  •>!  *\  «\  •
                        oo ro ve o
                           oo oo o\
                           c O
                  fs V)
                  vo so
                        C* i-l SO Tf
                        •n oo t~ o
                        o  r^ o oo so m
                ^H r^* oo ^ip Vi ^j ^D
                  r
                     fO
                           v rv
                           fO VI V)
                   J _5 J
                   hH 1— 1 HH
             frOOOOOOO
                r1 r* r^ r* P r^ p
                H H H H H H H
                EH
               OOOOOOO
                            ft    a
                           o    a
                            M    Ml
                                     00

                                     00
 a
 o


•o

 §




1
                                     OO

                                     OS
                                     I

                                     1

                                      I
                                      o
                                            A-15

-------
Figure A-5. PWF Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory Options for All Dischargers
7O-
60-



50-
t
.2
1
§ 40-
1
Annualized C
CO
o
i
(0
5
20-


10-
o-
2,1

xx
x X
X X
• 2
4



X
xx x
X 4
X



X
X
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
















1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
20 2,140 2,160 2,180 2,200 2,220 2,240 2,260 2,280 2,300
Pollutant Removals (PWF Ibs. eq. (thousands))
» EPA Preferred Options x All Other Options

V = Regulatory Option 1 » 2 = Regulatory Option 2
                                  A-16

-------
  Figure A-6. PWF Cost-Effectiveness Efficiency Frontier for Ail Dischargers
    60-
    50--
I   40-
    30.
T3

-------

-------

-------
CD

-------