IR %,&)
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Industry
Dr. Lynne G. Tudor, Economist
Economics and Statistical Analysis Branch
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
Acknowledgements
The most credit must be given to Shari Zuskin for her leadership, flexibility, and willingness to do
something differently. Her enthusiasm made working on the project fun. Credit must also be given to Janet
Goodwin for her knowledge and .willingness to help, and to the whole pesticide project team for then-
professional manner, conscientious effort, and contributions.
Credit must also be given to Abt Associates for their assistance and support in performing the
underlying analysis supporting the conclusions detailed in this report Their study was performed under
contracts 68-CO-0080,68-C3-0302, and 68-C4-0060.
-------
Table of Contents
Section 1: Introduction .1.1
Section 2: Methodology 2.1
2.1 Overview 2.1
2.2 Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants 2.2
2.3 Pollution Control Approaches 2.3
2.4 Pollutant Discharges Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 2.3
2.5 Calculation of Pollutant Removals 2.4
2.6 Annualized Costs for Each Control Option ; 2.5
2.7 Stringency and Cost Ranking 2.6
2.8 Calculation of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Values 2.6
2.9 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values 2.7
Section 3: Changes to the PFPR Regulation and its Analysis Since Proposal 3.1
3.1 Introduction 31
3.2 Supplemental Notice 31
3.3 Final Rule 32
3.4 Revised Estimates in the Number of Facilities Subject to Regulation 3.3
3.5 Changes in Toxic Weighting Factors 3.5
Section 4: Cost-Effectiveness Results 4.1
4.1 Subcategory C 4.1
Section 5: Cost-Effectiveness Values for Previous Effluent Guidelines and Standards 5.1
Appendix A: Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients A.I
Appendix B: Differences in Pre-Compliance Loadings and Removals between the Proposed Rule,
Supplemental Notice Rule, and Final Regulation B.I
Appendix C: Results of Compliance with the Existing 1978 BPT Regulation C. 1
Appendix D: Sensitivity Analysis of POTW Removal Efficiency D.I
-------
-------
Section 1
Introduction
This cost-effectiveness analysis supports the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging (PFPR) Industry. The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness
of the final rule, and compares it to the proposed rule and the Supplemental Notice, as well as to previously
promulgated rules.
Cost-effectiveness analysis is used in the development of effluent guidelines to evaluate the relative
efficiency of a regulation to the efficiency of previous regulations. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental
annual cost (in 1981 constant dollars) per incremental toxic-weighted pound of pollutant removed. This definition
includes the following concepts:
Toxic-Weighted Removals
Annual Costs
Because pollutants differ in their toxicity, the reductions in pollutant
discharges, or pollutant removals, are adjusted for toxicity by
multiplying the estimated removal quantity for each pollutant by a
normalizing weight, called a Toxic Weighting Factor (TWF). The
TWF for each pollutant measures its toxicity relative to copper, with
more toxic pollutants having higher TWFs.
The cost-effectiveness analysis uses the estimated annual costs of
complying with the alternative regulatory options. The annual costs
include annual expenses for operating and maintaining compliance
equipment and for meeting monitoring requirements, and an annual
allowance for capital outlays for pollution prevention and treatment
systems needed for compliance. These costs are calculated on a pre-
tax basis (i.e., without any adjustment for tax treatment of capital
outlays and operating expenses). In addition, the annual allowance for
capital outlays is calculated using an assumed opportunity cost of
capital to society of seven percent. Finally, the compliance costs are
calculated in 1981 dollars to facilitate the comparison of cost-
effectiveness values for regulations developed at different times for
different industries.
1.1
-------
Incremental Calculations
The incremental values that are calculated for a given option are the
change in total annual compliance costs and change in removals from
the next less stringent option, or the baseline if there is no less
stringent option, where regulatory options are ranked by increasing
levels of toxic-weighted removals. Thus, the cost-effectiveness values
for a given option are relative to another option, or, for the least
stringent option, to the baseline.
The result of the cost-effectiveness calculation represents the unit cost of removing the next pound-
equivalent of pollutants. Cost-effectiveness is strictly a relative measure used for comparison purposes. This
analysis does not provide an absolute scale by which a particular cost-effectiveness value can be assigned a
qualitative judgment Because cost-effectiveness values are expressed in 1981 dollars per pound-equivalent
removed, cost-effectiveness values for a given option may be compared with those of other options being
considered for a given regulation and also with those calculated for other industries or past regulations.1
Although not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating
options for the removal of toxic pollutants. It is not intended to analyze the removal of conventional pollutants,
however, such as oil and grease, biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids. Removals of these
pollutants are not included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
The remaining parts of this report are organized as follows. Section 2 of the report defines cost-
effectiveness, discusses the cost-effectiveness methodology, and describes the pollution control approaches of
the final rule. Section 3 describes the changes to the final rule from the proposed rule, and the changes to the cost-
effectiveness analysis to incorporate the regulatory changes. Section 4 presents the findings of the analysis
covering all regulated pollutants, including both those from the set of original 272 pesticide active ingredients
(PAIs) originally considered for regulation and those from the set of additional pollutants (non-272 PAIs). The
cost-effectiveness value is compared to cost-effectiveness values for other promulgated rules in Section 5. Four
appendices are also included. Appendix A lists the toxic weighting factors for the 272 PAIs and for those non-
272 PAIs for which toxic weighting factors are available. Appendix B provides a detailed description of the
changes in pollutant loadings and removals between the proposed rule and the final rule. Appendix C describes
'Comparisons between regulations are not exact, for several reasons. For example, TWFs are revised over time
to incorporate updated toxicological data, the costs may not be evaluated consistently on a pre-tax or after tax basis, and the
opportunity cost of capital may vary. Therefore, comparisons between options of a given regulation are more exact than
comparisons between regulations.
1.2
-------
the cost-effectiveness results for direct discharging facilities to comply with the existing Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT) regulation. Finally, Appendix D provides a sensitivity analysis of POTW
removal efficiencies for PAIs.
1.3
-------
-------
Section 2
Methodology
2.1 Overview
This section defines cost-effectiveness, describes the steps taken in the cost-effectiveness analysis, and
characterizes the pollution control approaches of the final rule considered in the analysis.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used in setting effluent limitations guidelines to compare the
efficiency of one regulatory option in removing pollutants to another regulatory option. Cost-effectiveness is
defined as the incremental annual cost of a pollution control option in an industry or industry subcategory per
incremental pollutant removal. The increments considered are relative to another option or to a benchmark, such
as existing treatment. Pollutant removals are measured in copper-based "pounds-equivalent." The cost-
effectiveness value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing the next pound-equivalent of pollutant. While
not required by the Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options
for the removal of toxic pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis is not intended to analyze the removal of
conventional pollutants (oil and grease, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids). The removal of
conventional pollutants is therefore not addressed in this report.
Three factors are of particular importance in cost-effectiveness calculations: (1) the normalization of
pounds of pollutant removed to copper-based pounds-equivalent; (2) the incremental nature of cost-effectiveness,
and (3) the fact that cost-effectiveness results are used for comparison purposes rather than on an absolute basis.
First, the analysis is based on removals of pounds-equivalent - a term used to describe a pound of pollutant
weighted by its toxicity relative to copper. These weights are known as toxic weighting factors. Copper is used
as the standard pollutant for developing toxic weighting factors because it is a toxic metal commonly released
in industrial effluent and removed from that effluent. The use of pounds-equivalent reflects the fact that some
pollutants are more toxic than others. By expressing removals in common terms, the removals can be summed
across pollutants to give a meaningful basis for comparing cost-effectiveness results among alternative regulatory
options or different regulations.
Second, cost-effectiveness analysis is done on an incremental basis to compare the incremental or
marginal cost and removals of one control option to another control option or to existing treatment.
The third point is that no absolute scales exist for judging cost-effectiveness values. The values are
considered high or low only within a given context, such as similar discharge status or compared to effluent
limitations guidelines for other industries.
Cost-effectiveness analysis involves a number of steps, which may be summarized as follows:
2.1
-------
« Estimate the relative toxic weights of priority and other pollutants (PAIs);
« Define the pollution control approaches;
Determine the relevant wastewater pollutants;
Calculate pollutant removals for each control option;
* Determine the annualized cost of each control option;
Rank the control options by increasing stringency and cost;
Calculate incremental cost-effectiveness values; and
Compare cost-effectiveness values.
These steps are discussed in the remainder of this section.
2.2 Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants
Cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among the regulated pollutants by using
toxic weighting factors (TWFs). These factors are necessary because different pollutants have different potential
effects on human and aquatic life. For example, a pound of isopropalin (TWF=0.58) in an effluent stream has
significantly less potential effect than a pound of diazinon (TWF=620). The toxic weighting factors are used to
calculate the toxic pound-equivalent unit - a standardized measure of toxicity.
In the majority of cases, toxic weighting factors are derived from>both chronic freshwater aquatic criteria
(or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish.
These factors are then standardized by relating them to copper. The resulting toxic weighting factors for each PAI
arc provided in Appendix A. Some examples of the effects of different aquatic and human health criteria on
weighting factors are shown in Table 2.1.
As indicated in Table 2.1, the toxic weighting factor is the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios: the "old"
copper criterion divided by the human health criterion for the particular pollutant, and the "old" copper criterion
divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using the values reported in Table 2.1, 85.7 pounds of
copper pose the same relative hazard in surface waters as one pound of pyrethrin, since pyrethrin has a toxic
weight 85.7 times (40/0.467 = 85.7) as large as the toxic weight of copper.
2.2
-------
* *. ' f f fi j * ' - 'aPS1' - <&; ' " f
Table2.1 ( . ,
Weighting Factors Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria
Pollutant
Copper**
Isopropalin .
Pyrethrin
Carbaryl
Diazinon
Human
Health
Criteria*
fesfl)
260
513
4142
285
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria
12.0
10.0
0.14
0.02
0.009
Weighting Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/260 + 5.6/10
5.6/513+5.6/0.14
5.6/4142 + 5.6/0.02
5.6/285 + 5 6/0 009
Toxic Weighting
Factor
0.467
0.58
40
280
620
Criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Using the above calculation, the greater the values for the
criteria used, the lower the toxic weighting factor. Units for criteria are micrograms of ppllutant per liter of
water.
* Based on ingestion of 6.5 grams offish per day.
** While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 ^g/1), 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 in a toxic weighting factor for copper not
equal to 1 .0 but equal to 0.467.
2.3 Pollution Control Approaches
'l
This analysis considers the cost-effectiveness of a Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources (PSES)
regulation applicable to indirect discharging facilities in Subcategory C (Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and
Repackaging Facilities). The final PSES regulation permits Subcategory C facilities to achieve regulatory
compliance by two alternative compliance approaches: (1) zero discharge or (2) use of specified pollution
prevention practices followed in most cases by treatment of residual discharges. Both compliance alternatives
apply to all registered PAIs and wastewater streams except those specifically exempted by the regulation. The
pollution prevention alternative (P2 Alternative) does not set specific numeric limits but does require
implementation of certain pollution prevention (P2) and discharge practices that EPA's engineering analyses
indicate will reduce discharges to acceptable levels.
2.4 Pollutant Discharges Considered in the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Some of the factors considered in selecting pollutants for regulation include toxicity, frequency of
occurrence, and amount of pollutant in the wastewater stream. The cost-effectiveness of the PFPR effluent
limitations guidelines is based on the set of registered PAIs, less some PAIs that are exempt from regulation.
2.3
-------
Certain PAIs are not subject to the regulation. These exempted PAIs include: PAIs contained in certain
sanitizer products whose labeled use results in discharge to a POTW, including pool chemicals and indirect food
additives cleared by FDA (21CFR 178.1010); micro-organisms that are classified as pesticides; certain product
mixtures that are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by FDA (12 CFR 170.30,1-82,184,186) or are common
foods, food constituents or non-toxic household items or are exempt from FIFRA regulation under 40 CFR
152.25; and certain inorganic chemicals that are used in wastewater treatment. These PAIs are exempted by use
of a definition. Also, another group (Group 2 Mixtures) are exempt by use of a list (see Table 9 of part 455 of
the final rule).
In addition, certain wastewater streams are not subject to the regulation. These exempted wastewater
sources include: on-site employee showers and laundries; test water for fire protection equipment; DOT test bath
water in a batch bath where no cans have burst since the last water change-out; laboratory equipment rinsates;2
water from the testing and emergency operation of safety showers and eye washes; and storm water.
2.5 Calculation of Pollutant Removals
The reductions in pollutant loadings to the receiving water body were calculated for each control option.
At-stream and end-of-pipe pollutant removals often differ because a portion of the end-of-pipe loadings for
indirect dischargers may be removed by the POTW. As a result, the at-stream removal of pollutants due to PSES
regulations are usually considered to be less than end-of-pipe removals. The cost-effectiveness 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 3 8 percent, then the cadmium discharged to surface waters
is only 62 pounds. If aregulanon results in a reduction of cadmium in the effluent stream to 50 pounds, then the
amount discharged to surface waters is calculated as 50 pounds multiplied by one minus the POTW removal
efficiency factor (50 pounds x 0.62 = 31 pounds). Therefore, while the reduction from end-of-pipe treatment in
the facility is 50 pounds (=100 pounds - 50 pounds), the at-stream reduction due to the POTW is only 19 pounds
(* 50 pounds - 31 pounds). Cost-effectiveness calculations reflect the fact that the actual reduction of pollutant
discharge to surface waters is not 50 pounds (the change in the amount discharged by the facility to the POTW),
but 31 pounds (=62-31), the change in the amount ultimately discharged to surface waters.3
2 The retain sample itself and the initial rinse of the retain sample container are not exempt from the regulation.
3 POTW removal efficiencies are not available for PAIs and are assumed to be zero. A laboratory study of the PAI removal
performance that would be achieved by biotreatment at well-operated POT Ws applying secondary treatment is reported in
the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS, see the Technical Development Document). However, the data used for that analysis
2.4
-------
2.6 Annualized Costs for Each Control Option
Full details of the methods by which the costs of complying with the final rule were estimated can be
found in the final Technical Development Document and the Final Cost and Loadings Report. A brief summary
of the compliance cost analysis is provided below.
Two categories of compliance costs were analyzed: (1) capital costs, and (2) operating and maintenance
costs (including sludge disposal and self-monitoring costs). Although operating and maintenance costs occur
annually, capital costs are one-time "lump sum" costs. The capital equipment is conservatively estimated to have
a productive life of ten years. To express the capital costs on an annual basis, capital costs were annualized over
the 10-year period at an opportunity cost of capital to society of 7 percent. The total annualized costs used in the
cost effectiveness analysis are the sum of annualized capital costs and annual operating and maintenance costs.
For facilities that both manufacture PAIs and perform PFPR operations, the compliance costs are based
only on the PFPR operations of these facilities. These costs will be incremental to compliance costs for the
manufacturing operations of the'facility. The cost estimates for PFPR/manufacturing facilities are based on the
assumption that, whenever possible, facilities will build on existing treatment. Cost estimates for both PFPR
stand-alone facilities and PFPR/manufacturing facilities are based on the assumption that there is no existing
treatment equipment in place.4
Compliance costs were estimated in terms of 1988 dollars. For the purpose of comparing cost-
effectiveness values of the options under review to those of other promulgated rules, the compliance costs used
in the cost-effectiveness analysis are deflated from mid-year 1988 dollars to mid-year 1981 dollars using
Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment factor is:
Adjustment factor = 1981 CCI = 3535 = 0 7823
1988 CCI 4519
The compliance costs are calculated on a pre-tax basis, without any adjustment for tax treatment of
capital outlays and expenses. Thus, the costs are overstated relative to those expected to be borne by PFPR
faculties, and the analysis does not assess the cost-effectiveness value at the facility level.
were derived under laboratory conditions, and therefore tend to overestimate POT W removal efficiencies and are considered
to be inappropriate for the cost-effectiveness analysis. A sensitivity analysis based the POTW removal efficiencies of the
DSS, as well as assuming removal efficiencies of 50 percent and 90 percent for PAIs is considered in Appendix D.
"For the vast majority of PFPR stand-alone facilities, this is a valid assumption. The Survey contained only a few
non-manufacturing facilities that had an effective treatment system in place for the pre-treatment and removal of PAIs prior
to discharge to a POTW.
2.5
-------
2.7 Stringency and Cost Ranking
The regulatory options are ranked to determine relative cost-effectiveness, Options are first ranked in
increasing order of stringency, where stringency is aggregate pollutant removals, measured in toxic pounds-
equivalent If two or more options remove equal amounts of pollutants, these options are then ranked in
increasing order of cost For example, if two or more options specify zero discharge, the removals under each
option would be equal. The options would then be ranked from least expensive to most expensive. For the cost-
efiectiveness analysis of the final PFPR regulation, only one "option" is being considered, the final rule. The final
rule is less stringent than the option considered at proposal, because fewer chemicals and fewer waste streams
are regulated under the final rule than were regulated under the proposed rule.
2.8 Calculation of Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Values
After the options have been ranked by stringency and cost, the incremental cost-effectiveness values can
be calculated. The cost-effectiveness value of a particular option is calculated as the incremental annual cost of
that option divided by the incremental pounds-equivalent removed by that option. Algebraically, this'equation
is:
CEk =
ATCk -
where:
ATCfc
Cost-effectiveness of Option k;
Total annualized compliance cost under Option k; and
Removals in pounds-equivalent under Option k.
The numerator of the equation is the incremental cost in going from Option k-1 to Option k. Similarly, the
denominator is the incremental removals associated with the move from Option k-1 to Option k. Thus, cost-
eflectrveness values are measured in dollars per pound-equivalent of pollutant removed. The incremental change
can be from another regulatory option or from a baseline scenario.
2.6
-------
2.9 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values
Two types of comparisons are typically done using cost-effectiveness values. First, the incremental cost
effectiveness values of increasingly more stringent regulatory options within a regulation may be compared to
understand the relative cost effectiveness of the alternative regulatory options being considered for promulgation.
This comparison facilitates the choice of a regulatory option by framing the question: what is the incremental cost
of achieving the incremental reduction in toxic-weighted pollutant discharges that results from increasingly more
stringent regulatory options? Second, cost-effectiveness analysis may be used to compare the expected
performance of the selected regulatory option for a given regulation with other regulations that have been
promulgated by EPA. As noted above, for the analysis of the final PFPR regulation, the calculation of cost
effectiveness is incremental to a no-regulation baseline because the final regulation is the least stringent option
considered both at proposal and in development of the final regulation.
2.7
-------
-------
Section 3
Changes to the PFPR Regulation and its Analysis Since Proposal
3.1 Introduction
This section briefly explains how the final regulation and its cost-effectiveness analysis differ from that
presented at proposal. The changes are discussed in more detail in the final Technical Development Document
and in Economic Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pesticide
Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging Industry (the final EA). The changes to the regulation were motivated
by two events: First, EPA modified the rule in response to comments on me proposed rule. Section 3.2 discusses
the Supplemental Notice EPA issued following consideration of the comments. The comments and EPA's
responses are provided in the record in the Comment Response Document for the Final PFPR Regulation and are
summarized in Chapter 2 of the final EA. The final rule is discussed in section 3.3.
Second, EPA revised its estimates of the number of PFPR facilities that would be potentially affected
by the PFPRregulatioa The revised estimates result from two factors: changes in the estimated number of PFPR
facilities using only non-272 PAIs, and changes in the PAIs and wastewater streams covered by the regulation.
Because of the change in the estimated number of facilities using only non-272 PAIs, EPA has revised its
estimates of the cost-effectiveness value associated with the proposed regulation. Section 3.4 discusses the re-
estimated number of facilities subject to the regulation. The estimated cost-effectiveness of the proposed rule
incorporating these revised facility counts is presented in Section 4 with the estimated cost-effectiveness values
for the final rule. Finally, Section 3.5 discusses changes in the toxic weighting factors for the final rule, including
a change in EPA's estimate of the toxicity of certain non-272 PAIs.
3.2 Supplemental Notice
After considering public comments on the proposed rule, EPA issued a Supplemental Notice
(60 FR 30217) on June 8,1995, in which the Agency sought comment on proposed changes in the scope of the
PFPR regulation for Subcategory C faculties and on an additional regulatory option developed by the Agency.
On the basis of these proposed changes in the PFPR regulation, the Agency also presented revised cost-
effectiveness estimates in the Supplemental Notice.
The Supplemental Notice discussed two general categories of changes in the scope of the PFPR
regulation for Subcategory C facilities: (1) changes in the list of PAIs subject to regulation and (2) changes in
the definition of wastewater streams subject to regulation. With regard to the PAIs subject to regulation, EPA
considered expanding the sanitizer exemption to include PAIs intended for home use or similar institutional use,
3.1
-------
pool chemicals, microorganisms, and mixtures that are food and food constituents generally recognized as safe
by the FDA. The Agency considered reserving for regulation mixtures with characteristics that cannot be
identified, such as molecular weight, aromaticity and solubility. With regard to wastewaters, the Agency
considered excluding from regulatory coverage the wastewater from the following sources: DOT aerosol test bath
water where no cans have leaked or burst since the bath water was last changed; lab rinsates from cleaning
glassware or analytical instruments5; the testing of safety eye wash stations and safety showers; and storm water.
In the Supplemental Notice, the Agency also presented a new regulatory option, the Zero
Discharge/P2 Alternative Option. EPA designed this option to address some of the concerns raised regarding the
technical feasibility and the resulting cross-media impacts of the zero discharge standard of the original regulatory
proposal and to provide facilities with more flexibility in meeting the regulation's discharge reduction goals.
Specifically, the regulatory option would permit facilities to choose between two compliance approaches: (1)
achieving zero discharge or (2) implementing specific pollution prevention (P2) practices in combination, in most
cases, with treatment followed by an allowable discharge. Because of limited data, such as long-term monitoring
data, on which to set limits, the P2 Alternative did not specify numerical limits for pollutants. Instead the
P2 Alternative specified certain pollution prevention measures combined with appropriate treatment technologies;
if facilities were to follow these practices, EPA judged that the residual pollutant discharges would be within
acceptable limits.
3.3 Final Rule
The final rule for Subcategory C facilities, the Zero/P2 Alternative, largely follows the structure of the
Zero Discharge/P2 Alternative Option presented in the Supplemental Notice. Specifically, the final regulation:
1. Permits PFPR facilities to achieve regulatory compliance by two alternative compliance
approaches: (V) zero discharge or (2) use of specified pollution prevention measures followed
by treatment and an allowable discharge. Both compliance alternatives apply to all PAIs and
wastewater sources except those specifically exempted below. The P2 Alternative does not
contain specific numerical limits on discharges but requires implementation of certain pollution
prevention and treatment practices, in most cases that, when implemented, are expected to
reduce discharges to acceptable levels.
5 Note that "retain" samples and wastewater generated by rinsing retain sample containers were not considered for exemption
in the Supplemental Notice.
3.2
-------
3.
Specifies certain PAIs that are not subject to the regulation These exempted PAIs include:
PAIs contained in certain sanitizer products whose labeled use results in discharge to a POTW,
including pool chemicals and indirect food additives cleared by FDA (21 CFR 178.1010);
micro-organisms that are classified as pesticides; certain product mixtures that are generally
recognized as safe (GRAS) by FDA (12 CFR 170.30, 182, 184, 186) or are common foods,
food constituents or non-toxic household items or are exempt from FIFRA regulation under 40
CFR 152.25; and certain inorganic chemicals that are used in wastewater treatment. These PAIs
are exempted by use of a definition. Also, another group (Group 2 Mixtures) are exempt by use
of a list (see Table 9 of part 455 of the final rule).
Exempts certain wastewater sources from regulation. These exempted wastewater sources
include: on-site employee showers and laundries; water used for testing fire protection
equipment; DOT aerosol test bath water in which no cans have burst since the time of the last
water change-out; certain laboratory equipment rinsates;6 water generated by the testing and
emergency operation of safety showers and eye washes; and storm water.
3.4 Revised Estimates in the Number of Facilities Subject to Regulation
EPA has revised its estimates of the number of PFPR facilities that may be affected by the PFPR
regulation based on two considerations: changes in the estimated number of PFPR facilities using only non-272
PAIs, and changes in the PAIs and wastewater streams covered by the regulation.
From its continuing review of the structure of the PFPR industry, EPA has increased its estimates of the
number of facilities using only non-272 PAIs that would be potentially subject to regulation. As a result of these
changes, EPA's now estimates that the number of affected facilities and the costs and impacts of &&proposed
regulation are higher than those presented at proposal. For example, at proposal, EPA estimated that
Subcategory C included 1,479 water-using facilities that were potentially subject to regulation. Using the newer
population estimates, EPA now estimates that a total of 2,018 water-using facilities are potentially subject to
regulation. The increase in this estimate comes entirely from the increased estimate of the number of facilities
using only non-272 PAIs.
In addition to the change in facility counts based on revised estimates of the number of non-272 PAI-
using facilities, EPA has also revised the estimates of the number of facilities expected to be affected by the PFPR
regulation based on changes in the PAIs and wastewater streams covered by fae final regulation. As described
1 The retain sample itself and the initial rinse of the retain sample container are not exempt from the regulation.
3.3
-------
above, the final regulation exempts specific PAIs and wastewater sources that had been covered by the proposed
regulation. The effect of these exemptions is to reduce the number of facilities that are within the scope of the
final regulation based on PAIs and wastewater sources and, in turn, the number of facilities that are expected to
incur costs under the regulation. Table 3.1 below compares EPA's estimates of the number of PFPR facilities in
various regulatory classifications at the time of proposal, under the proposed rule as re-estimated using the
updated estimate of the number facilities using only non-272 PAIs, at the time of the Supplemental Notice, and
for the final rule. EPA's estimates of the number of PFPR facilities using in-scope PAIs appear in the first row
of the table. The number of facilities decreases from proposal through the final rule because of the exemption of
certain PAIs from the Supplemental Notice and Final Regulations. The second row of the table indicates the
number of Subcategory C facilities that use water and in-scope PAIs in then- production processes. EPA considers
these facilities potentially subject to regulation, because they may incur costs under the effluent limitations,
depending on then: processes, discharge characteristics, and treatment systems in place. The third row of Table
3.1 provides EPA's estimate of the number of facilities incurring costs, including facilities estimated to be
financially non-viable (closures in the baseline scenario). The Agency estimates that 506 facilities could incur
costs under the final rule, compared to 1,142 under the proposed rule. Because these values include baseline
failures, they are conservative estimates and likely to overstate the number of facilities incurring costs under the
final regulation. The final row of the table lists EPA's estimate of the number of facilities incurring costs
exc/wdfng baseline failures. EPA estimates that 421 facilities will incur costs under the final rule, compared to
869 under the revised estimate of the proposed rule.
3.4
-------
Total Facilities Using
In-ScopePAIs
Subcategory E
Subcategory C
Subcategoiy C Facilities
That Use Water and In-
Scope PAIs
Subcategory C Facilities
That Could Incur Costs
(includes estimated
baseline failures)
Subcategory C Facilities
Expected to Incur Costs
(excludes estimated
baseline failures)
Table 34: Estimated Number of PFPR Facilities
Number of
Facilities at
Proposal
3,914
1,134
2,780
1,479
869
661
Re-Estimated
Number of Facilities
at Proposal
3,914
1,134
2,780
2,018
1,142
869
Number of
Facilities at
Supplemental
Notice
3,542
1,134
2,408
N.D.
709
577
Note: N.D. = Not Determined
Number of
Facilities at
Final
2,672
1,134
1,538
1,411
506
421
Section 4 discusses the results of the cost-effectiveness analysis considering these changes in the scope
of the regulation and its compliance requirements.
3.5 Changes in Toxic Weighting Factors
EPA revised the toxic weighting factors (TWFs) used in the analysis of the final rule to incorporate more
recent toxicological data than were available at proposal. The revisions affected TWFs for some pollutants in the
set of 272 PAIs that were originally considered for regulation as well as pollutants in the set of non-272 PAIs.
hi general, the revisions lowered the estimated TWFs. For example, in the set of 272 PAIs, EPA reduced the TWF
for pyrethrins from about 400 to about 40. The remainder of this section discusses the revisions applied to the
TWFs of non-272 PAIs.
For the cost effectiveness analysis at proposal, neither individual pollutant discharge data nor individual
TWFs for non-272 PAIs were available. As a result, to calculate the cost effectiveness of the regulation including
removal of non-272 PAIs, EPA estimated a composite TWF for non-272 PAIs using a weighted average of the
3.5
-------
TWFs of 272 PAIs (see Section 4 of the Cost-Effectiveness Report at proposal). The resulting composite TWF
used for non-272 PAIs atpropoalwas 108.3436.
For the final rule, EPA incorporated toxicological data on 91 non-272 PAIs into the analysis. EPA
assumed that the toxicity of all non-272 PAIs was similar to the toxicity of these 91 non-272 PAIs. Specifically,
EPA calculated a composite TWF for all non-272 PAIs as the arithmetic average of the TWFs for the 91 non-272
PAIs. This resulting composite TWF for non-272 PAIs, 47.70229, used for analyzing the final PFPR regulation
is substantially lower than the composite TWF used for non-272 PAIs at proposal, 108.3436.
The average TWF of non-272 PAIs is applied to loadings at two distinct sets of facilities: (1) those using
272 PAIs and non-272 PAIs; and (2) those using only non-272 PAIs. For facilities using both 272 PAIs and non-
272 PAIs, EPA estimated aggregate pollutant loadings of all non-272 PAIs used by the facility. The average TWF
value was applied to those aggregate loadings to estimate pound-equivalent loadings of non-272 PAIs at facilities
using both 272 PAIs >and non-272 PAIs.
For facilities using only non-272 PAIs, EPA assumed that their loadings are similar to loadings of
facilities using 272 PAIs. Specifically, EPA estimated the pollutant loadings in pounds at each non-272 PAI-
using facility as the average of the loadings in pounds of facilities using 272 PAIs. The average loading in pounds
was then multiplied by the composite TWF for non-272 PAIs (47.70229) to estimate the loading in pounds-
equivalent The average loadings multiplied by the estimated number of non-272 only facilities provides an
estimate of total loadings at non-272 only facilities. EPA added that aggregate estimate to the total loadings at
facilities using 272 PAIs to obtain industry total loadings, in pounds and pounds-equivalent.
3.6
-------
Section 4
Cost-Effectiveness Results
This section discusses fee results of the cost-effectiveness analysis for the final rule, and compares it to
the re-calculated cost-effectiveness values of the proposed rule and Supplemental Notice rule.
4.1 SubcategoryC
Table 4.1 provides estimates of the total annualized compliance costs, in 1981 dollars, the total pollutant
removals in pounds and pounds-equivalent, and the cost-effectiveness of the final PSES regulation for
Subcategory C facilities including baseline failures. EPA estimates that the final regulation will remove 189,908
pounds of pollutants, or 7.6 million pounds-equivalent, at an annualized cost of $20.9 million in 1981 dollars.
The cost-effectiveness value of the final regulation is $2.74 per pound-equivalent, which EPA considers to be
cost-effective.
Table 4.1
Natfonal^stimates of Total Annualized Costs., Removals and Cost-Effectiveness Values for
Sufacategoty CPSES Facilities underihe Final Regulation
Total Annualized
Compliance Costs
(maiIonsofS,1981)
Pollutant Removals
(pounds)
Pollutant-Removals
(pounds-equivalent)
Cost-Effectiveness
$20.9 million
189,908
7.6 million.
$2.74/lb.-eq.
Notes:
1. Includes estimated baseline failures
2.
Toxic weighting factors used in the analysis reflect more recent lexicological information and are generally
lower than the factors used at proposal and supplemental.
EPA also estimated total annualized compliance costs, total pollutant removals in pounds and pounds-
equivalent, and the cost-effectiveness for the Subcategory C regulation excluding the facilities assessed as
baseline failures. Under this assumption, the final regulation is estimated to remove 156,592 pounds of
pollutants, or 5.8 million pounds-equivalent, at an annualized cost of $17.1 million in 1981 dollars. The cost-
effectiveness value of the final regulation excluding these facilities is $2.93 per pound-equivalent, which EPA
considers to be cost-effective. The results are presented in Table 4.2.
4.1
-------
,,
National Estimates of Total Annualized Costs, Removals and Cost-Effectiveness Values "for
Subcategory C PSES Facilities under the Final Regulation
Total Annualized
Compliance Costs
(millions of S, 1981)
$17.1 million
Pollutant Removals
(pounds)
156,592
Pollutant-Removals
(pounds-equivalent)
5.8 million
Cost-Effectiveness
$2.93/lb.-eq.
Notes:
1. Excludes estimated baseline failures.
2. Toxic weighting factors used in the analysis reflect more recent toxicological information and are generally
lower than the factors used at proposal and supplemental.
The cost-effectiveness value for the final regulation is not directly comparable to the values originally
presented for the proposed regulation and the supplemental notice regulation because of the changes in regulatory
scope and toxic weighting factors described in Section 3. To provide a consistent comparison of the proposed,
supplemental notice, and final regulations, EPA re-calculated the pre-compliance discharges, pollutant removals
and cost-effectiveness values for the proposed and supplemental notice regulations using the TWFs developed
for the final regulatioa These comparisons, which are presented in Table 4.3, are based on the cost, loadings, and
removals calculations that include facilities assessed as baseline failures.
The effect of the regulation's reduced scope is seen by the reductions in pollutant loadings subject to
regulation, as measured in pounds and pounds-equivalent (see lines two and three of Table 4.3). These results
show the pollutant loadings subject to the rule at proposal to be 505,235 pounds, and on a toxic-weighted basis,
23.2 million pounds-equivalent; under the final regulation, the pollutant loadings within the scope of the
regulation fall to 192,789 pounds and 7.7 million pounds-equivalent. The cost-effectiveness values of the
regulations using the TWFs developed for analyzing the final regulation are: $2.77 per pound-equivalent for the
proposed regulation, $2.14 per pound-equivalent for the supplemental notice, and $2.74 per pound-equivalent
for the final regulation.
As a result of the changes in the scope of the regulation and its compliance requirements, EPA estimates
that the final regulation will achieve about 62 percent fewer pollutant removals than the proposed regulation. Row
sk of Table 4.3 indicates that the estimated reduction in pollutant removals results almost entirely from reduced
coverage of wastewater streams and PAIs under; the final regulation, and not from application of the
P2 Alternative, which allows a de minimis discharge. Specifically, although the final regulation is estimated to
achieve a slightly lower percentage of pollutant removals (98.5 percent) than the proposed regulation (99.6
4.2
-------
percent), this difference is very small. As a result, the total mass of pollutants estimated to be removed by me
final regulation falls by essentially the same percentage as the decline in mass of pollutants subject to regulation.
Specifically, me proposed regulation is estimated to achieve 503,114 pounds of pollutant removals while the final
regulation is estimated to remove 189,908 pounds of pollutants, a reduction of 62.3 percent. The fact that the
percentage change in removals is approximately equal to the percentage change in discharges subject to regulation
indicates that the decreased removals results almost entirely from the reduction in scope, and not from the
discharge allowable under the P2 Alternative. Appendix B discusses the decreased baseline loadings of the
Subcategory C final rule relative to the proposed rule in greater detail.
4.3
-------
Tabie4.3
Cost-Effectiveness of theFinalPSES Regulation for Subcategory C Facilities
Compared with the Proposed and Supplemental Notice Regulations
Total Annualized
Cost, $1981
Pollutant Discharges
Subject to Regulation,
pounds
Pollution Discharges
Subject to Regulation,
pounds-equivalent?
Pollution Removals,
pounds
Pollution Removals,
pound-equivalent2
Percentage of
Discharges Removed
by the Regulations
Cost-Effectiveness3
Proposed Regulation:
Zero Discharge with
Sanitizer Exemption
(Option 3/S.l)1
$64.1 million
505,235
23.2 million
503,114
23. 2 million
99.6 %
$2.77/lb.-eq.
Supplemental Notice:
Zero Discharge /
Pollution Prevention
Alternative
$32.7 million
337,885
15.4 million
333,731
15.3 million
98.8 %
$2.14/lb.-eq.
Final Regulation:
Zero Discharge /
Pollution Prevention
Alternative
$20.9 million
192,789
7.7 million
189,908
7.6 million
98.5 %
$2.74/lb.-eq.
Notes:
1 . Comparison are based on costs, pollutant loadings and removals including facilities estimated as
baseline closures.
2. Values presented for the Proposed Regulation are based on EPA's revised estimate of the number
of PFPR facilities.
3. All toxic-weighted values are based on toxic weighting factors developed for the Final Regulation.
4. EPA conventionally calculates cost effectiveness on an incremental basis: that is, the costs and
removals of a given option are calculated as the differences from the values for the next less
stringent option. Cost-effectiveness values for the Supplemental Notice are relative to a no-
regulation baseline. The final regulation is less stringent than options previously considered and
therefore is also calculated relative to a no-regulation baseline.
4.4
-------
Sections,
Cost-Effectiveness Values for Previous Effluent Guidelines and Standards
Table 5.1 presents the estimated pre-compliance and post-compliance loadings and resulting cost-
effectiveness values that were calculated for previous regulations. The value for the final PFPR regulation is also
listed in the table. All values are based on toxic weighting factors established at the time of each regulation, and
all cost-effectiveness values are presented in 1981 dollars.
5.1
-------
Table 5.1
Industry Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness Values for Indirect Dischargers
Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only, Copper Based Weights (1981 Dollars)*
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Can Making
Coal Mining***
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Centralized Waste Treatment t
(co-proposal)
- Regulatory Option 1
- Regulatory Option 2
Electronics I
Electronics n
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals n
Iron & Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Metal Products & Machinery I T
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I
Nonferrous Metals Mfg n
Organic Chemicals, Plastics-
Pesticide Manufacturing (1993)
Pesticide Formulating,
Pharmaceuticals *** t
Plastic. Molding & Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp&Papert
Pounds Equivalent
Currently Discharged
(To Surface Waters)
rnno'<^
1,602
1,152
252
N/A
2,503
934
689
689
75
260
2,136
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
1,115
189
3,187
38
5,210
257
7,746
340
N/A
1,565
9,539
Pounds Equivalent Remaining
at Selected Option
(To Surface Waters)
COOO'sl
18
5
5
N/A
10
4
330
328
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
234
5
19
0.41
72
19
112
63
N/A
96
103
Cost Effectiveness of
Selected Option
Beyond BPT
("fK/lh-eq removed"!
155
15
38
N/A**
10
10
70
110
14
14
116
9
<1
6
111
10
127
90
15
12
34
18
<3
1
N/A
14
65
* Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the cost-
effectiveness at the time of regulation.
** N/A: Pretreatment Standards not promulgated, or no incremental costs will be incurred.
*** Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants
t Proposed rule.
5.2
-------
Appendix A
Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients
This appendix provides the toxic weighting factors (TWFs) used in the analysis. Toxic weighting factors
for pesticide active ingredients from the set of 272 PAIs originally subject to regulation are listed in Table A.I,
and available TWFs for non-272 PAIs are listed in Table A 2.
A.I
-------
TabIeA.1 Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 PAIs
rSorted bvTWF, Carcinogens at 10-5 Bisk, Updated Toxieity Values)
PAINumber
A262
A012
A181
A140
A022
A093
A079
A173
A133
A199
AH1
A009
A103
A001
A191
A203
A075
A126
A018
A233
A1S8
A086
A183
A122
A124
A212
A.???.
A147
A113
A094
A192
A236
A150
A156
A003
A230
A275
A231
CAS Number
8001352
62737
56724
76448
7786347
2227170
57749
300765
55389
2104645
52686
70304
333415
115322
56382
63252
563122
101053
10453868
72435
2921882
298044
115297
72208
298022
41198087
58899
78342
8065483
78488
121755
16752775
106934
121211
8003347
121299
ff * ' s
Name
Toxaphene
Dichlorvos
Coumaphos
Heptachlor
Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
Dienoohlor \ Pentac
Chlordane
Naled \Dibrom
Fenthion \Baytex
EPN \Santox
Trichlorofon \ Dylox
Hexachlorophene
Diazinon \ Spectracide
Dicofol \Kelthane
Organo-mercuiy compounds
Parathion ethyl
Carbaryl \ Sevin
ithion \Bladan
Anilazine \ Dyrene
Resmethrin
Mfethoxychlor
Chlorpyrifos \Dursban
Disulfoton
Endosulfan mixed isomers
Endrin
Phorate \ Famophos \ Thimet
Profenofos \ Curacron
BHC, gamma- \ Lindane
Dioxathion
Demeton \ Systbx
Organo-tin compounds
DBF
Malathion
Methomyl \ Lannate
Ethylene dibromide
Pyrethrinl
Pyrethrins
Pvrethrin H
Freshwater
Aquatic
Life
Chronic
Value
(ug/L)
0.0002
0.001
0.001
0.0038
0.002
0.002
0.0043
0.004
0.006
0.056
0.008
1.5
0.009
21
0.013
0.02
0.02
0.027
0.028
0.03
0.041
0.05
0.056
0.0616
0.06
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.76
0.1
0.105
35485
0.14
0.14
0.14
Human
Health
jigestion of
Organisms
OnJy
VaJue
(ug/L)
0.007473
11.6047745
0.002137
212000
0.005875
3100
4.7
0.009
74800
0.009
285.067873
0.00979
150.268336
4142.01183
3.58974359
7700
436
6.47422795
11.838656
0.93645485
239.316239
0.81379578
3.41880342
24.852071
150
0.95
0.10592686
2341.13712
269000
0.13
513
513
3400
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
29000
5600
5600
4100
2800
2800
2300
1400
930
760
700
660
620
570
504 (h)
430
280
280
210
200
190
140
120
100
98
95
70
70
62
62
61.5 (i)
60
56
53
44
40
40
40
A.2
-------
, Table A.1 Toxic Weigktmg factors for 272 PAIs
(Sorted byTWF, Carcinogens at 10-5'Bisk, Undated Toxicitv Valued
PAINumber
A179
A006
A200
A185
A186
A057
A263
A155
A208
A235
A214
A063
A090
A187
A101
A141
A255
A040
A062
A125
A082
A182
A166
A253
A184
A189
A109
A048
A201
A264
A099
A077
A019
A104
A270
A081
A071
A073
CAS Dumber
368924
5836
94422
73211
8650
58479
15050
95037
52645532
8379^
13171216
60873
5163058
301122
72560
54460467
13071799
2032657
17804352
55283686
1897456
115902
315184
3383968
122145
7700176
2032599
114261
1582098
117806
55285148
39300453
35367385
26002802
76062
7166190
2425061
Name
Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
Phenoxarsine, 10,10-oxydi-
?onofos
Phosmet \Imidan
Azinphos methyl \ Guthion, methyl-
Allethrin
Vferphos \ Folex
\tfethiadathion \ Supracide
'ermethrin \ Ambush \ Pounce
Sxrtenone \ Mexide
'hosphamidon \ Dimecron
3HC, technical-
'envalerate \ Pydrin
Demeton-O-methyl
'erthane \Ethylan
Cycloprate \Zardex
erbufos \ Counter
Vfethiocarb
!enomyl\Ben!ate
ithalfiuralin
2hlorothalonil
ensulfothion \ Desanit
Vfexacarbate \ Mexcarbole \ Zectran
emephos \Abate
'enitrothion
Tgano-cadmium compounds
2rotoxyphos \ Ciodrin
Aminocarb \ Matacil
'ropoxur \Baygon
nfluralin \ Treflan
ichlone \ Phygon
arbosulfen
inocap \Karathane
iflubenzuron
umithnn \ Phenothrin
iloropicrin
jiv-gard
aptafol \Difolatan
Fresbwate
Acpiatic
Life
Chronic
Value
(ug/t>
0.1
0.1
0.
o
0.2
02.
13
0.22
0.23
0.26
028
0.9
0.36
0.4
0.4
0.432
0.462
0.5
0.56
0.75
0.76
1
1
1
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.95
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.9
2
2J,
Human
Health
Ingestion o
Organism
Only
Vafae
fttg/L)
19
143.589744
260
20
0.22
234
4300
226
2700
0.46022354
680
16000
9 28381963
120
13100
850
81
330
4600
4.0954653
110
940
8000
Toxic
Weighting
'Factor
35
31
28
20
18
16
14
14
13
13
11
10
7 5
57
S.16(h)
5.1
4.7
4.3
4.2
4
3 8
3 7
3 3
29
28
A.3
-------
TabIeA.1 Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 PAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10-5 Bisk, Updated Toxicity Values)
PAINumbcr
A21S
A220
A219
A243
A118
A112
A265
A043
A149
A074
A137
A106
A03S
A218
A271
A163
A180
A097
A047
A2S4
A164
A213
A152
A085
A134
AOS5
A144
A225
A239
A217
A234
A261
A128
AOOS
A206
A089
A088
A190
CAS Number
1918021
137417
51026289
137428
138932
88857
81812
117522
569642
133062
133073
60515
21564170
128030
7696120
6317186
3244904
96128
94815
5902512
2439012
2310170
15339363
5598130
14484641
116063
33820530
2312358
122349
31512740
299843
137268
22224926
542756
87865
14951918
380286
'?,
Name
?icloram
KN Methyl
Busan 40
VTetham sodium \ Vapam
STabonate
Dinoseb \DNBP
Warfarin
Coumafuryl
Malachite green
Captan
Folpet
Cygon \ Dimethoate
Busan 72
Busan 85
Tetramethrin \Neo-pynamin
NalcoD-2303
Aspon
Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
MCPB
Terbacil
Quinomethionate/Oxythioquinox
Phosalone \ Azofone
Niacide
Chlorpyrifos methyl
Ferbam
Aldiearb \ Temik
[sopropalin
Propargite/BPPS
Simazine
Busan 77 \PBED
Ronnel
Thiram
Fenamiphos
Diohloropropene, 1,3-
Pentachlorophenol
Copper EDTA
Bioquin
Organo-copper compounds
Freshwater
Aquatic
Life
Chronic,
Value
CufiflL,}
2.7
2.8
3.2
3.43
3.05
3.4
3.9
4.3
6
6
6.9
7
7
15670
7
7
7.4.
10
10
9
9.3
10
10
10
10
10
10.5
11
10.4
13
Human
Health
Ingestion of
Organisms
OnJy
Value
-------
PAI Number
A123
A119
A127
A196
A026
A010
A194
A172
A257
A247
A015
A130
A205
A249
A024
A268
A273
A238
A059
A178
A151
A129
A107
A204
A269
A084
A108
A083
A021
A087
A066
A061
A195
A135
A060
A030
A095
A072
^TabIeA.1 Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 PAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcmosens at 10-5 Risj£ Updated Toxicitv Values}
CAS Number
14573:
330541
131944&
42874033
1918167
1940438
19044883
142596
886500
2212671
93765
2008415
82688
1929777
470906
137304
93721
33089612
1861401
12427382
510156
298000
40487421
2303175
961115
141662
1982474
2491385
8018017
42576023
22781233
23135220
2164172
1912249
120365
13684565
75605
Name
Endothall
Diuron \DCMU
Ethoprophos
Oxyfluorofen
Propachlor
Tetrachlorophene
Oryzalin
tfabam
Terbutryn
Vfolinate
Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4,5-
Sutylate
Pentachloronitrobenzene \ Quintozene
Vernolate
Chiorfenvinphos \ Supona
Ziram \ Cymate
Organo-antimony compounds
frichlorophenoxypropionic acid, 2,4 5-
Amitraz
Benfluralin \Benefin
Maneb \ Vancide
Chlorobenzilate
Parathion methyl
'endimethalin \ Prowl
"ri-allate \Far-Go >
'etrachlorvinphos \ Gardona \ Stirofos
Dicrotophos \Bidrin
Chloroxuron
Susan 90
vlancozeb
Bifenox
Bendiocarb \ Ficam
Oxamyl \ Vydate
"luometuron
Atrazine
)ichlorprop
Desmedipham \ Betanex
Freshwater
Aquatic
Ofe
Chronic
Value
(usfl%
14
1 16
124
17
18.3
19
19.5
82
21
20
21
66
23
21.9
30
34
130
37
34
55
380
42
49
43
43
43
42.2
46
47
47
49
60
60
60
60
lydroxydimethvlarsine oxide
Human
Health
Ingestion o:
Organisms
Ojdy
Value
-------
TableAll Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 FAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10-5 Bisk, Updated Toxicity Values)
PAI Number
A143
A241
A251
A202
A216
A2S8
A121
AI20
A132
A267
A076
A160
A038
A013
A014
A148
A023
A162
A056
A221
A049
A223
A13S
A157
A159
A174
A091
AIDS
A020
A044
A037
A067
A017
A041
A224
A244
A16S
A210
CAS Number
25311711
128041
741582
106467
51036
58902
2439103
13590971
60168889
12122677
1563662
74839
2686999
2655154
85347
330552
95067
1399800
68424851
53404629
2593159
1610180
1071836
40596698
15716026
18530568
66819
121540
99309
534521
3691358
92524
94826
709988
7287196
120627
51218452
92842
Name
Isofenphos
Carbam-S
Bensulide \ Betesan
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Piperonyl butoxide
Tetraohlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
Dodecylguanidine monoacetate
Freshwater
Aquatic
Life
Chronic
Varae
(ugflL)
800
67
70
763
180
89
100
MetasolDGH
Fenarimol \ Rubigan
Zineb \DithaneZ
Carbofuran \ Furadan
Bromomethane
Landrinl
Landrinll
Fenac \ Chlorfenac
Linuron
Sulfallate \CDEC
Hyamine 2389
Hyamine 3500
MetasolJ26
itridiazole
Prometon \ Pramitol
Glyphosate \ Roundup
VIethoprene
Methyl benzethonium chloride
tforea \Noruron
Cyoloheximide
3enzethonium chloride
Dicloran \ Botran
Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
Chlorophaoinone
Biphenyl
DB,2,4- salts and esters
?ropanil
Prometyrn \ Caparol
Piperonyl sulfoxide
sfetolachlor
Phenothiazine
91
97
98
100
100
100
110
180
115
120
121
1200
130
155
140
140
140
147
183
150
170
200
230
1784
177
200
198
Human
Health
Ingestion of
Organisms
Only
Value
(ug/L)
72
80.704667
120
3474
740
3170
4487.17949
3200
300
146.853147
34700
1300
7300
765
1235
742.70557
485
179.487179
23400
Tosjc "
Weighting
Factor'
0.085
0.084
0.08
0.076728
0.076
0.065
0.064
0.0636 (e)
0.062
0.059
0.058
0.058
0.056
0.056
0.051
0.05
0.049
0.047
0.0467 (d)
0.0467 (d)
0.046
0.043
0.043
0.041
0.04 (f)
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.039
0.038
0.037
0.037
0.036
0.036
0.034
0.032
0.028
0.028
A.6
-------
PA1 Number
A114
A050
A058
A064
A177
A116
A033
A065
A054
A027
A211
A011
A004
A098
A069
A052
A131
A245
A256
A197
A198
A193
A259
A110
A145
A272
A167
A117
A260
A032
A248
A070
A170
A031
A250
A008
A068
A246
., Table A.1 Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 PAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10-5 Risli, Undated Toxieitv Vainest
CAS Number
82666
91532
834128
12051"
11348"
12239"
22936750
11256!
15972608
94746
90437
9723"
777927"
1918009
1689845
3056019]
52857
1134232
5915413
35400432
38527901
95501
533744
1861321
122429
101213
9006422
136458
23564058
148798
1114712
23184669
15299997
93652
29803574
43121433
314409
759944
Name
Diphacinone
Ethoxyquin
Ametryn
Senzyl benzoate
VK3K264
Diphenylamine
3elclene310
^ethane 384
Alaohlor \Lasso
tfCPA
5henylphenol, o-
3ichlorophen
Vancide TH
3icamba
Jromoxynil
Acephate
'amphur \ Famophos
Cycloate
'erbuthylazine
Jolstar \Sulprofos
Sulprofos oxon
)ichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Busamid \ Dazomet \ Mylone
3CPA \Dacthal
"ropham
Chlorpropham
Vfetiram
VKJK326
'hiophanate methyl
'hiabendazole \ Merteot
'ebulate \ Tillam
lufachlor
fapropamide
VlCPP \Mecoprop
[PTMS
'riadimefon
romacil
iPTC
Freshwater
Aquatic
life
Chronic
Value
(ug/L>
210
212
320
233
260
378
300
320
747
4254
599
360
367
390
504
640
485
450
460
520
550
590
620
800
648
640
666
890
730
740
760
810
890
972
1000
1000
1150
Human
Health
Ingestion o
Organisms
OHty
Value
(wg/L)
855
1000
681.596884
384.615385
798
23076.9231
1538.46154
1200
17000
11217.9487
3300
100000
2800
47500
21500
8970
36400
12600
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.027
0.026
0.024
0024
0.022
0.02
0.019
0.018
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.015
0015
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.011
0.0108 (k)
0.0105
0.0095
0.0095
0.0087
0.0087
0.0087
0.0084
0.0083
0.0078
0.0076
0.0074
0.0072
0.0069
0.0058
0.0058
0.0056
0.0053
A,7
-------
TabIeA.1 Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 FAIs '
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10-S Risk, Updated Toxirity Values)
PAI Number
A092
A226
AOSO
A209
A053
A237
A016
A096
A034
A240
A025
A154
AHS
A136
A242
A039
A007
A045
A078
A227
A100
A042
A171
A146
A176
A029
AI69
A142
A168
A153
A2S2
A046
A002
A175
A228
A207
A161
A036
CAS Number
75990
139402
2675776
13684634
50594664
1982496
94757
3566107
5825876
25057890
21725462
10265926
957517
640197
62748
23950585
4080313
21087649
133904
79094
23564069
55406536
134623
4849325
132661
83261
150685
51235042
140410
53780340
34014181
122883
123331
27314132
25606411
37924133
124583
34375285
Name
Dalapon
Propazine
Chloroneb
Phenmedipham \Bentanal
Acifluorfen \ Blazer
Siduron
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-
Amobam
Propionamide, 2-(m-Chlorophenoxy)
Bentazon
Cyanazine
Methamidophos
Diphenamid
Fluoroacetamide, 2-
Sodium fluoroacetate
Pronamide
Dowicil 75
Metribuzin
Chloramben
Propanoio acid
Thiophanate ethyl
Polyphase \ Guardsan 388
Deet
Karbutilatc
Naptalam
Pindone
Monuron
Hexazinone
Monuron TCA
Mefluidide
Tebuthiuron
Chlorophenoxyacetic acid, 4- (CPA)
Maleic hydrazide
Norflurazon
Previcur N \ Propamocarb HCL
Perfluidone
Methylarsonic acid
HAE
Freshwater
Aquatic
, life
Chronic
Value
-------
, Table AJ Toxic Weighting Factors for 272 PAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carctoogens at 10-SlUsk, Updated Tosictty Values)
PA1 Number
CAS Number
Name
Freshwater
Aquatic
Life
Chronic
Value
Human
Health
Ingestion of
Organisms
Only
Vatae
Toxic
Weighting
factor
A188
637036
Arsenobenzene
A102
502556
EXD
A051
134316
Quinolinol sulfate
A266
155044
Vancide51Z \Zetax
A139
1333240
jlyphosine
A028
26530201
Octhilinone
d.
STotes: TWF=5.6/Freshwater Chronic Value + 5.6/Human Health Organisms Only (10-5 Risk).
' The TWF of copper is reported for these compounds because the complexes could release copper into the
environment.
The TWF of metham sodium (vapam) is used for these compounds due to structural similarity.
The TWF of warfarin is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
The TWF of hyamine 2389 is used for these structurally similar quatenary ammonium compounds
The TWF of dodecylguanidine monoacetate is used for this compound due to structural similarity
The TWF of benzethonium chloride is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
The TWF of ferbam is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
The TWF for the base metals of these compounds is reported assuming the toxiciiy is mainly due to the bound
metal.
The TWF for tributylin oxide is reported for these compounds because it is the most probable PAI-related pollutant
in the wastewaters.
The TWF of 2-fluoroacetamide is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
The TWF of bolstar/sulprofos is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
A.9
-------
r
Table A.2 Toxic Weighting Factors for91 Additional PAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogen^ at 10-5 Risk, Updated Toxicfty Values)
CAS Number
82657043
66841256
79538322
68085858
69409945
70124775
7440224
39515418
31218834
62924703
59669260
3064708
7758998
61791637
7758987
556616
107028
23422539
67485294
61791648
1332145
58138082
51338273
66441234
33629479
29232937
76578148
2492264
111308
7738945
1332656
85007
2536314
19666309
1910425
5234684
74051802
60207901
7745893
35691657
s
Name
Bifenthrin
Tralomethrin
Tefluthrin
Cyhalothrin
Fluvalinate
?lucythrinate
Stiver
?enpropathrin
Propetamphos
?lumetralin
Thiodicarb
Bis(tricWoromethyl)Sulfone
Copper sulfate, pentahydrate
Alkyl(amino)-3-aminopropane
Copper sulfate, anhydrouns
Methyl isothiooyanate
Acrolein
Formetanate hydrochloride
Pyrimidinone
Alkyl(amino>3-aminopropane dia
Copper sulfate, basic
Tridiphane
Diclofop-methyl
Fenoxaprop-Ethyl
Butralin
Pirimiphos-methyl
QuizalofopJEthyl
Sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiazole
Glutaraldehyde
Chromic acid
Copper Chloride Hydroxide
Diquat dibromide
Chlorflurenol
Oxadiazon
Paraquat \ PP148 \ Gramoxone
Carboxin
Sethoxydim
Propiconazole
3-Chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride
Dibromodicvanobutane
Freshwater
Aquatic Life
Chronic
Value (ug/L)
0.0022
0.0067
0.016
0.018
0.034
0.07
0.12
0.28
0.33
1.79
2.7
2.9
3.2
5.12
5
5.5
5.8
8.7
9
16
20
25
30
31
37
40.4
46
73
75
76
98
117
116
120
120
120
120
140
160
175
Human Health
Ingestionof
Organisms
Only
Value (ug/L}
110000
1000
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
2500
840
350
310
160
80
47
20
17
3.1
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.1
1.1
1
0.97
0.64
0.62
0.35
0.28
0.22
0.19
0.18
0.15
0.14
0.12
0.077
0.075
0.074
0.057
0.048
0.048
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.047
0.04
0.035
0.032
A. 10
-------
Table A.2 Toric Weighting Factors fpr91 Additional PAfe
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10-5 Bfelc Updated Tarirfty Vain**)
CAS Number
10222012
90982324
32289580
88671890
43222486
15662336
91203
8012699
36734197
15096523
86209510
1929824
1344816
107062
1194656
Name
DBNPA
Chlorimuron Ethyl
PHMB
Myclobutaml
Difenzoquat methyl sulfate
Ryanodine
Naphthalene
Copper Oxychloride Sulfate
Iprodione
Cryolite
Primisulfuron methyl
Nitrapyrin
Calcium polysulphide
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichlobenil
100027 iNitrophenol, 4-
7778394 [Arsenic acid
3810740
61825
57837191
13701592
26644462
81777891
26225796
52517
51200874
1596845
39148248
50471448
12771685
79277273
108623
74223646
1420048
83055996
81335377
16672870
81335775
25954136
69806504
Streptomycin sequisulfate
Amitrole
Metalaxyl
Barium metaborate
Triforine
Clomazone
Ethofumesate
Sronopol
4,4-DimethyIoxazolidine
Daminozide
-------
Table A.2 Toxic Weighting Factors for 9 i AddftwnalPAIs
(Sorted by TWF, Carcinogens at 10~5 Rfek, Updated Toxicity Values)
CAS Number
64902723
101200480
72178020
81334341
1327533
111991094
82097505
57213691
24307264
7704349
74222972
Name
Chlorsulfuron
Tribenuron methyl
Fomesagen
Imazapyr
Arsenic trioxide
Nicosulfuron
Triasulfuron
Triclopyr, triethylamine salt
Mepiquat chloride
Sulfur
Sulfometuron Methyl
Freshwater
Aquatic Life
Chronic
Value
-------
Appendix B
Differences in Pre-Compliance Loadings and Removals between the Proposed Rule,
Supplemental Notice Rule, and Final Regulation
This appendix examines the differences in pre-compliance (baseline) pollutant loadings and removals
among the proposed rule, supplemental notice rule, and the final regulation.7 The key finding from this analysis
is that the decrease in pollutant removals between the proposed rule and the final regulation stems almost entirely
from the reduced regulatory scope of the final rule; very little of the decrease results from the final rule's
P2 Alternative relative to the proposed rule's zero discharge requirement.
The total decrease in removals from the proposed rule to the final rule is about 15.5 million pounds-
equivalent. The amount accounted for by the 272 PAIs is about 1.4 million pounds-equivalent, or about nine
percent of the total decrease of all PAI pounds-equivalent This appendix focuses on the 272 PAIs because
loadings and removals of individual non-272 PAIs are not available. Although the 272 PAIs represent the
minority of the decrease in loadings and removals, they are the PAIs about which EPA has detailed loading and
removal data.
A large share of the change in both loadings and removals of 272 PAIs can be accounted for by the
changes in loadings and removals of a few pollutants. Also, almost all of the reductions in estimated 272 PAI
baseline loadings and pollutant removals appear to result from a reduction in regulatory scope (PAIs or
wastewater streams regulated) rather than a decrease in the "removal rate" of the Zero Discharge/P2 Alternative
of the Supplemental Notice and the final rule relative to the Zero Discharge Option of the proposed rule.
Table B.I on the following page presents the changes in pollutant removals of 272 PAIs among the
proposed rule, Supplemental Notice, and final rule broken into three components: changes in regulatory scope
(coverage of PAIs and wastewater streams); changes from replacing the proposed Zero Discharge Option with
the Zero Discharged Alternative; and total changes in" removals, which are the sums of the first two
components. All pound-equivalent removals are estimated using a constant set of TWFs (those of the final rule)
for all three rules. The table assumes that changes in regulatory scope are equal to changes in baseline loadings
between the rules.
The net effect of the move from the proposed rule through the Supplemental Notice to the final rule is
a decrease in loadings and removals, although some PAIs had increased loadings and removals in each move. As
* The analysis of this appendix considers all pollutant removals, including those associated with facilities assessed as baseline
tailures.
B.I
-------
the table indicates, the regulatory scope decreased somewhat from the proposed rule to the Supplemental Notice,
but decreased much more substantially from the Supplemental Notice to the final rule. The change from the
Supplemental Notice to the final rule accounts for 71 percent of the total from proposed rule to final rule on the
basis of pounds and 97 percent on the basis of toxic-weighted pounds-equivalent.
Table B. 1 indicates that the vast majority of the reduction in removals associated with the final rule is
due to the change in regulatory scope rather than the shift from the Zero Discharge Option to the Zero
Discharge/P2 Alternative. The change in regulatory scope appears to account for 90.6 percent (equal to 17,353
/19,156) of the decreased removals measured in pounds, and 95.6 percent (equal to 1,366,993 / 1,430,163) of
the decreased removals measured in pounds-equivalent.
TableB.1
Components of the Changes in Pollutant Removals of Only 272 PAIs
Using Constant TWFs forProposal, Supplemental Notice and Final Rule
Net Change in Removals from Revised
Regulatory- Scope, in Ibs,
Net Change in Removals, from Revised
Regulatory Scope, in Ibs-eq.
Change in Removals: from Pollution
Prevention Alternative, in Ibs.
Change in Removals from Pollution
Prevention Alternative, in Ibs-eq.
Total Change in Removals, in Ibs.
Total Change in Removals, in Ibs-eq.
Change from
Proposal to
Supplemental
-4,940
-47,076
-1,913
-76,590
-6,853
-123,666
Change from
Supplemental to
Final
-12,413
-1,319,917
110
13,420
-12,303
-1,306,497
Change from
Proposal to Final
-17,353
-1,366,993
-1,804
-63,170
-19,156
-1,430,163
Note: Pounds-equivalent loadings and removals are calculated using TWFs applicable to the final rule. Includes
loadings and removals from facilities assessed as baseline closures.
The results of this analysis indicate three main points:
1. Scope changes (changes in PAIs and wastewater streams covered) account for 90.6 percent of the
reduction in 272 pollutant removals in pounds and 95.6 percent of the reduction in pounds-equivalent
between the proposed rule and the final rule);
2. The Zero Discharge/P2 Alternative is not significantly less efficient at removing the pollutants that it
covers than the Zero Discharge Option of the proposed rule;
B.2
-------
3. Most of the reduction in removals resulting from reduced regulatory scope occurs between the
Supplemental Notice and final rule.
B.3
-------
-------
Appendix C
Results of Compliance with the Existing 1978 BPT Regulation
This appendix presents the cost-effectiveness analysis for direct discharging facilities for compliance
with the existing 1978 Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) regulation. The analysis
is based on EPA's estimates of the total annualized cost of compliance and wastewater pollutant removals
resulting from the final BPT regulation for direct discharging Subcategory C facilities when treatment in-place
is not accounted for. Table C-l presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds and total pounds-
equivalent of pollutants removed for the final rule.8
';. TabIeC.l
National Estimates of Total Animated Costs, Removals and Cost-Effectiveness Values for Subcategory C
Facilities under BPT
Total Annualized
Compliance Costs
(millions of $,1981}
$1.8 million
Pollutant Removals
{pounds)
50,248
Pollutant-Removals
{pounds-equivalent)
7 1.6 million
Cost-Effectiveness
(S/lb.-eq.)
$0.03/lb.-eq.
Note: Toxic weighting factors used in the analysis reflect more recent toxicological and are generally lower than the
factors used at proposal and supplemental.
As the table shows, the cost-effectiveness of the final rule is $0.03 per pound-equivalent. EPA considers this
value very cost-effective relative to previously promulgated effluent guidelines.
8 No direct discharging facilities were assessed as baseline failures. Therefore, this analysis does not vary based on exclusion
or inclusion of the costs, loadings, and removals of baseline failures.
C.I
-------
-------
Appendix D
Sensitivity Analysis of POTW Removal Efficiency
This appendix presents a sensitivity analysis applied to the assumption in the PSES cost-effectiveness
analysis that pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) are not removed by POTWs. Little empirical data is available
on the PAI removals actually achieved by POTWs. The only data available on POTW removal efficiencies for
PAIs is from the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) (Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Waste
to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, February 1986, EPA/530-SW-86-004). The DSS provides laboratory data
under ideal conditions to estimate biotreatment removal efficiencies at POTWs for different organic PAI
structural groups. These data, however, are not full-scale/in-use POTW data and therefore, are not appropriate
for use in the cost-effectiveness analysis. EPA incorporated the POTW removal efficiencies, however, into a
sensitivity analysis. Table D.4 at the end of this appendix lists the POTW removal efficiencies available for the
analysis from the DSS. Table D. 1 presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds, and total pounds-
equivalent of pollutants removed for the final regulation assuming the POTW removal efficiencies found in the
DSS. As the table indicates, assuming the DSS POTW removal efficiencies, the estimated final rule removals
are 165,460 pounds, or 5.8 million pounds-equivalent The resulting cost-effectiveness value is $3.60 per pound-
equivalent, which the Agency considers cost-effective.
TabfeB.l
National Estimates of Total Annualized Costs, Removals and Cost-Effectiveness
Values for Subcategory CPSESFacOities,under the Final Regulation
Assuming POTW Removal Efficiencies from the Domestic Sewage Study
Total Annualized
Compliance Costs
(minions of $, 1981)
$20.9 million
Pollutant Removals
(pounds)
165,460
Pollutant-Removals
(pounds-equivalent)
5.8 million
Cost-Effectiveness
(S/lb.-eq.)
$3.60/lb.-eq.
Note: Toxic weighting factors used in the analysis reflect more recent toxicological data and are generally lower than
the factors used at proposal and in the supplemental notice. Includes facilities estimated to close in the baseline
scenario.
Because the POTW removal efficiencies available from the DSS may not be representative of those
achieved by an operating POTW, EPA continued the sensitivity analysis assuming that POTWs remove: (1)50
percent of the PAIs from the wastewater stream; and (2) 90 percent of the PAIs from, the wastewater stream.
D.I
-------
Table D.2 presents the estimated total annualized costs, total pounds and total pounds-equivalent of pollutants
removed for the final regulation under the assumption of 50 percent POTW removal efficiency for all PAIs, and
Table D.3 presents the values assuming POTWs remove 90 percent of all PAIs in the wastewater stream.
Table B.2
National Estimates of Total Annualized Costs, Removals and Cost-Effectiveness
Values: for Subcategory CPSES Faculties under the Final Regulation
Assuming 50 Percent POTW Removal Efficiency for All PAIs
Total Annualized
Compliance Costs
(millions of S, 1981)
S20.9 million
Pollutant Removals
(pounds} '
94,954
Pollutant-Removals
(pounds-equivalent)
3. 8 million
Cost-Effectiveness
($/Ib.re
-------
Table JX4
POTW RemovalEfficiencies Available for PAIs
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAIName
2,3,6-T, S&E or Fenac
2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-T, S&E . .
2,4-D (2,4-D, S&E)
2,4-DB, S&E
MCPA, S&E
Dichlorprop, S&E
MCPP, S&E or Mecoprop . .
Chiorprop, S&E
CPA, S&E
MCPB, S&E
Silvex
Diphenamide
Fluoroacetamide
Sodium Fluoroacetate
Propachlor
Alachlor
Butachlor
Metolachlor
Propionic Acid
Chloropicrin
Dalapon
Methyl Bromide
Biphenyl
Diphenylamine
Dichloran or DCNA
Chloroneb
Dicamba
DCPA
Chlorobenzilate
o-Dichlorobenzene
)-Dichlorobenzene
FCMB
Pendimethalin
Acifluorfen
Chloramben
Bromoxyml
Endothall (Endothall S&E) .
MGK 264
Toxaphene
FAI Code
014
015
016
017
027
030
031
034
046
047
238
115
136
242
026
054
070
165
227
081
092
160
067
116
020
080
098
110
129
193
202
205
204
053
078
069
123
177
262
Structural Group
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
2,4-D
Acetamide
Acetanude
Acetamide
Acetamhde
Acetanilide
Acetanilide
Acetamhde
AlkylAcid
AlkylHalide
AlkylHalide
AlkylHalide
Aryl .
Aryl Armne
ArylHalide
Aryl Halide
Aryl Halide
Aryl Halide
ArylHalide
Aryl Halide
Aryl Halide
ArylHalide
Benzeneamine
Benzoic Acid
Benzoic Acid
Benzonitrile
Bicyclic
Bicyclic
Bicyclic
Average POTW
Percent
Removal
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
47
40
40
40
30
30
30
30
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
90
90
__2P
D.3
-------
', ' Table D.4 _ ~, <>- , «./ - ; ;,
POTW Removal Efficiencies Available for PAIs - ' / ;
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAIName
Landrin-2
Landrin-1
Methiocarb or Mesurol
Polyphase
Aminocarb
Aldicarb
Bendiocarb
Benomyl
Carbaryl
Carbofuran
Carbosulfan
Desmedipham
Thiophanate Ethyl
Propham
Karabutilate
Mefluidide
Methomyl
Mexacarbate
Napropamide
Oxamyl
Propoxur
Phenmedipham
PrevicurN
Thiophanate Methyl
Chloropropham
Pronamide
Hexachlorophene
Tetrachlorophene
Dichlorophene
Propanil
Chlorothalonil
Coumafuryl or Fumarin
Warfarin
Cycloheximide
Dicofol
Perthane
Methoxychlor
Sulfallate
Mancozeb
EXD
Ferbam
PAICode
013
038
040
. 042
048
055
061
062
075
076
077
095
100
145
146
153
156
166
170
195
201
209
228
260
272
039
009
010
Oil
041
082
043
265
091
001
101
158
023
087
102
134
Structural Group
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Carbamate
Chlorobenzamide
Chlorophene
Chlorophene
Chlorophene
Chloropropionanilide
Chloropropionanilide
Coumarin
Coumarin
Cyclic Ketone
DDT
DDT
DDT
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Average POTW
Percent
Removal
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
60
60
60
40
40
40
40
D.4
-------
POTW Removal EfficieDiaeS AvaOableforPAIs
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAINaroe
Manam
Metiram
Nabam
Busan 85 or Arylane
Busan40
KN Methyl
Carbam-S or Sodam
Vapam or Metham Sodium .
Thiram
Zineb
Ziram
EDB
1,3-Dichloropropene
DBCP
Benzyl Benzoate
MGK 326
Methoprene
Piperonyl Butoxide
Dienochlor
Octhilinone
IThiabendazole
Busan 72 or TCMTB
Etridiazole
Norflurazon
Nemazine
Sodium Bentazon
Dazomet
Maleic Hydrazide
Amitraz
Diphacinone
Nabonate
BHC
Lindane
Busan 90
Pindone
Chlorophacinone
Giv-gard
Amobam
Quinometiiionate
Oxyfluorfen
PAT Code
151
152
167
172
218
219
220
241
243
261
267
268
003
005
097
064
117
157
216
093
028
032
035
049
175
210
240
259
002
059
114
118
063
147
021
029
037
071
096
164
196
Structural Croup
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
Dithiocarbamate
EDB
EDB
EDB
Ester
Ester
Ester
Ester
HCp
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Heterocyclic
Hydrazide
Iminamide
rndandione
Isocyanate
Lindane
Lindane
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Average POTW
Percent
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
1
,_J
D.5
-------
TabIeD.4 ,
POTW Removal Efficiencies Available for PAIs
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAIName
Metasol J26
Propargite
Mexide or Rotenone
Sulfoxide
Bifenox
Dowicil 75
Metasol DGH
Dodiac
Malachite Green
PBED or WSCP (Busan 77)
Thenarsazine Oxide
Cacodylic Acid
Monosodium Methyl Arsenate
Organo-Arsenic Pesticides .
Organo-Cadmium Pesticides
Bioquin (Copper)
Copper EDTA
Organo-Copper Pesticides . .
Organo-Mercury Pesticides .
Organo-Tin Pesticides
Zinc MET
DNOC
Dinoseb
PCPorPenta
Tetrachlorophenol
Dinocap
Dichlorvos
Mevinphos
Chlorfenvinphos
Stirofos
Dicrotophos
Crotoxyphos
Naled
Phosphamidon
Trichlorofon
Fenamiphos
Glyphosate (Glyphosate S&E)
Glyphosine
Acephate or Orthene
Isofenphos
Methamidophos
PAICode
221
225
235
244
066
007
120
121
149
217
006
072
161
188
189
088
089
190
191
192
266
044
112
206
258
019
012
022
024
084
108
109
173
214
111
128
138
139
052
143
154
Structural Group
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Miscellaneous Organic
Nitrobenzoate
NR4
NR4
NR4
NR4
NR4
Organoarsenic
Organoarsenic
Organoarsenic
Organoarsenic
Organocadmium
Organocopper
Organocopper
Organocopper
Organomercury
Organotin
Organozinc
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenol
Phenylcrotonate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphate
Phosphonate
Phosphoroamidate
Phosphoroamidate
Phosphoroamidate
Phosphoroamidothioate
Phosphoroamidothioate
Phosphoroamidothioate
Average POTW
Percent
Removal
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
D.6
-------
Table D.4
, POTW RemovaTEffidencfes^Ayailablefor PAIs
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAlName
Dimethoate
Dioxathion
Ethion
Ethoprop
Malatfaion
Methidathion
Disulfoton
Phosmet
Azinphos Methyl (Guthion)
Bolstar
Santox (EPN)
Fonofos
Phorate
Phosalone
Bensulide or Betesan
Terbufos or Counter
Chlorpyrifos Methyl
Chlorpyrifos
Demeton
Diazinon
Parathion Methyl
Famphur
Fenthion or Baytex
Sulfotepp
Aspon
Coumaphos
Fensulfothion
Fenitrothion
Oxydemeton Methyl
Sulprofos Oxon
Parathion Ethyl
Profenofos
Fenchlorphos or Ronnel
Temephos
DBF
Merphos
Naptalam or Neptalam
Captafol
Captan
Folpet
Allethrin
PAICode
106
113
126
127
150
155
183
185
186
197
199
200
212
213
251
255
085
086
094
103
107
131
133
179
180
181
182
184
187
198
203
222
234
253
236
263
176
073
074
137
057
Structural Group
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorodithioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorothioate
Phosphorotrithioate
Phosphorotrithioate
Phthalamide
Phthalimide
Phthalimide
Phthalimide
Pyrethrin
Average POTW
Percent
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
57
50
50
30
30
30
30
50
D.7
-------
;: ,, , Table 1X4
POTW Removal Efficiencies AvaBable for PAls ,,
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAI Name
Pydrin or Fenvalerate
Permethrin
Pyrethrin Coils
Pyrethruml
Pyrethrumll
Pyrethrins
Resmethrin
Phenothrin
Tetramethrin
Picloram
Fenarimol
Ethoxyquin
Dichlone
Vancide TH
Triadimefon
Dyrene or Anilazine
Cyanazine or Bladex
BelcleneSlO
Ametryn
Atrazine
Hexazinone
Prometon or Caparol
Prometryn
Propazine
Simazine
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Oryzalin
Perfluidone
Butylate
Cycloprate
Cycloate or Ro-Neet
EPrecipitationC or Eptam
Molinate
Pebulate or Tillman
Vemolate or Vernam
Triallate
Lethane 60
NalcoD-2303
HPrecipitationMS
Deet
PAI Code
090
208
229
230
231
232
233
270
271
215
132
050
099
004
008
018
025
033
058
060
142
223
224
226
239
256
257
194
207
130
141
245
246
247
248
249
269
065
163
250
171
Structural <5roup
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyrethrin
Pyridine
Pyrimidine
Quinolin
Quinone
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
s-Triazine
Sulfanilamide
Sulfonamide
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocarbamate
Thiocyanate
Thiocyanate
Thiosulphonate
Toluamide
Average PQTW
Percent
Removal
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
D.8
-------
POTW Removal Efficiencies Available for PAIs . ,
from the Domestic Sewage Study
PAI Name
Isopropalin
Benfluralin
Trifluralin or Treflan
Metribuzin
Chlordane
Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Bromacil (Lithium Salt)
Terbacil
Chloroxuron
Diflubenzuron
Diuron
Fluometuron
Linuron
Monuron TCA
Monuron
Norea
Siduron or Tupersan
Tebiifhmrnn
FAX Code
125
144
178
264
045
079
122
124
140
068
254
083
104
119
135
148
168
169
174
237
Structural Group
Toluidine
Toluidine
Toluidine
Toluidine
Triazathione
Tricyclic
Tricyclic
Tricyclic
Tricyclic
Uracil
Uracil
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Urea
Average POTW
Percent
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
30
30
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
D.9
-------
------- |