United States Office of Water EPA 821-R-98-018
Environmental Protection (4303) December 1998
Agency
4>EPA Cost Effectiveness Analysis of
Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the
Centralized Waste Treatment
Industry
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards
for the Centralized Waste Treatment Industry
William Wheeler
Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch
Engineering and Analysis Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
The author wishes to thank Jan Matuszko for her knowledge, cooperation, and leadership as
project officer. The author also thanks Tim Connor, Charles Tamulonis, Maria Smith, and
other members of the Centralized Waste Treatment team for their knowledge and cooperation
in the preparation of this report.
The author also thanks Research Triangle Institute for their assistance and support in
performing the underlying analyses supporting the conclusions described in this report. Their
analysis was performed under contract number 68-C4-0060, under a subcontract to Abt
Associates. Particular thanks are given to Katherine Heller, Tyler Fox, Jean Domanico, and
Laura Bloch.
in
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
1 Introduction 1-1
2 Background and Methodology 2-1
2.1 Pollutants of Concern 2-2
2.2 Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants 2-3
2.3 Pollution Control Options 2-10
2.4 Calculation of Pollutant Removals 2-11
2.5 Annualized Cost for Each Control Option 2-14
2.6 Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-15
2.7 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-16
3 Cost-Effectiveness Results 3-1
3.1 Cost-Effectiveness of Individual Control Options 3-1
3.2 Cost-Effectiveness Comparisons for Combined Regulatory
Option 3-4
4 Comparison of the Cost-Effectiveness of Selected CWT Regulatory
Options with the Cost-Effectiveness of Previously Approved Effluent
Guidelines and Standards 4-1
Appendix A: Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using the Pollutant Weighting
Factor (PWF) Method A-l
Appendix B: Detailed Pollutant Loadings and Removals Data A-2
v
-------
TABLES
Number Page
2-1 Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Toxic Weighting Factors 2-4
2-2 TWFs Based on Copper Criteria 2-9
2-3 Descriptions of the Individual CWT Control Options 2-11
2-4 Summary of Weighted and Unweighted Pollutant Removals for Direct
and Indirect Dischargers 2-13
3-1 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Individual Control Options for Direct
Discharging CWT Facilities 3-2
3-2 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Individual Control Options for Indirect
Discharging CWT Facilities 3-3
3-3 Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Regulatory Option for Direct and Indirect
Discharging CWT Facilities 3-5
4-1 Industry Comparison of BAT Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Removals Weighted Using
Traditional TWFs) 4-2
4-2 Industry Comparison of PSES Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Removals Weighted Using
Traditional TWFs) 4-3
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
EPA has proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the centralized
waste treatment (CWT) industry. This report investigates the cost-effectiveness of all
possible combinations of proposed control options for the three subcategories of CWT
operations. EPA considered three control options for metals, two for oils and two for
organics, with 12 possible combinations of these options. The report measures cost-
effectiveness through a comparison of compliance costs to the quantity of pollutants removed
under each combination of control options. The cost of the regulation is defined as the
estimated nationally-aggregated annualized cost for the industry to comply with the
regulation. The effectiveness of the regulation is measured in terms of reductions in the
pounds of pollutants discharged to surface waters, weighted to account for the pollutants'
toxicity. Some pollutants removed are specifically addressed by the regulation, while others
are not directly regulated but are removed incidentally as a result of controlling for other
pollutants.
This analysis measures the quantity of pollutants removed in standardized "pound-
equivalents." A pound-equivalent (Ib-eq) is a pound of pollutant weighted for its toxicity.
Using pound-equivalents reflects the fact that some pollutants are more toxic than others and
permits a comparison of removals and, thus, a summary measure of removals. To measure
removals, the total number of pounds per year of each pollutant removed is multiplied by its
corresponding toxic weighting factor. Only those toxic pollutants for which EPA has
developed toxic weighting factors (TWFs) are included in this analysis. This means that the
1-1
-------
analysis will necessarily understate toxic removals for which EPA has not assigned TWFs.
This cost-effectiveness analysis employs the TWF approach for weighting pollutants
according to their relative toxicity. This approach has been used historically by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing effluent guidelines. Some of the
pollutants removed by the control options are specifically addressed by the regulation.
Others would be 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. EPA's cost-effectiveness assessment does not analyze removal
efficiencies for conventional pollutants, such as oil and grease, biological oxygen demand,
and total suspended solids; thus the removal of conventional pollutants is not addressed in
this report.
The cost-effectiveness (in dollars per pound-equivalent removed) of a treatment
option can be computed by summing the costs of complying with the option across all
affected dischargers and dividing this cost by the sum of the toxicity-weighted removals for
these dischargers. The cost-effectiveness of the various combinations of options can then be
compared to one another. One way to compare combinations of options is to look at the
incremental cost-effectiveness, which measures changes in costs and removals that result
from switching from one combination to another.
No absolute scale can be used to evaluate a cost-effectiveness value because cost-
effectiveness is a relative measure. Comparisons of cost-effectiveness values are meaningful
only when the costs being compared are taken from, or are adjusted to, the same time period.
Cost-effectiveness is therefore expressed in 1981 dollars to facilitate comparisons. In
addition, the removals must be 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, weighing the factors that the CWA
1-2
-------
requires EPA to consider in establishing limitations and standards may preclude choosing
some regulatory options with low cost-effectiveness values.
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 limited basis for comparing the efficiency of a regulatory
option currently being considered for one industry with the efficiencies of previously
promulgated effluent limitations guidelines for other industries. Comparing across industries
may be imperfect, however, because the TWFs that have been used in the past for effluent
guidelines development have been modified for some pollutants.
Section 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 used to estimate pound-equivalent removals, and describes the subcategory control
options that are combined to create the 12 regulatory options. Section 2 also discusses the
differences in how EPA measured removals for direct and indirect dischargers. (Indirect
dischargers are facilities whose effluent receives treatment at a publicly owned treatment
works [POTW] before it is discharged to surfaces waters.) In addition, Section 2 describes
how EPA annualized compliance costs, calculated two different cost-effectiveness values,
and may compare the merits of each regulatory option. Section 3 presents the findings of this
cost-effectiveness analysis and identifies the options that are superior. Section 4 compares
the cost-effectiveness of these options for the CWT industry to the cost-effectiveness of
control options that have been proposed for other industries under other promulgated rules.
1-3
-------
SECTION 2
BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
As part of the process of setting effluent limitations guidelines and developing
standards, EPA uses cost-effectiveness calculations to compare the efficiencies of regulatory
options for removing pollutants. The Agency evaluates both overall cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness. The overall cost-effectiveness of a control option is the ratio
of the annualized cost of that control option to the quantity of pollutants not discharged to
surface water because of that option. Incremental cost-effectiveness measures the difference
in costs divided by the difference in removals that result from comparing one control option
to another control option, or to a benchmark measure. (Cost Option ACost Option B)/
(Removals Option ARemovals Option B). Examples of benchmarks include existing
treatments and previously promulgated regulations. Although not required by the Clean
Water Act (CWA), a cost-effectiveness analysis offers a useful metric for comparing the
efficiency of alternative regulatory options in removing toxic pollutants. The analysis
compares removals for pollutants either directly regulated by the guidelines and standards or
are incidentally removed along with regulated pollutants. EPA's cost-effectiveness
assessment does not analyze removal efficiencies for conventional pollutants, such as oil and
grease, biological oxygen demand, and total suspended solids; thus the removal of
conventional pollutants is not addressed in this report.
EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis includes seven steps:
1. Determine the pollutants of concern.
2-1
-------
2. Estimate relative toxic weights for these pollutants.
3. Define pollution control options.
4. Calculate pollutant removals for each control option.
5. Determine the total annualized cost for each control option.
6. Calculate cost-effectiveness values (and adjust to 1981 dollars).
7. Compare cost-effectiveness values.
The following sections discuss these steps as they apply to the CWT industry.
2.1 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
In conducting the CE analysis for the CWT industry, EPA included 146 pollutants of
concern. These pollutants include those regulated directly by the guidelines and standards, as
well as selected non-regulated pollutants. The analysis includes non-regulated pollutants
when they are removed incidentally as a result of a particular treatment technology, even
though they are not specifically limited.
Section 6 of the Technical Development Document (TDD) details the pollutants of
concern for each subcategory and Section 7 of the TDD discusses the pollutants that were
selected for regulation. Generally, pollutants of concern were not included for the following
reasons:
the pollutant was not effectively treated by the option technology (the pollutant
level increased across the technology)
the pollutant was not detected at treatable levels in the influent streams at the
facilities forming the basis for the options limitations and standards
2-2
-------
the pollutant is pervasive in the environment as a mineral and is relatively non-
toxic (for example, calcium)
the pollutant is often used as a treatment chemical, and
the pollutant's TWF is zero.
Table 2-1 lists the pollutants that are considered in the CE analysis and presents their TWFs
and POTW removal efficiencies.1 All non-conventional pollutants (out of the 146 pollutants
of concern) are listed for the sake of completeness, even if their TWF is zero.
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 as explained in Section 1. These weighting factors
are necessary so that quantities of different pollutants, each with different potential effects on
human and aquatic life, can be compared on a common basis.
The TWFs that EPA has traditionally used to develop effluent guidelines and
standards are based on two values: the chronic aquatic life value and the human health value.
The chronic aquatic life value indicates the concentration in water at which a pollutant has a
toxic effect on aquatic life. It is measured in |ig/L. The human health value, also measured
in |ig/L, indicates the concentration in water that would cause harm to humans eating at least
6.5 grams offish per day from that water. (For carcinogenic substances, a harmful level is
considered to be a concentration that would lead to more than 1 in 100,000 additional cancer
cases over background.) This analysis standardizes these values by relating them to copper, a
toxic metal pollutant that is commonly detected and removed from industrial effluent. EPA
uses the value of 5.6 jig/L as the benchmark figure because at this concentration, copper
1 POTW removal efficiencies are detailed in Section 7 of the TDD.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND TOXIC
WEIGHTING FACTORS
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
METALS
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440484
7440508
7553562
7439885
7439896
7439921
7439932
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7723140
7440097
7782492
7440213
7440224
7440235
Pollutant Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iodine
Iridium
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
TWF
0.0640
0.1900
4.0000
0.0020
0.1770
5.2000
0.0270
0.0270
0.1100
0.4700
0.0000
0.000
0.0060
1.8000
0.0120
0.0000
0.0140
500.0000
0.2000
0.0360
0.0000
0.0000
1.1000
0.0000
47.000
0.0000
POTW % REM
88.22
71.13
90.89
27.66
20.04
90.05
51.79
91.25
6.11
84.11
39.25
74.00
83.00
91.83
26.00
31.83
40.60
90.16
52.17
51.44
69.42
20.20
34.33
27.29
92.42
51.79
(continued)
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND TOXIC
WEIGHTING FACTORS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
METALS (continued)
7440246
7704349
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440622
7440655
7440666
7440677
ORGANICS
50328
56235
56553
58902
59507
60297
65850
67641
75014
75150
78933
79005
83329
84662
84742
85018
85687
Pollutant Name
Strontium
Sulfur
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Tetrachloromethane
Benzo(a)anthracene
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
4-chloro-3 -methylphenol
Diethyl ether
Benzoic acid
2-propanone
Vinyl chloride
Carbon disulfide
2-butanone
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
Acenapthene
Diethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
TWF
0.0000
0.0000
0.140
0.3000
0.029
0.620
0.000
0.0510
0.540
4,300.0000
0.1280
24.00000
0.0645
0.00430
0.0001
0.00033
0.0000
0.0013
2.80000
0.0000
0.0140
0.25000
0.00061
0.01200
19.00000
0.02300
POTW % REM
14.83
14.33
53.80
65.20
68.77
42.28
57.93
77.97
60.00
95.20
91.72
97.50
33.00
63.00
7.00
80.50
83.75
93.49
84.00
96.60
74.79
98.29
59.73
79.31
94.89
94.33
(continued)
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND TOXIC
WEIGHTING FACTORS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Pollutant Name
TWF
POTW % REM
ORGANICS (continued)
86737
86748
87865
91203
91576
92524
95487
95501
95954
96184
98555
98862
99876
100414
100425
100516
101848
105679
106445
106467
106934
107062
108101
108907
108952
110861
112403
Fluorene
Carbazole
Pentachlorophenol
Naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
Biphenyl
o-cresol
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
1 ,2,3 -trichloropropane
Alpha-terpinol
Acetophenone
p-cymene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Benzyl alcohol
Diphenyl ether
2,4-dimethylphenol
p-cresol
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Chlorobenzene
Phenol
Pyridine
n-dodecane
0.70000
0.27000
0.4990
0.01500
0.01800
0.03700
0.0033
0.01100
0.0988
0.0020
0.00100
0.0002
0.04300
0.00140
0.01400
0.00560
0.02600
0.00530
0.0024
0.07700
44.0000
0.0062
0.0001
0.00290
0.0280
0.0013
0.00430
69.85
62.00
13.88
94.69
28.00
96.28
52.50
88.98
28.00
5.00
94.40
95.34
99.79
93.76
93.65
78.00
97.80
51.22
71.67
52.35
17.00
89.03
87.87
96.37
95.25
95.40
95.05
(continued)
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND TOXIC
WEIGHTING FACTORS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Pollutant Name
TWF
POTW % REM
ORGANICS (continued)
112958
117817
117840
120127
120821
122394
124185
129000
132649
132650
142621
156605
205992
206440
207089
208968
218019
243174
541731
544763
608275
612942
629594
629970
630206
700129
832699
1576676
n-eicosane
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Diphenylamine
n-decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Hexanoic acid
Trans-l,2-dichloroethene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Chrysene
2,3-benzofluorene
1 ,3 -dichlorobenzene
n-hexadecane
2,3 -dichloroaniline
2-phenylnaphthalene
N-tetradecane
N-docosane
1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethane
Pentamethylbenzene
1 -methylphenanthrene
3 ,6-dimethylphenanthrene
0.00430
0.11000
0.22000
2.50000
0.08200
0.02000
0.00430
0.07500
0.02000
0.04600
0.0003
0.0009
1.60000
0.92000
0.75000
0.00840
18.00000
0.22000
0.00950
0.00430
0.0108
0.00000
0.00430
0.000082
0.0240
0.29000
0.14000
0.47000
92.40
59.78
68.99
95.56
91.52
79.27
9.00
83.90
97.80
84.68
84.00
78.38
95.40
42.46
94.70
98.72
96.90
87.97
88.89
71.11
41.00
87.97
71.11
88.00
23.00
91.87
87.97
87.97
(continued)
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-1. POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN FOR CWT INDUSTRY AND TOXIC
WEIGHTING FACTORS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant Type and
CAS Number
Pollutant Name
TWF
POTW % REM
ORGANICS (continued)
1730376
20324338
136777612
593453
67663
71432
71556
75092
75354
79016
108383
108883
127184
1-methylfluorene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
o + p xylene
n-octadecane
Chloroform
Benzene
1,1,1-trichloro ethane
Methylene chloride
1,1-dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
m-xylene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethene
0.08900
0.0000082
0.00850
0.00430
0.0021
0.0180
0.0043
0.0004
0.1800
0.0630
0.0015
0.0056
0.0740
87.97
52.40
95.07
71.11
73.44
94.76
90.45
54.28
75.34
86.85
98.21
96.18
84.61
becomes toxic. (This is the former water quality value for copper, which has been revised to
12 ng/L. The Agency still uses the former value, however, to allow comparisons with cost-
effectiveness values for previously promulgated guidelines and limitations.) TWFs are
calculated as follows:
TWF = 5.6/AQ + 5.6/HH
where
TWF = toxic weighting factor,
AQ = chronic aquatic life value (ng/L), and
HH = human health value (|ig/L).
2-8
-------
First, EPA estimated the ratio of the baseline value (5.6 |ig/L) to the human health
value for that pollutant. Then, EPA estimated the ratio of the baseline value (5.6 |ig/L) to the
aquatic life value for that pollutant. Finally, the analysis summed these two values.
Table 2-2 further illustrates the process for calculating each TWF. This table shows
that because the water quality criterion for copper has been revised to 12.0 |ig/L, the TWF for
copper is 0.467 rather than 1, the weighting factor that one would normally expect for a
benchmark pollutant. It also shows how high human health and aquatic figures lead to low
TWFs. In other words, if a pollutant causes adverse effects only at high concentrations, then
it will have a low TWF.
TABLE 2-2. TWFs BASED ON COPPER CRITERIA
Pollutant
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
Human
Health Value
(Hg/L)
-
-
4,600
84
710
Chronic
Aquatic Life
Value (jig/L)
12.0
3.2
160.0
1.1
530.0
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
Table 2-2 shows how 11.04 pounds of copper pose the same relative hazard in surface
waters as one pound of cadmium, because cadmium has a TWF that is 11.04 times as large as
the TWF for copper (5.158/0.467 = 11.04). 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
2-9
-------
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.
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
nonhazardous industrial waste received from off-site. The proposed effluent guidelines and
standards were developed for three subcategories:
metal-bearing waste treatment and recovery,
oily waste treatment and recovery, and
organic waste treatment and recovery.
A total of seven control options, each applicable to one of the three subcategories to
be regulated, can be combined to present 12 possible regulatory options. Table 2-3 offers a
brief description of each control option and identifies the subcategory to which it applies.
Additional information on the control options can be found in Section 9 of the Agency's
TDD. Each regulatory option combines one control option for each of the treatment
subcategories. Thus, for example, ORG4MET3OIL8 combines Control Option 4 for the
Organics subcategory, Control Option 3 for the Metals subcategory, and Control Option 8 for
the Oils subcategory.
2-10
-------
TABLE 2-3. DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CWT CONTROL OPTIONS
Treatment
Subcategory
Control
Option
Number
Control
Option
Name
Control Option Description
Metals
1
MET2 Selective metals precipitation, liquid-solid
separation, secondary precipitation, and
liquid-solid separation.
MET3 Selective metals precipitation, liquid-solid
separation, secondary precipitation, liquid-
solid separation, tertiary separation, and
clarification.
MET4 Batch precipitation, liquid-solid separation,
secondary precipitation, and sand filtration.
Oils
Organics
1
2
1
2
OILS
OIL9
ORG3
ORG4
Emulsion breaking/gravity separation and
dissolved air flotation.
Emulsion breaking/gravity separation,
secondary gravity separation, and dissolved
air flotation.
Equalization, air stripping with emissions
control, and biological treatment.
Equalization and biological treatment.
2.4 CALCULATION OF POLLUTANT REMOVALS
The analysis calculated the reduction in pollutant loadings released by each CWT
facility to receiving waters for each control option. These reductions are detailed in Section
12 of the TDD. 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 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, pollutant loadings discharged to surface water from an indirect
discharging facility may be less than pollutant loadings leaving the facility. This analysis
2-11
-------
bases the comparison of removals across control options at the point of discharge into surface
water. Thus, the analysis adjusts removals at indirect discharging facilities to account for
pollutants removed by the POTW.
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 90.05 percent, then
90.05 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 9.05 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 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 9.95 pounds of the
CWT facility's cadmium that are ultimately discharged to surface waters at baseline
(3.98 pounds).
Table 2-4 presents two 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 non-conventional and priority pollutants of concern without weighting the
individual pollutants removed according to their toxicity. The mass loading reductions
presented in this part of the table include expected removals of the CWT pollutants of
concern that have been excluded from the cost-effectiveness analysis because
2-12
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OF WEIGHTED AND UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT
REMOVALS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT DISCHARGERS
Weighting
Method
Unweighted
TWF
Control
Option
Name
MET2
MET3
MET4
OILS
OIL9
ORG3
ORG4
MET2
MET3
MET4
OILS
OIL9
ORG3
ORG4
Total Removals
by Direct
Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
1,281,197
1,409,327
1,363,861
20,470
23,833
50,050
0
369,112
379,571
372,040
13,943
14,811
11,410
0
Total Removals
by Indirect
Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
221,883
245,276
231,957
1,369,326
1,448,728
706,722
1,179,176
26,943
27,480
25,843
510,740
515,620
165,392
87,917
Total Removals
by All
Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
1,503,080
1,654,603
1,595,818
1,389,797
1,472,561
756,772
1,179,176
396,055
407,051
397,883
524,683
530,431
176,802
87,917
2-13
-------
information about their relative toxicity is lacking or their TWF is zero. The lower section of
the table presents the weighted mass loading reductions attributable to each control option.
These values are based only on weighted removals of the pollutants for which TWFs have
been estimated.
2.5 ANNUALIZED COST FOR EACH CONTROL OPTION
Section 8 of the TDD describes the methods used to estimate the costs of complying
with the regulatory options. This section provides a brief summary of the compliance costs.
EPA evaluated four categories of compliance costs: capital costs (including RCRA
permit-modification costs), land costs, operating and maintenance costs (including sludge
disposal), and monitoring costs. While the operating and maintenance and monitoring costs
are annual costs, the capital and land are one-time "lump-sum" costs. These lump-sum
expenditures are too large for most CWT facilities to finance out of current revenues; they
will probably be paid for by equity or debt financing. Therefore, EPA annualized these costs
over the expected life of the capital equipment to better represent the annual cost of financing
the lump-sum cost. EPA assumed the capital and land to have a productive life of 20 years.
Therefore, the Agency annualized these lump-sum costs over a period of 20 years using
company-specific interest rates (real weighted average cost of capital or RWACC). For
facilities responding to the Agency's 1991 Waste Treatment Industry Questionnaire, the
estimated RWACC reflects company-specific information provided. For facilities that did
not provide this information, the Agency assumes an RWACC of 7 percent. It is important to
note that the Agency gives indirect discharging facilities an extra 2 years to comply with the
regulation, effectively lowering the costs of compliance for these facilities. Cost-
effectiveness values are always presented using pre-tax costs. For more detail on the cost
annualization, see Section 4 of the EA.
2-14
-------
2.6 CALCULATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Typically, the cost-effectiveness value for a particular control option is the ratio of
incremental annual cost of that option to the incremental pound-equivalents removed by that
option. The incremental effectiveness can 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, EPA
adjusted compliance costs used in the cost-effectiveness analysis to 1981 dollars using
Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment factor is
calculated as follows:
Adjustment factor = CCI 1981/CCI Current Year =
The equation used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness is
CEk =(TACk - TAC^MPe, - PEk4)
where
CEk = incremental cost-effectiveness of Option k,
TACk = total annualized cost of compliance under Option k, and
PEk = pound-equivalents removed by Option k.
The numerator of the equation, TACk minus TACk.l3 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
2-15
-------
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 average cost-effectiveness values of options to current
treatment uses the same formula and sets the benchmark costs (TACk.j) equal to zero. For the
total cost-effectiveness method, the benchmark pollutant removals (PEk. x) are set equal to
zero.
2.7 COMPARISONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Two types of comparisons are typically done using cost-effectiveness values. In
addition to being presented in tabular form, the data are plotted with compliance costs on the
y axis, and pollutant removals on the x axis to visually identify the efficient regulatory
options. Alternatively, cost-effectiveness values are compared to other cost-effectiveness
values that have been previously estimated for promulgated effluent limitations guidelines for
other industries.
2-16
-------
SECTION 3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
EPA performed the cost-effectiveness analyses on the seven individual regulatory
options described in Table 2-3 and on the combined regulatory options. In each case, the
cost-effectiveness of the regulatory options were analyzed separately for direct and indirect
dischargers.
This section first presents the total costs, total removals, cost-effectiveness, and
incremental cost-effectiveness values for each separate regulatory option, for each
subcategory. Then it presents this information for the combined regulatory options and
further examines the most efficient options.
3.1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OPTIONS
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 present the total cost, total removals, cost-effectiveness, and
incremental cost-effectiveness values associated with each individual control option for direct
and indirect dischargers, respectively. Options are ordered, by subcategory, by pounds-
equivalent removed. The tables present costs in $1997 (to facilitate comparison with other
documents, particularly the EA) and in $1981 (to maintain comparability with previously
promulgated effluent guidelines).
Calculating incremental cost-effectiveness values involves sorting the regulatory
options in order of increasing removals. Incremental cost-effectiveness values are calculated
3-1
-------
to
TABLE 3-1. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
DIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Control Option Name
Individual Costs and Removals
Metals 2
Metals 4
Metals 3
Oils 8
Oils 9
Organics 4
Organics 3
Costs
($1997)
$13,701,757
$2,852,818
$14,207,475
$485,230
$485,230
$233,223
$425,723
Costs
($1981)
$8,853,173
$1,843,303
$9,179,935
$313,523
$313,523
$150,694
$275,074
Removals
(Ibs-eq)
369,112
372,040
379,571
13,943
14,811
27,055
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981/lb-eq)
23.99
4.95
24.18
22.49
21.17
10.17
Incremental Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981)
23.99
-$2394.08 a
$974.19
$22.49
0.00
$10.17
' A negative cost-effectiveness indicates that the option has more removals for lower cost.
-------
TABLE 3-2. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
INDIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Control Option Name
Individual Costs and Removals
Metals 4
Metals 2
Metals 3
Oils 8
Oils 9
Organics 4
Organics 3
Costs
($1997)
$8,088,212
$27,640,375
$29,157,805
$13,362,064
$19,037,993
$2,929,197
$3,744,344
Costs
($1981)
$5,226,070
$17,859,390
$18,839,854
$8,633,686
$12,301,098
$1,892,654
$2,419,348
Removals
(Ibs-eq)
25,843
26,943
27,480
510,740
514,398
87,917
165,392
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981/lb-eq)
$202.22
$662.86
$685.58
$16.90
$23.91
$21.53
$14.63
Incremental Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981)
$202.22
$11,484.84
$1,825.82
$16.90
$725.50
$21.53
$6.80
-------
by dividing the change in total annualized cost of compliance by the change in removals, as
described in Section 2.6. Regulatory options that are cost-effective (superior) have the same
removals at lower cost than other options or have higher removals at the same or lower cost
than other options.
Table 3-1 shows that for direct dischargers Metals 4 has the lowest cost. For oils,
both options have the same cost, but Oils 9 has slightly higher removals than Oils 8. There
are no TWF-weighted removals for Organics 4 for direct dischargers. Table 3-2 shows that
for indirect dischargers, Metals 4 also has the lowest cost. Oils 9 provides higher removals
than Oils 8, but at higher cost. Organics 3 has higher removals than Organics 4, but also at
higher cost.
3.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF COMBINED REGULATORY OPTION
Cost-effectiveness values for individual control options alone 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 guidelines. Three individual control options (one addressing
each subcategory of waste managed in affected CWT operations) must be combined to create
each regulatory option capable of meeting the Agency's regulatory responsibilities. Table 3-3
shows the combined cost-effectiveness results for the combined options for direct and
indirect dischargers.
3-4
-------
TABLE 3-3. COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF COMBINED REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR
DISCHARGING CWTs BY DISCHARGE STATUS
Discharge
Status
Regulatory
Option
Total Costs
Including RCRA
($1981)
Total TWF
Removals
(Ib eq.)
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb eq.)
Direct Met 4 Oil 9 Org 4 $2,159,698 386,851
Indirect Met 4 Oil 8 Org 4 $14,734,637 624,500
$5.58
$23.59
-------
SECTION 4
COMPARISON OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED CWT
REGULATORY OPTIONS WITH THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS
Table 4-1 compares the estimated cost-effectiveness of each of the Agency's preferred
regulatory alternatives for direct discharging CWT facilities to the cost-effectiveness of BAT
regulations that have been approved for direct dischargers in other industries. Table 4-2
provides a similar comparision for indirect dischargers. This type of 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
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Centralized Waste Treatment
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing II
Offshore Oil and Gasb
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Petroleum Refining
Pulp and Paper
Textile Mills
Currently
Discharged
(103 Ib. eq.)
1,340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
435
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)
(103 Ib. eq.)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
9
8
48
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)
($1981/lb. eq.)
121
2
10
BAT=BPT
49
27
6
404
NA
84
<1
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
69
4
6
33
5
15
1
BAT=BPT
6
BAT=BPT
39
BAT=BPT
a TWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects the cost-effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
b 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
Pollutants Currently
Discharged
Industry (103 Ib. eq.)
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Centralized Waste Treatment
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing II
Offshore Oil and Gasb
Organic Chemicals
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper
1,602
1,152
252
NA
2,503
34
760
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)
(103 Ib. eq.) ($1981/lb. eq.)
18
5
5.0
NA
10
4
135
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
24
14
14
116
9
<1
6
111
10
90
15
12
NA
34
1
NA
14
65
a TWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects the cost effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
b No known indirect dischargers at this time.
4-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis Using the
Pollutant Weighting Factor (PWF) Method
-------
Pollutant weighting factors (PWFs) provide an alternative method to toxic weighting
factors (TWFs) for weighting pollutant removals. While TWFs are related to a benchmark
pollutant, PWFs are derived from chronic aquatic life criteria or human health criteria
established from the consumption of water and fish. For instance, for carcinogenic
substances, the human health risk level is 10"6, that is, protective to a level allowing 1 in
1,000,000 excess cancer cases over background. PWFs are calculated as follows:
PWF = 1/AQ, if ACXHHWO
or
PWF = 1/HHWO, if HHWCKAQ
where
PWF = pollutant weighting factor,
AQ = aquatic life chronic value (|ig/L), and
FtHWO = human health (ingesting water and organisms) value (|ig/L).
In other words, the PWF is equal to the inverse of the most stringent level of the two criteria-
weighted ratios.
For some pollutants the comparisons between TWFs and PWFs may yield drastically
different results. For example, the PWF for benzene is more than 2.5 times greater than the
PWF for lead. In the TWF method, 97.22 pounds of benzene were shown to be about as
harmful as 1 pound of lead. One reason for this large discrepancy is that the PWF is ten
A-l
-------
times more stringent in its assessment of the health risk associated with carcinogenic
contaminants. In addition, the PWF approach sets human health criteria 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. In contrast, the TWF method
only considers the health effects of humans eating fish that have been chronically exposed to
the pollutants.
Table A-l summarizes the conceptual differences between the TWF and PWF
approaches to weighting pollutants with respect to each pollutant's relative toxicity.
TABLE A-l. CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TWFS AND PWFS
Feature Standard TWF Alternative PWF
Benchmark value 5.6 (former freshwater 1
(numerator) chronic criterion for copper)
Carginogenic risk level 10'5 (1 in 100,000 excess 10'6 (1 in 100,000 excess
cancer cases) cancer cases)
Human health exposure Fish consumption only Drinking water and fish
consumption
Aquatic life effects vs. TWFs are added More stringent PWF is used
human health effects
This appendix presents a second cost-effectiveness analysis of the seven control
options as well as the regulatory options. The only difference between this appendix and the
previous analysis presented in Chapters 2 and 3 is that the analysis in this appendix uses PWF
pound-equivalent removals to measure the effectiveness of different control and regulatory
options; the previous analysis uses the traditional TWF approach.
Table A-2 is a list of the PWFs that were used to conduct the analysis.
A-2
-------
TABLE A-2. PWFS USED TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS
Pollutant CAS
Type Number
Metals
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440428
7440439
7440702
7440473
7440484
7440508
7553562
7439885
7439896
7439921
7439932
7439954
7439965
7439976
7439987
7440020
7723140
7440097
7782492
7440213
Pollutant Name
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iodine
Iridium
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
PWF
l.lx ID'2
7.2 x ID'2
5.7xlO+1
l.Ox ID'3
3.2 x ID'2
9.1x ID'1
0.0 x 10+1
4.8 x ID'3
2.0 x ID'2
8.3 x ID'2
O.OxlO+0
0.0 x 10+0
l.Ox ID'3
3.1x ID'1
2.2 x ID'3
0.0 x 10+0
l.Ox ID'2
8.3x 10+1
3.6x ID'2
6.3 x ID'3
O.OxlO+0
0.0 x 10+0
2.0 x ID'1
0.0 x 10+0
POTW %
Remaining
88.22
71.13
90.89
27.66
20.04
90.05
51.79
91.25
6.11
84.11
39.25
74.00
83.00
91.83
26.00
31.83
40.60
90.16
52.17
51.11
69.42
20.20
34.33
27.29
(continued)
A-3
-------
TABLE A-2. PWFS USED TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant
Type
Metals
(continued)
Organics
CAS
Number
7440224
7440235
7440246
7704349
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440622
7440655
7440666
7440677
50328
56235
56553
58902
59507
60297
65850
67641
75014
75150
78933
79005
83329
Pollutant Name
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Benzo(a)pyrene
Tetrachloromethane
B enzo(a)anthracene
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
Di ethyl ether
Benzoic acid
2-propanone
Vinyl chloride
Carbon disulfide
2-butanone
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
Acenapthene
PWF
8.3 x 10+0
0.0 x 10+0
0.0 x 10+0
0.0 x 10+0
2.5 x ID'2
5.4 x ID'2
5.2 x ID'3
l.lx ID'1
0.0 x 10+0
9.1x ID'3
9.7 x ID'2
7.7 x ID'3
3.9x 10+0
3.6 x 10+1
l.lx ID'2
7.7 x ID'4
1.4x ID'4
5.8x 1Q-5
2.9 x ID'4
5. Ox ID'2
5. Ox ID'1
4.8 x 1Q-5
1.7xlO+0
4.3 x ID'2
POTW %
Remaining
92.42
51.79
14.83
14.33
53.80
65.20
68.77
42.28
57.93
77.97
55.89
95.20
91.72
97.50
33.00
63.00
7.00
80.50
83.75
93.49
84.00
96.60
74.79
98.29
(continued)
A-4
-------
TABLE A-2. PWFS USED TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant
Type
Organics
(continued)
CAS
Number
84662
84742
85018
85687
86737
86748
87865
91203
91576
92524
95487
95501
95954
96184
98555
98862
99876
100414
100425
100516
101848
105679
106445
106467
106934
Pollutant Name
Di ethyl phthalate
di-n-butyl phthalate
Phenanthrene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Fluorene
Carbazole
Pentachl orophenol
Naphthalene
2-methylnaphthalene
Biphenyl
o-cresol
1 ,2-dichlorobenzene
2,4,5-trichl orophenol
1,2,3-trichloropropane
Alpha-terpinol
Acetophenone
p-cymene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Benzyl alcohol
Diphenyl ether
2,4-dimethylphenol
p-cresol
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dibromoethane
PWF
l.Ox ID'4
2.0 x ID'3
3.6x 10+1
3.8x ID'3
1.3 x ID'1
l.Ox 10+0
3.6xlO+0
2.7 x ID'3
3.2 x ID'3
5.9x ID'3
6.0 x ID'4
1.8 x ID'3
1.6x ID'2
5.1x ID'3
1.8 x ID'4
3. Ox ID'4
7.7 x ID'3
3.2 x ID'4
2.5 x ID'3
l.Ox ID'3
4.7 x ID'3
1.9x ID'3
6.0 x ID'4
8.1x ID'1
2.5 x 10+3
POTW %
Remaining
59.73
79.31
94.89
94.33
69.85
84.68
13.88
94.69
28.00
96.28
52.50
88.98
28.00
5.00
94.40
95.34
99.79
93.76
93.65
78.00
97.80
51.22
71.67
52.35
17.00
(continued)
A-5
-------
TABLE A-2. PWFS USED TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant
Type
Organics
(continued)
CAS
Number
107062
108101
108907
108952
110861
112403
112958
117817
117840
120127
120821
122394
124185
129000
132649
132650
142621
156605
205992
206440
207089
208968
218019
243174
541731
Pollutant Name
1 ,2-dichloroethane
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Chlorobenzene
Phenol
Pyridine
n-dodecane
n-eicosane
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
Anthracene
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
Diphenylamine
n-decane
Pyrene
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Hexanoic acid
Trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Fluoranthene
B enzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Chrysene
2, 3 -b enzofluorene
1,3-dichlorobenzene
PWF
2.6 x 10+0
3.6x ID'4
1.5 x ID'3
5. Ox ID'3
2.9 x ID'2
7.7 x ID'4
7.7 x ID'4
5.7x ID'1
2.7 x ID'2
4.5 x ID'1
1.4x ID'2
2.6 x ID'3
7.7 x ID'4
9.9 x ID'3
3.6x ID'3
8.2 x ID'3
6.1x 1Q-5
1.4 x ID'3
3.2 x 10+1
1.6 x ID'1
1.5 x 10+1
1.5 x ID'3
3.6x 10+1
3.8x ID'2
2.5 x ID'3
POTW %
Remaining
89.03
87.87
96.37
95.25
95.40
95.05
92.40
59.78
68.99
95.56
91.52
79.27
9.00
83.90
97.80
84.68
84.00
78.38
95.40
42.46
94.70
98.72
96.90
87.97
88.89
(continued)
A-6
-------
TABLE A-2. PWFS USED TO CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS (CONTINUED)
Pollutant
Type
Organics
(continued)
CAS
Number
544763
608275
612942
629594
629970
630206
700129
832699
1576676
1730376
20324338
136777612
593453
67663
71432
71556
75092
75354
79016
108383
108883
127184
Pollutant Name
n-hexadecane
2,3-dichloroaniline
2-phenylnaphthalene
n-tetradecane
n-docosane
1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethane
Pentamethylbenzene
1 -methylphenanthrene
3,6-dimethylphenanthrene
1 -methylfluorene
Tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
o+p xylene
n-octadecane
Chloroform
Benzene
1,1,1-trichloro ethane
Methyl ene chloride
1 , 1 -dichloroethene
Trichloroethene
m-xylene
Toluene
Tetrachl oroethene
PWF
7.7 x ID'4
1.9x ID'3
0.0 x 10+0
7.7 x ID'4
1.5 x ID'5
7.8 x ID'1
5.3 x ID'2
2.5 x ID'2
8.3 x ID'2
1.6x ID'2
1.5 x ID'6
1.5 x ID'3
7.7 x ID'4
1.8 x ID'1
8.4 x ID'1
7.7 x ID'4
2.1x ID'1
1.7 x 10+1
3.7x ID'2
2.6 x ID'4
l.Ox ID'3
1.3 x ID'1
POTW %
Remaining
71.11
41.00
87.97
71.11
88.00
23.00
91.87
87.97
87.97
87.97
52.40
95.07
71.11
73.44
94.76
90.45
54.28
75.34
86.85
98.21
96.18
84.61
A-7
-------
Tables A-3 and A-4 present the PWF-weighted pound-equivalent removals
achievable by each individual control option for direct dischargers and indirect dischargers,
respectively. While the order of increasing removals of the individual organic and oil
removal options remain consistent with the TWF analysis, the metals do not. Furthermore,
unlike in the TWF analysis, the metals options ranked by increasing removals for direct and
indirect dischargers are inconsistent with each other.
TABLE A-3. PWF COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL
CONTROL OPTIONS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Control Option
Name
Individual Costs and
Removals
Metals 4
Metals 3
Metals 2
Oils 8
Oils 9
Organics 4
Organics 3
Costs
($1997)
$2,817,201
$14,171,859
$13,666,141
$480,417
$480,417
$221,942
$414,441
Costs
($1981)
$1,820,290
$9,156,922
$8,830,161
$310,414
$310,414
$143,404
$267,784
Removals
(Ibs)
65,917.00
98,883.00
99,505.00
21,359.00
22,898.00
38,036.00
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981/lb)
$27.61
$92.60
$88.74
$14.53
$13.56
$7.04
Incremental
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981)
$27.61
$222.55
-$525.34
$14.53
$0.00
$3.27
Table A-5 shows the PWF cost-effectiveness for each of the control options for direct
and indirect discharging CWT facilities, respectively.
A-8
-------
TABLE A-4. PWF COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUAL
CONTROL OPTIONS FOR INDIRECT DISCHARGING CWT FACILITIES
Control Option
Name
Individual Costs and
Removals
Metals 3
Metals 4
Metals 2
Oils 8
Oils 9
Organics 4
Organics 3
Costs
($1997)
$29,010,557
$7,940,964
$27,493,127
$13,196,850
$18,872,780
$2,881,108
$3,696,255
Costs
($1981)
$18,744,712
$5,130,928
$17,764,249
$8,526,936
$12,194,348
$1,861,582
$2,388,277
Removals
(Ibs)
4,538.00
4,831.00
6,496.00
923,846.00
930,743.00
4,875,645.00
4,921,690.00
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981/lb)
$4,130.61
$1,062.08
$2,734.64
$9.23
$13.10
$0.38
$0.49
Incremental
Cost-
Effectiveness
($1981)
$4,130.61
-$46,463.43
$7,587.58
$9.23
$531.74
$0.38
$11.44
TABLE A-5. PWF COST-EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON Of COMBINED
REGULATORY OPTIONS FOR DISCHARGING CWTs BY DISCHARGE STATUS
Discharge
Status
Regulatory
Option
Total Costs
Including
RCRA
($1981)
Total PWF Removals
(Ib eq.)
Cost-Effectiveness
($/lb eq.)
Direct Met4Oil9Org4 $2,159,699
Indirect Met4Oil8Org4 $14,734,638
88,815
5,804,322
$24.32
$2.54
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Detailed Pollutant Loadings and Removals Data
-------
The following tables give detailed information concerning loadings and removals
of pollutants. Tables B-l through B-4 provide a summary of the pollutant loadings and
removals for the CWT metals, oils, organics, and the entire industry, respectively. Table
B-5 provides the pound-equivalent removals for the considered options. Some of the
removals numbers changed after these tables were prepared, as a result some of the totals
given in Table B-5 do not exactly match those provided in Sections 2 and 3. The primary
difference relates to changes made to a few long-term averages for the oils and metals
subcategories. For a small number of pollutants, slight changes to the long-term averages
were made which are not incorporated into the results listed in this appendix. The overall
effect on pound-equivalent removals for the oils subcategory is less than two percent and
the overall effect for the metals subcategory is smaller still. The results presented in this
appendix will be updated to match the corrected results presented in Sections 2 and 3
before promulgation of the rule.
B-l
-------
Table B-l. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Metals Subcategory;
Pollutant of Concern
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
ribs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flb-eq/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
CONVENTIONALS
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand 5-Day (BOD5)
Oil and Grease (measured as HEM)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
PRIORITY METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
TOTAL PRIORITYMETALS
NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Iridium
8,366,557
519,480
6,109,653
34,215
676
5,380
140,366
205,011
26,012
164
52,686
1,838
421
347
127,400
594,516
82,842
308
168,406
3,865
17,288
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,504
37
16
289
669
139
16
5,024
1,226
24
82
3,359
18,385
3,455
64
92,315
885
3,122
570,816
74,445
64,680
608
301
125
1,727
1,811
441
4
3,917
1,346
80
347
1,605
12,312
3,042
308
34,766
435
3,499
N/A
N/A
N/A
184
29
9
147
278
36
1
1,945
854
6
82
347
3,918
377
64
25,153
401
953
7,795,741
445,035
6,044,973
33,607
375
5,255
138,639
203,200
25,571
160
48,769
492
341
0
125,795
582,204
79,800
0
133,640
3,430
13,789
N/A
N/A
N/A
7,320
8
7
142
391
103
15
3,079
372
18
0
3,012
14,467
3,078
0
67,162
484
2,169
N/A
N/A
N/A
6,385
1,502
27,328
3,702
95,504
46,027
79,961
1,765
541
16,025
0
6,416
285,156
5,139
0
23,654
377
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,391
33
35
4
184
186
7,735
111
409
856
0
154
11,098
198
0
11,888
53
0
-------
Pollutant of Concern
Iron
Lithium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Silicon
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Hexavalent Chromium
Ammonia as N
Cyanide
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
114,752 9,248
146,215 125,992
5,645 1,007
16,864 5,863
41,066 6,810
10,831 10,106
159,531 1,856
93,683 586
4,686 119
122 43
857 223
866,961 261,694
32,170,276 N/A
235,527 15,106
411,874 N/A
5,295 1,046
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
Obs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
24,042 4,329
5,884 5,056
175 107
6,445 3,126
5,100 3,876
350 319
330 116
188 64
150 81
21 8
835 223
85,570 44,253
4,733,770 N/A
2,431 2,660
60,506 N/A
304 96
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
90,710 4,919
140,331 120,936
5,470 900
10,419 2,737
35,966 2,934
10,481 9,787
159,201 1,740
93,495 522
4,536 38
101 35
22 0
781,391 217,441
27,436,506 N/A
233,096 12,446
351,368 N/A
4,991 950
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flb-eq/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
508 28
1,684 1,451
77 13
2,084 547
0 0
0 0
47,760 522
2,739 15
2,812 24
0 0
12 0
86,846 14,739
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
'All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
Pollutant of Concern (Ibs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
CONVENTIONALS
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand 5-Day (BOD5)
Oil and Grease (measured as HEM)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
PRIORITY ORGANICS
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Diethyl Phthalate
Di-w-butyl Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
1,099,760
324,206
291,300
38
12
8
4
3
19
10
14
166
11
9
8
8
24
13
2
5
15
13
3
129
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
808
723
1,012
185
66
1,088
80
242
562
60
123
100
122
126,764
576
14
396
102
1,902
171
794
4,514
845,531
4,840
4,214
13
10
7
4
3
19
10
12
84
9
6
6
5
7
4
2
5
8
13
3
36
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
71
56
230
112
61
1,088
13
42
117
15
19
18
20
287
18
11
303
16
1,304
62
107
812
254,229
319,366
287,086
25
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
82
2
3
2
3
17
9
0
0
7
0
0
93
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
737
667
782
73
5
0
67
200
445
45
104
82
102
126,477
558
3
93
86
598
109
687
3,702
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
39
11,786
3
2
2
0
0
0
128
0
0
0
9
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
55
60
13
0
0
17
500
8
1,073
448,031
131
77
13,912
13
0
0
1,545
0
1
1
3,405
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
Fluorene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
TOTAL PRIORITY ORGANICS
NON-CONVENTIONAL ORGANICS
1-Methylfluorene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2,3-Benzofluorene
2-Butanone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Propanone
3 ,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
«-Terpineol
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Carbazole
Carbon Bisulfide
Dibenzofuran
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
10 1,459
26 3,616
52 2,319
50 933
393 2,020
35 1,309
11 823
677 2,122
7 308
1,787 155,313
12 384
29 592
14 236
392 1,508
45 13,986
4 90
4,313 62,551
14 236
207 18,504
51 2,158
8 196
875 18,858
8 287
37 189
5 209
5 141
10 101
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
10 348
26 3,353
39 328
13 196
393 1,598
10 135
11 303
314 574
7 179
1,091 11,796
5 48
8 76
9 236
392 1,144
26 5,581
2 90
4,313 62,551
8 236
61 18,504
51 1,894
4 17
875 13,631
8 287
20 19
5 109
4 26
10 14
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 1,111
0 263
13 1,991
37 737
0 422
25 1,174
0 520
363 1,548
0 129
696 143,517
7 336
21 516
5 0
0 364
19 8,405
2 0
0 0
6 0
146 0
0 264
4 179
0 5,227
0 0
17 170
0 100
1 115
0 87
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 777
0 0
0 30
694 14,001
0 0
2 88
0 38
2 9
0 8
12,675 483,795
1 30
3 72
1 0
0 0
0 151
0 0
0 0
3 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 6
0 27
4 321
0 2
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
Dibenzothiopene
Diphenyl Ether
Hexanoic Acid
ra-Xylene
w-Decane
w-Docosane
w-Dodecane
w-Eicosane
w-Hexadecane
w-Octadecane
w-Tetradecane
o-Cresol
o-&p-Xylene
p-Creso\
p-Cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Pyridine
Styrene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL
ORGANIC s
PRIORITY METALS
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Current Wastewater
Pollutant
Loading
(Ibs/vr)
Direct
Discharges
16
105
488
206
675
24
479
207
992
143
1,303
32
100
28
8
29
4
4
1,370
12,242
13
15
16
113
1,022
684
Indirect
Discharges
414
201
6,880
332
283,150
616
12,720
10,863
178,720
108,045
324,806
1,872
649
1,301
5
422
57
67
62,292
1,113,638
203
299
52
633
6,240
1,420
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
10 90
94 201
488 4,271
83 116
39 11,910
3 60
39 1,173
8 295
418 2,645
33 1,478
373 3,374
32 1,872
100 359
28 1,046
4 1
4 24
4 57
4 20
79 1,484
7,644 134,939
13 128
15 155
1 4
18 86
18 161
16 52
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
6 324
11 0
0 2,609
123 216
636 271,240
21 556
440 11,547
199 10,568
574 176,075
110 106,567
930 321,432
0 0
0 290
0 255
4 4
25 398
0 0
0 47
1,291 60,808
4,598 978,699
0 75
0 144
15 48
95 547
1,004 6,079
668 1,368
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/vr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
1
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
33
0
0
76
3
472
1,202
Indirect
Discharges
15
0
1
0
1,166
0
50
45
757
458
1,382
0
2
1
0
115
0
1
0
4,606
14
574
248
15
2,857
2,463
-------
Table B-2. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Oils Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
TOTAL PRIORITY METALS
NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Silicon
Strontium
Tin
Titanium
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Ammonia as N
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Cyanide
Current Wastewater
Pollutant
Loading
(Ibs/vr)
Direct
Discharges
0
3,405
3
977
6,248
2,071
198
3,726
45
13,460
427
151
2,811
117
58
27
23,091
3,389,871
24,847
1,046,736
1,756,618
7
Indirect
Discharges
2
15,625
259
24,957
49,690
21,296
5,132
258,434
21,953
124,007
20,365
3,606
91,782
4,631
1,661
329
553,196
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
330
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
(lbs/vr)
Direct
Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
133
3
229
446
2,071
26
3,074
45
2,482
406
151
2,033
81
11
3
10,383
2,613,803
14,843
1,046,736
666,656
6
1
2,927
231
3,626
7,371
9,185
905
208,873
8,563
43,448
13,275
2,780
66,395
3,067
214
38
356,743
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
181
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(lbs/vr)
Direct
Discharges
0
3,272
0
748
5,802
0
172
652
0
10,978
21
0
778
36
47
24
12,708
776,068
10,004
0
1,089,962
1
Indirect
Discharges
1
12,698
28
21,331
42,319
12,111
4,227
49,561
13,390
80,559
7,090
826
25,387
1,564
1,447
291
196,453
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
149
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/vr)
Direct
Discharges
0
118
0
38
1,909
0
0
117
0
61
0
0
0
0
14
1
194
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Indirect
Discharges
631
460
109
1,088
8,458
891
8
10,340
1,473
451
102
171
0
0
434
9
13,880
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
'All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
Table B-3. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Organics Subcategory7
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
Pollutant of Concern flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Disch arses Discharges
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
CONVENTIONALS
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5-Day (BOD5)
Oil and Grease (measured as HEM)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
PRIORITY ORGANICS
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1 -Dichloroehtane
1,1 -Dichloroethene
1,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Vinyl Chloride
TOTAL PRIORITY ORGANICS
NON-CONVENTIONAL ORGANICS
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
1,2-Dibromoethane
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,3 -Dichloroaniline
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
5,366
23,062
5,888
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
27
103
47
15
1
9
1
219
1
1
1
82
3
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
154
463
48
183
314
109
631
258,747
1,779
54
368
7,722
211
110
270,893
1,312
1,576
1,926
661
243
292
5,366
23,062
5,888
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
27
103
47
15
1
9
1
219
1
1
1
82
3
13
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
1
1
1
0
1
6
40
243
3
7
0
2
0
305
4
4
5
140
7
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
154
462
47
182
314
108
625
258,707
1,536
51
361
7,722
209
110
270,588
1,308
1,572
1,921
521
236
266
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
2
8
33
2
2
1
109
767
1
27
43
13
0
1,009
31
3
84,929
34
3
26
-------
Table B-3. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Organics Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetophenone
Aniline
Benzoic Acid
Diethyl Ether
Dimethyl Sulfonone
Ethylenethiourea
Hexanoic Acid
ra-Xylene
N,N-Dimethylformamide
o-Cresol
Pyridine
p-Creso\
Tetrachloromethane
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroehtene
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL
ORGANICS
PRIORITY METALS
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
TOTAL PRIORITY METALS
NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Disch arses Discharges
11 140
115 2,432
269 361,967
19 1,028
5 21
1 151
42 594
0 7,640
21 22
574 750
8 108
1 638
1 4,957
24 1,019
15 53
9 280
2 165
3 400
1,221 388,375
74 40
72 13
92 29
186 351
50 96
474 529
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
11 10
115 26
269 146
19 8
5 1
1 1
42 19
0 24
21 2
574 648
8 5
1 2
1 2
24 31
15 2
9 7
2 1
3 2
1,221 1,094
74 40
72 5
92 29
186 351
50 34
474 459
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
2,406
361,821
1,020
20
150
575
7,616
20
102
103
636
4,955
988
51
273
164
398
387,252
0
8
0
0
62
70
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
1
21
0
85,057
0
0
0
0
3
3
-------
Table B-3. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the CWT Organics Subcategory7
Pollutant of Concern
Aluminum
Boron
Calcium
Iodine
Iron
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Lin
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
CLASSICAL PARAMETERS
Lotal Cyanide
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
323 15,395
6,279 5,535
0 0
0 1,982
515 1,847
1,552 3,911
0 0
30 219
123 204
904 751
0 0
350 893
0 0
269 1,723
178,861 496,299
128 147
189,334 528,906
285 352
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
323 854
6,279 545
0 0
0 0
515 292
1,552 3,911
0 0
30 68
123 161
904 0
0 0
350 858
0 0
269 803
178,861 0
128 147
189,334 7,639
285 260
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
flbs/vr)
Direct
Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14,541
4,990
0
1,982
1,555
0
0
151
43
751
0
35
0
920
496,299
0
521,267
92
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flbs/vr)
Direct
Indirect
Discharges pischarges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
931
898
0
0
9
0
0
2
9
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1,852
'All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
Table B-4. Summary of Pollutant Loadings and Removals for the Entire CWT Industry7
Pollutant of Concern
CONVENTIONALS
TOTAL PRIORITY ORGANICS
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
flbs/vr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
16,745,272 N/A 1,598,842 N/A 15,146,430 N/A N/A N/A
2,006 426,206 1,310 12,101 696 414,105 12,675 484,804
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL
ORGANICS
TOTAL PRIORITY METALS
TOTAL NON-CONVENTIONAL METALS
13,463
601,238
1,079,386
1,502,013
68,604
1,343,796
8,865
13,232
285,287
136,032
11,748
408,635
4,598
588,006
794,099
1,365,951
56,856
935,161
33
287,065
87,040
89,663
19,559
30,471
'All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
Table B-5. Pound-Equivalent Removals For Considered Options (units = Ib-eq removed / year; POTW removals are accounted for in all calculations)
Pollutant Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals
Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects
Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 91 Oils Opt 91 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 2 Metals Opt 2 Org. Opt 42
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iridium
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
PRIORITY METALS
NON-PRIORITY METALS
1 -methylfluorene
1 -methylphenanthrene
891
14
574
8
10,340
248
15
1,473
2,857
451
2,463
102
631
171
460
109
0
0
434
9
1,088
8,458
13,880
30
72
0
0
0
0
117
76
3
0
468
-
48
1,202
-
0
0
0
118
0
0
0
14
1
34
-
1,901
180
0
2
891
14
574
8
10,340
248
15
1,473
2,877
575
2,463
141
631
171
460
109
0
0
434
9
1,148
8,539
14,043
31
75
0
0
0
0
117
76
3
0
472
-
61
1,202
-
0
0
0
118
0
0
0
14
1
38
-
1,909
194
1
3
198
1,391
33
-
11,888
35
4
53
184
0
28
186
1,451
13
7,735
547
111
409
0
856
0
0
522
15
24
0
154
0
11,098
14,739
-
-
5,139
6,385
1,502
23,654
27,328
3,702
377
95,504
0
508
46,027
1,684
77
79,961
2,084
1,765
541
0
16,025
0
0
47,760
2,739
2,812
0
6,416
12
285,156
86,846
-
220
1,421
132
0
12,477
32
7
75
267
50
220
1,451
14
7,899
974
164
0
1,016
7
545
17
24
0
163
0
11,328
15,847
-
5,316
6,484
2,521
0
24,470
27,094
3,743
399
96,026
-
634
46,410
1,684
78
81,518
2,917
1,867
0
17,998
37
47,822
2,744
2,812
0
6,454
12
290,152
88,888
-
-
213
1,421
123
0
12,005
31
4
50
177
-
37
85
1,451
12
7,708
939
112
713
1,096
6
545
17
60
0
137
0
11,613
15,329
-
-
5,256
6,484
2,425
0
17,169
27,079
3,703
373
95,390
-
560
44,820
1,684
76
79,699
2,849
1,767
971
18,984
34
47,823
2,744
2,879
0
6,340
12
287,696
81,425
-
-
931
0
-
-
898
-
0
0
0
-
9
-
0
2
-
9
0
0
0
0
-
3
-
3
1,849
-
-
-------
Table B-5. Pound-Equivalent Removals For Considered Options (units = Ib-eq removed / year; POTW removals are accounted for in all calculations)
Pollutant
1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethane
1 ,2,3-tricholoropropane
1 ,1 ,2-trichloroethane
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,1-dichloroethene
1 , 1 -dichloroethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1 ,2-dibromoethane
2,3,4 ,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,3-benzofluorene
2,3-dichloroaniline
2,4-dimethylphenol
2 ,4 , 5 -trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
2-methylnaphthalene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
butanone
2-phenylnaphthalene
2-propanone
3 ,4-dichlorophenol
3,5-dichlorophenol
3 ,6-dimethylphenanthrene
4-chloro-3-methylphenol
4-methyl-2-pentanone
acenapthene
acetophenone
alpha-terpinol
aniline
anthracene
benzene
benzo(a)anthracene
Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals
Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects
Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 91 Oils Opt 91 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 2 Metals Opt 2 Org. Opt 42
55
60
13
0
-
0
0
-
--
151
3
0
0
0
--
-
0
0
0
17
--
0
500
8
1,073
-
0
0
0
-
0
-
-
0
0
-
--
0
0
0
0
0
--
-
0
0
0
0
--
0
-
0
2
0
55
60
13
0
-
40
0
-
--
238
3
0
0
0
--
-
88
75
0
17
--
0
541
8
1,221
-
0
0
0
-
0
-
-
1
0
-
--
0
0
0
0
0
--
-
3
1
0
0
--
0
-
5
2
39
31
3
2
33
8
2
84,929
34
3
26
0
-
1
0
4
0
0
--
-
o
-
0
-
0
2
-------
Table B-5. Pound-Equivalent Removals For Considered Options (units = Ib-eq removed / year; POTW removals are accounted for in all calculations)
Pollutant
benzo(a)pyrene
benzo(b)fluoranthene
benzo(k)fluoranthene
benzoic acid
benzyl alcohol
biphenyl
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
carbazole
carbon disulfide
chlorobenzene
chloroform
chrysene
di-n-butyl phthalate
dibenzofuran
dibenzothiopene
diethyl ether
diethyl phthalate
dimethyl sulfonone
diphenyl ether
ethylbenzene
ethylenethiourea
fluoranthene
fluorene
hexanoic acid
methylene chloride
m-xylene
n-decane
n-docosane
n-dodecane
n-eicosane
n-hexadecane
Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals
Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects
Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 91 Oils Opt 91 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 2 Metals Opt 2 Org. Opt 42
448,031
131
77
1
0
6
13,912
13
27
321
0
0
1,545
1
2
15
0
0
1
-
3,405
777
1
0
0
1,166
0
50
45
757
11,786
3
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
0
0
37
0
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
3
448,041
131
77
1
1
6
13,926
13
27
321
0
0
1,650
1
2
16
1
3
1
-
4,092
868
1
0
0
1,211
0
54
47
748
11,786
3
2
0
0
1
2
0
0
4
0
0
128
0
0
0
-
0
-
0
0
-
9
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
1
2
0
-
1
I
o
--
0
-
0
109
I
-------
Table B-5. Pound-Equivalent Removals For Considered Options (units = Ib-eq removed / year; POTW removals are accounted for in all calculations)
Pollutant Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals Removals
Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects Directs Indirects
Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 8; Oils Opt 91 Oils Opt 91 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 4 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 3 Metals Opt 2 Metals Opt 2 Org. Opt 42
n-octadecane
n-tetradecane
n,n-dimethylformamide
naphthalene
o-cresol
o+p xylene
p-cresol
p-cymene
pentachlorophenol
pentamethylbenzene
phenanthrene
phenol
pyrene
pyridine
styrene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloromethane
toluene
trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethene
tripropyleneglycol methyl ether
vinyl chloride
PRIORITY ORGANICS
NON-PRIORITY ORGANICS
ALL POLLUTANTS
458
1,382
30
0
2
1
0
-
115
14,001
0
88
0
1
38
9
8
0
-
483,795
4,606
510.739
0
5
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
7
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
11,836
26
13.943
463
1,371
33
1
3
0
0
-
115
17,196
1
93
0
1
38
9
8
0
-
488,097
4,941
515.619
0
4
-
0
0
0
0
0
-
7
694
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
-
12,675
33
14.811
0
3
I
767
-
1
-
0
27
21
43
0
13
0
I 009
85,057
25.837 372.002 27.180 379.040 26.942 369.120 87.918
;For the organics subcategory, Options 3 and 4 have no removals for direct dischargers. Also, Options 3 and 4 are have the same removals.
2 Oils subcategory Options 8v and 9v have the same Ib-eq removals as Options 8 and 9, respectively.
------- |