United States Office Of Water
Environmental Protection (WH-552)
Agency
EPA821-R-93-013
September 1993
v>EPA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of
Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards
For The Pesticide Manufacturing
Industry ~~
-------
-------
United States Office of Science EPA 821-R-93-013
Environmental Protection and Technology September 1993
Agency Washington. DC 20460
Water
E PA Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
for the Pesticide
Manufacturing Industry
-------
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of
Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the
Pesticide Manufacturing Industry
Dr. Lynne G. Tudor, Economist
Economic 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 Dr. Thomas E. Fielding for his knowledge, experience,
cooperation, and leadership as project offlcer, and to the whole pesticide team for their professional
manner, conscientious effort, and contributions.
Credit must also be given to Abt Associates for their assistance and support in performing
the underlying analysis supporting the conclusions detailed in this report. Their study was
performed under Contracts 68-CO-0080, 68-03-3548, and 68-C3-0302. Particular thanks are given
to Randi Currier and Robert Sartain.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Section 1 Introduction 1-1
Section 2 Methodology 2.1
Section 3 Changes Since Proposal 3.1
Section 4 Results 4.1
Section 5 Comparison of Values 5.1
Appendix A Pesticide Active Ingredients Considered for Regulation A.I
Appendix B Pesticide Active Ingredients Subject to Regulation B. 1
Appendix C Pesticide Active Ingredients Included in the Analysis C. 1
Appendix D Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients and Priority Pollutants D.I
Appendix E POTW Removal Efficiencies for Priority Pollutants E. 1
Appendix F Facilities Excluded from Analysis F.I
Appendix G Sensitivity Analysis of POTW Removals G. 1
-------
-------
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This analysis is submitted in support of the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
Pesticide Chemical Manufacturers Industry. The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness of the final rule.1 The total
annualized cost incurred under the rule is compared to the effectiveness of the rule in reducing the discharge of
pollutants. The effectiveness measure used is pounds of pollutant removed weighted by an estimate of the relative
toxicity of the pollutant. The rationale for this measure, referred to as "pounds-equivalent (PE) removed," is
described later in this report.
Section 2 of the report discusses the cost-effectiveness methodology employed including the pollutants
included in the analysis and the toxic weighting factors. Section 3 reviews the changes in the cost-effectiveness
analysis that have occurred since issuance of the proposed rule. Section 4 presents the results of the final analysis.
In Section 5, the final cost-effectiveness values are compared to cost-effectiveness values for other promulgated
rules. Seven appendices are also included. Appendix A lists the pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) or classes of
PAIs considered for regulation. Appendix B lists the individual PAIs being regulated. Appendix C lists the PAIs
or classes of PAIs and priority pollutants included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Appendix D provides toxic
weighting factors for PAIs and priority pollutants. Appendix E lists the removal efficiencies for priority pollutants
at publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Appendix F provides details regarding pesticide manufacturing
facilities that are excluded from the cost-effectiveness analysis. Finally, Appendix G provides a sensitivity analysis
of POTW removal efficiencies.
'Detailed information on the rule can be found in Final Development Document for Best Available Technology,
Pretreatment Technology, And New Source Performance Technology for the Pesticide Chemical Industry (hereafter
the Technical Development Document).
1.1
-------
-------
SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used in the process of setting effluent limitations guidelines and standards
to rank the efficiency of regulatory options in removing pollutants. Cost-effectiveness analysis also facilitates the
comparison of the efficiency of proposed or promulgated rules to the efficiency of previous rules. Cost-effectiveness
is defined as the incremental (to another option or to a benchmark, such as existing treatment) annual cost of a
pollution control option in an industry or industry subcategory per incremental pollutant removal (measured in
copper-based pounds-equivalent). In other words, the cost-effectiveness value represents the unit cost of removing
the next pound-equivalent of a pollutant. While not required by the Clean Water Act, the cost-effectiveness analysis
is a useful tool for evaluating regulatory options for the removal of toxic pollutants.2 It is not intended to analyze
the removal of conventional pollutants (oil and grease, biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids), thus
the removal of conventional pollutants is not addressed in this report.
A cost-effectiveness calculation is simply a ratio of the annualized cost of a regulatory control option for
a group of dischargers to the pollutant loadings removed from surface waters by that option for that particular group
of dischargers.3 Three factors are of particular importance in the cost-effectiveness calculations. First, the analysis
is based on removals of "pounds-equivalent" - a term used to describe a pound of pollutant weighted for its
toxicity.4 Use of pounds-equivalent reflects the fact that some pollutants are more toxic than others and permits
removals to be summed across pollutants. Second, where there are a number of control options being evaluated,
the analysis is done on an incremental basis using the incremental cost and removals of one control option
compared to another control option or to existing treatment.5 Third, cost-effectiveness 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.
2Cost-effectiveness analysis is applied to Best Available Technology Economically Achievable and Pretreatment
Standard for Existing Sources rules which control toxic pollutants.
3For control technologies that remove pollutants that would otherwise be volatilized prior to dilution in the
receiving stream, the cost-effectiveness analysis includes removals of volatile pollutants as well as removals from
the aqueous wastestream.
4Copper is used as the standard pollutant for developing toxic weighting factors because it is a toxic metal and
is commonly both released and removed from industrial effluent.
^Incremental cost-effectiveness can be calculated from current treatment or from another control option.
2.1
-------
There are a number of steps in a cost-effectiveness analysis which may be summarized as follows:
Determine the relevant wastewater pollutants;
Estimate relative toxic weights of priority and other pollutants;
Define pollution control approaches;
Calculate pollutant removals for each control option;
Determine annualized cost for each control option;
Calculate cost-effectiveness values (and adjust to 1981 year dollars); and
Compare cost-effectiveness values.
These steps are discussed below.
1. Pollutant Discharges Considered in a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Under the pesticide manufacturer effluent limitations guidelines, 260 pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) or
classes of PAIs were considered for regulation. Some of the factors considered in selecting pollutants for regulation
include toxicity, treatability, measurability, frequency of occurrence, and amount of pollutant in the wastestream.
Of the 260 PAIs or classes of PAIs, 120 individual PAIs were selected for regulation. In addition, 28 priority
pollutants were identified for regulation. Not all regulated pollutants, however, are included in the cost-effectiveness
analysis since some regulated pollutants may no longer be produced and therefore have no associated compliance
costs. Also, measurements of pollutants loadings are not available for some regulated pollutants. There are 75
PAIs or classes of PAIs and 46 priority pollutants included in this cost-effectiveness analysis.6 Appendix A lists
the 260 PAIs or classes of PAIs considered for regulation. Appendix B lists the 120 individual PAIs and 28 priority
pollutants selected for regulation. Appendix C lists the 75 PAIs or classes of PAIs and 46 priority pollutants
included in the cost-effectiveness analysis.
2. Relative Toxic Weights of Priority and Other Pollutants
Cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among the regulated pollutants by using toxic
weighting factors (TWFs). These factors are necessary because different pollutants have different potential effects
on human and aquatic life. For example, a pound of nickel (TWF=0.036) in an effluent stream has a significantly
lesser potential effect than a pound of cadmium (TWF=5.12). The toxic weighting factors are used to calculate
the (copper-based) "pound-equivalent" unit a standard measure of toxicity.
*The number of priority pollutants included in the analysis is greater than those regulated because some non-
regulated priority pollutants that are present at low levels hi the manufacturing processes are controlled to some
extent as a result of the technologies used to control for regulated PAIs or priority pollutants. Also, the 75 PAIs
or classes of PAIs incorporated hi the analysis include nine PAIs that are not part of the 120 regulated PAIs because
these rune PAIs are associated with regulated priority pollutants hi the wastestream.
2.2
-------
In the majority of cases, toxic weighting factors are derived from both chronic freshwater aquatic criteria
(or toxic effect levels) and human health criteria (or toxic effect levels) established for the consumption of fish.7
These factors are then standardized by relating them to copper.8 The resulting toxic weighting factors for each
PAI and priority pollutant are shown in Appendix D. Some examples of the effects of different aquatic and human
health criteria on weighting factors are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Weighting Factors Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria
Pollutant
Copper**
Hexavalent
Chromium
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
Human
Health
Criteria*
(ug/1)
3,400
4,600
170
12
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria
(ug/1)
12.0
11.0
160.0
1.1
265.0
Weighting Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/3,400 + 5.6/11
5.6/4,600 + 5.6/160
5.6/170 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/12 + 5.6/265
Toxic Weighting
Factor
0.467
0.511
0.036
5.12
0.488
Note: Criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Using the above calculation, the greater the values for
the criteria used, the lower the toxic weighting factor. Units for criteria are micrograms of pollutant per
liter of water.
* Based on ingestion of 6.5 grams of fish per day.
** While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 ug/1), the cost-effectiveness analysis uses
the old criterion (5.6 ug/1) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations
guidelines. The revised higher criteria for copper results in a toxic weighting factor for copper not equal to 1.0
but equal to 0.467.
As indicated in Table 1, the toxic weighting factor is the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios: the "old"
copper criterion divided by the human health criterion for the particular pollutant and the "old" copper criterion
divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using the values reported in Table 1, 10.96 pounds of copper
7A complete discussion of the development of the toxic weighting factors can be found hi Toxic Weighting
Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients and Priority Pollutants, Final Report, July 13, 1993, located hi the
Administrative Record.
8While the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 ug/1), the cost-effectiveness analysis uses
the old criterion (5.6 ug/1) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations
guidelines. The revised higher criteria for copper results in a toxic weighting factor for copper not equal to 1.0
but equal to 0.467.
2.3
-------
pose the same toxicity in surface waters as one pound of cadmium since cadmium has a toxic weight 10.96 times
(5.12/0.467=10.96) as large as the toxic weight of copper. The cost-effectiveness analysis examines only the
toxicity of pollutants, and is not a full risk-based analysis that would consider pollutant fate, transport and exposure
pathways.
3. Pollution Control Options
Limitations under the final rule are based on the use of biological treatment, hydrolysis, activated carbon,
chemical oxidation, resin adsorption, solvent extraction, incineration and/or recycle/reuse to control the discharge
of PAIs in wastewater. Further information on the control options can be found in the Technical Development
Document. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted separately for direct and indirect dischargers. Costs for
direct dischargers were calculated for compliance with a Best Available Technology (BAT) regulation; costs for
indirect dischargers were calculated for compliance with Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources (PSES).9 Each
discharge category was further divided into two subcategories: organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing
(Subcategory A) and metallo-organic pesticide chemicals manufacturing (Subcategory B). No new limitations are
being promulgated for Subcategory B.'°
4. Calculation of Pollutant Removals
The reductions in pollutant loading to the receiving water body have been calculated for the final rule.
These at-stream pollutant removals are equal to end-of-pipe pollutant removals for direct dischargers. For indirect
dischargers, however, at-stream and end-of-pipe removals may differ due to treatment at the POTW. Calculation
of removals for direct and indirect dischargers is discussed below.
Direct dischargers
Current and post-treatment end-of-pipe annual pollutant loadings for each facility have been estimated.
Removals are calculated as the difference between current and post-treatment discharges. Removals are then
weighted using the copper-based toxic weighting factors and reported in pounds-equivalent. Total removals
associated with Subcategory A are calculated by summing removals over all direct discharging facilities. There are
9A discussion of the economic impacts of the regulation can be found in Economic Impact Analysis of Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pesticide Manufacturing Industry (hereafter the Final EIA).
10For an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of regulations upon Subcategory B chemicals, see the cost-
effectiveness analysis presented at proposal.
2.4
-------
no removals for Subcategory B since direct discharge of such chemicals is already limited to zero by BPT
regulations.
Indirect Dischargers
Calculation of pollutant removals for indirect dischargers is similar to calculation of removals for direct
dischargers. However, calculation of priority pollutant removals includes the possible effects of treatment at the
POTW. For some pollutants, part of the end-of-pipe pollutant loadings for indirect dischargers may be removed
by the POTW. Therefore, at-stream loadings from an indirect discharging facility may be less than end-of-pipe
loadings. As a result, the at-stream removal of pollutants attributable to PSES regulations are considered to be less
than end-of-pipe removal of pollutants. The cost-effectiveness analysis takes into account POTW removals for
priority pollutants and attributes to the regulation only removals that occur at-stream."
For example, if a facility is discharging 100 pounds of cadmium in its effluent stream to a POTW and the
POTW has a removal efficiency for cadmium of 38 percent, then the amount of cadmium discharged to surface
waters is only 62 pounds. If the regulation results in an end-of-pipe reduction of cadmium in the effluent stream
to SO pounds, then the amount discharged to surface waters is calculated as 50 pounds multiplied by the POTW
removal efficiency factor (1-.38 or .62), i.e., 31 pounds (50 pounds x .62). Cost-effectiveness calculations reflect
the fact that the actual reduction of pollutant discharge to surface waters is not 50 pounds (the change in the amount
discharged to the POTW), but 31 pounds (= 62 - 31) (the change in the amount actually discharged to surface
waters). The analysis does not consider any pollutants that remain in the waste sludge of the POTW. The POTW
removals factors used in the analysis are shown in Appendix E.
5. Annualized Costs for the Final Rule
Full details of the methods by which the costs of complying with the final rule were estimated can be found
in Chapter 8, Engineering Costs and Non-Water Quality Aspects, of the Technical Development Document. A brief
summary of the compliance costs is provided below.
Three categories of compliance costs associated with pesticide manufacturing were evaluated: capital costs,
land costs, and operating and maintenance costs (including sludge disposal and self-monitoring costs). While the
capital and land costs are one-time "lump sum" costs, the operating and maintenance costs are evaluated on an
"POTW removals for PAIs are not accounted for in the main analysis due to the lack of definitive treatment
data. Appendix G, however, provides a sensitivity analysis of POTW removal efficiencies for PAIs.
2.5
-------
annual basis. The capital and land are conservatively assumed to have a productive life of ten years. Using the
weighted average cost of capital, the capital and land costs are amortized to account for the cost of financing the
investment (through equity and debt) over the ten-year period.12 Total annualized costs are equal to annualized
capital and land costs plus operating and maintenance costs. For facilities that both manufacture and
formulate/package pesticides, the compliance costs apply only to the manufacturing operations of the facility. All
of the compliance cost estimates are based on the assumption that, whenever possible, facilities will build on existing
treatment. The reported costs are the full costs of compliance, some of which will be borne by the government in
the form of decreased tax receipts. The analysis therefore overstates the burden of the regulations on industry.
6. Calculation of Cost-Effectiveness Values
Facilities are included in the analysis only if they have pollutant removal values associated with compliance
costs. As a result, under the final rule, certain facilities with compliance costs are not included in the cost-
effectiveness analysis. (See Appendix F for details of excluded facilities).
Cost-effectiveness values are calculated separately for direct and indirect dischargers for Subcategory A.
For any given subset of dischargers and subcategories subject to proposed regulatory controls, the cost-effectiveness
value for the rule is calculated as the ratio of incremental annual cost of the rule to the incremental pounds-
equivalent removed by the rule. The incremental effectiveness may be viewed both in comparison to the baseline
scenario and to another regulatory option. Cost-effectiveness values are reported in units of dollars per pound-
equivalent of pollutant removed. For the purpose of comparing cost-effectiveness values of the final rule to those
of other promulgated rules, compliance costs used in the cost-effectiveness analysis are adjusted to 1981 dollars
using Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment factor is calculated as follows:
Adjustment factor = 1981 CCI = 3535 = 0.823
1986 CCI 4295
12For details on the weighted average cost of capital see the discussion of the facility closure analysis in the final
EIA.
2.6
-------
The equation used to calculate cost-effectiveness is:
CEk = ATCk -ATCkl
where:
CEk = cost-effectiveness of Option k ;
ATCk = total annualized treatment cost under Option k ; and
= pounds-equivalent removed by Option k .
The numerator of the equation, ATC^ minus ATCk.j , is simply the incremental annualized treatment cost in going
from Option k-1 to Option k. The denominator is similarly the incremental removals achieved hi going from Option
k-1 to Option k. Thus, cost-effectiveness measures the incremental unit cost of pollutant removal of Option k (in
pounds-equivalent).
Cost-effectiveness values of options may be compared incrementally to current treatment by using the same
formula and setting the benchmark costs (ATC^j) equal to zero. The benchmark pollutant loadings (PEj-.j) are then
set equal to the current at-stream loading.
7. Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values
Two types of comparisons are typically done using cost-effectiveness values. Compliance costs (y axis)
and pollutant removals (x axis) may be plotted to derive a marginal cost curve to determine which options offer the
most cost-effective regulatory control. Alternatively, the cost-effectiveness of regulatory options incremental to the
baseline scenario can be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of controls relative to previously promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines for other industries. Because only the final rule is analyzed in this cost-effectiveness report,
graphical representation of the incremental effectiveness of control options is unnecessary. As at proposal, the
comparison of incremental cost-effectiveness values for the rule is from treatment that is already hi place.13
13The final rule is less expensive and more cost-effective than the option that was not selected.
2.7
-------
-------
SECTION 3: CHANGES SINCE PROPOSAL
The April 10, 1992 notice of proposed rule-making included an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the
effluent limitations and guidelines for the pesticide manufacturing industry. The results of the analysis as presented
at proposal are briefly reviewed below. Changes that have occurred in the analysis since proposal are then
presented.
Table 2 summarizes the findings of the cost-effectiveness analysis of the Treated Discharge Option at
proposal. As the table indicates, the BAT cost-effectiveness was about $10 per pound-equivalent. The PSES cost-
effectiveness was $1.00 per pound-equivalent.14
Table 2
Cost-Effectiveness Values for Subcategory A
BAT (Direct Dischargers) and PSES (Indirect Dischargers) at Proposal
Option Name
(number of facilities)
BAT (24)
PSES
Subcategory A (22)
Compliance Costs
($ 1981)
$11,907,740
$4,825,615
Total
Removals
(Ibs) *
5,994,072
109,177
Total Removals
(copper Ib-eq.) *
1,198,882
4,832,553
Cost-Effectiveness
Value
($/lb-eq.)
$9.93
$1.00
* Total removals include water removals as well as air removals from volatile organic compounds that are
captured and otherwise would have been released.
For the final rule, facilities that have actually closed since 1986 are not included in the economic impact
analysis or in the cost-effectiveness analysis.15 In addition, in response to public comments on the proposed rule,
EPA has re-estimated compliance costs for several facilities.16 Finally, between the proposed rule and the final
rule, the toxic weighting factor (TWF) for one pollutant included in the analysis, organo-tin, decreased from 17,829
The reported costs are the full costs of compliance, some of which will be borne by the government in the
form of decreased tax receipts. The analysis therefore overstates the burden of the regulations on industry.
15For a complete discussion of the number of facilities subject to compliance costs and the revisions to those
costs, refer to the final EIA.
16Estimated investment costs at one facility have increased from $1.6 million to $16 million since proposal (see
Chapter 4 of the Final EIA). This change in estimated compliance costs resulted from public comments by the
facility. EPA maintains that the actual compliance costs for this facility would be lower than the estimates used in
the final analysis. However, analysis using these higher cost estimates ensures that EPA does not underestimate
the burden of compliance at this facility.
3.1
-------
rule, the toxic weighting factor (TWF) for one pollutant included in the analysis, organo-tin, decreased from 17,829
to 357. The smaller TWF for organo-tin reflects the updating of the human toxicity value used in the calculation
of the TWF. A revised bioconcentration factor for organo-tin resulted in the change in the human toxicity value.
The change in the TWF for organo-tin did not have any material effect on the overall cost-effectiveness of the final
rule.
Under the final rule, there are 55 facilities that are expected to incur compliance costs: 33 direct
dischargers and 23 indirect dischargers.17 As under the proposed rule, however, several facilities are excluded
from the cost-effectiveness analysis because pollutant removal data are not available; see Appendix F for more
details. Twenty-five direct dischargers and 19 indirect dischargers are included in the analysis.
Total annualized costs for compliance with BAT are estimated at $14.8 million (1981 dollars). Under
PSES, the estimated total annualized compliance costs are now $4.17 million (1981 dollars) for Subcategory A
PAIs.18
17 One of these facilities is both a direct and indirect discharger.
'"Cost-effectiveness values are reported in 1981 dollars for comparisons with previous rules.
3.2
-------
SECTION 4: RESULTS
The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the Agency's estimates of the full cost of compliance and
wastewater pollution removals associated with a Best Available Technology (BAT) option for direct dischargers and
a Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources (PSES) option for indirect dischargers.
The cost-effectiveness analysis includes 25 direct discharging facilities and 19 indirect discharging facilities.
These numbers are smaller than the total number of facilities expected to incur costs under the regulation (33 directs
and 23 indirects) because, as discussed in Appendix F, facilities are excluded from the cost-effectiveness analysis
if pollutant loading data were not available.19 Some facilities expected to incur only monitoring costs required
by permitting authorities are included in the analysis even though monitoring is not required by the rule.
4.1 Best Available Technology
A combination of treatment technologies is employed to treat a facility's wastewater. Some pollutant
discharge to surface water remains under the rule. Table 3 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for direct
dischargers. As shown in the table, the cost-effectiveness for the final rule is $14.41 per pound-equivalent removed
(Subcategory A).20
4.2 Pretreatment Standard for Existing Sources
A combination of technologies is employed to treat a facility's wastewater prior to discharge to a sewer
or to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The cost-effectiveness analysis of indirect dischargers measures
removals as the change in at-stream pollutant loadings (after the wastestream has passed through the POTW).
Table 3 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for indirect dischargers for the final rule. As shown
in the table, the cost-effectiveness for the rule is $17.50 per pound-equivalent removed for Subcategory A.
19One facility has both direct and indirect discharges.
20For comparative purposes, cost-effectiveness values are reported in 1981 year dollars.
4.1
-------
Table 3
Final Cost-Effectiveness Values for Subcategory A
BAT (Direct Dischargers) and PSES (Indirect Dischargers)
Name
(number of facilities)
BAT (25)
PSES (19)
Compliance Costs
($ 1981)
$14,830,661
$4,165,939
Total
Removals
(Ibs)
5,970,948
27,905
Total Removals
(copper Ib-eq.)
1,029,032
238,076
Cost-Effectiveness
Value
($/lb-eq.)
$14.41
$17.50
* Total removals include water removals as well as air removals from volatile organic compounds that are
captured and otherwise would have been released.
4.2
-------
SECTION 5: COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES WITH PROMULGATED RULES
Table 4 presents the cost-effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines and standards issued for
direct dischargers in other industries. The BAT rule for pesticide manufacturers is relatively cost-effective when
compared to the cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations guidelines.
Table 5 presents the cost-effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines issued for indirect
dischargers in other industries. As with BAT, the PSES rule for pesticide manufacturers is cost-effective when
compared to the cost-effectiveness values for other effluent limitations guidelines.
5.1
-------
Table 4
Industry Comparison of Cost-effectiveness for
Direct Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only)
Copper Based Weights
(1981 Dollars)*
Pounds Equivalent Cost
Pounds Equivalent Remaining at Effectiveness
Currently Discharged Selected Option Selected Option(s)
Industry (OOP's) (OOP's) ($/lb-ea. removed)
Aluminum Forming 1,340 90 121
Battery Manufacturing 4,126 5 2
Canmaking 12 0.2 10
Coal Mining BAT=BPT BAT=BPT BAT=BPT
Coil Coating 2,289 9 49
Copper Forming 70 8 27
Electronics I 9 3 404
Electronics n NA NA NA
Foundries 2,308 39 84
Inorganic Chemicals I 32,503 1,290 + +
Inorganic Chemicals n 60S 27 6
Iron & Steel 40,746 1,040 2
Leather Tanning 259 112 BAT=BPT
Metal Finishing 3,305 3,268 12
Nonferrous Metals Forming 34 2 69
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I 6,653 313 4
Nonferrous Metals Mfg n 1,004 12 6
OCPSF** 54,225 9,735 5
Pharmaceuticals 208 4 1
Plastics Molding & Forming 44 41 BAT=BPT
Porcelain Enameling 1,086 63 6
Petroleum Refining BAT=BPT BAT=BPT BAT=BPT
Pulp & Paper*** 1,330 748 18
Textile Mills BAT=BPT BAT=BPT BAT=BPT
* Although toxic weighting factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the
cost-effectiveness at the time of regulation.
** Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants.
*** PCB control for Deink subcategory only.
+ + Less than a dollar.
5.2
-------
Table 5
Industry Comparison of Cost-effectiveness for
Indirect Dischargers
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only)
Copper Based Weights
(1981 Dollars)*
Industry
Pounds Equivalent
Currently Discharged
(To Surface Waters)
fOOO's)
Aluminum Forming 1,602
Battery Manufacturing 1,152
Can Making 252
Coal Mining*** N/A
Coil Coating 2,503
Copper Forming 34
Electronics I 75
Electronics n 260
Foundries 2,136
Inorganic Chemicals I 3,971
Inorganic Chemicals n 4,760
Iron & Steel 5,599
Leather Tanning 16,830
Metal Finishing 11,680
Nonferrous Metals Forming 189
Nonferrous Metals Mfg I 3,187
Nonferrous Metals Mfg n 38
OCPSF 5,210
Pharmaceuticals 340
Plast. Molding & Forming N/A
Porcelain Enameling 1,565
Pulp & Paper N/A
Pounds Equivalent
Remaining at
Selected Option
(To Surface Waters)
(OOP's)
18
5
5
N/A
10
4
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
5
19
0.41
72
63
N/A
96
N/A
Cost
Effectiveness
Selected Option(s)
Beyond BPT**
($/lb-eq. removed)
155
15
38
N/A**
10
10
14
14
116
9
6
111
10
90
15
12
34
1
N/A
14
N/A
**
***
****
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.
Industry has no known or expected indirect dischargers.
Less than a dollar.
5.3
-------
References
1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document (EPA-440/5-80 Series)
Quality Criteria for Water. EPA 440/9-76-023, EPA 1976 (the Red Book)
Engineering News Record History: First Quarterly Cost Report. Construction Costs Tracked for U.S.
Engineering News Record. March 25, 1992.
U.S. EPA Toxic Weighting Factors for Pesticide Active Ingredients and Prioritv Pollutants. Draft Final Report,
March 18, 1992.
5.4
-------
APPENDIX A: PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS CONSIDERED FOR REGULATION
This appendix provides the pesticide active ingredients considered for regulation.
A.I
-------
Pesticide CAS
Number Pesticide Name Number
1 Dicofol[l,l-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol] 00115-32-2
2 Maleic Hydrazide 00123-33-1
3 EDB[l,2-Ethylenedibromide] 00106-93-4
4 Vancide TH [1,3,5-Triethylhexahydro-s-triazine] 07779-27-3
5 Dichloropropene 00542-75-6
7 Dowicil 75 [l-(3-Chloroallyl)-3,5,7-triaza-l- 04080-31-3
azoniaadamantanechloride]
8 Triadimefon 43121-43-3
9 Hexachlorophene (nabac) 00070-30-4
10 Tetrachlorophene 01940-43-8
11 Dichlorophene 00097-23-4
12 Dichlorvos 00062-73-7
13 Landrin-2 [2,3,5-trimethylphenylmethylcarbamate] 02686-99-9
14 Fenac [2,3,6-Trichlorophenylacetic acid] or any salt or ester 00085-34-7
15 2,4,5-T [2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester 00093-76-5
16 2,4-D [2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester 00094-75-7
17 2,4-DB [2,4-Dichlorophenoxybutyric acid] or any salt or ester 00094-82-6
18 Anilazine [2,4-Dichloro-6-(o-chloroanilino)-s-triazine] 00101-05-3
19 Dinocap 39300-45-3
20 Dichloran (2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline) 00099-30-9
21 Busan 90 [2-Bromo-4-hydroxyacetophenone] 02491-38-5
22 Mevinphos 07786-34-7
23 Sulfallate [2-chloroallyldiethyldithiocarbamate] 00095-06-7
24 Chlorfenvinphos 00470-90-6
25 Cyanazine 21725-46-2
26 Propachlor 01918-16-7
27 MCPA [2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid] or any salt or ester 00094-74-6
28 Octhilinone 26530-20-1
29 Pindone 00083-26-1
30 Dichlorprop [2-(2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) propionic acid] or any salt 00120-36-5
or ester
31 MCPP [2-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid] or any salt 00093-65-2
or ester
32 Thiabendazole 00148-79-8
33 Belclene 310 t2-(methylthio)-4-(ethylamino)-6-(l,2- 22936-75-0
dimethylamino)-s-triazine]
34 Cloprop [2-(m-Chlorophenoxy)propionic acid] or any salt or ester 00101-10-0
35 TCMTB [2-(Thiocyanomethylthio)benzothiazole] 21564-17-0
36 HAE [2-((Hydroxymethyl)amino) ethanol 34375-28-5
37 Chlorophacinone 03691-35-8
38 Landrin-1 [3,4,5-trimethylphenylmethylcarbamate] 02686-99-9
A.2
-------
Pesticide CAS
Number Pesticide Name Number
39 Pronamide 23950-58-5
40 Methiocarb 02032-65-7
41 Propanil 00709-98-8
42 Polyphase antimildew [3-Iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate] 55406-53-6
43 3-(a-Acetonylfurfuryl)-4-hydroxycoumarin [Coumafuryl] or any 00117-52-2
salt or ester
44 DNOC (4,6-dinitro-o-cresol) 00534-52-1
45 Metribuzin 21087-64-9
46 CPA (4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid) or any salt or ester 00122-88-3
47 MCPB [4-(2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxy)butyricacid] or any salt or 00094-81-5
ester
48 Aminocarb [4-(dimethylamino)-m-tolylmethylcarbamate] 02032-59-9
49 Etridiazole 02593-15-9
50 Ethoxyquin 00091-53-2
51 Quinoliol sulfate (8-Quinoliol sulfate) 00134-31-6
52 Acephate 30560-19-1
53 Acifluorfen or any salt or ester 50594-66-6
54 Alachlor 15972-60-8
55 Aldicarb 00116-06-3
56 Hyamine 3500 [Alkyl* dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 68424-85-1
* (50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16)]
57 Allethrin (all isomers and allethrin coil) 00584-79-2
58 Ametryn 00834-12-8
59 Amitraz 33089-61-1
60 Atrazine 01912-24-9
61 Bendiocarb 22781-23-3
62 Benomyl and Carbendazim 17804-35-2
63 Benzene Hexachloride 00608-73-1
64 Benzyl benzoate 00120-51-4
65 Lethane 384 [Beta-Thiocyanoethyl esters of mixed fatty acids 00301-11-1
containing from 10-18 carbons]
66 Bifenox 42576-02-3
68 Bromacil or any salt or ester 00314-40-9
69 Bromoxynil or any salt or ester 01689-84-5
70 Butachlor 23184-66-9
71 Giv-gard [0-Bromo-/3-nitrostyrene] 07166-19-0
73 Captafol 02425-06-1
74 Captan 00133-06-2
75 Carbaryl [Sevin] 00063-25-2
76 Carbofuran 01563-66-2
77 Carbosulfan 55285-14-8
78 Chloramben or any salt or ester 00133-90-4
A.3
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
79 Chlordane
80 Chloroneb
81 Chloropicrin
82 Chlorothalonil
83 Chloroxuron
84 Stirofos
85 Chlorpyrifos methyl
86 Chlorpyrifos
87 Mancozeb
90 Fenvalerate
91 Cycloheximide
92 Dalapon (2,2-dichloropropionic acid) or any salt or ester
93 Dienochlor
94 Demeton [O,O-Diethyl O-(and S-) (2-ethylthio)ethyl)
phosphorothioate]
95 Desmedipham
96 Diammonium ethylenebisdithiocarbamate
97 DBCP [Dibromo-3-chloropropane]
98 Dicamba [3,6-Dichloro-o-anisic acid] or any salt or ester
99 Dichlone (Phygon)
100 Thiophanate ethyl
101 Perthane [Diethyl diphenyl dichloroethane and related
compounds]
102 EXD [Diethyl dithiobis (thionoformate)]
103 Diazinon
104 Diflubenzuron
105 Benzethonium chloride
106 Dimethoate
107 Parathion methyl
108 Dicrotophos
109 Crotoxyphos
110 DCPA [Dimethyl 2,3,5,6-tetrachloroterephthalate]
111 Trichlorofon
112 Dinoseb
113 Dioxatbion
114 Diphacinone
115 Diphenamid
116 Diphenylamine
117 MGK 326 [Dipropyl isocinchomeronate]
118 Nabonate [Disodium cyanodithioimidocarbonate]
119 Diuron
CAS
Number
00057-74-9
02675-77-6
00076-06-2
01897-45-6
01982-47-4
00961-11-5
05598-13-0
02921-88-2
08018-01-7
51630-58-1
00066-81-9
00075-99-0
02227-17-0
08065-48-3
13684-56-5
03566-10-7
00096-12-8
01918-00-9
00117-80-6
23564-06-9
00072-56-0
00502-55-6
00333-41-5
35367-38-5
00121-54-0
00060-51-5
00298-00-0
00141-66-2
07700-17-6
01861-32-1
00052-68-6
00088-85-7
00078-34-2
00082-66-6
00957-51-7
00122-39-4
00113-48-4
00138-93-2
00330-54-1
A.4
-------
Pesticide CAS
Number Pesticide Name Number
120 Metasol DGH [Dodecylguanidine hydrochloride] 13590-97-1
121 Dodine (dodecylquanidine acetate) 02439-10-3
122 Endosulfan[Hexachlorohexahydromethano-2,4,3- 00115-29-7
benzodioxathiepin-3-oxide]
123 Endothall or any salt or ester 00145-73-3
124 Endrin 00072-20-8
125 Ethalfluralin 55283-68-6
126 Ethion 00563-12-2
127 Ethoprop 13194-48-4
128 Fenamiphos 22224-92-6
129 Chlorobenzilate 00510-15-6
130 Butylate 02008-41-5
131 Famphur 00052-85-7
132 Fenarimol 60168-88-9
133 Fenthion 00055-38-9
134 Ferbam 14484-64-1
135 Fluometuron 02164-17-2
136 Fluoroacetamide 00640-19-7
137 Folpet 00133-07-3
138 Glyphosate [N-(Phosphonomethyl) glycine] or any salt or ester 01071-83-6
139 Glyphosine 02439-99-8
140 Heptachlor 00076-44-8
141 Cycloprate 54460-46-7
142 Hexazinone 51235-04-2
143 Isofenphos 25311-71-1
144 Isopropalin 33820-53-0
145 Propham 00122-42-9
146 Karbutilate 04849-32-5
147 Undane 00058-89-9
148 Unuron 00330-55-2
149 Malachite green [Ammonium(4-(p-(dimethylamino)-alpha- 00569-64-2
phenylbenzylidine)-2,5-cyclohexadien-l-ylidene)-dimethyl
chloride]
150 Malathion 00121-75-5
151 Maneb 12427-38-2
152 Manganous dimethyldithiocarbamate 15339-36-3
153 Mefluidide[N-(2,4-dimethyl-5-(((trifluoromethyl)sulfonyl)- 53780-34-0
amino) phenyl acetamide] or any salt or ester
154 Methamidophos 10265-92-6
155 Methidathion 00950-37-8
156 Methomyl 16752-77-5
157 Methoprene 40596-69-8
A.5
-------
Pesticide CAS
Number Pesticide Name Number
158 Methoxychlor 00072-43-5
159 Methylbenzethonium chloride 15716-02-6
160 Methylbromide 00074-83-9
162 Hyamine 2389 [Methyldodecylbenzyl trimethyl ammonium 01399-80-0
chloride 80% and methyldodecylxylylene
bis (trimethylammoniumchloride) 20%]
163 Methylenebisthiocyanate 06317-18-6
164 Quhimethionate 02439-01-2
165 Metolachlor 51218-45-2
166 Mexacarbate 00315-18-4
167 Metiram 09006-42-2
168 Monuron TCA 00140-41-0
169 Monuron 00150-68-5
170 Napropamide 15299-99-7
171 Deet 00134-62-3
172 Nabam 00142-59-6
173 Naled 00300-76-5
174 Norea 18530-56-8
175 Norflurazon 27314-13-2
176 Naptalam [N-1-Naphthylphthalamic acid] or any salt or ester 00132-66-1
177 MGK 264 [N-2-Ethylhexyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide] 00136-45-8
178 Benfluralin 01861-40-1
179 Sulfotepp 03689-24-5
180 Aspon 03244-90-4
181 Coumaphos 00056-72-4
182 Fensulfothion 00115-90-2
183 Disulfoton 00298-04-4
184 Fenitrothion 00122-14-5
185 Phosmet 00732-11-6
186 Azinphos Methyl 00086-50-0
187 Oxydemeton methyl 00301-12-2
192 Organo-tin pesticides
194 Oryzalin 19044-88-3
195 Oxamyl 23135-22-0
196 Oxyfluorfen 42874-03-3
197 Bolstar [Sulprofos] 35400-43-2
198 Sulprofos Oxon 38527-90-1
199 Santox (O-Ethyl O-(p-nitrophenyl) phenylphosphonothioate 02104-64-5
200 Fonofos 00944-22-9
201 Propoxur (o-Isopropylphenylmethylcarbamate) 00114-26-1
203 Parathion 00056-38-2
A.6
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
204 Pendimethalin
205 Pentachloronitrobenzene
206 Pentachlorophenol or any salt or ester
207 Perfluidone
208 Permethrin
209 Phenmedipham
210 Phenothiazine
211 Phenylphenol
212 Phorate
213 Phosalone
214 Phosphamidon
215 Picloram or any salt or ester
216 Piperonyl butoxide
217 PBED (Busan 77) [Poly (oxyethylene (dimethylimino) ethylene
(dimethylimino) ethylene dichloride]
218 Busan 85 [Potassium dimethyldithiocarbamate]
219 Busan 40 [Potassium N-hydroxymethyl-N-methyldithiocarbamate]
220 KN Methyl [Potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate]
221 Metasol J26 [Potassium N-(alpha-(nitroethyl) benzyl)-
ethylenediamine]
222 Profenofos
223 Prometon
224 Prometryn
225 Propargite
226 Propazine
227 Propionic acid
228 Propamocarb and Propamocarb HCL
229 Pyrethrin coils
230 Pyrethrin I
231 Pyrethrin H
232 Pyrethrum (other than pyrethrins)
233 Resmethrin
234 Ronnel
235 Rotenone
236 DEF [S,S,S-Tributyl phosphorotrithioate]
237 Siduron
238 Silvex [2-(2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid)] or any salt or
ester
239 Simazine
240 Bentazon
241 Carbam-S [Sodium dimethyldithiocarbanate]
CAS
Number
40487-42-1
00082-68-8
00087-86-5
37924-13-3
52645-53-1
13684-63-4
00092-84-2
00090-43-7
00298-02-2
02310-17-0
13171-21-6
01918-02-1
00051-03-6
31512-74-0
00128-03-0
51026-28-9
00137-41-7
53404-62-9
41198-08-7
01610-18-0
07287-19-6
02312-35-8
00139-40-2
00079-09-4
24579-73-5
00121-21-1
00121-29-9
08003-34-7
10453-86-8
00299-84-3
00083-79-4
00078-48-8
01982-49-6
00093-72-1
00122-34-9
25057-89-0
00128-04-1
A.7
-------
Pesticide
Number Pesticide Name
242 Sodium monofluoroacetate
243 Vapam [Sodium methyldithiocarbamate]
244 Sulfoxide
245 Cycloate
246 EPTC [S-Ethyl dipropylthiocarbamate]
247 Molinate
248 Pebulate
249 Vernolate
250 HPTMS [S-(2-Hydroxypropyl) thiomethanesulfonate]
251 Bensulide
252 Tebuthiuron
253 Temephos
254 Terbacil
255 Terbufos
256 Terbuthylazine
257 Terbutryn
258 Tetrachlorophenol or any salt or ester
259 Dazomet
260 Thiophanate methyl
251 Thiram
262 Toxaphene
263 Merphos [Triburyl phosphorotrithioate]
264 Trifluralin
265 Warfarin [3-(a-Acetonylbenzyl)-4-hydroxycoumarin] or any
or ester
266 Zinc MBT [Zinc 2-mercaptobenzothiazolate]
267 Zineb
268 Ziram
269 S-(2,3,3-trichloroallyl) diisopropylthiocarbamate
270 Phenothrin
271 Tetramethrin
272 Chloropropham
CAS
Number
00062-74-8
00137-42-8
00120-62-7
01134-23-2
00759-94-4
02212-67-1
01114-71-2
01929-77-7
29803-57-4
00741-58-2
34014-18-1
03383-96-8-
05902-51-2
13071-79-9
05915-41-3
00886-50-0
25167-83-3
00533-74-4
23564-05-8
00137-26-8
08001-35-2
00150-50-5
01582-09-8
00081-81-2
00155-04-4
12122-67-7
00137-30-4
02303-17-5
26002-80-2
07696-12-0
00101-21-3
A.8
-------
APPENDIX B: PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS SELECTED FOR REGULATION
This appendix provides the pesticide active ingredients selected for regulation.
B.I
-------
Pollutant
008
012
016
016
016
016
016
016
016
016
016
016
016
017
017
017
022
025
026
027
027
027
027
030
030
030
031
031
031
031
035
039
041
045
052
053
054
Pollutant Name CAS Number
Triadimefon 43121-43-3
Dichlorvos 00062-73-7
2,4-D 00094-75-7
2,4-D, 2-butoxylethyl ester 00094-75-7
2,4-D, 2-ethylhexyl ester 00094-75-7
2,4-D, 2-octyl ester 00094-75-7
2,4-D, butyl ester 00094-75-7
2,4-D, diethanolamine salt 00094-75-7
2,4-D, dimethylamine salt 00094-75-7
2,4-D, isopropyl ester 00094-75-7
2,4-D, isopropylamine salt 00094-75-7
2,4-D, triethanolamine salt 00094-75-7
2,4-D, triisopropanolamine salt 00094-75-7
2,4-DB, 2-ethylhexyl ester 00094-82-6
2,4-DB, dimethylamine salt 00094-82-6
2,4-DB, isopropyl ester 00094-82-6
Mevinphos/Phosdrin 07786-34-7
Cyanazine 21725-46-2
Propachlor 01918-16-7
MCPA, 2-ethylhexyl ester 00094-74-6
MCPA, dimethylamine salt 00094-74-6
MCPA, isooctyl ester 00094-74-6
MCPA, sodium salt 00094-74-6
Dichlorprop, 2-ethylhexyl ester 00120-36-5
Dichlorprop, dimethylamine 00120-36-5
salt
Dichlorprop, isooctyl ester 00120-36-5
MCPP/Mecoprop, 2-ethylhexyl 00093-65-2
ester
MCPP/Mecoprop, 00093-65-2
diethanolamine salt
MCPP/Mecoprop, 00093-65-2
dimethylamine salt
MCPP/Mecoprop, isooctyl 00093-65-2
ester
TCMTB 21564-17-0
Pronamide 23950-58-5
Propanil 00709-98-8
Metribuzin 21087-64-9
Acephate 30560-19-1
Acifluorfen/Blazer 50594-66-6
Alachlor/Lasso 15972-60-8
B.2
-------
Pollutant
055
058
060
062
068
068
069
069
070
073
075
076
080
082
084
086
090
103
107
110
112
113
118
119
123
123
123
124
125
126
132
133
140
144
148
150
154
156
158
172
Pollutant Name
Aldicarb/Temik
Ametryn
Atrazine
Benomyl/Carbendazim
Bromacil
Bromacil, Lithium Salt
Bromoxynil
Bromoxynil Octanoate
Butachlor
Captafol
Carbaryl/Sevin
Carbofuran/Furadan
Chloroneb
Chlorothalonil
Stirofos
Chlorpyrifos
Fenvalerate
Diazinon/Spectracide
Paratbion Methyl
DCPA (Dimethyltetrachloro-
terephthalate)
Dinoseb
Dioxathion
Nabonate
Diuron
Endothall, N,N-
dimethylcocoamine salt
Endothall, Potassium salt
Endothall, Sodium salt
Endrin
Ethalfluralin
Ethlon/Bladan
Fenarimol/Rubigan
Fenthion/Baytex
Heptachlor
Isopropalin
Linuron
Malathion
Methamidophos
Methomyl/Lannate
Methoxychlor
Nabam
CAS Number
00116-06-3
00834-12-8
01912-24-9
17804-35-2
00314-40-9
00314-40-9
01689-84-5
01689-84-5
23184-66-9
02425-06-1
00063-25-2
01563-14-8
02675-77-6
01897-45-6
00961-11-5
02921-88-2
51630-58-1
00333-41-5
00298-00-0
01861-32-1
00088-85-7
00078-34-2
00138-93-2
00330-54-1
00145-73-3
00145-73-3
00145-73-3
00072-20-8
55283-68-6
00563-12-2
60168-88-9
00055-38-9
00076-44-8
33820-53-0
00330-55-2
00121-75-5
10265-92-6
16752-77-5
00072-43-5
00142-59-6
B.3
-------
Pollutant
172
173
175
178
182
183
185
186
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
192
197
203
204
205
208
212
218
219
220
223
224
226
230
231
236
239
241
243
252
254
255
Pollutant Name CAS Number
Nabam 00142-59-6
Naled 00300-76-5
Norflurazon 27314-13-2
Benfluralin 01861-40-1
Fensulfothion 00115-90-2
Disulfoton 00298-04-4
Phosmet (rextalize only) 00732-11-6
Azinphos Methyl 00086-50-0
Organotin:Neostannox [2-
(methyl-2-
phenylolpropyl)distannoxane]
OrganotinrTributyltin benzoate
Organotin:Tributyltin fluoride
Organotin:Tributyltin
monopropyleneglycolmaleate
Organotin:Tributyltin
neodecanoate
Organotin:Tributyltin oxide
Organotin:Trihexatin
[Tricyclohexyl tin hydroxide]
Organotin:Triphenyltin
hydroxide
Bolstar/Sulprofos 35400-43-2
Parathion Ethyl 00056-38-2
Pendimethalin/Prowl 40487-42-1
PCNB 00082-68-8
Permethrin/Ambush/Pounce 52645-53-1
Phorate 00298-02-2
Busan 85 00128-03-0
Busan 40 51026-28-9
KN Methyl 00137-41-7
Prometon 01610-18-O
Prometyrn/Caparol 07287-19-6
Propazine 00139-40-2
Pyrethrin I 00121-21-1
Pyrethrin H 00121-29-9
DEF 00078-48-8
Simazine 00122-34-9
Carbam-S 25057-89-0
Vapam/Metham sodium 00137-42-8
Tebuthiuron 34014-18-1
Terbacil 05902-51-2
Terbufos/Counter 13071-79-9
B.4
-------
Pollutant Pollutant Name CAS Number
256 Terbuthylazine 05915-41-3
257 Terbutiyn 00886-50-0
259 Dazomet 00533-74-4
262 Toxaphene 08001-35-2
263 Merphos 00150-50-5
264 Trifluralin/Treflan 01582-09-8
268 Ziram/Cymate 00137-30-4
B.5
-------
-------
APPENDIX C: PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
INCLUDED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This appendix lists the pesticide active ingredients and priority pollutants included in the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
C.I
-------
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
(PAI)or
Priority
Pollutant
(PP)
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
Pollutant
Number
5
8
12
16
17
22
25
26
27
30
35
39
41
45
52
53
54
55
58
60
62
68
69
70
75
76
80
81
82
86
103
110
113
118
125
126
Pollutant Name
Dichloropropene, 1,3
Triadimefon
Dichlorvos
2,4-D
2,4-DB
Mevinphos\Phosdrin
Cyanazine
Propachlor
MCPA
Dichlorprop
Busan 72/TCMTB
Pronamide
Propanil
Metribuzin
Acephate
Acifluorfen\Blazer
Alachlor\Lasso
Aldicarb\Temik
Ametryn
Atrazine
Benomyl
Bromacil
Bromoxynil
Butachlor
Carbaryl\Sevin
CarbofuranNFuradan
Chloroneb
Chloropicrin
Chlorothalonil
ChlorpyrifosVDursban
DiazinonVSpectracide
DCPA\Dacthal
Dioxathion
Nabonate
Ethalfluralin
EthionXBladan
CAS Number
542756
43121432
62737
94757
94826
7786347
21725462
1918167
94746
120365
21564170
23950584
709988
21087648
30560192
50594664
15972608
116063
834128
1912249
17804352
314409
1689845
23184668
63252
1563662
2675776
76062
1897456
2921882
333415
1861321
78342
138932
55283688
563122
C.2
-------
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
(PAI)or
Priority
Pollutant
(PP)
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
PAI
Pollutant
Number
132
133
135
138
140
144
154
156
158
171
172
178
182
183
192
196
197
204
208
211
212
216
218
219
220
223
224
226
236
239
241
243
252
254
256
257
259
Pollutant Name
FenarimolYRubigan
Fenthion\Baytex
Fluometuron
GlyphosateVRoundup
Heptachlor
Isopropalin
Methamidophos
Methomyl\Lannate
Methoxychlor
Deet
Nabam
Benfluralin
Fensulfothion
Disulfoton
Tributyltin
Oxyfluorofen
Sulprofos
Pendimethalin
Permethrin
Phenylphenol, o-
Phorate
Piperonyl butoxide
Busan85
Busan40
KNMetyl
PrometonNPramitol
Prometyrn\Caparol
Propazine
DBF
Simazine
Carbam-S
Metham sodiumWapam
Tebuthiuron
Terbacil
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Busamid\Dazomet\Mylo
CAS Number
60168888
55389
2164172
1071836
76448
33820528
10265926
16752775
72435
134623
142596
1861401
115902
298044
42874032
35400432
40487420
52645532
90437
298022
51036
128030
51026288
81990336
1610180
7287196
139402
78488
122349
128041
137428
34014180
5902512
5915413
886500
533744
C.3
-------
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
(PAI)or
Priority
Pollutant
(PP)
PAI
PAI
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
Pollutant
Number
264
275
1
4
6
7
10
11
12
13
15
16
21
23
24
25
27
29
30
31
32
38
39
44
45
46
47
48
51
53
55
59
65
66
78
80
81
Pollutant Name
Trifluralin\Treflan
Pyrethrins
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Methane, Tetrachloro
Benzene, Chloro-
Ethane, 1,2-Dichloro
Ethane, 1,1,1-Trichloro
Ethane, Hexachloro-
Ethane, 1,1-Dichloro
Ethane, 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloro
Ethane, Chloro-
Phenol, 2,4,6-Trichloro
Methane, Trichloro-
Phenol, 2-Chloro-
Benzene, 1,2-Dichloro
Benzene, 1,4-Dichloro
Ethene, 1,1-Dichloro
Ethene, Trans-l,2-Dichloro
Phenol, 2,4-Dichloro
Propane, 1,2-Dichloro
Benzene, Ethyl-
Fluoranthene
Methane, Dichloro-
Methane, Chloro-
Methane, Bromo-
Methane, Tribromo-
Methane, Bromodichloro-
Methane, Dibromochloro-
Cyclopentadiene, Hex
Naphthalene
Phenol, 2,4-Dinitro-
Phenol
Phthalate, Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)-
Anthracene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
CAS Number
1582098
8003347
83329
71432
56235
108907
107062
71556
67721
75343
79345
75003
88062
67663
95578
95501
106467
75354
156605
120832
78875
100414
206440
75092
74873
74839
75252
75274
124481
87683
91203
51285
108952
117817
120127
86737
85018
C.4
-------
Pesticide
Active
Ingredient
(PAI)or
Priority
Pollutant
(PP)
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
PP
Pollutant
Number Pollutant Name
84 Pyrene
85 Ethene, Tetrachloro-
86 Toluene
87 Ethene, Trichloro-
115 Arsenic
119 Chromium
120 Copper (Total)
121 Cyanides
122 Lead (Total)
124 Nickel (Total)
128 Zinc
CAS Number
129000
127184
108883
79016
7440382
7440473
7440508
57125
7439921
7440020
7440666
C.5
-------
-------
APPENDIX D: TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
AND PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
This appendix provides the toxic weighting factors (TWFs) used in the analysis. Toxic weighting
factors for pesticide active ingredients are listed in Table D-1, and TWFs for priority pollutants are provided in
Table D-2.
D.I
-------
TABLE D.I. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
EAD
PAI
No.
A082
A083
A272
A085
A086
A089
A043
A181
A109
A025
A245
A091
A141
A106
A092
A017
A110
A171
A236
A094
A187
A095
A103
A097
A098
A099
A011
A016
A005
A030
A012
A020
A001
A108
A093
A104
A044
A019
A112
A113
A114
A115
A116
A183
A119
A121
A007
A122
A123
A124
A199
A246
A125
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS No. Pollutant Name
1897456 Chlorothalonil
1982474 Chloroxuron
101213 Chlorpropham
5598130 Chlorpyrifos methyl
2921882 Chlorpyrifos \Dursban
14951918 Copper EDTA
117522 Coumafuryl
56724 Coumaphos
7700176 Crotoxyphos \Ciodrin
21725462 Cyanazine
1134232 Cycloate
66819 Cycloheximide
54460467 Cycloprate \ Zardex
60515 Cygon \ Dimethoate
75990 Dalapon
94826 DB, 2,4- salts and esters
1861321 DCPA \Dacthal
134623 Deet
78488 DBF
8065483 Demeton \ Systox
301122 Demeton-O-methyl
13684565 Desmedipham \Betanex
333415 Diazinon \ Spectracide
96128 Dibromo-3-chloropropane, 1,2-
1918009 Dicamba
117806 Dichlone \Phygon
97234 Dichlorophen
94757 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4-
542756 Dichloropropene, 1,3-
120365 Dichlorprop
62737 Dichlorvos
99309 Dicloran \Botran
1 15322 Dicofol \ Kelthane
141662 Dicrotophos \ Bidrin
2227170 Dienochlor \Pentac
35367385 Diflubenzuron
534521 Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
39300453 Dinocap \ Karathane
88857 Dinoseb \DNBP
78342 Dioxathion
82666 Diphacinone
957517 Diphenamid
122394 Diphenylamine
298044 Disulfoton
330541 Diuron \DCMU
2439103 Dodecylguanidine monoacetate
4080313 Dowicil 75
115297 Endosulfan mixed isomers
145733 Endothall
72208 Endrin
2104645 EPN \Santox
759944 EPTC
55283686 Ethalfluralin
(ue/11
0.076
4.3
324
1
0.041
12
0.34
0.001
0.55
100
45
70
0.432
2.2
550
20
62
3,750
0.27
0.1
0.4
6
0.009
810
195
0.14
36
80
4.5
2340
0.001
147
0.53
21.5
0.002
0.16
3.3
0.15
0.32
0.09
105
1,600
378
0.05
1.6
100
420
0.056
7
0.0023
0.0056
575
0.08
fue/n
850
100,000
98
11.8
25
2,900
27
103,000
740
11,200
0.1
0.95
16,000
630
23,100
1,960
87 *
12
7,300
0.0098
1,080
940
765
30
150
108,000
1,000
0.9
150
740
2
431,000
0.81
0.009
12,600
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
Chronic
73.68
1.30
0.017
5.60
137
0.467
16.5
5,600
10.2
0.056
0.124
0.080
13.0
2.55
0.010
0.280
0.090
0.0015
20.7
56.0
14.0
0.933
622
0.0069
0.029
40.0
0.156
0.0700
1.24
0.0024
5,600
0.038
10.6
0.26
3,294
35.0
1.70
37.3
17.5
62.2
0.053
0.0035
0.015
112
3.50
0.056
0.013
100
0.800
2,435
1,000
0.0097
70.0
Human
0.0066
-
5.60E-05
0.057
0.475
-
0.224
-
-
0.0019
-
-
-
0.207
5.44E-05
0.0076
0.0005
-
56.0
5.89
0.0004
-
0.0089
0.0002
-
-
0.0029
0.064
0.467
0.0008
571.429
0.01
0.0060
0.0073
0.187
0.037
-
5.19E-05
0.0056
6.22
0.037
0.0076
2.800
1.30E-05
6.91
622
0.0004
-
Total
73.69
1.30
0.017
5.7
137
0.467 (a)
16.7 (c)
5,600
10.2
0.058
0.124
0.080
13.0
2.75
0.010
0.288
0.091
0.0015
76.7
61.9
14.0
0.933
622
0.0069
0.029
40.0
0.156
0.073
1.31
0.0024
5,600
0.039
582.0
0.27
3,294
35.0
1.70
37.3
17.7
62.3
0.053
0.0036
0.020
118
3.54
0.064
0.013
103
0.800
2,442
1,622
0.010
70.0
D.2
-------
TABLE D.I. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
EAD
PAI
No
A126
A127
A050
A003
A049
A102
A131
A014
A128
A132
A184
A182
A133
A090
A134
A135
A136
A137
A200
A071
A138
A139
A036
A140
A009
A142
A250
A162
A056
A072
A143
A144
A146
A220
A038
A013
A065
A148
A149
A150
A002
A087
A151
A027
A047
A031
A153
A263
A120
A221
A243
A154
A155
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS No Pollutant Name
563 122 Ethion \Bladan
13194484 Ethoprophos
91532 Ethoxyquin
106934 Ethylene dibromide
2593159 Etridiazole
502556 EXD
52857 Famphur \ Famophos
85347 Fenac \Chlorfenac
22224926 Fenamiphos
60168889 Fenarimol \Rubigan
122145 Fenitrothion
115902 Fensulfothion \ Desanit
55389 Fenthion \ Baytex
51630581 Fenvalerate \Pydrin
14484641 Ferbam
2164172 Fluometuron
640197 Fluoroacetamide,2-
133073 Folpet
944229 Fonofos
7166190 Giv-gard
1071836 Glyphosate \ Roundup
1333240 Glyphosine
34375285 HAE
76448 Heptachlor
70304 Hexachlorophene
51235042 Hexazinone
29803574 HPTMS
1399800 Hyamine 2389
68424851 Hyamine 3500
75605 Hydroxydimethylarsine oxide
25311711 Isofenphos
33820530 Isopropalin
4849325 Karbutilate
137417 KN Methyl
2686999 Landrin I
2655154LandrinII
112561 Lethane384
330552 Linuron
569642 Malachite green
121755 Malathion
123331 Maleic hydrazide
8018017 Mancozeb
12427382 Maneb \ Vancide
94746 MCPA
94815 MCPB
93652 MCPP \Mecoprop
53780340 Mefluidide
150505 Merphos \Folex
13590971 Metasol DGH
53404629 Metasol J26
137428 Metham sodium \ Vapam
10265926 Methamidophos
950378 Methiadathion \ Supracide
ruE/n
0.02
11.5
212
608
12.1
48.5
55
5.5
9.1
0.5
0.5
0.006
0.036
4.5
30
2,000
0.39
0.07
0.2
65
4.27E+07
0.0038
1.5
5,000
486
60
60
400
1
3,750
1.4
50
50
160
90
0.305
0.100
6,250
23
17
60
3.5
445
5,000
13
100
60
1.4
2,300
0.11
(ug/l)
3.6
15
0.13
180
330
81
4.7
680
830,000
3,400
50
144
34,700
0.0021
0.009
3,540,000
65
72
273
300
2,700
54,000,000
89,700
54,000,000
380
1,770
8,970
0.22
740
5,980
234
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS fTWFs)
Chronic
280
0.487
0.026
0.0092
0.463
-
0.12
0.102
1.02
0.615
11
11.2
933
156
1.24
0.187
0.0028
14.4
80.0
28.0
0.086
1.31E-07
1,474
3.73
0.0011
0.012
0.093
0.093
0.014
5.60
0.0015
4.00
0.112
0.112
0.04
0.062
18.4
56
0.0009
0.243
0.329
0.093
1.60
0.013
0.0011
0.431
0.056
0.093
4.00
0.0024
50.9
Human
1.556
0.4
43.1
-
-
0.031
0.017
0.069
1.19
0.0082
6.75E-06
0.0016
-
0.11
0.039
-
0.0002
2,667
622
1.58E-06
-
-
0.086
0.078
0.021
-
-
0.019
-
0.0021
1.04E-07
6.24E-05
1.04E-07
0.015
0.0032
0.0006
-
25.5
0.0076
-
-
0.0009
0.024
Total
282
0.860
0.026
43.1
0.463
ND
0.12
0.102
1.05
0.615
11
11.3
935
156
1.24
0.188
0.0028
14.5
80.0
28.0
0.086
ND
1.31E-07
4,140
626
0.0011
0.012
0.093
0.093 (d)
0.086
0.092
5.6
0.0015
4.00 (b)
0.112
0.112
0.04
0.081
18.4
56
0.0009
0.244
0.329
0.108
1.60
0.013
0.0011
25.9
0.064 (e)
0.093 (d)
4.00
0.0034
50.9
D.3
-------
TABLE D.I. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PAI
No.
A040
A156
A157
A158
A159
A161
A167
A165
A045
A022
A166
A177
A117
A247
A 169
A168
A172
A118
A163
A173
A170
A176
A152
A174
A175
A028
A273
A189
A190
A191
A192
A 194
A195
A196
A203
A107
A248
A204
A205
A206
A207
A208
A101
A209
A210
A006
A211
A212
A213
A185
A214
A215
A029
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS No. Pollutant Name
2032657 Methiocarb
16752775 Methomyl \ Lannate
40596698 Methoprene
72435 Methoxychlor
15716026 Methyl benzethonium chloride
124583 Methylarsonic acid
9006422 Metiram
51218452 Metolachlor
21087649 Metribuzin
7786347 Mevinphos \ Phosdrin
315184 Mexacarbate \ Mexcarbole \ Zectran
1 13484 MGK 264
136458 MGK 326
2212671 Molinate
150685 Monuron
140410 Monuron TCA
142596 Nabam
138932 Nabonate
6317186 Nalco D-2303
300765 Naled \ Dibrom
15299997 Napropamide
132661 Naptalam
15339363 Niacide
18530568 Norea \Noruron
27314132 Norflurazon
26530201 Octhilinone
Organo antimony compounds
Organo cadmium compounds
Organo-copper compounds
Organo-mercury compounds
Organo tin compounds
19044883 Oryzalin
23135220 Oxamyl \Vydate
42874033 Oxyfluorofen
56382 Parathion ethyl
298000 Parathion methyl
11 14712 Pebulate \Tillam
40487421 Pendimethalin \Prowl
82688 Pentachloronitrobenzene \ Quintozene
87865 Pentachlorophenol
37924132 Perfluidone
52645532 Permethrin \ Ambush \ Pounce
72560 Perthane \ Ethylan
13684634 Phenmedipham \ Bentanal
92842 Phenothiazine
58366 Phenoxarsine, 10,10'-oxydi-
90437 Phenylphenol, o-
298022 Phorate \Famophos \Thimet
2310170 Phosalone \Azofone
732116 Phosmet \ Imidan
13171216 Phosphamidon \Dimecron
1918021 Picloram
83261 Pindone
rue/n
0.25
0.05
15.5
0.03
14
40,500
64
100
2,100
0.002
0.5
130
666
10.5
4,455
5,000
9.8
1.4
3.5
0.004
400
3,800
4.5
70
10,000
30
1.1
12
0.012
0.017
9.5
24
124
0.013
0.007
370
4.20
6.60
13
15,600
0.023
0.04
165
198
0.018
59.9
0.006
1
0.1
0.14
1.35
8,630
(ug/I)
120
269,000
1300
6.5
23,400
135,000
212,000
360
3,100
21,500
820,000
4^00
170
0.146
0.2
9,100
138,000
18
125
39
372
27
29,000
4,300
798
3.40
76
2,600
2,700
1,400,000
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS (TWFs)
Chronic Human
22.4 0.0467
112 2.08E-05
0.361 0.0043
187 0.862
0.40
0.0001
0.088
0.056 0.0002
0.0027 4.15E-05
2,800 2.64E-05
11.2
0.043
0.0084
0.533 0.016
0.0013
0.0011
0.571
4.00
1.60
1,400 0.0018
0.014 0.0003
0.0015
1.24 6.83E-06
0.080
0.0006
0.187 0.0013
5.09 0.0329
0.467
466.7 38
329.4 28
0.589 0.0006
0.233 4.06E-05
0.045 0.311
431 0.045
800 0.144
0.015
1.33 0.015
0.8 0.211
0.431 0.0002
0.0004
243.5 0.0013
140
0.034
0.028
311
0.093 0.0070
933 1.65
5.60 0.074
56.0 0.0022
40.0 0.0021
4.15 4.00E-06
0.0006
Total
22.4
112
0.366
188
0.40 (f)
0.0001
0.088
0.06
0.0027
2,800
11.2
0.043
0.0084
0.549
0.0013'
0.0011
0.571
4.0 (b)
1.60
1,400
0.014
0.0015
1-24 (g)
0.080
0.0006
ND
0.188 (h)
5.12 (h)
0.467 (h)
505 (h)
357 (i)
0.590
0.233
0.356
431
800
0.015
1.35
1.1
0.431
0.0004
243.5
140
0.034
0.028
311
0.101
935
5.7
56.0
40.0
4.15
0.0006
D.4
-------
TABLE D.I. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
EAD
PAI
No.
A216
A244
A042
A228
A222
A223
A224
A039
A026
A041
A227
A225
A226
A145
A034
A201
A230
A231
A275
A051
A164
A233
A234
A235
A237
A239
A242
A023
A198
A270
A252
A253
A254
A255
A256
A257
A010
A258
A084
A179
A271
A032
A100
A260
A261
A262
A008
A269
Alll
A015
A238
A264
A266
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
CAS No. Pollutant Name
51036 Piperonyl butoxide
120627 Piperonyl sulfoxide
55406536 Polyphase \ Guardsan 388
25606411 PrevicurN \PropamocarbHCL
41198087 Profenofos \Curacron
1610180 Prometon \Pramitol
72871% Prometyrn \ Caparol
23950585 Pronamide
1918167 Propachlor
709988 Propanil
79094 Propanoic acid
2312358 Propargite/BPPS
139402 Propazine
122429 Propham
5825876 Propionamide, 2-(m-Chlorophenoxy)
1 14261 Propoxur \ Baygon
121211 Pyrethrin I
121299 Pyrethrin II
8003347 Pyrethrins
134316 Quinolinol sulfate
2439012 Quinomethionate/Oxythioquinox
10453868 Resmethrin
299843 Ronnel
83794 Rotenone \Mexide
19824% Siduron
122349 Simazine
62748 Sodium fluoroacetate
95067 Sulfallate \CDEC
38527901 Sulprofosoxon
26002802 Sumithrin \Phenothrin
34014181 Tebuthiuron
3383968 Temephos \ Abate
5902512 Terbacil
13071799 Terbufos \Counter
5915413 Terbuthylazine
886500 Terbutryn
1940438 Tetrachlorophene
58902 Tetrachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-
%1 115 Tetrachlorvinphos \ Gardona \ Stirofos
3689245 Tetraethyldithiopyrophosphate
76%120 Tetramethrin \ Neo-pynamin
148798 Thiabendazole \ Mertect
23564069 Thiophanate ethyl
23564058 Thiophanate methyl
137268 Thiram
8001352 Toxaphene
43121433 Triadimefon
2303175 Tri-allate \ Far-Go
52686 Trichlorofon \ Dylox
93765 Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 2,4,5-
93721 Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid, 2,4,5-
1582098 Trifluralin \Treflan
155044 Vancide 51Z \Zetax
(ug/1)
18.0
17.7
7,030
11,750
0.008
86
25
3,600
8.5
23
2,500
1
875
400
1,050
0.650
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.74
0.0028
1
0.026
900
10
2,000
58
52
0.17
5,600
0.5
3.5
0.01
46
82
18.3
10
4.3
0.08
0.7
365
4,950
89
1.05
0.0002
500
4.9
0.265
75
'6
1.9
(ug/1)
120
720,000
150
170
8,100,000
10,200
485
7,100
1,900
3300
4,600
513
3,400
513
436
226
188,000
70,000
74
26
3,000
1,200
192
47,500
2,800
472
0.0075
36,400
171
74,800
1,657
330
4.1
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS (TWFs)
Chronic Human
0.31 0.05
0.316
0.0008
0.0005 7.78E-06
700
0.065 0.037
0.224 0.033
0.0016 6.91E-07
0.659 0.0005
0.243 0.012
0.0022
5.60 0.0008
0.0064 0.0029
0.014 0.0017
0.0053
8.62 0.0012
400 0.011
400 0.0016
400 0.011
7.57
2,000 0.013
5.60
215 0.025
0.0062
0.560
0.0028
0.097
0.108
32.9
0.0010 2.98E-05
11.2
1.60 8.00E-05
560 0.1
0.122
0.683 0.215
0.306
0.560 0.0019
1.30 0.0047
70.0 0.029
8.00
0.015 0.0001
0.0011
0.063 0.0020
5.33 0.012
28,000 747
0.011 0.0002
1.14 0.033
21 0.0001
0.747 0.0034
0.933 0.017
2.95 1.37
_ _
Total
0.36
0.316
0.0008
0.0005
700
0.102
0.257
0.0016
0.659
0.255
0.0022
5.6
0.009
0.016
0.0053
8.6
400
400
400
ND
7.6
2,000
5.6
215
0.0062
0.560
0.0028 (j)
0.097
0.108 (k)
32.9
0.0010
11.2
1.60
560
0.122
0.898
0.306
0.562
1.31
70.0
8.0
0.015
0.0011
0.065
5.3
28,747
0.011
1.18
21
0.750
0.950
4.3
ND
D.5
-------
TABLE D.I. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PESTICIDE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS (PAIs)
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
HAD
PAI
Aquatic Human Health
Life Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only
Value Value
TOXIC WEIGHTING
FACTORS (TWFs)
No.
A004
A249
A265
A267
A268
CAS No. Pollutant Name
7779274 VancideTH
1929777 Vernolate
81812 Warfarin
12122677 Zineb \DithaneZ
137304 Ziram \ Cymate
(ug/1)
36.7
11.5
0.34
9.70
15
(ug/1)
220
25
3,170
2.20E+08
Chronic Human
0.1526
0.487 0.025
16.5 0.224
0.5773 1.77E-03
0.373 2.55E-08
Total
0.153
0.512
16.7
0.579
0.373
Notes:
* These pollutants are volatile priority pollutants. Therefore, the human health criteria (organisms only)
has been replaced with the criteria for (water and organisms). See text for discussion.
a. The TWF for copper is reported for these compounds since the complexes could release copper into the environment
b. The TWF of metham sodium (vapam) is used for these compounds due to structural similarity.
c. The TWF of warfarin is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
d. The TWF of hyamine 2389 is used for these structurally similar quaternary ammonium compounds.
e. The TWF of dodecylguanidine monoacetate is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
f. The TWF of benzethonium chloride is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
g. The TWF of ferbam is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
h. The TWF for the base metals of these compounds is reported assuming the toxicity is mainly due to the bound metal.
i. The TWF for tributyltin oxide is reported for these compounds since it is the most probable PAI related pollutant in wastewaters.
j. The TWF of 2-fluoroacetamide is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
k. The TWF of bolstar \ sulprofos is used for this compound due to structural similarity.
D.6
-------
TABLE D-2. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PNo.
P001
P077
P002
P003
P089
P078
P114
PI 15
PI 15
PI 15
P116
P004
POOS
P072
P073
P074
P079
P075
P117
P102
P103
P105
P104
P043
P018
P042
P066
P048
P046
P041
P067
P118
P091
CAS No. Pollutant Name
83329 Acenaphthene
208968 Acenaphthylene
107028 Acrolein
107131 Acrylonitrile
309002 Aldrin
120127 Anthracene
7440360 Antimony
25541544 Arsenic (III)
7440382 Arsenic (total)
17428410 Arsenic (V)
1332214 Asbestos
71432 Benzene
92875 Benzidine
56553 Benzo(a)anthracene
50328 Benzo(a)pyrene
205992 Benzo(b)fluoranthene
191242 Benzo(ghi)perylene
207089 Benzo(k)fluoranthene
7440417 Beryllium
319846 BHC, alpha-
319857 BHC, beta-
319868 BHC, delta-
58899 BHC, gamma- \ Lindane
608731 BHC, Technical grade
111911 Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
111444 Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
108601 Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
117817 Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
75274 Bromodichloromethane
74839 Bromomethane
101553 Bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-
85687 Butyl benzyl phthalate
7440439 Cadmium
57749 Chlordane
Aquatic Human Health
Human Health
Life Ingesting Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only Water & Organisms
Value Value Value
Volatiles fug/11 fug/11 fug/H
V 6.1
V 17
V 11.4
V 378
0.22
V 0.030
30
190
190
42
V 265
125
0.1
0.050
12.1
V
5.3
14
0.080
1
19,000
V 6,300
360
V 21,600
V 550
V 46
220
1.1
0.0043
2,700
780
6.7
0.23
4,800
4,300
1.4
1.40
1.4
710
0.0054
15.6
0.311
2.39
28.3
2.39
1.32
0.130
0.460
0.625
0.46
14.0
4,360
59.0
36
4,700
5,200
170
0.0059
1,200
320
0.59
0.019
3,300
14
0.18
0.18
0.18
12
0.0012
1.4
0.028
0.215
2.55
0.215
0.077
0.039
0.14
0.186
0.14
0.31
34.7
17.6
2.5
57
3,000
30
0.0058
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Chronic
0.9180
0.3294
0.4912
0.0148
25.5
187
0.187
0.0295
0.0295
0.1333
0.0211
0.0448
56.0
112
0.4628
1.06
0.4
70.0
5.6
2.9E-04
8.9E-04
0.02
2.6E-04
0.0102
0.1217
0.0255
5.09
1,302
Human
Organisms
Only
(2)
0.0021
0.0072
0.836
24
0.001
1.3E-03
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0079
1,037
0.359
18.0
2.34
0.198
2.34
424
43.1
12.2
8.96
12.17
0.400
0.0013
0.0949
0.1556
0.0012
0.0011
0.0329
949
Human
Water &
Organisms Total
0.0047 0.920
0.329
0.0175 0.498
9.49 0.851
50
0.002 187
0.188
4.03
31.111 4.03
4.13
0.467 0.029
1,037
56.4
130
2.34
0.661
26.05 2.34
5.30
43.48
12.17
78.96
17.77
0.400
0.161 0.00217
0.11
224 0.1558
0.10 0.011
0.122
0.0265
5.12
2,251
Total
(1+3)
0.923
0.329
0.509
9.51
187
0.488
26.05
0.162
2.24
0.11
0.122
D.7
-------
TABLE D-2. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PNo.
P007
P016
P088
P019
P045
P020
P024
P040
P119
P119
P119
P076
P120
P121
P094
P093
P092
P082
P051
P025
P026
P027
P028
P013
P010
P029
P030
P044
P031
P032
P033
P090
P070
P071
CAS No.
108907
75003
75014
110758
74873
91587
95578
7005723
16065831
7440473
18540299
218019
7440508
57125
72548
72559
50293
53703
124481
95501
541731
106467
91941
75343
107062
75354
156605
75092
120832
78875
542756
60571
84662
131113
Pollutant Name
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroethene
Chloroethylviiiyl ether, 2-
Chloromethane
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Chlorophenol, 2-
Chlorophenylphenyl ether, 4
Chromium (III)
Chromium (total)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide
ODD
DDE
DDT
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Dibromochloromethane
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Dichloroethane, 1,1
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichloroethene, 1,1-
Dichloroethene, trans -1,2-
Dichloromethane
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Dichloropropane, 1,2-
Dichloropropene, 1,3-
Dieldrin
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Volatile*
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Aquatic Human Health
Human Health
Life Ingesting Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only Water & Organisms'
Value Value Value
fug/11 fug/11 fug/11
17
32,800
17,800
17,500
27,500
16
1,000
12.9
210
210
11
10.2
12
52
0.001
0.001
0.001
7.02
2,035
360
1,510
763
21.8
2,750
20,000
2,400
110,000
9,650
70
8,100
4.5
0.0019
10,000
1,700
21,000
5,250
4,700
400
670,000
670,000
3,400
38.4
215,000
8.4E-03
5.9E-03
5.9E-03
0.111
44
17,000
2,600
3,900
0.770
92,300
990
32.0
135,000
16,000
790
37,400
14,100
1.4E-03
118,000
2,900,000
680
20
57
120
33,000
33,000
170
3.46
700
8.3E-03
5.9E-03
5.9E-03
0.01
3.8
2700
400
590
0.4
3,900
3.8
0.57
700
47
93
483
87
1.3E-03
23,000
313,000
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Chronic
fll
0.33
1.7E-04
3.1E-04
3.2E-04
2.0E-04
0.3500
0.0056
0.4341
0.0267
0.0267
0.5091
0.5490
0.4667
1.08
5,600
5,600
5,600
0.7977
0.0028
0.0156
0.0037
0.0073
0.2569
0.0020
2.8E-04
0.0023
5.1E-05
5.8E-04
0.0800
6.9E-04
1.24
2,947
5.6E-04
0.0033
Human
Organisms
Only
f2)
2.7E-04
0.0011
0.0012
0.0140
8.4E-06
8.4E-06
0.0016
0.146
2.6E-05
667
949
949
50.5
0.1273
0.0003
0.0022
0.0014
7.3
6.1E-05
0.0057
0.175
4.1E-05
0.0004
7.1E-03
1.5E-04
4.0E-04
4,000
4.7E-05
1.9E-06
Human
Water &
Organisms
f31
0.0082
0.28
0.10
1.62
1.47
0.002
0.014
0.009
0.0014
1.474
9.82
0.008
0.^2
0.012
0.0644
Total
fl+21
0.33
1.71E-04
0.00138
0.00032
0.0014
0.3500
0.01%
0.434
0.0267
0.0267
0.5107
0.695
0.467
1.077
6,267
6,549
6,549
512
0.1300
0.0159
0.00586
0.00878
7.5
0.00210
0.00594
0.177
9.24E-05
0.0009
0.0871
8.41E-04
124
6,947
6.07E-04
0.00330
Total
(1+3)
Volatiles
0.34
0.280
0.10
0.434
2.17
1.48
0.0176
0.0177
0.0168
0.00347
1.474
9.8
0.0081
0.12
0.0123
1.31
D.8
-------
TABLE D-2. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
PNo.
P068
P060
P059
P035
P036
P069
P037
P097
P095
P096
P098
P099
P838
P039
P080
P100
P101
P009
P052
P053
P012
P083
P054
P122
P123
P055
P124
P056
P057
P058
P061
P063
P062
CAS No. Pollutant Name
84742 Di-n-butylphthalate
534521 Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
51285 Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
121142 Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
606202 Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
117840 Di-n-octylphthalate
122667 Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
1031078 Endosulfan sulfate
959988 Endosulfan, alpha-
33213659 Endosulfan, beta-
72206 Endrin
7421934 Endrin aldehyde
100414 Ethylbenzene
206440 Fluoranthene
86737 Fluorene
76448 Heptachlor
1024573 Heptachlor eporide
118741 Hexachlorobenzene
87683 Hexachlorobutadiene
77474 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
67721 Hexachloroethane
193395 Indeno(U,3-cd)pyrene
78591 Isophorone
7439921 Lead
7439976 Mercury
91203 Naphthalene
7440020 Nickel
98953 Nitrobenzene
88755 Nitrophenol, 2-
100027 Nitrophenol, 4-
62759 Nitrosodimethylamine, N-
621647 Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-
86306 Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-
Aquatic Human Health
Human Health
Life Ingesting Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only Water & Organisms
Value Value Value
1,000
35
V 3.3
27.5
583
398
3
13.5
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.0023
0.0023
V 210
40
V 17
0.0038
0.0038
V 3.68
V 9.3
V 5.2
V 540
12.1
5,850
3.2
0.012
V 620
160
460
2,315
V 395
V 14,000
V 1,000
1,400
12,000
765
14,300
42.0
5.40
2
2
2
0.810
0.810
29,000
370
1500
0.0021
0.0011
0.0074
500
17,500
89.0
28.3
6,000
0.146
6,501
4,600
1,900
80
2.44
160
470
2,700
13.4
70
0.5
0.41
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.76
0.76
3,100
300
730
0.0021
0.0010
0.0072
4.47
242
20
2.55
84
50
0.144
3,774
610
17
0.0069
0.05
50
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Chronic
0.0056
0.1600
1.70
0.2036
0.0096
0.0141
1.87
0.4148
100
100
100
2,435
2,435
0.0267
0.1400
0.3294
1,474
1,474
1.5
0.6022
1.08
0.0104
0.4628
9.6E-04
1.75
467
0.0090
0.0350
0.0122
0.0024
0.0142
4.0E-04
0.0056
Human
Organisms
Only
4.7E-04
0.0073
3.9E-04
0.1333
1.04
2.8000
2.8000
2.8000
6.91
6.91
0.0002
0.015
0.004
2,667
5,091
757
0.0112
3.2E-04
0.0629
0.198
9.3E-04
38.4
8.6E-04
0.0012
2.9E-03
0.0700
2.30
0.0350
Human
Water &
Organisms Total
0.00560
0.160
0.418 1.70
0204
0.1429
0.0141
1.87
1.45
103
103
103
2,442
2,442
0.002 0.0269
0.155
0.008 0.333
4,140
6,565
778 758
1.25 0.613
0.023 1.077
0280 0.0733
0.661
1.89E-03
1.75
505
0.0015 0.00989
0.0362
0.0151
0.0024
0.0142
812 0.0704
2.30
0.112 0.0406
Total
(1+3)
2.11
0.0285
0.337
779
1.85
1.10
0.290
0.0105
0.0142
812
0.118
D.9
-------
TABLE D-2. TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
(CARCINOGENIC HUMAN HEALTH VALUES BASED ON A 10-5 RISK)
BAD
P022
PI 12
P108
P109
P106
P110
P107
Pill
P064
P081
P065
P084
P125
P-126
P129
P015
P085
P006
P127
P086
P113
P047
POOS
P011
P014
P087
P023
P021
59507 Parachlorometacresol
12674112 PCB-1016
11104282 PCB-1221
11141165 PCB-1232
53469219 PCB-1242
12672296 PCB-1248
11097691 PCB-1254
11096825 PCB-1260
87865 Pentachlorophenol
85018 Phenanthrene
108952 Phenol
129000 Pyrene
7782492 Selenium
7440224 Silver
1746016 TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
79345 Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
127184 Tetrachloroethene
56235 Tetrachloromethane
7440280 Thallium
108883 Toluene
8001352 Toxaphene
75252 Tribromomethane
120821 Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
71556 Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
79005 Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
79016 Trichloroethene
67663 Trichloromethane
88062 Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Volatiles
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Aquatic Human Health
Human Health
Life Ingesting Ingesting
Chronic Organisms Only Water & Organisms
Value Value Value
fug/n fue/H (ug/1)
1.5
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
13
6.3
750
10.1
5
0.12
3.8E-08
1,700
840
1,350
40
275
0.0002
1,465
286
2,000
1,000
2,200
1,240
3.2
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
4.5E-04
29,000
54
4,600,000
38.4
9,000
6
1.4E-07
107
88.5
44.0
48
200,000
0.0075
4,200
230
1,030,000
418
923
4,700
36.0
3,000
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
4.4E-04
1,000
42
21,000
3.46
170
50
1.3E-07
1.7
8
2.5
13
6,800
0.0073
44
183
18,400
6
31
57
12
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Chronic
m
3.73
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
0.4308
0.89
0.0075
0.5545
1.12
46.7
147,368,421
0.0033
0.0067
0.0041
0.1400
0.0204
28,000
0.0038
0.0196
0.0028
0.0056
0.0025
0.0045
1.75
0.0509
Human
Organisms
Only
(2)
12,444
12,444
12,444
12,444
12,444
12,444
12,444
1.9E-04
0.104
1.2E-06
0.146
6.2E-04
0.933
40,000,000
0.0523
0.0633
0.1273
0.117
2.8E-05
747
0.0013
0.0243
5.4E-06
0.0134
0.0061
0.0012
0.156
Human
Water &
Organisms
(S\
0.133
3.29
0.70
2.24
8.24E-04
0.13
0.031
3.04E-04
0.933
0.181
0.10
Total
n+2^
12,844
12,844
12,844
12,844
12,844
12,844
12,844
0.431
0.99
0.00747
0.700
1.12
47.6
1.87E+08
0.0556
0.0699
0.1314
0.257
0.0204
28,747
0.0052
0.0439
0.0028
0.0190
0.0086
0.0057
1.91
0.0509
Total
(1+3)
Volatiles
1.02
3.30
0.707
2.24
0.021
0.13
0.0501
0.0031
0.939
0.183
0.10
Notes: The total number of unique chemicals included is 126 excluding various metal oxidation states and alternative compound
forms. The BAD P Number is the Engineering and Analysis Division's identification number for priority pollutants.
08/03/93
D.10
-------
APPENDIX E: POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES FOR PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
This appendix provides the POTW removal efficiencies for priority pollutants.
E.1
-------
Pollutant
Number
092
091
104
090
061
098
094
093
048
100
054
062
020
037
102
105
.
063
095
101
097
116
129
099
127
.
117
.
113
111
107
108
109
110
112
.
.
096
106
119
057
CAS
Number
50293
57749
58899
60571
62759
72208
72548
72559
75274
76448
78591
86306
91587
122667
319846
319868
608731
621647
959988
1024573
1031078
1332214
1746016
7421934
7440280
7440382
7440417
7440473
8001352
11096825
11097691
11104282
11141165
12672296
12674112
16065831
17428410
33213659
53469219
18540299
88755
Pollutant Name
DDT
Chlordane
BHC, gamma- \ Lindane
Dieldrin
Nitrosodimethylamine, N-
Endrin
ODD
DDE
Bromodlchloromethane
Heptachlor
Isophorone
Nitrosodiphenylamine, N-
Chloronaphthalene, 2-
Diphenylhydrazine, 1,2-
BHC, alpha-
BHC, delta-
BHC, Technical grade
Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N-
Endosulfan, alpha-
Heptachlor epoxide
Endosulfan sulfate
Asbestos
TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
Endrin aldehyde
Thallium
Arsenic (total)
Beryllium
Chromium (total)
Toxaphene
PCB-1260
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PCB-1248
PCB-1016
Chromium (HI)
Arsenic (V)
Endosulfan, beta-
PCB-1242
Chromium (VI)
Nitrophenol, 2-
Removal
Efficiency
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.27
E.2
-------
Pollutant
Number
016
043
115
039
103
064
125
045
021
034
124
027
002
044
042
019
035
036
014
070
066
033
123
056
118
071
047
114
121
013
080
041
040
030
023
029
058
126
128
068
018
CAS
Number
75003
111911
25541544
206440
319857
87865
7782492
74873
88062
105679
7440020
106467
107028
75092
108601
110758
121142
606202
79005
84662
117817
542756
7439976
98953
7440439
131113
75252
7440360
57125
75343
86737
101553
7005723
156605
67663
75354
100027
7440224
7440666
84742
111444
Pollutant Name
Chloroethane
Bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane
Arsenic (IE)
Fluoranthene
BHC, beta-
Pentachlorophenol
Selenium
Chloromethane
Trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-
Dimethylphenol, 2,4-
Nickel
Dichlorobenzene, 1,4-
Acrolein
Dichloromethane
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Chloroethylvinyl ether, 2-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,4-
Dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
Diethyl phthalate
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Dichloropropene, 1,3-
Mercury
Nitrobenzene
Cadmium
Dimethyl phthalate
Tribromomethane
Antimony
Cyanide
Dichloroethane, 1,1-
Fluorene
Bromophenyl phenyl ether, 4-
Chlorophenylphenyl ether, 4-
Dichloroethene, trans-1,2-
Trichloromethane
Dichloroethene, 1,1-
Nitrophenol, 4-
Silver
Zinc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether
Removal
Efficiency
0.28
0.30
0.39
0.42
0.43
0.45
0.46
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.51
0.52
0.53
0.54
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.55
0.56
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.61
0.61
0.63
0.65
0.66
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.71
0.73
0.75
0.75
0.78
0.78
0.79
0.80
E.3
-------
Pollutant
Number
069
089
120
085
087
006
025
010
026
059
Oil
067
028
005
009
051
008
015
122
088
060
038
082
022
012
004
046
053
081
052
055
024
003
065
031
084
079
083
074
075
077
CAS
Number
117840
309002
7440508
127184
79016
56235
95501
107062
541731
51285
71556
85687
91941
92875
118741
124481
12082
79345
7439921
75014
534521
100414
53703
59507
67721
71432
74839
77474
85018
87683
91203
95578
107131
108952
120832
129000
191242
193395
205992
207089
208968
Pollutant Name
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Aldrin
Copper
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
Dichlorobenzene, 1,2-
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
Dichlorobenzene, 1,3-
Dinitrophenol, 2,4-
Trichloroethane, 1,1,1-
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Dichlorobenzidine, 3,3'-
Benzidine
Hexachlorobenzene
Dibromochloromethane
Trichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-
Tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
Lead
Chloroethene
Dinitro-o-cresol, 4,6-
Ethylbenzene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Parachlorometacresol
Hexachloroethane
Benzene
Bromomethane
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Phenanthrene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Naphthalene
Chlorophenol, 2-
Acrylonitrile
Phenol
Dichlorophenol, 2,4-
Pyrene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Indeno(l ,2,3-cd)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Acenaphthylene
Removal
Efficiency
0.83
0.83
0.84
0.85
0.87
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.91
0.92
0.92
0.93
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
E.4
-------
Pollutant CAS Removal
Number Number Pollutant Name Efficiency
086 108883 Toluene 0.96
007 108907 Chlorobenzene 0.96
078 120127 Anthracene 0.96
076 218019 Chrysene 0.97
072 56553 Benzo(a)anthracene 0.98
032 78875 Dichloropropane, 1,2- 0.98
001 83329 Acenaphthene 0.98
073 50328 Benzo(a)pyrene 0.99
E.5
-------
-------
APPENDIX F: FACILITIES EXCLUDED FROM THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
This appendix provides information on the number of facilities excluded from the cost-effectiveness
analysis. To be included in the cost-effectiveness analysis for a regulatory option, a facility must incur compliance
costs under that option, and must have an associated removal value under the option. A removal value of zero
under an option is a valid possibility. The matching of removal values and costs is done by subcategory at the
facility level. Matching at the pollutant level is not possible since removal of priority pollutants cannot be explicitly
tied to specific costs. The number of facilities that incur costs but are not included in the analysis is discussed
below by discharge type.
1. Number of Facilities Incurring Costs
Under the final rule there are 55 facilities projected to incur costs. These 55 facilities are categorized as
33 direct dischargers (including five zero dischargers that reuse, recycle, deep-well inject or incinerate their
wastewater) and 23 indirect dischargers (one facility is a joint discharger with both direct and indirect effluent
discharge).
2. Number of Direct Dischargers in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
The five facilities that are currently zero dischargers are not included in the effluent loadings file and their
monitoring compliance costs are therefore not included in the cost-effectiveness analysis. Three additional direct
discharging facilities have effluent loadings that could not be accurately measured, and are also omitted from the
analysis. Dropping these facilities results in 25 direct discharging facilities included in the cost-effectiveness
analysis.
3. Number of Indirect Dischargers in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Four indirect discharging facilities have effluent levels that could not be accurately measured. Although
wastewater quantities are known (allowing calculation of compliance costs), pollutant concentrations within the
wastewater were not measurable. Therefore, there are 19 indirect facilities that have both effluent removal values
and compliance costs under the final rule.
F.I
-------
-------
APPENDIX G: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF POTW REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
This appendix describes a sensitivity analysis applied to the assumption in the cost-effectiveness analysis
that pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) are not removed by POTWs.21 There is very little empirical data on the
PAI removals actually achieved by POTWs. The only data available on POTW removal efficiencies for PAIs are
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 are therefore not appropriate for use in the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
For the sensitivity analysis it is assumed that POTWs remove 50 percent of the PAIs from the wastestream.
Based on this 50 percent removal assumption, under the final rule, Subcategory A removals would be 15,509
pounds, or 119,430 pounds-equivalent, at an annualized cost of $4,165,939 (see Table G.I). Thus, the cost-
effectiveness would be $268.62 per pound removed, or $34.88 per pound-equivalent. Even under these assumptions
the regulation remains cost-effective.
Table G.I
Cost-Effectiveness Values for PSES Options (Indirect Dischargers)
Assuming 50 percent POTW Removal Efficiency
Name
(number of facilities)
PSES
Subcategory A (19)
Compliance Costs
($ 1981)
$4,165,939
Total Removals
(Ibs)
15,509
Total Removals
(copper Ib-eq.)
119,430
Cost-
Effectiveness
Value
($/lb-eq.)
$34.88
* Total removals include water removals as well as air removals from volatile organic compounds that are
captured and otherwise would have been released.
This discussion applies only to indirect discharging facilities, since effluents from direct dischargers do not
enter a POTW.
G.I
-------
-------
-------
------- |