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 and Laura Bloch.
in
-------
IV
-------
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 2-14
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: Detailed Pollutant Loadings and Removals Data A-l
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 Comparison of Combined Regulatory Options for
Discharging CWTs by Discharge Status 3-5
4-1 Industry Comparison of BAT Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers 4-2
4-2 Industry Comparison of PSES Cost-Effectiveness for Indirect Dischargers ... 4-3
VI
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the centralized waste treatment (CWT) industry. This report
explores the cost-effectiveness of the control options EPA considered for the three
subcategories of CWT operations. For the final rule, EPA considered two control options for
metals, two for oils and one for organics, with four possible combinations of these options.1
The report measures cost-effectiveness by comparing of compliance costs to the quantity of
pollutants removed under each combination of control options. It defines cost of the
regulation as the estimated nationally aggregated annualized cost for the industry to comply
with the regulation. The report measures the effectiveness of the regulation in terms of
reductions in the pounds of pollutants discharged to surface waters, weighted to account for
the pollutants' toxicity. While the regulation specifically limits only certain pollutants, others
that are not directly regulated are removed as a result of controlling the discharge of the
regulated pollutants. The report measures the removal of both regulated and incidentally-
removed 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. This cost-
effectiveness analysis employs the "toxic weighting factor" (TWF) approach for weighting
pollutants according to their relative toxicity. EPA has historically used this in developing
effluent guidelines. To measure removals, EPA multiplies the total number of pounds per
year of each pollutant removed by its corresponding toxic weighting factor (TWF). In its
analysis, EPA only includes those toxic pollutants for which it has developed TWFs. This
means that the analysis will necessarily understate toxic removals for which EPA has not
'Earlier EPA proposals of effluent limitations and standards for CWT facilities reflected consideration of other
treatment technology options: one more metals option and one more organics option. EPA eliminated these
additional options from further assessments after additional examination.
1-1
-------
assigned TWFs. 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, this report does not address the removal of conventional pollutants.
EPA computes the cost-effectiveness (in dollars per pound-equivalent removed) of a
treatment option 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. This permits comparison of the cost-effectiveness of the various combinations
of options. 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.
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. EPA therefore presents the cost-effectiveness in 1981 dollars to facilitate
comparisons with the cost-effectiveness of other effluent limitations and guidelines . In
addition, EPA estimates the removals 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 Clean
Water Act (CWA) 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. Comparisons across
industries may be imperfect, however, because over time, EPA has modified the TWFs used
for some pollutants in the development of past effluent guidelines.
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 four 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 surface waters.) In addition, Section 2 describes
1-2
-------
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 superior options. 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 developing effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment
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 A—Cost Option B)/
(Removals Option A—Removals Option B). Examples of benchmarks include existing
treatments and previously promulgated regulations. Although the CWA does not require
EPA to base limitations and standards on the most cost-effective treatment options, 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 directly regulated by the guidelines and standards and 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, this report does not address the removal of conventional
pollutants.
EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis includes seven steps:
1. Determine the pollutants considered for regulation-so-called "pollutants of
concern."
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.
2-1
-------
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 Considered by EPA
In preparing the cost-effectiveness analysis for the CWT industry, EPA considered
146 pollutants. These pollutants include those regulated directly by the guidelines and
standards, as well as those pollutants considered for regulation, but not ultimately selected.
The analysis includes nonregulated pollutants when they are removed incidentally as a result
of a particular treatment technology, even though they are not specifically limited.
The Technical Development Document (TDD) details the pollutants considered for
regulation for each subcategory, and the pollutants that were ultimately selected for
regulation. Generally, EPA chose not to establish limitations and standards for a particular
pollutant for one or more of 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,
• the pollutant is pervasive in the environment as a mineral and is relatively
nontoxic (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 cost-effectiveness analysis and
presents their TWFs and POTW removal efficiencies.1 The table lists all nonconventional
pollutants (out of the 146 pollutants of concern) for the sake of completeness, even if their
TWF is zero.
'See the Technical Development document for a description of POTW removal efficiencies.
2-2
-------
Table 2-1. Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Toxic Weighting Factors
Pollutant Name
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Germanium
Iodine
Iridium
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Toxic Weighting Factor
0.06440
0.00500
3.50000
0.00200
5.29903
0.18000
2.60000
0.00003
0.00002
0.07600
0.11000
0.63000
0.03500
18.66667
0.00000
0.00000
0.00560
2.20000
0.01200
0.00000
0.07000
120.00000
0.20000
0.11000
0.00000
0.00105
1.10000
0.00000
16.00000
0.00001
0.00001
0.00001
0.30000
0.02930
0.62000
*
0.04700
0.54000
POTW Removal Percentage
91.36
66.78
65.77
55.15
61.23
23.66
90.05
8.54
24.67
80.33
10.19
84.20
53.72
50.00
39.25
74.00
81.99
77.45
26.00
14.14
35.51
90.16
18.93
51.44
69.42
39.51
34.33
27.29
88.28
2.69
14.83
14.33
42.63
91.82
8.28
21.04
79.14
54.97
(continued)
2-3
-------
Table 2-1. Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Toxic Weighting Factors
(continued)
Pollutant Name
Organics
1 -methylfluorene
1 -methylphenanthrene
1,1-dichloroethene
1,1,1 -trichloroehtane
1,1,1 ,2-tetrachloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-trichloroethane
1 ,2-dibromoethane
1 ,2-dichloroethane
1,2,3 -trichloropropane
1 ,2,4-trichlorobenzene
1 ,4-dichlorobenzene
1,4-dioxane
2-butanone
2-methylnaphthalene
2-phenylnaphthalene
2-Propanone
2,3 -benzofluorene
2,3 -dichloroaniline
2,3 ,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
2,4-dimethylphenol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
3 ,6-dimethylphenanthrene
4-chloro-3 -methylphenol
4-methyl-2-pentanone
acenapthene
acetophenone
alpha-terpinol
aniline
anthracene
benzene
benzoic Acid
benzo(a)anthracene
benzyl alcohol
biphenyl
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Butanone
butyl benzyl phthalate
carbazole
carbon disulfide
Toxic Weighting Factor
0.049000
0.100000
0.180000
0.004300
0.024000
0.014000
44.000000
0.006200
0.001960
0.082000
0.077000
0.000228
0.000025
0.080000
0.150000
0.000005
0.160000
0.007800
0.052000
0.005300
0.026000
0.270000
0.004300
0.000120
0.029000
0.000240
0.001100
1.405895
2.500000
0.018000
0.000330
180.000000
0.005600
0.029000
0.095000
0.000025
0.023000
0.270000
2.800000
POTW Removal Percentage
84.55
84.55
70.00
90.45
54.89
55.98
17.00
89.03
5.00
91.52
52.35
45.80
96.60
28.00
84.55
83.75
84.55
41.00
33.00
51.22
28.00
84.55
63.00
87.87
98.29
95.34
94.40
93.41
95.56
94.76
80.50
97.50
78.00
96.28
59.78
96.60
94.33
62.00
84.00
(continued)
2-4
-------
Table 2-1. Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Toxic Weighting Factors
(continued)
Pollutant Name
Organics (continued)
chlorobenzene
chloroform
chrysene
di-n-butyl phthalate
dibenzofuran
dibenzothiopene
dibromochloromethane
diethyl ether
diethyl phthalate
diphenyl ether
ehtylbenzene
fluoranthene
fluorene
hexanoic acid
m-xylene
methylene chloride
n-decane
n-docosane
n-dodecane
n-eicosane
n-hexacosane
n-hexadecane
n-nitrosomorpholine
n-octadecane
n-tetracosane
n-tetradecane
naphthalene
n,n-dimethylformamide
o-cresol
o+p xylene
p-cresol
p-cymene
pentachlorophenol
pentamethylbenzene
phenanthrene
phenol
pyrene
pyridine
styrene
Toxic Weighting Factor
0.002900
0.002100
2.100000
0.012000
0.200000
0.046000
0.130000
0.000077
0.000610
0.026000
0.001400
0.800000
0.700000
0.000370
0.001500
0.000420
0.004300
0.000082
0.004300
0.004300
0.004300
0.004300
0.000002
0.004300
0.004300
0.004300
0.015000
0.000008
0.002700
0.004700
0.004000
0.024000
0.440000
0.055000
0.290000
0.028000
0.110000
0.001300
0.014000
POTW Removal Percentage
96.37
73.44
96.90
79.31
97.80
84.68
81.60
7.00
59.73
97.80
93.79
42.46
69.85
84.00
95.07
54.28
9.00
88.00
95.05
92.40
71.11
71.11
81.60
71.11
71.11
71.11
94.69
87.00
52.50
65.40
71.67
99.79
13.88
91.23
94.89
95.25
83.90
95.40
93.65
(continued)
2-5
-------
Table 2-1. Pollutants of Concern for CWT Industry and Toxic Weighting Factors
(continued)
Pollutant Name
Organics (continued)
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloromethane
toluene
trans- 1 ,2-dichloroethene
trichloroethylene
tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
vinyl chloride
Toxic Weighting Factor
0.013000
0.130000
0.005600
0.000930
0.006400
0.000008
0.120000
POTW Removal Percentage
84.61
87.94
96.18
70.88
86.85
52.40
93.39
2.2 Relative Toxic Weights of Pollutants
EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis accounts for differences in toxicity among
pollutants of concern through the use of TWFs as explained in Section 1. These weighting
factors offer a way to compare, on a common basis, quantities of different pollutants, each
with different potential effects on human and aquatic life.
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 |J-g/L. The human health value, also measured
in |J.g/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 |J-g/L as the benchmark figure because, at this concentration, copper
becomes toxic. (This is the former water quality value for copper, which has been revised to
12 n-g/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
2-6
-------
where
TWF = toxic weighting factor,
AQ = chronic aquatic life value (n-g/L), and
HH = human health value (n-g/L).
First, EPA estimated the ratio of the baseline value (5.6 |J-g/L) to the human health
value for that pollutant. Then, EPA estimated the ratio of the baseline value (5.6 |J,g/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
Chronic Aquatic
Human Health Life Value
Value (ngfc) (VL&L)
12.0
3.2
4,600 160.0
84 1.1
710 530.0
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 1 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
2-7
-------
industry loadings (Ibs/yr) of each pollutant by each pollutant's corresponding copper-based
TWF and summing this product across all pollutants of concern, the Agency can derive the
total TWF-weighted pollutant removals (Ibs-equivalent/yr) attributable to each proposed
regulatory option.
2.3 Pollution Control Options
The final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the CWT industry apply to
wastewater 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.
EPA considered a total of five control options for the CWT industry, each applicable
to one of the three subcategories to be regulated. 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 the Agency's TDD.
Table 2-3. Descriptions of the Individual CWT Control Options
Treatment
Subcategory
Metals
Oils
Organics
Control
Option
Number
2
o
J
1
2
2
Control
Option Name
MET3
MET4
OILS
OIL9
ORG4
Control Option Description
Selective metals precipitation, liquid-solid separation,
secondary precipitation, liquid-solid separation, tertiary
separation, and clarification.
Batch precipitation, liquid-solid separation, secondary
precipitation, and sand filtration.
Emulsion breaking/gravity separation and dissolved air
flotation.
Emulsion breaking/gravity separation, secondary
gravity separation, and dissolved air flotation.
Equalization and biological treatment.
2-8
-------
2.4 Calculation of Pollutant Removals
EPA's analysis calculated the reduction in pollutant loadings released by each CWT
facility to receiving waters for each control option. Appendix A shows these reductions in
detail. 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
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.
The top section of the table shows estimated total pollutant removals (Ibs/yr) for each control
option for all nonconventional and priority pollutants considered, without weighting the
individual pollutants removed according to their toxicity. This part of the table shows mass
loading reductions that include expected removals of the CWT pollutants excluded from the
2-9
-------
Table 2-4. Summary of Weighted and Unweighted Pollutant Removals for Direct and
Indirect Dischargers
Control
Option
Weighting Method Name
Unweighted
MET3
MET4
OILS
OIL9
ORG4
TWF
MET3
MET4
OILS
OIL9
ORG4
Total Removals
by Direct Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
165,259,000
86,649,000
5,699,000
4,982,000
0
395,034
378,055
1,721
1,764
0
Total Removals
by Indirect
Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
155,856,000
76,539,000
106,766,000
99,116,000
2,002,100
47,482
38,906
48,039
50,684
19,814
Total Removals
by All
Dischargers
(Ibs/yr)
321,116,000
163,188,000
112,465,000
104,098,000
2,002,100
442,516
416,961
49,760
52,448
19,814
cost-effectiveness analysis because 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
EPA's Technical Development Document describes the methods used to estimate the
costs of complying with the regulatory options. This section provides a brief summary of the
compliance costs.
2-10
-------
EPA evaluated four categories of compliance costs: capital 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. Because 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. The report presents cost-effectiveness values using
pre-tax costs. For more detail on the cost annualization, see Section 4 of the EA.
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. The analysis reports cost-effectiveness values 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 = CCI1981/CCIcurrentYear =
The equation used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness is
CE, = (TACk - TACk4)/(Pek - PEk4)
where
= incremental cost-effectiveness of Option k,
2-11
-------
TACk = total annualized cost of compliance under Option k, and
PEk = pound-equivalents removed by Option k.
The numerator of the equation, TACk minus TACk4, is simply the incremental
annualized treatment cost in going from Option k-1 to Option k. The denominator is
similarly the incremental removals achieved in going from Option k-1 to Option k. Thus, the
incremental cost-effectiveness of Option k represents the unit cost of additional pound-
equivalent removals (beyond what is achievable by Option k-1), assuming that the removals
achievable by Option k-1 can be removed for the average unit cost of Option k-1. In other
words, incremental cost-effectiveness values show how much more it would cost per
incremental pound-equivalent of pollutant removed to raise the effluent guideline from one
level of stringency to the next higher level of stringency.
The method of comparing 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 (PEk4) are set equal to
zero.
2.7 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values
Two types of comparisons are typically presented 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. The comparison of CWT cost-effectiveness with that of other effluent
limitations guidelines is presented in Section 4.
2-12
-------
SECTION 3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
EPA prepared the cost-effectiveness analyses on the five individual control options
described in Table 2-3 and on the combined regulatory option. In each case, EPA analyzed
the cost-effectiveness of the regulatory options 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, withing each subcategory
(metals, oils, or organics), 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. EPA calculates incremental cost-effectiveness
values 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 lower cost than Metals 3.
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 lower cost. Oils 9 provides higher
removals than Oils 8, but at higher cost. Organics 4 is the most cost-effective of all of the
individual control options.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Individual Control Options for Direct Discharging CWT Factilities
Control Option Name
Individual Costs and Removals
Metals 4
Metals 3
Oils 8
Oils 9
Organics 4
OJ
to
Costs
($1997)
$3,544,898
$14,832,434
$542,354
$542,354
$221,942
Cost-
Costs Removals Effectiveness Incremental Cost-
($1981) (Ibs-eq) ($1981/lb-eq) Effectiveness ($1981)
$2,151,291 378,055 $6 —
$9,001,355 395,034 $23 $403
$329,138 1,721 $191 —
$329,138 1,764 $187 —
$134,690 — — —
-------
Table 3-2. Cost-Effectiveness Comparison of Individual Control Options for Indirect Discharging CWT Facilities
Costs Costs Removals Cost- Effectiveness Incremental Cost-
Control Option Name ($1997) ($1981) (Ibs-eq) ($1981/lb-eq) Effectiveness ($1981)
Individual Costs and Removals
Metals 4 $11,449,581 $6,948,403 38,906 $179
Metals 3 $44,350,240 $26,914,817 47,482 $567
Oils 8 $14,797,636 $8,980,237 48,039 $187
Oils 9 $21,085,721 $12,796,285 50,684 $252
Organics4 $4,592,799 $2,787,230 19,814 $141
$179
$2,328
$187
$1,443
$141
OJ
oo
-------
3.2 Cost-Efectiveness 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 option for direct and indirect
dischargers.
3-4
-------
Table 3-3. Cost-Effectiveness of Combined Regulatory Options for Discharging CWTs by Discharge Status
Discharge
Status
Direct
Indirect
Regulatory
Option
Met 4 Oil 9 Org 4
Met 4 Oil 8 Org 4
Total Costs
($1981)
$2,615,119
$18,715,871
Total TWF Removals
(Ib eq.)
379,819
106,759
Cost-
Effectiveness
($/lb eq.)
$7
$175
-------
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 the final effluent limitations
for direct discharging CWT facilities to the cost-effectiveness of best achievable technology
(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
Currently Discharged
(103 Ib. eq.)a
Remaining at
Selected Option(s)
(103 Ib. eq.)a
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
($1981/lb. eq.)
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Industrial Waste Combustorb
A
B
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Landfillsb
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Metal Products and Machinery15
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing II
Offshore Oil and Gasc
Coastal— Produced Water/TWC
Drilling Waste
Organic Chemicals
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals11
A/C
B/D
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Petroleum Refining
Pulp and Paper
Textile Mills
TEC: TR/CHEM&PETR
TT & RT/CHEM&PETR
1,340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
9
NA
2,308
32,503
605
40,746
259
3,305
140
34
6,653
1,004
3,809
951
BAT=current practice
54,225
2,461
897
90
44
1,086
BAT=BPT
61,713
BAT=BPT
BAT=BPT
1
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
9
8
o
5
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
70
2
313
12
2,328
239
BAT=current practice
9,735
371
47
0.5
41
63
BAT=BPT
2,628
BAT=BPT
BAT=BPT
ND
121
2
10
7
BAT=BPT
49
27
404
NA
84
66
65
<1
6
2
13,346
BAT=BPT
12
50
69
4
6
33
35
BAT=current practice
5
15
47
96
BAT=BPT
6
BAT=BPT
39
BAT=BPT
BAT=BPT
323
a TWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects the cost-effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
b Proposed.
0 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.)a
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Centralized Waste Treatment
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Industrial Waste Combustorb
A
B
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Metal Products and Machinery15
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing II
Organic Chemicals
Pesticide Manufacturing
Pesticide Formulating
Pharmaceuticalsb
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paperb
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
1,602
1,152
252
NA
2,503
34
75
260
2,136
3,971
4,760
5,599
16,830
11,680
1,115
189
3,187
38
5,210
257
7,746
340
NA
1,565
9,539
38
Pollutants
Remaining at Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option Selected Option(s)
(103 Ib. eq.)a ($1981/lb. eq.)
18
5
5.0
NA
10
4
35
24
18
3,004
6
1,404
1,899
755
234
5
19
0
72
19
112
63
NA
96
103
19
155
15
38
175
NA
10
10
14
14
116
85
88
9
<1
6
111
10
127
90
15
12
34
18
<3
1
NA
14
65
380
a TWFs for some priority pollutants have changed across these rules; this table reflects the cost effectiveness at
the time of regulation.
b Proposed.
4-3
-------
APPENDIX A
Detailed Pollutant Loadings and Removals Data
-------
The following tables give detailed information concerning loadings and removals of
pollutants. Tables A-l through A-4 provide a summary of the pollutant loadings and
removals for the CWT metals, oils, organics, and the entire industry, respectively. Table A-5
provides the pound-equivalent removals for the considered options.
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE CWT
METALS SUBCATEGORY3
Pollutant of Concern
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 -Dichloroethene
Methylene Chloride
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Total Priority Organics
Non-conventional Organics
2-Propanone
Benzoic Acid
Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Dibromochloromethane
n,n-Dimethylformamide
n-Nitrosomorpholine
Pyridine
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Total Non-conventional organics
Current Wastewater
Pollutant
Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
5,237,757
203,157
4,113,843
354
439
461
1,137
508
2,899
8,945
11,172
900
106
319
210
47
74
765
22,538
Indirect
Discharges
607,741
34,919
214,393
44
174
261
55
56
590
354
1,053
8
7
70
6
2
1
93
1,593
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading
Direct
Discharges
622,073
97,156
68,993
21
16
30
353
508
928
8,945
5,610
900
106
193
113
44
74
765
16,749
(Ibs/yr)
Indirect
Discharges
60,587
15,729
7,088
2
5
13
15
56
90
354
451
8
7
38
6
2
1
93
959
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
Direct
Discharges
4,615,684
106,001
4,044,849
333
423
432
784
0
1,971
0
5,562
0
0
126
97
4
0
0
5,789
(Ibs/yr)
Indirect
Discharges
547,154
19,190
207,305
42
169
248
41
0
500
0
602
0
0
32
1
0
0
0
634
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pound-
Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
0
0
0
76
0
4
0
82
0
2
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
1
30
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
>
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE CWT
METALS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Priority Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Total PriorityMetals
Non-conventional Metals
Aluminum
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
Cobalt
Fluoride
Iridium
Iron
Lithium
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
21,921 4,848
2,422 270
27,060 459
143,277 4,968
197,102 1,547
17,586 1,539
78 7
92,838 33,806
1,473 840
773 94
148,751 2,460
653,281 50,839
130,801 9,511
21 6
136,007 100,815
10,871,659 13,016,704
122,565,384 106,473,294
18,608 1,050
388,986 103,234
26,650 6,562
131,733 11,275
99,930 90,686
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
608 228
509 197
233 23
5,751 1,286
2,385 438
712 155
2 0
4,341 2,194
1,433 826
95 12
1,481 325
17,550 5,684
3,042 299
21 6
34,055 25,900
82,743 73,852
63,611,507 54,729,374
437 415
194,444 97,928
2,069 525
24,045 4,947
7,971 5,756
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
21,313 4,620
1,913 72
26,827 436
137,527 3,682
194,717 1,109
16,874 1,385
76 7
88,497 31,612
39 14
678 82
147,270 2,135
635,731 45,155
127,759 9,212
0 0
101,952 74,915
10,788,916 12,942,852
58,953,877 51,743,920
18,171 635
194,542 5,306
24,581 6,037
107,688 6,328
91,959 84,930
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pound-
Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
102 22
6,697 254
69,751 1,133
10,452 280
122,672 699
37,123 3,047
9,148 825
9,735 3,477
43 16
10,844 1,307
6,922 100
283,488 11,159
8,228 593
0 0
18,351 13,485
302 362
1,433 1,257
1,999 70
6,809 186
0 0
603 35
1,104 1,019
>
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-l. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE CWT
METALS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Metals (continued)
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
Total Non-conventional Metals
Classical Parameters
Ammonia as N
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Cyanide, Total
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
40,103 20,183
15,721 3,945
24,338 17,538
1,157,223 214,847
6,830,501 5,095,607
38,785 12,249
57,998,864 62,663,606
16,057 16,776
9,037,707 6,334,649
131,627 6,061
74,127 152
4,451 250
134 97
6,750 3,214
209,746,164 194,202,309
995,930 753,634
35,205,287 8,289,423
2,478 12,261
340,656 18,648
187,507,090 190,216,364
9,814,737 3,694,951
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
40,103 20,183
176 127
6,465 5,717
86,933 30,559
1,468,873 1,001,254
5,288 4,247
53,149,361 57,507,406
414 344
5,022,530 4,199,022
329 206
196 19
49 44
21 16
5,300 2,339
123,746,371 117,710,483
59,080 38,532
4,791,127 1,006,656
1,314 8,012
2,917 2,841
158,743,640 158,081,113
866,786 283,579
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 0
15,545 3,818
17,873 11,821
1,070,290 184,288
5,361,628 4,094,353
33,497 8,002
4,849,502 5,156,200
15,643 16,432
4,015,178 2,135,627
131,297 5,855
73,931 134
4,402 206
113 81
1,450 875
85,999,792 76,491,826
936,850 715,102
30,414,161 7,282,767
1,164 4,259
337,739 15,807
28,763,450 32,135,251
8,947,950 3,411,371
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pound-
Equivalent Removals
(Ib-eq/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
1,088
3,575
0
5,644
0
27
0
22
39,389
2,166
2,729
0
783
94,251
1,686
0
6,577
172,247
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
0
267
2,364
0
4,310
0
28
0
12
1,757
4
128
0
472
26,350
1,287
0
1,872
8,062
0
0
>
aAll loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT OILS SUBCATEGORY3
Pollutant of Concern
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 -Dichloroethene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Diethylphthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
1,502,944 7,359
206,540 5,563
428,553 2,278
1
0
7
0
7
9
2
4
12
3
33 31
54
0
0
5
5 1
4
,481
,908
,482
303
128
428
39
950
764
37
124
427
31
,740
774
8
197
53
,192
140
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
1,170,476 4,291,879
5,574 31,431
96,593 409,624
1 61
0 112
7 73
0 39
7 319
9 764
2 11
4 28
12 155
3 11
12 211
11 26
0 6
0 168
5 12
5 618
4 76
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
332,468
200,965
331,960
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
43
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
3,067,603
5,532,477
1,868,858
242
16
355
0
631
0
26
96
272
20
31,529
748
1
28
41
575
64
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-E quivalent
Removals (Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 3
0 29
0 0
0 49
0 0
0 1
0 239
0 5
0 3,610
2 2,995
1 17
0 0
0 0
0 85
0 0
0 1
>
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT OILS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Pollutant of Concern Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-E quivalent
Removals (Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
>
Priority Organics (continued)
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethene
Total Priority Organics
Non-conventional Organics
1,4-Dioxane
1-Methylfluorene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2,3-Benzofluorene
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Propanone
3,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
9
2
4
69
21
376
34
40
44
0
746
1
5
12
7
46
3
191
7
28
15
520
2,175
775
1,363
523
2,735
1,172
1,297
1,477
175
49,544
296
212
389
403
11,066
317
41,336
401
7,994
1,369
9
2
4
49
16
376
11
40
44
0
635
1
5
11
7
32
3
191
7
28
15
132
81
241
110
35
2,735
78
546
572
149
7,367
296
42
69
69
960
19
41,336
66
1,673
1,369
0
0
0
20
5
0
23
0
0
0
112
0
0
2
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
388
2,094
534
1,254
488
0
1,094
751
905
26
42,177
0
169
319
334
10,106
298
0
335
6,321
0
1
1,676
374
19
142
0
120
10
5
0
9,380
0
8
32
53
808
45
0
90
27
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT OILS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics (continued)
Alpha-terpinol
Aniline
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Carbazole
Carbon Bisulfide
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Diphenyl Ether
Hexanoic Acid
m-Xylene
n,n-Dimethylformamide
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
o+p-Xylene
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
7
2
358
31
26
3
5
2
6
36
1,239
10
2
45
108
251
37
10
1,926
155
12
1,139
11
Indirect
Discharges
134
50
13,146
998
172
414
170
44
241
106
26,761
563
117
99,584
1,970
5,810
3,531
900
116,424
33,724
1,209
123,867
2,834
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
7
2
358
16
26
3
5
2
6
36
1,239
10
2
45
4
46
10
10
502
40
12
650
11
Indirect
Discharges
109
50
13,146
141
40
270
36
13
72
84
8,876
190
117
1,790
21
97
33
900
6,136
488
1,209
7,951
1,540
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
15
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
104
205
26
0
1,424
115
0
489
0
Indirect
Discharges
24
0
0
857
132
144
134
30
169
22
17,885
373
0
97,794
1,949
5,713
3,498
0
110,288
33,235
0
115,916
1,294
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-E quivalent
Removals (Ib-eq/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
Indirect
Discharges
0
0
0
5
4
39
375
6
8
1
7
1
0
421
0
25
15
0
474
143
0
498
6
>
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT OILS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics (continued)
o-Cresol
p-Creso\
p-Cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Pyridine
Styrene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Total Non-conventional Organics
Priority Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Total Priority Metals
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
30
23
20
7
1
4
111
5,930
38
12
4
32
123
143
3
175
3
1
2,131
2,665
Indirect
Discharges
2,594
1,225
8
290
36
61
36,723
537,487
407
845
35
800
3,236
2,987
7
18,427
161
100
20,387
47,391
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
30
23
11
7
1
4
93
3,508
19
12
1
32
22
19
1
175
3
1
399
685
Indirect
Discharges
2,594
1,198
1
35
36
26
1,887
94,986
233
588
6
221
149
185
2
3,794
157
100
3,421
8,857
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0
0
9
0
0
0
18 34,
2,422 442,
19
0
3
0
101 3,
124 2,
2
0 14,
0
0
1,732 16,
1,980 38,
0
28
7
255
0
36
836
501
174
256
29
579
087
801
5
633
4
0
966
534
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-E quivalent
Removals (Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 14
0 0
0 0
0 0
12 3,106
0 1
0 897
7 76
0 44
64 1,945
273 6,163
274 610
0 1,610
0 4
0 0
81 797
698 12,147
>
oo
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-2. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT OILS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Cobalt
Germanium
Iron
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Silicon
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Total Non-conventional Metals
Classical Parameters
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Total Cyanide
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
7,302 19,026
98 2,812
18,093 499,527
306 15,044
3,073 37,014
8,321 98,369
19,339 468,187
406 14,529
683 15,705
3,381 63,752
2,333 87,629
17 2,650
22,274 3,335,305
22 1,475
9 63
85,655 4,661,087
8,008,834 82,469,852
1,180,709 81,568,044
1,662,243 25,025,482
3 135
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
2,714 8,723
42 753
14,479 371,923
306 15,044
3,073 37,014
4,275 31,055
11,369 342,582
406 10,555
291 8,516
3,381 42,197
2,333 62,160
17 1,612
22,274 3,335,305
19 395
4 14
64,980 4,267,848
4,032,459 31,672,499
1,180,709 81,568,044
1,097,930 13,130,781
3 78
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
4,589
56
3,615
0
0
4,046
7,970
0
392
0
0
0
0
3
5
20,675
3,976,375
0
564,313
0
Indirect
Discharges
10,303
2,059
127,604
0
0
67,314
125,605
3,974
7,188
21,554
25,469
1,038
0
1,080
50
393,239
50,797,354
0
11,894,701
57
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-E quivalent
Removals (Ib-eq/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
294 659
0 4
651 22,969
0 0
0 0
23 377
0 0
0 278
78 1,438
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 324
0 1
1,047 26,050
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
>
aAll loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY3
Pollutant of Concern
Conventionals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5-Day (BOD5)
Oil and Grease (measured as HEM)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Priority Organics
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
Benzene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Priority Organics
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
5,366
23,062
5,888
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
27
103
47
15
1
9
1
221
Indirect
Discharges
**
**
**
0
498
183
810
315
121
741
262,781
1,782
95
337
8,377
374
112
276,525
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
5,366
23,062
5,888
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
27
103
47
15
1
9
1
221
Indirect
Discharges
**
**
**
0
468
159
719
224
95
538
105,692
851
41
275
3,387
269
104
112,824
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
3,429,305
29,974
170,673
0
100
251
206
823
484
766
343,588
1,081
1,136
397
130,626
801
119
480,379
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
0
0
0
0
5
0
1
1
0
0
66
410
2
1
28
1
1
516
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
2-Butanone
2-Propanone
2,3-Dichloroaniline
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3 ,4-Dichlorophenol
3 , 5 -Dichlorophenol
4-Methyl-2-Pentanone
Acetophenone
Aniline
Benzoic Acid
Diethyl Ether
Dimethyl Sulfone
Ethylenethiourea
Hexanoic Acid
m-Xylene
n,n-Dimethylformamide
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
1
1
1
115
269
3
82
13
11
0
0
19
5
1
42
0
21
574
8
1
1
24
9
Indirect
Discharges
769
1,927
1,577
1,013
362,772
243
663
292
0
0
0
1,028
21
0
0
7,641
0
0
108
91
1
1,021
281
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
1
1
1
115
269
3
82
13
11
0
0
19
5
1
42
0
21
574
8
1
1
24
9
Indirect
Discharges
712
1,515
1,482
662
167,970
106
345
132
0
0
0
957
9
0
0
7,226
0
0
47
81
1
426
117
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct
Discharges
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
126
496
99
10,349
1,198,783
232
475
222
0
0
0
584
261
0
0
446
0
0
381
209
0
1,252
578
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 1
0 18,125
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 17
0 4
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 2
0 1
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics (continued)
Pyridine
Tetrachloromethane
Trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Total Non-conventional Organics
Priority Metals
Antimony
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
Total Priority Metals
Non-conventional Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Iodine
Iron
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
15
2
3
1,221
74
72
92
186
50
474
323
0
6,279
0
57
0
515
1,552
0
30
123
53
240
539
380,279
46
37
36
380
94
593
1,610
161
14,196
0
0
1,902
1,954
3,742
0
229
346
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
15
2
3
1,222
74
72
92
186
50
474
323
0
6,279
0
57
0
515
1,552
0
30
123
22
204
477
182,492
46
24
36
381
57
543
795
161
8,267
0
0
1,095
1,064
3,742
0
174
290
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
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
659
296
211
1,215,660
0
66
0
0
179
244
9,435
0
7,766
0
0
1,328
4,942
0
0
85
69
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ibs/yr)
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
5
0
18,156
0
1
0
0
2
3
52
0
1,067
0
0
0
5
0
0
4
11
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-3. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
CWT ORGANICS SUBCATEGORY3 (CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Metals (continued)
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Total Non-conventional Metals
Classical Parameters
Total Cyanide
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
904 734
0 0
350 856
0 0
269 1,665
178,861 484,286
128 236
189,392 511,915
285 **
Post-Compliance Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
904 363
0 0
350 839
0 0
269 1,214
178,861 244,045
128 236
189,392 262,284
285 **
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 1,212
0 0
0 23
0 0
0 530
0 280,426
0 0
0 305,816
0 191
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1,139
0 62
"All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
TABLE A-4. SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT LOADINGS AND REMOVALS FOR THE
ENTIRE CWT INDUSTRY3
Pollutant of Concern
Conventionals
Total Priority Organics
Total Non-conventional Organics
Total Priority Metals
Total Non-conventional Metals
Total Classical Parameters (includes
Total Cyanide)
Current Wastewater
Pollutant Loading
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
11,727,110 16,058,924
3,867 326,659
29,690 919,359
656,421 98,822
210,021,211 199,375,310
244,724,315 392,049,288
Post-Compliance
Wastewater Pollutant
Loading (Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
2,095,183 4,816,339
1,784 120,281
21,480 278,437
18,709 15,083
124,000,744 122,240,614
170,777,844 285,800,165
Post-Compliance
Pollutant Reductions
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
9,631,928 14,872,538
2,083 523,056
8,210 1,658,795
637,712 83,933
86,020,467 77,190,881
73,947,785 106,257,326
Post-Compliance Pollutant
Pound-Equivalent Removals
(Ibs/yr)
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
0 0
89 554
3,124 21,266
284,186 23,309
95,298 53,540
180,510 11,283
>
"All loadings and reductions take into account the removals by POTWs for indirect discharges.
HEM - Hexane extractable material
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
Pollutant of Concern
Conventionals
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5-Day (BOD5)
Oil and Grease (measured as HEM)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Conventionals
Priority Organics
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethene
1 , 1 ,2-Trichloroethane
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Acenapthene
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Diethyl Phthalate
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Metals 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
1
0
76
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
29
0
49
0
1
239
5
3,610
2,995
17
0
0
85
0
1
Organics 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
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
0
0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
(CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Priority Organics (continued)
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Methylene Chloride
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Total Priority Organics
Non-conventional Organics
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,4-Dioxane
1 -Methylfluorene
1 -Methylphenanthrene
2,3-Benzofluorene
2 , 3 -Dichloroaniline
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Metals 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
82
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
1
1,676
374
0
19
0
142
0
120
10
5
0
0
9,380
0
0
0
0
8
32
53
0
0
Organics
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
66
0
410
0
2
0
1
28
1
1
516
1
18,125
0
0
0
0
0
1
17
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
(CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics (continued)
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
2-Butanone
2-Methylnaphthalene
2-Phenylnaphthalene
2-Propanone
3 ,4-Dichlorophenol
3 , 5 -Dichlorophenol
3 ,6-Dimethylphenanthrene
4-Chloro-3 -methylphenol
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
Acetophenone
Alpha-terpinol
Aniline
Benzoic Acid
Benzyl Alcohol
Biphenyl
Carbazole
Carbon Bisulfide
Dibenzofuran
Dibenzothiopene
Diethyl Ether
Dibromochloromethane
Dimethyl Sulfone
Metals 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
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
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
808
45
0
0
0
90
27
0
0
0
0
0
5
4
39
375
6
8
0
0
0
Organics 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
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
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
(CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Organics (continued)
Diphenyl Ether
Ethylenethiourea
Hexanoic Acid
m-Xylene
n,n-Dimethylformamide
n-Decane
n-Docosane
n-Dodecane
n-Eicosane
n-Hexacosane
n-Hexadecane
n-Nitrosomorpholine
n-Octadecane
n-Tetracosane
n-Tetradecane
o+p-Xylene
o-Cresol
p-Cresol
p-Cymene
Pentamethylbenzene
Pyridine
Styrene
Tetrachloromethane
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethene
Tripropyleneglycol Methyl Ether
Total Non-conventional Organics
Metals 4
Direct Indirect
Discharges Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr) (Ib-eq/yr)
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
18
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
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
1
0
7
1
0
421
0
25
15
0
474
0
143
0
498
6
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
3,106
Organics
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
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
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
18,156
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
(CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Priority Metals
Antimony
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
Total Priority Metals
Non-conventional Metals
Aluminum
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Calcium
Chloride
Cobalt
Fluoride
Germanium
Iodine
Iridium
Metals 4
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
102
6,697
69,751
10,452
122,672
37,123
9,148
9,735
43
10,844
6,922
283,488
8,228
0
0
18,351
302
1,433
1,999
6,809
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
22
254
1,133
280
699
3,047
825
3,477
16
1,307
100
11,159
593
0
0
13,485
362
1,257
70
186
0
0
0
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
7
0
64
273
274
0
0
0
81
698
294
0
0
651
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
1
897
76
44
1,945
6,163
610
1,610
4
0
797
12,147
659
4
0
22,969
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organics
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
52
0
0
1,067
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
>
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-5. POST-COMPLIANCE POLLUTANT POUND-EQUIVALENT REMOVALS (Ib-eq/year)
(CONTINUED)
Pollutant of Concern
Non-conventional Metals (continued)
Iron
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zirconium
Total Non-conventional Metals
Classical Parameters
Ammonia as N
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Cyanide, Total
Total Classical Parameters
Metals 4
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
603
1,104
0
1,088
3,575
0
5,644
0
27
0
22
39,389
2,166
2,729
0
783
94,251
1,686
0
172,247
0
0
6,577
180,510
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
35
1,019
0
267
2,364
0
4,310
0
28
0
12
1,757
4
128
0
472
26,350
1,287
0
8,062
0
0
1,872
11,221
Oils 9
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
23
0
0
0
78
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1,047
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
377
0
0
278
1,438
0
0
0
0
0
0
324
1
0
0
0
26,050
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Organics
Direct
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
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
Indirect
Discharges
(Ib-eq/yr)
5
0
0
4
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,139
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
62
to
o
------- |