f/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA530-R-97-021
NTIS: PB97-176 846
February 1996
Regulatory Impact
Analysis of the
Phase III Land Disposal
Restrictions Final Rule
and Addendum: Revised
Risk Assessment for
Spent Aluminum
Potliners
Printed on paper that contains at lest 20 percent postconsumer fiber

-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE PHASE M
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTION FINAL RULE
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
Februaiy 15,1996

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	ES-1
BACKGROUND			ES-1
Characteristic Wastes Affected	ES-1
Newly Listed Wastes	ES-3
Carbamates 					 			 ES-3
Spent Aluminum Potliners	ES-3
CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES 				ES-4
Affected Characteristic Waste	ES-4
Industries with Significant Effects 	ES-5
Industries with Minor Effects 		ES-7
Limitations of Characteristic Waste Analysis 	ES-7
Newly Listed Wastes			ES-7
Carbamates										 ES-8
Spent Aluminum Potliners	ES-8
COSTS OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS FOR PHASE III WASTES	 ES-9
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 		ES-10
Characteristic Wastes	ES-10
Newly Listed Wastes			ES-11
BENEFITS ASSESSMENT			JES-12
Characteristic Wastes 	ES-13
Newly Listed Wastes 					 		.ES-14
INTRODUCTION 										....... .CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND 	1-2
LDR Program 	1-2
Phase III LDR Rule										 .1-2

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
; Paฃe
Characteristic Wastes Affected 	. . . 1-2
Regulatory Approach for Characteristic Wastes		 1-4
Newly Listed Wastes	1-5
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT 				1-6
CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES	CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING AFFECTED
QUANTITIES OF CHARACTERISTIC WASTES 		2-2
Industry Profiles	2-3
Screening Analyses 	2-4
Primary Sources	2-5
Section 308 Survey Data 	2-5
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 					 . .2-5
Secondary Sources 	2-6
Biennial Report Survey (BRS)		2-6
Industry Studies Database (ISDB) 					 . 2-6
Permit Compliance Database (PCS) 	2-6
Capacity Analysis for the Phase III RIA Rule 	2-7
Other Sources				 .2-7
Limitations of Sources 									2-7
CHARACTERISTIC WASTE RESULTS 	2-8
Industries with Significant Effects			2-9
Organic Chemicals 	2-9
Petroleum Refining	2-14
Industries with Minor Effects					2-16
Pesticide Industry 	2-16
Inorganic Chemicals 	2-17
Iron and Steel 										.2-17
Electric Power Generation				 		2-18
Electrical and Electronic Components	2-19
Food Production	2-19

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Industries with No Impacts . 		2-20
Pulp and Paper			2-20
Pharmaceuticals 	2-21
Metal Products and Machinery and Electroplating/Metal Finishing	2-21
Leather Treating			2-22
Industrial Laundries 	2-23
Industries with Inadequate Data				 2-23
Federal Facilities 	2-23
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC)			2-24
Limitations of Characteristic Waste Analysis	2-24
NEWLY LISTED WASTES 		2-25
Carbamates 				 . .2-25
Spent Aluminum Potliners 	2-26
COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS FOR PHASE m WASTES 	CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION 							3-1
Summary of Results 	3-1
CHARACTERISTIC WASTES								 . .3-3
Methodology 			3-3
Permit Modification 	3-3
Treatment to UTS					3-6
Results	3-8
Organic Chemicals 	3-9
Petroleum Refining 						3-12
NEWLY-LISTED WASTES 			3-15
Methodology 		 .3-15

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Carbamates 	3-17
Spent Aluminum Potliners 	3-17
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS . 		3-18
Methodology 	3-18
Characteristic Wastes 							.3-18
Newly-Listed Wastes	3-19
Results 						.3-20
Characteristic Wastes 	3-20
Newly-Listed Wastes	3-21
BENEFITS ASSESSMENT 				CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION 			.4-1
Scope of the Assessment	4-2
ICRT Wastes 	4-2
Newly Listed Wastes	4-3
Summary of Results			4-3
ICRT Wastes 	4-3
Newly Listed Wastes	4-5
METHODOLOGY 			.4-6
ICRT Wastes	.4-6
Loadings Reductions			4-6
Risk Assessment 			4-6
Newly Listed Wastes	4-10
Baseline Risks	4-10
Post-Regulatory Risks	4-14

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
RESULTS	.4-15
ICRT Wastes				 		4-15
Loadings Reductions	4-15
Screening Analysis Risk Assessment 	4-17
More Detailed Risk Assessment 			4-18
Newly Listed Wastes								4-20
Baseline Risks	4-20
Post-Regulatory Risks 		4-21
Incremental Risk Reduction 						 4-22

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
APPENDICES
Appendix A	Results of Screening Analyses of the Organic Chemical Industry
Appendix B	Results of Screening Analyses of the Petroleum Refining Industry
Appendix C	Results of Screening Analyses of the Pesticide Industry
Appendix D	Results of Screening Analyses of the Inorganic Chemical Industry
Appendix E	Results of Screening Analyses of the Iron and Steel Industry
Appendix F	Results of Screening Analyses of Steam Electric Generators
Appendix G Results of Screening Analyses of the Electrical and Electronic Component
Industry
Appendix H Results of Screening Analyses of the Food Industry
Appendix I Results of Screening Analyses of Metal Parts and Machinery and
Electroplating/Metal Finishing
Appendix J Results of Screening Analyses of the Pulp and Paper Industry
Appendix K Results of Screening Analyses of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Appendix L Results of Screening Analyses of Industrial Laundries
Appendix M Results of Screening Analyses of the Leather Treating Industry
Appendix N Results of Screening Analyses of Federal Facilities
Appendix O Results of Screening Analyses of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
Appendix P Approach and Results of the Screening Analyses of the Biennial Report
Survey (BRS)
Appendix Q Cost Methodology for the Organic Chemical and Petroleum Refining
Industries

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
APPENDICES (continued)
Appendix R Economic Impact Calculations
Appendix S Risk Assessment Calculations
Appendix T American Airlines Comment
Appendix U Analysis of the Effect of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
on the Affected Universe for the Petroleum Refining and Organic Chemicals
Industries

-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates the costs, economic impacts, and benefits
of the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) rule. In the Phase III LDR rule, EPA has
proposed concentration-based treatment standards for:
•	Underlying hazardous constituents in characteristic wastes managed in land-
based units (e.g., surface impoundments, underground injection control
wells). Prior to final discharge or disposal in a well, underlying hazardous
constituents in these wastes must meet universal treatment standards (UTS)
or Clean Water Act best available treatment (BAT) standards.
•	The following newly-listed wastes: carbamates (K158 through K161) and
spent aluminum potliners (K088). Hazardous constituents in these wastes
will also be required to meet UTS levels before disposal in a land-based unit.
EPA proposed Phase III LDRs in February 1995 and expects to promulgate a final Phase III rale
by early 1996.
BACKGROUND
Characteristic Wastes Affected
As part of its series of regulations governing hazardous waste land disposal, EPA
promulgated the "Third Thirds" rule on May 8,1990. This rule established treatment standards for
waste demonstrating the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. The Third Third
rule required that these wastes be decharacterized or deactivated to below characteristic levels prior
to disposal in a land-based unit. Generators could apply a number of treatment technologies,
including dilution, to decharacterize the waste.
The litigants in Chemical Waste Management (CWM) v. EPA challenged this treatment
standard, arguing that, because decharacterization would not necessarily remove or destroy the
underlying hazardous constituents in this waste, the standard was incompatible with RCRA
ES-1

-------
treatment requirements.1 On September 25, 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit determined that RCRA Section 3004(m) requires that short- and long-term risks.:
from hazardous waste be minimized either by treating or removing the hazardous constituents irt
waste, or disposing of the waste in a no-migration unit. The court also ruled that Section 3004(m)
grants EPA the authority to require treatment methods more stringent than decharacterization for
characteristic waste.2 Under this ruling, dilution, decharacterization, and subsequent management
of characteristic waste in land-based units is only permissible if EPA can demonstrate that hazardous
constituents in this waste are destroyed or treated to the same extent they would be under otherwise
applicable RCRA standards.
Based on its interpretation of the CWM vs. EPA decision, the Agency has determined that
the Phase III LDR rule must establish treatment standards for the underlying hazardous constituents
found in ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and toxicity characteristic (ICRT) wastewaters that are
managed in land-based units. The majority of this waste is treated in CWA surface impoundments,
and is already subject to treatment and monitoring requirements specified by the Clean Water Act.
Therefore, these wastes are potentially subject to two sets of regulatory requirements - those
specified under the CWA and those specified under RCRA. In developing Phase III LDRs, EPA
sought to minimize the burden and potential redundancy that dual treatment and monitoring could
cause. It therefore has proposed four compliance options. The first three apply to direct
dischargers.
•	Treat to UTS - Under this option, generators would treat underlying
hazardous constituents in characteristic waste to the UTS standard. Waste
would be required to meet this standard prior to final discharge, and facilities
would have to comply with RCRA monitoring and reporting requirements.3
Enforcement would occur solely under RCRA.
•	Modify NPDES permit to include CWA BAT standard - EPA has
determined that BAT standards developed under CWA may be equivalent
to UTS (i.e., BDAT) standards developed under RCRA. Therefore,
generators have the option of asking CWA to specify BAT levels in their
permits, in lieu of treating to UTS levels. Under this option, control
authorities would have to determine whether treatment taking place in CWA
units adequately reduces or removes the constituent in question. The
1	Chemical Waste Management Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir 1992)
2	Ibid
3	Also under consideration by EPA is the incorporation of Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) risk-based exit levels as additional or replacement treatment standards. HWIR exit levels
could be incorporated into the Phase III LDR rule in one of three ways. First, HWIR exit levels
could act as a cap on UTS levels at the point of disposal (i.e., the less stringent standard would
apply). Second, HWIR levels could replace UTS values as the point of disposal criteria for RCRA
equivalency. Or, third, HWIR exit levels could be applied only at the point of generation, most
likely in conjunction with additional point of disposal requirements. See Appendix U for an analysis
of the possible effects of incorporating HWIR exit levels into the rule.
ES-2

-------
modified permit limits would be CWA requirements enforceable solely under
that statute.
• Seek a RCRA treatability variance ~ Under this option, generators could
apply for a RCRA treatability variance if they have implemented a treatment
recognized as BAT by the CWA, and are treating UTS constituents of
concern but not achieving UTS levels.
In addition to the options cited above, indirect dischargers have a fourth compliance option.
As written in the rule, indirect dischargers also may be exempt from treating underlying hazardous
constituents to UTS or BAT levels if they can demonstrate that the POTW to which they are
sending their waste is treating these constituents to UTS or BAT levels.
EPA has proposed to grant a two year capacity variance before enforcing this rule in order
that facilities may open and modify their NPDES permits or install the treatment technology
necessary to comply with RCRA UTS levels.
Newly I .isted Wastes
The Phase III LDR rule also included treatment standards for two newly listed wastes:
carbamates and spent aluminum potliners.
Carbamates
Carbamates are the active ingredient in many pesticide products (e.g., insecticides, fungicides
and herbicides). EPA proposed listing six carbamate wastes (K156 - K161) in March 1994, and as
part of the Phase III rule includes LDRs for waste codes associated with their production. These
wastes frequently contain toxic solvents at concentrations that could present human health risks.
EPA has proposed that the underlying constituents of concern in these wastes meet UTS levels.
Spent Aluminum Potliners
Potliners are large blocks of solid carbon that line the electrolytic cells used in primary
aluminum reduction processes. Spent potliners (K088 waste) often contain higher concentrations
of fluoride and cyanide, as well as a lesser amount of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other
organics. K088 wastes were originally listed as hazardous waste in 19804; however, the Bevill
amendment deferred this listing.5 A reinterpretation of the Bevill amendment in 1988 reinstated
the initial listing.
4	45 CFR 261.32 July 16, 1980
5	The Bevill Amendment (RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)) exempts from Subtitle C regulation
all "solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals."
ES-3

-------
For K088 waste, EPA has identified several options for treatment, recycling, reclamation and
reuse. Although the Agency prefers those technologies that recycle or reclaim spent material, it
recognizes that limited data are available on the effectiveness of these technologies. The Agency
has therefore proposed numerical standards for this waste, and any technology that meets these
standards is acceptable.
CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES
Affected Characteristic Waste
Based on our analysis, we categorized industries into four groups:
•
Industries
that could be significantly affected by the rule;
•
Industries
expected to experience minor effects;
•
Industries
that will not be affected; and
•
Industries
for which we did not have sufficient data to determine effects.
In Exhibit ES-1, we present the industries in each of these categories, along with estimates of the
waste quantities affected. Appendices A through O describe in more detail the methods and results
of the screening that estimated analyses of the number of facilities and quantity of waste that may
be affected by the rule for each industry.
ES-4

-------
Exhibit ES-1

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AFFECTED
ICRT WASTE


Estimated Quantity


Affected
Number of
Industries with Major Impacts
(million tons)
Facilities Affected
Organic Chemicals (OCPSF)
24 to 95
28 to 73
Petroleum Refining
11 to 86
8 to 30
Industries with Minor Impacts


Pesticides
ซ 4
<, 1 percent of all
Inorganic Chemicals
^ 5
facilities
Iron and Steel
- 3
i 1 percent of all
Steam Electric Power Generation
ฃ 1
facilities
Electrical and Electronic Components
ฃ 3
<> 1 percent of all
Food
ฃ 10
facilities


<, 1 percent of all


facilities


<, 1 percent of all


facilities


<, 1 percent of all


facilities
Industries with No Impacts


Metal Parts and Machinery
0
0
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
0
0
Pulp and Paper
0
0
Pharmaceuticals
0
0
Industrial Laundries
0
0
Leather Treating
0
0
Industries with Inadequate Data


Federal Facilities
NA
NA
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
NA
NA
Industries with Significant Effects
We expect to see significant impacts (e.g., large quantities and a significant number of
facilities affected) in only two industry sectors - organic chemicals production and petroleum
refining.
ES-5

-------
Organic Chemicals
The Organic Chemical, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry is potentially a very
large generator of wastewaters that might be affected by the Phase III rule.6 Although no detailed
single source of concentration and quantity data exists for determining this industry's affected
wastewaters, we were able to identify potentially affected facilities through an analysis of the TRI
data and information on the percentage of facilities using surface impoundments. Our analysis
suggests that between 28 and 73 organic chemical manufacturing facilities could be affected by the
Phase III LDR rule.7 These facilities are estimated to generate between 24 and 95 million tons of
wastewaters that may exceed UTS standards. For this industry as well as others relying on analysis
of the TRI data, the resulting estimates may understate the impacts of the rale because the TRI
analysis does not consider 53 of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants of concern. The impacts of the
rule would be higher if decharacterized ICRT wastewaters managed in land-based units contain any
of these 53 pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS. Unfortunately, no data were available the
effects of the rule due to these pollutants and additional data and comments from industry on the
presence of these pollutants in wastestreams would be useful.
Petroleum Refining
To analyze the impacts of the Phase III rale on the petroleum industry, we reviewed
information on quantities of potentially affected wastewaters and on the concentrations of non-
priority pollutants in these wastes. In general, we found no single source of data that provides a
good indicator of the impacts of the Phase III rule on refiners. Instead, we ultimately were forced
to infer impacts based on analyses of the TRI data. Based on this analysis, we estimated that
between eight and 30 facilities may be discharging wastewaters containing non-priority pollutants at
above UTS levels. These facilities, which represent between four and eleven percent of the
approximately 202 direct and indirect dischargers in the industry, generate between 11 and 86
million tons per year of potentially affected wastes.
6	The OCPSF industry includes SIC codes 2821 to 2824 and 2865 to 2869.
7	The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) submitted effluent concentration data from
14 member companies listing end-of-pipe wastewater concentrations for constituents found at greater
than UTS at the point of generation. Our analysis of this data found that 7.1 percent of these
facilities would be affected (1 out of 14), whereas our analysis found that 9.7 to 17.9 percent of the
facilities would be affected (113 to 233 out of 1305). Considering the small sample size of the CMA
data, however, results from these two data sets appear to be consistent. A comparison of the non-
priority constituents found in each data set shows that all but one of the constituents listed in the
CMA sample, are also found in the TRI data. The single constituent found only in the CMA
sample, vanadium, is not included in the Toxic Release Inventory.
ES-6

-------
Industries with Minor Effects
Relying largely on TRI data and following the approach described above, we found minor
impacts in six industry sectors. We categorized these sectors as minor impact industries because
fewer than approximately one percent of all facilities in the industry are expected to discharge
wastewaters that exceed UTS concentration levels. In these industries, we estimate that relatively
small quantities of waste might be affected. These industries include the following: pesticides,
inorganic chemicals, iron and steel, electric power generation, electrical and electronic components
(EEC), and food production. EPA found that the other industries analyzed should experience no
impacts, or that data are inadequate at this time to assess impacts.
Limitations of Characteristic Waste Analysis
In general our analysis of potentially affected industries is limited by poor and incomplete
data. In most instances, data characterizing wastestreams are not available. We therefore had to
piece together information from a variety of sources in order to determine constituent
concentrations in wastestreams and whether these wastes are managed in surface impoundments.
Although this analysis represents our best estimates, we cannot be certain that we have accurately
captured all wastestreams likely to be affected. Particularly important uncertainties requiring more
or better data to resolve include;
•	Limited constituent information in TRI data ~ Of the 101 non-priority UTS
constituents that we consider in this analysis, only 48 are reported in TRI.
Also, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds annually of
TRI constituents are required to report. Both of these limitations may cause
us to underestimate the quantities of affected wastes.
•	Lack of data in TRI on I CRT waste and use of surface impoundments ~ As
we described above, much of the constituent concentration data that we
developed are based on TRI reporting. A significant limitation of these data
is that they do not include information on management in land-based units
or whether wastewaters are decharacterized ICRT wastes. This limitation
likely serves to overestimate the quantity of waste that could be affected by
the rule.
•	Poor testing for non-priority pollutants - Much of the Office of Water's
testing data collected during previous effluent guideline development efforts
was of little use in this analysis because it focused on priority pollutants.
Only in recent years have testing efforts expanded to incorporate a wider
range of contaminants. Therefore, few data exist on concentrations of non-
priority pollutants, which are the focus of this analysis. This limitation also
may cause us to underestimate the quantity of waste affected.
Newhf Listed Wastes
EPA conducted a number of analyses at the time that carbamates and spent aluminum
potliners were proposed for listing to determine the quantity of waste that would affected by new
treatment standards. These analyses, as well as studies conducted by industry, are the basis of the
estimates in this RIA.
ES-7

-------
Carbamates
In an effort to gather data in support of the carbamate listing, EPA conducted a survey in
1991 of carbamate facilities. Data collected through this survey, as well as information obtained
through other industry sampling efforts, were summarized in the capacity assessment that EPA
produced for the carbamate industry.8 This analysis served as the basis for waste quantity estimates
provided in the carbamate listing.
Based on these sources, the EPA estimates that approximately 440,000 tons of newly listed
carbamate K156 - K161 wastes are generated each year. An estimated 4,500 tons of this waste will
require additional treatment to meet UTS levels included in the Phase III LDR rule. In Exhibit ES-
2 we present the quantities associated with each waste code.
Exhibit ES-2
QUANTITY OF CARBAMATE
WASTE AFFECTED
Wastecode
Quantity (tons)
K156
0
K.157
0
K158
10
K159
0
K160
740
K161
3,700
TOTAL
4,500
In addition, small quantities of U and P commercial chemical product waste included in the
carbamate listing could be affected. EPA estimates that 13 tons of carbamate P waste and 28 tons
of carbamate U waste will require additional treatment.
Spent Aluminum Potliners
EPA and industry have conducted a number of studies to characterize aluminum production
processes and estimate the quantity of spent aluminum potliners generated annually. This analysis
draws primarily on the survey that EPA conducted in 1991, which investigated most of the 23
facilities generating this waste, and a survey of the primary aluminum production industry conducted
by the Reynolds Metal Company in 1992.9 Based on these surveys and current market conditions,
8	Draft Non-CBI Capacity Assessment for the Carbamate Industry (in support of preliminary LDR
capacity assessments), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Capacity Programs Branch, June 13,
1994.
9	Summary of Generation, Disposal and Treatment Practices for Spent Aluminum Potliners from the
Primary Reduction of Aluminum, U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Lab, March 12, 1990.
ES-8

-------
EPA estimates that 118,000 tons of K088 waste are produced annually. All of this waste will require
alternative treatment to meet UTS levels. The Capacity Analysis Branch estimates that some of this
waste currently may be thermally treated. Because we are uncertain as to the quantity of waste
undergoing treatment, we estimate the impact of LDR standards on the total generated quantity.
COSTS OF LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS FOR PHASE HI WASTES
Our analysis of Phase III rule costs considers compliance costs and economic impacts for
both the characteristic and newly listed wastes affected by the rule. These costs are summarized in
Exhibit ES-3.
In general, we expect facilities will seek permit modifications, treatability variances, or
certification of adequate POTW treatment because these compliance options can be implemented
at much lower cost than the option requiring treatment to UTS levels. We estimate the total
annualized costs of the rule for these wastes will range from approximately $197,000 to $598,000,
with the majority of the costs incurred by the organic chemicals industry. These are the costs of
sampling, analysis, and administrative processing of applications to modify Clean Water Act permits
and additional on-going monitoring of wastestreams to comply with the permits.
Exhibit ES-3

ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS OF THE
PHASE ffl LDR RULE
Waste Type
Annualized Costs
Characteristic Wastes
Organic Chemical Industry
Petroleum Refining Industry
$154,000 to $425,000
$43,000 to $173,000
Total Characteristic Wastes
$197,000 to $598,000
Newly Listed Wastes
Carbamates
Spent Aluminum Potliners
$5.5 million
$6.3 to $41.7 million
Total Newly Listed Wastes
$11.8 to $47.2 million
TOTAL Phase III Incremental Costs
$12.0 to $47.8 million
Note: These estimated costs represent the incremental costs of
the rule based on a comparison of the costs of treating and
disposing of the wastes with and without the rule.
Annualization is based on a period- of 20 years and an
interest rate of 7.0 percent.
ES-9

-------
The costs of treating the newly listed wastes to LDR standards are substantially higher and
are expected to occur each year. These costs range from approximately $11.8 million to $47.2
million per year, and are attributable primarily to thermal treatment of aluminum potliner wastes
(K088). These costs represent a substantial increase in the average expenditures on pollution
control in the aluminum industry (approximately 40 percent), but are not expected to have as
significant an impact on the total cost of producing aluminum.
Overall, the estimates presented in Exhibit ES-3 provide an accurate assessment of the
impacts of the Phase III rule, as long as generators of characteristic wastes can obtain CWA permit
modifications indicating that BAT treatment occurs for those constituents exceeding UTS levels at
the end-of-pipe. However, if this is not possible, costs of the Phase III rule could increase
significantly. We estimate that average per facility costs of treating all constituents to UTS levels
in the organic chemical industry could be as high as $1 million per year. In a sensitivity analysis,
we considered the costs of the rule under two scenarios: (1) assuming that 80 percent of the
facilities comply with the rule by obtaining permit modifications and 20 percent comply by treating
their wastes and (2) assuming that 60 percent comply by obtaining permit modifications and 40
percent comply by treating their wastes. Based on the first scenario, the estimated annualized costs
of the rule would range from $6.6 million to $18.2 million. Based on the second scenario, the
estimate annualized costs are expected to be between $12.9 million and $35.7 million. While these
costs do not represent a major increase in annual pollution control expenditures for large chemical
or petroleum refining plants, they are substantially higher than the costs of all facilities obtaining
CWA permit modifications.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE UI LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
We measure the economic impacts of the Phase III Rule by comparing the estimated costs
of regulatory compliance with the historic costs in the industry activity. Based on the results of our
cost analysis, we consider the potential economic impacts on:
•	The aluminum industry's compliance with LDR standards for spent potliners.
•	The organic chemical and petroleum refinery industry's compliance with
LDR standards for characteristic waste; and
Characteristic Wastes
For characteristic wastes, our analysis shows that the impact on organic chemical producers
and petroleum refiners will be quite minimal. Compliance costs represent less than one percent of
historic pollution control and operating costs for both of these industries. However, for those
facilities that must treat to UTS in order to comply, costs would be more significant. Here again
we emphasize that few facilities are likely to comply by treating to UTS, and that as many facilities
as possible will try to comply by modifying their permits. In Exhibit ES-4, we detail the costs and
economic impacts of this compliance option.
ES40

-------
Exhibit ES-4
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE III RULE COMPLIANCE

Historic Pollution
Control Costs
(per facility)
Historic
Operating Costs
(per facility)
Compliance
Cbsts
(per facility)10
Economic
Impact
Option 1: Modify Permit
Organic Chemical
Petroleum Refining
$3 million
111 million
$76 million
$471 million
$61,000
$61,000
S 1 percent
^ 1 percent
Newlv listed Wastes
The estimated incremental compliance costs for treating the newly-listed spent aluminum
potliners represents the majority of the costs for treating all newly listed wastes affected by the rule.
As shown in Exhibit ES-5, the incremental costs of treating spent aluminum potliners represents an
estimated 40 percent of historic pollution control operating costs for aluminum producers.11
Treatment costs represent only one percent of total historic operating costs. The difference between
the economic impact figures suggests that, while the compliance costs of the rule may pose
significant additional pollution control costs, these costs are less significant when compared to the
total operating costs, suggesting the rule has only small impacts on the price of aluminum.
Exhibit ES-5
HISTORIC OPERATING COSTS FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
Per Facility Costs
Historic Cost
(per facility)
Compliance
Costs
(per facility)
Economic
Impact
Pollution Control Operating Costs
$2.6 million
$1.0 million
40 percent
Total Operating and Management Costs
$135.6 million
$1.0 million
1 percent
10	The present value of the annualized compliance cost for permit modification is used. A period
of 20 years and an interest rate of 7.0 percent is used. In addition, the value represents an average
for costs to direct and indirect dischargers.
11	We did not consider the impact on capital costs, as the assumed compliance option (off-site
treatment) will not incur capital expenditures. It is worth noting that the majority of the 31
aluminum reduction facilities included in our historic cost estimates are large facilities (i.e., greater
than 500 employees). Therefore, historic costs for aluminum producers are not skewed towards
those of small facilities, as might be the case for organic chemical historic costs.
ES-11

-------
To analyze the effect of the Phase III rale on the domestic aluminum industry, we compared
the estimated compliance costs with average aluminum costs and prices. Based on estimated
compliance costs of $6.3 to $41.7 million, and historic annual production rates of approximately 8.1
million pounds per year, the Phase III compliance costs correspond to an incremental cost of $0,001
to $0,005 per pound.12 In relation to present average western production costs ($0,564 per
pound13), this would account for an additional 0.2 to 0.8 percent. Though these increases are not
insignificant, present aluminum profits are approximately 30.4 cents per pound (85 minus 54.6 cents),
which is 60 to 304 times greater than the incremental cost caused by the Phase III rule. Industry
analysts also estimate that prices will increase by 35 percent during the next two years. These price
increases are driven by an international market where supplies are struggling to meet demands. This
rising market suggest that competitiveness of domestic primary aluminum producers should not be
significantly harmed by the incremental costs of the Phase III rule.
BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
EPA assessed the benefits of the Phase III LDR rule for both ICRT wastes and newly listed
wastes. For ICRT wastes, the magnitude of benefits depends on the compliance option
implemented by the affected facilities. Generators of affected wastewaters will have a number of
compliance options under the rule. For direct dischargers, facilities may: (1) treat their waste to
meet UTS standards; (2) seek modifications to their CWA permits to include BAT standards for
UTS constituents; or (3) seek a treatability variance under RCRA for UTS constituents. For
indirect dischargers, a fourth option includes demonstrating that the POTW treating their
wastewater provides adequate treatment of affected pollutants.
We estimate the loadings and risk reductions likely to occur if facilities comply with the rale
under the first option (i.e., that treatment occurs). If facilities can comply under the second, third
or fourth options, loadings reductions and risk reductions may be lower or zero, depending on
whether any facilities must treat their wastes.
We evaluated the pollutant loadings reductions and risk reductions only for those industries
estimated to have major impacts, organic chemicals and petroleum refining. In addition, this
benefits assessment considered only those wastestreams expected to require treatment under the rule
(i.e., those with contaminant concentrations that exceed UTS levels). In the assessment, we used
the wastestream quantity and loadings data developed for the affected waste analysis.
Based on the results of this analysis, 20 of the 48 constituents considered were identified as
pollutants of concern (i.e., a wastestream contained this constituent at a concentration level
exceeding UTS). We were able to evaluate the risks associated with 15 of these 20 constituents;
health based criteria were not available for the other five constituents. The loadings reductions
evaluation considered all 20 constituents.
12	Estimated annual production rates are based on the average of 1982 to 1991 annual
production rates, as reported in Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups and
Industries.
13	"Aluminum Market Facing 'Hangover'," American Metal Market, February 1, 199, p. 4.
ES-12

-------
For newly listed wastes, we assessed the potential benefits of the rule by estimating the
incremental reduction in human health risks resulting from implementation of the rule. First, we
quantified the baseline risks associated with current waste management practices, which typically
consist of disposal in Subtitle C landfills. We used data on the concentration of regulated
constituents, fate and transport processes, and various exposure scenarios to calculate cancer and
noncancer risks to human health. We then compared these baseline risks to the post-regulatory risks
assuming treatment to UTS levels before disposal of spent aluminum potliners. The incremental
risk reduction is used as in indicator of the rule's benefits.
Characteristic Wastes
The results of this assessment indicate that the benefits of the rule range between very small
and zero, depending on whether facilities comply with the rule by treating their affected
wastestreams (option one) or comply by either revising their CWA permit, obtaining a treatability
variance under RCRA, or demonstrating that the POTW treating their wastestream. provides
adequate treatment of affected pollutants (options two, three, or four).
Even at the high-end (i.e., under option one), the estimated benefits are very small.
•	High-end loadings reductions range between 36 and 269 tons per year for
direct dischargers and 1,490 and 22,621 tons per year for indirect dischargers.
For direct dischargers, these loadings reductions represent a very small
percentage of total TRI chemical loadings to surface waters (0.03 to 0.20
percent). For indirect dischargers, these loadings reductions represent
between 0.8 and 11.9 percent of all TRI loadings transferred to POTWs,
•	Based on the results of the screening and more detailed risk assessments, the
estimated baseline risks associated with only four wastestreams potentially
exceed commonly assumed threshold cancer and noncancer risk levels. We
estimated that three wastestreams containing aniline pose baseline cancer
risks ranging from 1 x 10"5 to 2 x 103 which would be reduced to between 8
x 10'8 and 3 x 106 under the Phase III rule. A fourth wastestream containing
acrylamide poses baseline cancer risk at a level of 2 x 103. The rule is
estimated to reduce this risk to between 2 x 10"4 and 4 x 10"3.
These benefit estimates are based on two important assumptions that almost certainly lead
to overstatement of the net improvements in environmental quality. First, the analysis assumed that
all affected facilities comply by treating the affected wastestreams (rather than one of the other three
options). Second, the analysis did not incorporate an adjustment to reflect the fact that some of the
wastestreams identified as affected by the impacts analysis may not be managed in surface
impoundments and thus would not be affected by the rule. Such an adjustment is warranted because
the TRI data used in the affected quantities analysis does not include data on waste management
locations. Though the cost analysis used adjusted results for the number of affected facilities based
on the percentage of facilities in the industry managing wastewaters in surface water impoundments,
such an adjustment for the risk assessment would require specific information on management
practices for each affected wastestream - information we do not have.
ES-13

-------
At the same time, however, there are a number of potential benefits that we were unable
to consider. First, the TRI data that we used in the benefits assessment did not provide complete
coverage of all non-priority pollutants, TRI loadings data were available for only 48 of the 101 non-
priority constituents, and releases of less than 10,000 pounds per year were reported. Second,
certain categories of benefits could not be analyzed with available data and methods. Ecological
effects could not be considered due to the lack of water quality criteria, which in turn made it
impossible to evaluate possible impacts on recreational fishing. Furthermore, no data are available
on passive use values.
Based on available data, the benefits of regulating ICRT wastes in the Phase III rule appear
to be quite small. While inclusion of additional pollutants and benefit categories could certainly
increase the net benefits of the rule, we have no evidence suggesting that the increase is likely to
be large, particularly given the relatively small number of affected facilities and the minimal
reductions in total pollutant loadings for the 48 non-priority constituents that we were able to
analyze.
Newlv listed Wastes
We believe that that the benefits of regulating spent aluminum potliners, the only newly
listed waste examined in-depth, are likely to be small. The analysis suggests that the baseline risks
of current waste management practices are negligible under central tendency assumptions. We
believe that there is approximately a 10"8 central tendency cancer risk resulting from ingestion of
groundwater contaminated by a Subtitle C landfill. In addition, the analysis shows that the expected
daily intake of contaminated drinking water will not result in an exceedance of the reference dose
for any of the regulated constituents in spent aluminum potliners. Under more conservative high-
end assumptions, however, human health risks are higher. Individual cancer risk is approximately
10" while the reference dose is exceeded for four regulated constituents, arsenic, lead, cyanide, and
fluoride.
Examination of the post-regulatory risks indicate that there are no appreciable risks
associated with treatment of spent aluminum potliners to UTS levels. We based our assessment on
a study performed by the EPA as well as a study performed as part of a RCRA Part B permit
application submitted by Reynolds Metals Company. These two studies quantify the health risks of
wastes treated by the thermal treatment technology developed by Reynolds Metals Company. There
are, however, a number of different technologies that may be used to treat the waste. We did not
investigate the risks related to these other technologies. It should be noted that several companies
have provided EPA evidence that technologies they are developing can effectively treat spent
aluminum potliners.
Comparison of baseline and post-regulatory risks suggests that the incremental risk reduction
of the rule is likely to be small. Nevertheless, there is some chance that relatively high individual
cancer risks on the order of 10"4, as well as high noncancer risks, would be prevented by
implementation of the rule.
ES-14

-------
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1
This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) estimates the costs, economic impacts, and benefits
of the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) rule. In the Phase III LDR rule, EPA has
proposed concentration-based treatment standards for:
•	Underlying hazardous constituents in characteristic wastes managed in land-
based units (e.g., surface impoundments, underground injection control
wells). Prior to final discharge or disposal in a well, underlying hazardous
constituents in these wastes must meet universal treatment standards (UTS)
or Clean Water Act best available treatment (BAT) standards.
•	The following newly-listed wastes; carbamates (K158 through K161) and
spent aluminum potliners (K088). Hazardous constituents in these "wastes
will also be required to meet UTS levels before disposal in a land-based unit.
EPA proposed the Phase III LDRs in February 1995 and expects to promulgate a final Phase III
rule by early 1996.
In accordance with the requirements of Executive Order No. 12866, EPA must develop and
submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an RIA for any significant regulatory
action. The purpose of this document is to present the industries and wastes that will be affected
by the Phase III LDR rule, estimate the cost associated with treating those wastes to comply with
LDR standards, determine the impact that these additional treatment costs will have on facilities'
operating costs, and evaluate the human health and ecological benefits attributable to reductions in
pollutant discharges required by the rule.1
1 Under EPA's revised guidelines for implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Agency
also evaluates separately potential economic impacts of regulation on small entities. However, with
respect to the Land Disposal Restrictions program, EPA has determined that legal avenues do not
exist to provide regulatory relief to small entities. Therefore, we have not conducted a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rule. It is worth noting, however, that our results suggest that few, if any,
small entities will be affected by the Phase 3 LDR rule.
1-1

-------
BACKGROUND
I.OR Pmpram
The Phase III Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) rule is one in a series of regulations that
restricts the continued land disposal of hazardous wastes under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).2 Section 3004(g)
of RCRA outlines a schedule for the development of waste treatment and disposal practices for
wastes that EPA determines are hazardous. Under RCRA, waste is deemed hazardous either
because it demonstrates the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (ICRT
wastes), or because it contains constituents listed as hazardous by EPA.3
At the time HSWA was enacted, EPA was required to promulgate treatment and disposal
standards by May 8, 1990 for wastes already identified or listed as hazardous. EPA established
treatment standards and waste management practices for these wastes in five rules promulgated
between 1986 and 1990 (the solvents and dioxins rule, the California list rule, and the First Third,
Second Third and Third Third rules).
Treatment standards for wastes subsequently identified or listed as hazardous must be
developed by EPA within six months of waste listing or identification. EPA is addressing these
wastes in "phases." The Phase I LDR rule established standards for hazardous debris and several
newly identified wastes. The Phase II LDR rule established treatment standards for newly identified
pesticide wastes (D012 through D017) and newly identified toxic organic wastes (D018 through
DQ43). The Phase II LDR rule also established Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) for 216
constituents in hazardous waste, UTS levels, which set a common treatment standard for a
constituent across all waste types, were developed for both wastewaters and nonwastewaters based
on the best demonstrated achievable technology (BDAT) for reducing these contaminants.
Phase HI LDR Rule
Characteristic Wastes Affected
As part of its series of regulations governing hazardous waste land disposal, EPA
promulgated the "Third Thirds" rule on May 8,1990. This rule established treatment standards for
waste demonstrating the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity. The Third Third
rule required that these wastes be decharacterized or deactivated to below characteristic levels prior
to disposal in a land-based unit. Generators could apply a number of treatment technologies,
including dilution, to decharacterize the waste.
2	Land disposal includes any placement of hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment,
waste pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or
underground mine or cave.
3	Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 identifies these hazardous constituents, as well as the eleven
factors that EPA considers in determining whether the constituent poses significant human health
risks.
1-2

-------
The litigants in Chemical Waste Management (CWM) v. EPA challenged this treatment
standard, arguing that, because decharacterization would not necessarily remove or destroy the
underlying hazardous constituents in this waste, the standard was incompatible with RCRA
treatment requirements.4 On September 25, 1992, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit determined that RCRA Section 3004(m) requires that short- and long-term risks
from hazardous waste be minimized either by treating or removing the hazardous constituents in
waste, or disposing of the waste in a no-migration unit. The court also ruled that Section 3004(m)
grants EPA the authority to require treatment methods more stringent than decharacterization for
characteristic waste.5 Under this ruling, dilution, decharacterization, and subsequent management
of characteristic waste in land-based units is only permissible if EPA can demonstrate that hazardous
constituents in this waste are destroyed or treated to the same extent they would be under otherwise
applicable RCRA standards. The court opinion states:
"... where aggregation and dilution does not eliminate the characteristic, or (more
likely) does not minimize the toxicity of the constituents, then RCRA requires
further treatment."6
Wastes affected by this ruling include those managed in CWA land-based units, wastes
managed in SDWA underground injection control (UIC) wells, and waste managed in RCRA as
Subtitle D non-hazardous units.7 In its decision, the court recognized that RCRA Section 1006(b)
requires EPA to integrate provisions of RCRA with those of the CWA in order to avoid duplication
between the two statutes. Therefore, it provided the opportunity for EPA to defer to CWA
treatment standards for underlying hazardous constituents in characteristic wastes, provided these
standards are RCRA-equivalent. The court opinion states:
"If the treatment in the CWA surface impoundment succeeds in removing the
toxicity to the extent [RCRA] 3004(m) would have required, then RCRA does not
require a separate treatment regimen."8
In its decision the court vacated treatment standards for ignitable and corrosive wastes
managed in non-CWA and non-SDWA units, and remanded treatment standards for characteristic
wastes managed in CWA and SDWA units. EPA issued an interim final rule for the wastes that
were vacated under the CWM decision on May 24,1993. For those standards that were remanded,
the Agency has considered a range of regulatory options, including imposing concentration-based
4	Chemical Waste Management Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir 1992)
5	Ibid
6	Ibid p. 32
7	An analysis of the impacts on wastes managed in SDWA underground injection control (UIC)
wells being conducted by the Office of Water.
8	Ibid p. 32
1-3

-------
or technology-based standards, or requiring reductions in mass loadings of contaminants. An
important topic that EPA has considered is how to accommodate or integrate with CWA standards
in implementing new requirements, as most characteristic wastes affected by Phase III LDRs are
managed in CWA systems. EPA discussed possible regulatory options and presented preliminary
estimates of the quantity of waste potentially affected by the court decision in the document
"Supplemental Information Concerning the EPA's Potential Responses to the Court Decision on
the Land Disposal Restrictions Third Thirds Final Rule" ("Supplemental Information").9 In that
document, EPA requested that industry respond to the regulatory options presented and to the
Agency's preliminary estimates of affected quantities.
One of the fundamental problems in assessing the potential impacts of the CWM decision
has been the lack of data on concentrations of toxics in affected wastewaters. Under the Third
Thirds rule, these wastes were considered nonhazardous once decharacterized, and therefore often
were not reported by generators in hazardous waste data collection efforts like EPA's Biennial
Report Survey. Data collected by the Office of Water are also inadequate, as OW has until recently
focused on collecting data on priority pollutants.10
Regulatory Approach for Characteristic Wastes
Based on its interpretation of the CWM vs. EPA decision, the Agency has determined that
the Phase III LDR rale must establish treatment standards for the underlying hazardous constituents
found in ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and toxicity characteristic (ICRT) wastewaters that are
managed in land-based units. The majority of this waste is treated in CWA surface impoundments,
and is already subject to treatment and monitoring requirements specified by the Clean Water Act.
Therefore, these wastes are potentially subject to two sets of regulatory requirements - those
specified under the CWA and those specified under RCRA. In developing Phase III LDRs, EPA
sought to minimize the burden and potential redundancy that dual treatment and monitoring could
cause. It therefore has proposed four compliance options. The first three apply to direct
dischargers.
• Treat to UTS -- Under this option, generators would treat underlying
hazardous constituents in characteristic waste to the UTS standard. Waste
would be required to meet this standard prior to final discharge, and facilities
would have to comply with RCRA monitoring and reporting requirements.11
Enforcement would occur solely under RCRA.
9	Published in March, 1993
10	Discharge of these pollutants has been a major focus of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits, thus they are less of a concern under this rale.
11	Also under consideration by EPA is the incorporation of Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) risk-based exit levels as additional or replacement treatment standards. HWIR exit levels
could be incorporated into the Phase III LDR rule in one of three ways. First, HWIR exit levels
could act as a cap on UTS levels at the point of disposal (i.e., the less stringent standard would
apply). Second, HWIR levels could replace UTS values as the point of disposal criteria for RCRA
equivalency. Or, third, HWIR exit levels could be applied only at the point of generation, most
likely in conjunction with additional point of disposal requirements. See Appendix U for an analysis
of the possible effects of incorporating HWIR exit levels into the rale.
1-4

-------
•	Modify NPDES permit to include CWA BAT standard -- EPA has
determined that BAT standards developed under CWA may be equivalent
to UTS (i.e., BDAT) standards developed under RCRA. Therefore,
generators have the option of asking CWA to specify BAT levels in their
permits, in lieu of treating to UTS levels. Under this option, control
authorities would have to determine whether treatment taking place in CWA
units adequately reduces or removes the constituent in question. The
modified permit limits would be CWA requirements enforceable solely under
that statute.
•	Seek a RCRA treatability variance - Under this option, generators could
apply for a RCRA treatability variance if they have implemented a treatment
recognized as BAT by the CWA, and are treating UTS constituents of
concern but not achieving UTS levels.
In addition to the options cited above, indirect dischargers have a fourth compliance option.
As written in the rule, indirect dischargers also may be exempt from treating underlying hazardous
constituents to UTS or BAT levels if they can demonstrate that the POTW to which they are
sending their waste is treating these constituents to UTS or BAT levels.
EPA has proposed to grant a two year capacity variance before enforcing this rule in order
that facilities may open and modify their NPDES permits or install the treatment technology
necessary to comply with RCRA UTS levels.
Newly listed Wastes
The Phase III LDR rule also includes treatment standards for two newly listed wastes:
carbamates and spent aluminum potliners.
Carbamates
Carbamates are the active ingredient in many pesticide products (e.g., insecticides, fungicides
and herbicides). EPA proposed listing six carbamate wastes (K156 - K161) in March 1994, and as
part of the Phase III rule includes LDRs for waste codes associated with their production. These
wastes frequently contain toxic solvents at concentrations that could present human health risks.
EPA has proposed that the underlying constituents of concern in these wastes meet UTS levels.
1-5

-------
Spent Aluminum Potliners
Potliners are large blocks of solid carbon that line the electrolytic cells used inf primary
aluminum reduction processes. Spent potliners (K088 waste) often contain higher concentrations
of fluoride and cyanide, as well as a lesser amount of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons dnd other
organics. K088 wastes were originally listed as hazardous waste in 198012; however, the Bevill
amendment deferred this listing.13 A reinterpretation of the Bevill amendment in 1988 reinstated
the initial listing.
For K088 waste, EPA has identified several options for treatment, recycling, reclamation and
reuse. Although the Agency prefers those technologies that recycle or reclaim spent material, it
recognizes that limited data are available on the effectiveness of these technologies. The Agency
has therefore proposed numerical standards for this waste, and any technology that meets these
standards is acceptable.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
The remainder of this report presents the methodology and results of this regulatory impact
analysis as follows:
Chapter 2 Discusses constituents and waste quantities affected by the rule.
Chapter 3 Presents the estimated compliance cost and economic impacts for those
industry sectors affected by the rule.
Chapter 4

Describes the benefits of the rule.
Appendix
A
Results of Screening Analyses of the Organic Chemical Industry
Appendix
B
Results of Screening Analyses of the Petroleum Refining Industry
Appendix
C
Results of Screening Analyses of the Pesticide Industry
Appendix
D
Results of Screening Analyses of the Inorganic Chemical Industry
Appendix
E
Results of Screening Analyses of the Iron and Steel Industry
Appendix
F
Results of Screening Analyses of Steam Electric Generators
Appendix
G
Results of Screening Analyses of the Electrical and Electronic Component
Industry
12	45 CFR 261.32 July 16, 1980
13	The Bevill Amendment (RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(A)(ii)) exempts from Subtitle C regulation
all "solid wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals."
1-6

-------
Appendix H Results of Screening Analyses of the Food Industry
Appendix I Results of Screening Analyses of Metal Parts and Machinery and
Electroplating/Metal Finishing
Appendix J	Results of Screening Analyses of the Pulp and Paper Industry
Appendix K	Results of Screening Analyses of the Pharmaceutical Industry
Appendix L	Results of Screening Analyses of Industrial Laundries
Appendix M	Results of Screening Analyses of the Leather Treating Industry
Appendix- N	Results of Screening Analyses of Federal Facilities
Appendix O Results of Screening Analyses of the Transportation Equipment Cleaning
Industry
Appendix P Approach and Results of the Screening Analyses of the Biennial Report
Survey (BRS)
Appendix Q Cost Methodology for the Organic Chemical and Petroleum Refining
Industries
Appendix R Economic Impact Calculations
Appendix S Risk Assessment Calculations
Appendix T American Airlines Comment
Appendix U Analysis of the Effect of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR)
on the Affected Universe for the Petroleum Refining and Organic Chemicals
Industries
1-7

-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF AFFECTED WASTES
CHAPTER 2
The first step in assessing the costs, economic impacts and benefits of the Phase III LDR
rule is to determine the constituents and waste quantities that will be affected. The Phase III rule
includes standards for underlying toxic constituents in the following characteristic wastes:
•	Ignitable (D001), corrosive (D002) and reactive (D003) characteristic
wastewaters managed in Clean Water Act (CWA) and CWA-equivalent
wastewater treatment systems, and underground injection control (UIC)
systems;1
•	Characteristic pesticide wastewaters (D012 - D017 wastes) managed in CWA,
CWA-equivalent, and UIC systems; and
•	Toxic organic wastes (D018 - D043 wastes) managed in CWA, CWA-
equivalent, and UIC systems2.
The Phase III LDR rule also establishes standards for several newly listed wastes managed in land-
based units, including:
•	Carbamate wastes (K156 - K161);
•	Spent aluminum potliners (K088 wastes).
In this chapter we discuss the methodology and sources that we used to estimate the number
of facilities and quantity of ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and toxic (ICRT) waste affected by the rule,
followed by our results for these wastes. We then review our approach for estimating the quantities
of newly-listed waste affected and the results of this analysis.
1	Air emissions from these wastes, as well as impoundment leaks and sludges generated during
management of these wastes, will be regulated under the Phase IV LDR rule.
2	The Phase II LDR rule regulates pesticide (D012 - D017) and TC organic (D018 - D043)
wastewaters, nonwastewaters, soil and debris with the exception of those wastewaters managed in
CWA, CWA-equivalent and UIC systems.
2-1

-------
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING AFFECTED
QUANTITIES OF CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
Characteristic waste is generated in significant quantities by many different industries.
Corrosive wastewaters in particular are produced by a wide variety of processes and industries, and
include commonly used cleaning solvents, blowdown from industry boilers and scrubbers, and acids
and alkalis used in formulating chemicals, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, and pesticides. Toxic organic
wastewaters are also very common among all industries that use or produce organic constituents in
their processes. In Exhibit 2-1 below, we present the definition of each type of characteristic waste
covered by this rule, and some examples of the industries in which they are generated.
Exhibit 2-1
DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
Waste
Definition
Industries or Processes
Ignitable Waste (D001)
Flash point less than 60ฐ C; capable
of causing fire through friction under
standard temperature and pressure.
Organic chemical production, laboratories
and hospitals, paint manufacturing, cosmetics
and fragrances, pulp and paper, construction
Corrosive Waste (D002)
Has a pH less than or equal to 2, or
greater than or equal to 12.5.
Organic chemical production, laboratories
and hospitals, cosmetics and fragrances,
equipment cleaning, soaps and detergents,
electronics manufacturing, iron and steel
production, pulp and paper
Reactive Waste (D003)
Normally unstable; reacts violently
with water or forms potentially
explosive mixtures with water.
Organic chemical production, petroleum
refining
Toxic Organic Waste
(D012 -D043)3
Contains toxic constituents in excess
of regulatory level.
Organic chemical production, plastics,
pesticide production, petroleum refining,
waste management and refuse systems
While many industries generate ICRT waste, not all facilities will be affected by the Phase
III rule. Only those facilities that generate ICRT waste that is managed in a land-based unit and
that contains constituents present above UTS levels and not currently regulated by the CWA could
be subject to additional treatment. '
3 Note that the Phase III rule does not apply to D004 through D011 wastes (i.e., toxic metals).
2-2

-------
Industry Profiles
In developing this RIA, EPA focused on the impact of Phase III LDRs in 16 industry
sectors. Because so many industries are potentially affected by this rule, it was not possible to
develop an individual industry profile for each sector. Therefore, EPA developed a set of criteria
which it used to identify the 16 industries that were studied in detail. These criteria were:
•	Quantify of waste reported in the Biennial Report Survey (BRS) ~ Every two
years, as required by RCRA, states submit Biennial Reports to EPA
summarizing information on hazardous waste generation, treatment, and
disposal practices. EPA evaluated and selected for further analysis
manufacturing sectors that are responsible for at least one percent of total
quantities reported in the BRS. These include organic chemicals (OCPSF),
inorganic chemicals, petroleum refining, pulp and paper, metal parts and
machinery manufacture, and iron and steel.
•	Number of land-based treatment units - Another measure of the potential
impact on an industry is its use of surface impoundments as treatment units.
Based on an analysis of the PCS database, EPA identified several additional
industry sectors in which surface impoundments are common, and which
might produce ICRT waste. These include the food industry, electric power
producers, and federal facilities.
•	Prevalence of ICRT wastes - Based on industry knowledge and discussion
with Office of Water experts, EPA also chose to develop profiles for leather
treating, electroplating and metal finishing, pesticides, and transportation
equipment cleaning, as these processes are known to produce ICRT waste.
•	Response to EPA information requests - One indicator of the facilities most
likely to be affected by Phase III are comments to the Third Thirds court
decision and the Notice of Data Availability (NODA), responses to EPA
requests for information, and participation in EPA meetings on possible
regulatory approaches. Several industry sectors have shown significant
interest in contributing to discussion on waste management approaches, and
have made clear to EPA that their facilities may be affected by changes in
treatment standards for ICRT wastes. These industries include chemical
manufacturing, pulp and paper manufacturing, petroleum refining, electric
power generation and pharmaceuticals. Their interest confirms many of the
selections made using the other criteria.
In Exhibit 2-2 we present the industries and industrial processes for which EPA developed
specific profiles for the Phase III LDR rule. These are expected to capture the majority of wastes
affected by the Phase III rule because they represent more than 90 percent of the wastes reported
in the BRS, and significant quantities of wastes managed large CWA systems.
2-3

-------
Exhibit 2-2
INDUSTRY CATEGORIES ANALYZED
• Organic Chemicals (OCPSF)
•
Industrial Laundries
• Inorganic Chemicals
•
Metal Products and Machinery
• Pulp and Paper
•
Electroplating/Metal Finishing
• Electrical and Electronic Components
•
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
• Electric Power Generation
•
Food
• Iron and Steel
•
Federal Facilities
• Petroleum Refining
•
Pesticides
• Pharmaceuticals
•
Leather Treating
Screening Analyses
After identifying industry sectors for in-depth analysis, EPA reviewed potentially useful data
gathered in support of CWA and RCRA rales. Although our approach varied somewhat among the
different industries based on data availability and the sources we used, our preferred methodology
was to:
•	Determine the percentage of an industry's wastewater that was likely to be
ICRT;
•	Examine the industry's use of land-based units and determine the quantity
of ICRT waste likely to be treated in these units;
•	Examine data on industry wastewaters to determine the presence of UTS
constituents; and
•	Compare available concentration data to UTS levels for these constituents,
or in the absence of such data, develop estimates of concentrations based on
loadings reported in Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) database and on industry
wastewater flow rates.
In our analysis, we focus on determining the concentrations of UTS constituents that are not
priority pollutants, and compare these concentrations to UTS levels. We do not consider priority
pollutants in our analysis because these constituents are expected to be adequately controlled under
the Clean Water Act's BAT standards. Of the 216 UTS constituents, 101 are non-priority pollutants.
2-4

-------
Due to the fact that no single data source contained all the information necessary to assess
the potential impacts of this rule, EPA's approach was to evaluate many sources that might contain
relevant, if limited, information on these wastes. Below, we briefly describe these analyses and
sources, explaining both their usefulness and limitations.
Primary Sources
Section 308 Survey Data
Under Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, the Office of Water (OW) collects data to
support the development of effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards. Section 308 data
include constituent concentration measures at a facility's final discharge point to receiving waters
or to a POTW. Earlier Section 308 surveys focused only on concentrations of the 126 contaminants
known as priority pollutants; however, in recent years, effluent sampling efforts have expanded to
evaluate a wider range of contaminants. We were able to use recent Section 308 data to analyze
the pulp and paper industry, pharmaceuticals, and metal parts and machinery manufacturing.
One limitation of the Section 308 data is that decharacterized ICRT wastes are not explicitly
identified. However, pH levels prior to treatment are often measured. We relied on this indicator
and expert knowledge of the industry to determine whether wastewaters might be ICRT. Data on
whether or not wastewaters are managed in a surface impoundment are also limited. We relied on
other sources, such as the Industry Studies Database, the Permit Compliance System, and the
knowledge of industry experts to make judgments about impoundment use.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
The TRI database was developed in compliance with the Emergency Planning and Right to
Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. It contains information on loadings of 320 contaminants released to
air, land, and water. Forty-eight of these contaminants are also among the set of 101 non-priority
UTS constituents that we considered for this analysis. Applying upper and lower bound estimates
of industry-specific total wastewater flows, we used TRI data to identify facilities almost certain to
have effluent concentrations greater than UTS (i.e., UTS exceedences even at very high wastewater
flows) and facilities that might have exceedences (i.e., UTS exceedences at very low wastewater
flows). Applying this method, we established upper and lower bounds on the numbers of affected
facilities in the organic and inorganic chemical industries, electrical and electronic component
manufacturers, the iron and steel industry, petroleum refining, pesticides, leather treating, and food
production industries.
This analysis provided an indication of the wastestreams that might exceed UTS levels for
each industry. However, TRI does not provide any indication of an industry's use of land-based
units or whether wastestreams are ICRT. As noted above, we considered information from other
sources to evaluate the number of facilities within these industries that would likely treat ICRT
wastewaters in surface impoundments. Also, only those facilities generating more than 10,000
pounds annually of TRI constituents are required to report to TRI. This may cause us to
underestimate the number of facilities potentially affected.
2-5

-------
Secondary Sources
Biennial Report Survey (BRS)
The 1991 Biennial Report Survey provides the most recent summaries available on waste
management practices at the individual wastestream and facility level. Approximately 85 percent
of the waste reported in the BRS comes from the Chemical and Allied Products and the Petroleum
and Coal Products industries (SIC codes 28 and 29). From the perspective of this RIA, the major
deficiency of the BRS is its failure to include any data on concentrations of toxic constituents in the
waste. As a result, reliance on the BRS alone does not allow an assessment of which ICRT wastes
do not meet UTS levels. Moreover, the BRS does not include many wastes that were diluted
immediately upon generation and therefore not reported to EPA as hazardous waste.4 However,
the BRS does provide an indication of the industries that generate ICRT waste and manage these
wastewaters in land-based units. The database was therefore most helpful in determining which
industries to include in this analysis. Data in the BRS also served as a reference point against which
to evaluate estimates that we developed from other sources (see Appendix P).
Industry Studies Database (ISDB)
The ISDB has been developed by EPA over a number of years in conjunction with hazardous
waste listings. Information collected in support of listings is compiled in the ISDB, and includes
data on loadings of some priority and non-priority pollutants for several industry sectors. The
primary limitation of this database is that it tends to contain data on subsectors of industries, rather
than an industry as a whole. Also, much of the information contained in the database is old (e.g.,
from the early to mid-1980s). Nonetheless, for certain industry sectors (e.g., organic chemicals) the
ISDB contains potentially useful information on wastewater flows. We used this information along
with that from other sources to develop estimates on the quantity of waste passing through land-
based units.
Permit Compliance Database (PCS)
The Permit Compliance System (PCS) database is maintained by the Office of Wastewater
Enforcement and Compliance to track the permit, compliance, and enforcement status of facilities
regulated by NPDES. The database contains information on "major" facilities that discharge
wastewaters directly to surface waters. Discharges from these major facilities account for
approximately 80 percent of the total wastewater discharges to U.S. surface waters. Data for the
smaller facilities that account for the remaining 20 percent of discharges are very incomplete. Also,
data on treatment methods are limited, and PCS does not explicitly identify ICRT wastes.
Therefore, we used the PCS database primarily to obtain a current count of the number of facilities
with discharge permits in each industry sector and the number of land-based units in each of these
sectors.
4 In fact, such wastes should have been included in the BRS; however EPA discussions with
industry suggest this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
2-6

-------
Capacity Analysis for the Phase III RIA Rule
The goal of EPA's capacity analysis (conducted by EPA's Capacity Programs Branch (CPB))
was to determine the annual quantity of waste that would require additional treatment under the
Phase III rule, and whether sufficient capacity exists to treat these wastes. Based on the Capacity
Analysis conducted for this rule, EPA has decided to issue a two-year capacity variance for
characteristic wastes requiring additional treatment. This will allow industry to maintain its current
waste management practices for a two year period, during which facilities can establish additional
treatment capabilities. In some cases, we used industry profiles developed for the capacity analysis
results as background information sources.
Other Sources
In developing this rule, the Office of Solid Waste worked closely with the Office of Water
to assess regulatory options and resolve implementation issues associated with imposing RCRA rules
on CWA systems. OSW also drew on Office of Water knowledge about wastewaters and CWA
treatment systems to help determine the constituents and waste quantities that might require
additional treatment to meet UTS levels at the point of discharge. EPA also considered information
provided by industry in meetings and in comments to the docket.
Limitations of Sources
While each of the sources described here yielded some valuable information, historical
generator reporting patterns and the differences in CWA and RCRA reporting requirements limit
their usefulness. Two important general limitations that we encountered include:
• Generator reporting patterns — Under the original Third Thirds rule, ICR
wastes were not considered hazardous once decharacterized. Therefore, in
responding to RCRA surveys (e.g., the BRS), generators have frequently not
reported characteristic waste among their hazardous waste streams,
particularly if the waste was decharacterized near the point of generation.
Also, facilities may not have reported in RCRA surveys those characteristic
wastes managed in CWA systems. The result is that RCRA data sources
probably underestimate the quantity of characteristic waste generated. In
addition, since underlying constituents in these wastes previously did not
require treatment, information on the concentration of these pollutants is
typically very incomplete. In Appendix T we provide a comment submitted
to the NODA docket by American Airlines. This comment provides an
example of a generator that is likely to be affected by the Phase III LDR
rule, but who may not have been included among EPA's hazardous waste
data collection efforts.5
5 Refer to pp 3-4 on this comment for a description of the wastewaters and processes that could
be affected by the rule.

-------
•	CWA v. RCRA reporting practices ~ CWA sources generally do not
differentiate formerly characteristic wastes from other types of waste (i.e.,
they do not carry RCRA "D" codes). Thus, while data available through
recent CWA surveys have good constituent concentration data, it was difficult
to determine whether these wastes were ICRT. Also, CWA survey data for
most of the industries we are evaluating measure only priority pollutants.
Since most of these pollutants are controlled through NPDES permits or
effluent guidelines, the focus of the Phase III rule is on UTS constituents
that are not priority pollutants. Data on these constituents are sparse.
•	Coverage of non-priority UTS constituents by TRI - The TRI database was
the primary data source used in estimating the number of affected facilities
for eight of the 16 industries analyzed. TRI data only cover 48 of the 101
non-priority UTS constituents of concern for the rule. Therefore, the
estimated impacts of the rule could be greater if facilities manage ICRT
wastewaters containing any of the other 53 constituents at concentrations
exceeding UTS in land-based units.
CHARACTERISTIC WASTE RESULTS
Based on our analysis, we categorized industries into four groups:
•	Industries that could be significantly affected by the rule;
•	Industries expected to experience minor effects;
•	Industries that will not be affected; and
•	Industries for which we did not have sufficient data to determine effects.
In Exhibit 2-3, we present the industries in each of these categories, along with estimates of the
waste quantities affected. Appendices A through O describe in more detail the methods and results
of the screening that estimated analyses of the number of facilities and quantity of waste that may
be affected by the rule for each industry.
2-8

-------
Exhibit 2-3

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES AFFECTED
I CRT WASTE


Estimated Quantity


Affected
Number of
Industries with Major Impacts
(million tons)
Facilities Affected
Organic Chemicals (OCPSF)
24 to 95
28 to 73
Petroleum Refining
11 to 86
8 to 30
Industries with Minor Impacts


Pesticides
ซ 4
^ 1 percent of all facilities
Inorganic Chemicals
<; 5
^ 1 percent of all facilities
Iron and Steel
ซ 3
^ 1 percent of all facilities
Steam Electric Power Generation
s* 1
^ 1 percent of all facilities
Electrical and Electronic Components
ฃ 3
<. 1 percent of all facilities
Food
10
<, 1 percent of all facilities
Industries with No Impacts


Metal Parts and Machinery
0
0
Electroplating and Metal Finishing
0
0
Pulp and Paper
0
0
Pharmaceuticals
0
0
Industrial Laundries
0
0
Leather Treating
0
0
Industries with Inadequate Data


Federal Facilities
NA
NA
Transportation Equipment Cleaning
NA
NA
Industries with Significant Effects
We expect to see significant impacts (e.g., large quantities and a significant number of
facilities affected) in only two industry sectors ~ organic chemicals production and petroleum
refining.
Organic Chemicals
The Organic Chemical, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry is potentially a very
large generator of wastewaters that might be affected by the Phase III rule.6 Although no detailed
single source of concentration and quantity data exists for determining this industry's affected
5 The OCPSF industry includes SIC codes 2821 to 2824 and 2865 to 2869.
2-9

-------
wastewaters, we were able to identify potentially affected facilities through an analysis of the TRI
data and information on the percentage of facilities using surface impoundments. Our analysis
suggests that between 28 and 73 organic chemical manufacturing facilities could be affected by the
Phase III LDR rule.7 These facilities are estimated to generate between 24 and 95 million tons of
wastewaters that may exceed UTS standards. As discussed earlier, for this industry as well as others
relying on an analysis of the TRI data, the resulting estimates may understate the impacts of the rule
because the TRI analysis does-not consider 53 of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants of concern.
The impacts of the rule would be higher if decharacterized ICRT wastewaters managed in land-
based units contain any of these 53 pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS. Unfortunately, no
data were available the effects of the rule due to these pollutants and additional data and comments
from industry on the presence of these pollutants in wastestreams would be useful.
In developing our analysis of Phase III rule impacts on the organic chemical industry, we
reviewed a wide variety of sources of information on the industry's wastewaters. As a first step in
our evaluation, we looked at data from the BRS. According to this survey, approximately 33.5
million tons of ICRT waste was managed in land-based units during 1991. Our discussions with
industry representatives, however, suggest that this number does not include large quantities of
decharacterized waste managed in CWA systems. Representatives of the Chemical Manufacturers
Association estimate that approximately 282 million tons of formerly ICR wastes are managed in
123 impoundments by their ten largest members.8 A review of the PCS database confirmed that
a large quantity of wastewaters may be managed in land-based units by facilities in this industry.
Of the 200 facilities reporting treatment data in PCS, we estimated that 88 facilities managed
wastewaters in land-based units (in 234 units).9 Scaling up from the known quantity in 123
impoundments, we estimated that the 234 units included in PCS could manage in excess of 500
million tons of formerly ICRT waste per year.10 This quantity could be greater if we considered
facilities not addressed in the PCS data (e.g., indirect dischargers and facilities not reporting
treatment data).
7	The Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) submitted effluent concentration data from
14 member companies listing end-of-pipe wastewater concentrations for constituents found at greater
than UTS at the point of generation. Our analysis of this data found that 7.1 percent of these
facilities would be affected (1 out of 14), whereas our analysis found that 9.7 to 17.9 percent of the
facilities would be affected (113 to 233 out of 1305). Considering the small sample size of the CMA
data, however, results from these two data sets appear to be consistent. A comparison of the non-
priority constituents found in each data set shows that all but one of the constituents listed in the
CMA sample, are also found in the TRI data. The single constituent found only in the CMA
sample, vanadium, is not included in the Toxic Release Inventory.
8	See memorandum entitled "Potential Impact on Industries Affected by the Third Third Court
Decision" prepared by IEc for the U.S. EPA Office of Policy Analysis, March 10, 1994.
9	Reporting of treatment data in PCS is voluntary. Our estimates of the percentage of facilities
using land-based units for this industry, as well as others analyzed in this chapter, are based on an
analysis identifying facilities using treatment types likely to occur in land-based units for those
facilities reporting treatment data.
10	CMA representatives were not comfortable with this extrapolation because the data used are
based on a sample of ten facilities that are not meant to be representative of the entire industry.
However, CMA was unable to suggest a better method for evaluating total impacts.
2-10

-------
We also reviewed available Section 308 data, consulting information collected in support of
the OCPSF effluent guidelines, which were finalized in 1987, Although these data provided what
we believe to be applicable information on industry flow rates, effluent sampling and constituent
data focused primarily on priority pollutants.
Due to a lack of Section 308 data on non-priority UTS constituents in the OCPSF sector,
we relied largely on TRI data to predict which facilities might have wastewaters containing non-
priority UTS pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS levels. To convert TRI information (which
is reported as the annual number of pounds of constituent released to surface water or to POTWs)
to concentration estimates, we needed to establish a range of wastewater flow rates for the industry.
As described above, we used a high flow rate to identify facilities that were quite likely to exceed
UTS levels and a low flow rate to identify additional facilities that might possibly be above UTS
levels. In the case of direct dischargers, we used 100,000 gallons per day as an estimate of the low
flow rate, which is an approximate minimum for facilities with surface impoundments. For the high
flow scenario, we used 5.53 million gallons a day for direct dischargers, which according to the ISDB
represents industry flow at the 95th percentile. For indirect dischargers, we relied on a study
conducted in 1992 to estimate; (1) a low flow rate of 100,000 gallons per day (again, this is the
minimum flow rate at which we would expect to see surface impoundment use); and (2) a high flow
of two million gallons per day.11
Using these estimates of total flows, we projected annual allowable loadings at UTS levels
and compared these with reported TRI loadings to identify facilities that would face problems. For
example, under the indirect discharger high flow scenario (2 million gallons per day) and using the
UTS level for acetone of 0.28 mg/1, we calculated an annual acetone maximum permissible loading
of 1,706 pounds per year.12 We next compared this loading to loadings reported in TRI, which are
calculated based on end-of-pipe discharges to surface water or POTWs. For acetone, we found that
34 facilities had loadings greater than 1,706 pounds per year. Thus, even at these very high flow
rates, we would still expect a certain number of facilities might have problems meeting UTS levels.
This establishes an approximate lower bound on potential impacts. The low flow assumption is used
to identify additional facilities that may have trouble meeting UTS, although the precise number will
depend on the facilities' actual wastewater flows, information not available for this analysis.
11	Draft OCPSF Industrial User Compliance Evaluation Report, prepared by SAIC for the U.S.
EPA Office of Water, September 1992. This report collected data from regional and state
enforcement offices on 555 indirect dischargers, and evaluated flow data from 84 of these facilities.
12	Two million gallons per day equals 7.57 million liters per day. At a concentration of 0.28
mg/liter, this volume contains 2.1 kilograms of acetone, or 4.67 pounds. Multiplied by 365 days per
year this equals 1,706 pounds of acetone.
2-11

-------
In Exhibit 2-4 we present the constituents with the greatest number of exceedences at the
lower flow rate (i.e., 100,000 gallons per day). For example, among direct dischargers we found a
total of 105 UTS exceedences, of which 27 (or 26 percent) were exceedences for methanol. We
found 297 exceedences among indirect dischargers, of which 85 (or 29 percent) were exceedences
for methanol. The constituents with frequent exceedences are found in many solvents commonly
used in the chemical industry. It is worth noting that these constituents were among those most
frequently detected in other industry sectors as well.
Exhibit 2-4
AFFECTED CONSTITUENTS IN THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Constituent
Percent of Occurrences13

Direct Discharge
Indirect Discharge
Methanol
26
29
Acetone
16
17
Xylene
10
10
Aniline
6
6
Methyl isobutyl ketone
1
4
Methyl ethyl ketone (MEK)
6
5
Methyl methacrylate
5
5
n-Butanoi
3
5
We completed the TRI analysis for each of the 48 non-priority pollutants reported in TRI
and found that:
•	Eight direct dischargers, 102 indirect dischargers, and three facilities that are
both are likely to have trouble meeting UTS standards given that they exceed
UTS standards for at least one constituent even in the high flow scenario;
and
•	An additional 49 direct dischargers, 68 indirect dischargers, and three
facilities that are both might have trouble meeting UTS standards, although
detailed site-specific flow information is needed to determine the actual
number of facilities affected.
13 Based on a total of 105 UTS exceedences among direct dischargers, and 297 UTS exceedences
among indirect dischargers.
2-12

-------
These estimates are based on total wastewater flows, rather than on ICRT wastewaters that
pass through land-based units. A key unknown in our analysis is the extent to which the TRI
facilities are discharging formerly characteristic wastes to land-based units. Data are not readily
available for us to make this check. Other sources, however, suggest that assuming all TRI
exceedences of UTS occur in land-based units managing decharacterized waste may overstate the
actual impacts of the Phase III rule. For example, process data collected in support of the most
recent Office of Water effluent guideline development process suggest that approximately 21 percent
of all indirect dischargers use surface impoundments, while approximately 60 percent of direct
dischargers use these units.14 These data were collected in the mid-1980s, and comments from
representatives of the OCPSF industry suggest that surface impoundment use has likely declined
since that time. Nonetheless, these percentages correspond reasonably well to estimates of surface
impoundment use developed from the PCS database; these estimates span the estimated range based
on PCS. We estimated that 21 to 44 percent of the facilities reporting treatment data in PCS use
surface impoundments.
If only 21 percent of indirect dischargers and 60 percent of the direct dischargers with UTS
exceedences in TRI actually use surface impoundments, the impacts of the Phase III rule would be
reduced substantially.
•	At high flow rates, 7 direct dischargers (60 percent of 11) and 21 indirect
dischargers (21 percent of 102) could have exceedences for at least one UTS
constituent; and
•	At low flow rates, an additional 29 direct dischargers and 14 indirect
dischargers could have exceedences for at least one UTS constituent.15
To determine the quantity of waste that would be affected in these industries, we multiplied
the number of direct and indirect dischargers affected by the mean daily discharge total wastewater
flow rate for both types of facilities. Using these figures, we estimate that 24 to 95 million tons of
wastewater could exceed UTS levels each year.16
14	Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, New Source
Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic
Fibers Point Source Category, Volume I and II, U.S. EPA Office of Water, October 1987.
15	These estimates classify facilities that are both direct and indirect dischargers as direct
dischargers.
16	High flow scenario: 7 direct dischargers at mean flow rate of 1.37 million gallons per day
(mgd) = 9.6 mgd; 22 indirect dischargers at 280,000 g/day = 6.2 mgd. Converting this total to tons
yields: 15.8 mgd x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per gallon = 24.0 million tons per year. Low
flow scenario: 40 direct dischargers at 1.37 mgd = 54.8 mgd; 36 indirect dischargers at 280,000
gallons per day = 10.1 mgd. Converting this total to tons yields: 64.9 mgd x 365 days per year
0.004171 tons per gallon = 98.8 million tons per year.
2-13

-------
The application of the surface impoundment use percentages to the TRI data creates some
important uncertainties. Specifically, we have no way of knowing whether the distribution of land-
based units at TRI facilities with likely or potential exceedences of UTS levels is the same as for the
industry as a whole. In the absence of better data, however, we believe applying the overall
chemical industry impoundment percentages provides the best estimate of the Phase III rule's
impacts.
Petroleum Refining
To analyze the impacts of the Phase III rule on the petroleum industry, we reviewed
information on quantities of potentially affected wastewaters and on the concentrations of non-
priority pollutants in these wastes. In general, we found no single source of data that provides a
good indicator of the impacts of the Phase III rule on refiners. Instead, we ultimately were forced
to infer impacts based on analyses of the TRI data. Based on this analysis, we estimated that
between eight and 30 facilities may be discharging wastewaters containing non-priority pollutants at
above UTS levels. These facilities, which represent between four and eleven percent of the
approximately 202 direct and indirect dischargers in the industry, generate between 11 and 86
million tons per year of potentially affected wastes.
An initial step in analyzing the petroleum refining industry was to review all available sources
of information on ICRT wastewater quantities and concentrations of non-priority pollutants in these
wastes. According to the 1991 BRS, approximately 4.3 million tons of ICRT waste was managed
in land-based units. However, as a result of discussions with petroleum industry representatives and
a review of Office of Water data, we believe this is an underestimate of potentially affected
quantities. In particular, our sources suggest that the BRS does not include potentially large
quantities of hazardous wastewaters that were decharacterized near the point of generation. Office
of Water sources confirm that the petroleum industry manages very large quantities of wastewaters
in land-based units. According to PCS, 52 percent of facilities reporting treatment data manage
wastewaters in land-based units. Assuming average industry flows of approximately 3.2 million
gallons per day among direct dischargers (based on ISDB data), this industry could be managing
almost 336 million tons of wastewater in surface impoundments each year. Even if only a small
percentage of these include decharacterized wastes, the potentially affected quantities of
decharacterized ICRT wastewaters could be significant.
Data on concentrations of non-priority constituents in refinery wastewaters were sparse.
Data used to support the 1982 effluent guidelines did not include sampling for non-priority
pollutants. More recent sampling to support the development of new effluent guidelines did contain
some data on the non-priority pollutants, and suggested that some facilities would have problems
meeting UTS levels.17 However, these newer data were not extensive enough to permit
generalizations about the industry as a whole.
17 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Summary Report of Results of Effluent
Limitation Guidelines and Standards Special Study Review of the Petroleum Refining Industry,
publication pending.
2-14

-------
In the absence of detailed quantity and concentration data, we relied instead on an analysis
of the TRI data similar to the one described above for the organic chemical industry. Using
wastewater flow data from the Industry Studies Database (ISDB), we selected high and low effluent
flow rates to establish upper and lower bounds on the number of facilities exceeding UTS levels for
non-priority pollutants reported in TRI, For direct dischargers we used a low flow rate of 250,000
gallons per day and a high rate of 10 million gallons a day. For indirect dischargers, we used a low
flow rate of 200,000 gallons per day and a high of 1.77 million gallons per day. These low-end and
high-end flows are based on the 5th and 95th percentile values for facilities in that database.18
Applying these assumptions, we found that:
•	Sixteen facilities are likely to exceed UTS levels for xylenes, pyridine,
acetone, methanol, and cresols given that they have exceedences even at the
dilution rates assumed in the high flow scenario; and
•	42 additional facilities might exceed UTS levels for xylenes, methyl ethyl
ketone, pyridine, acetone, barium, cresols and methanol, although this will
depend on the actual wastewater flow at each facility.
We adjusted this estimated range of the number of affected facilities to reflect the number of
facilities likely to manage wastewaters in surface impoundments. We estimated that 52 percent of
petroleum refining facilities use surface impoundments based on the PCS database. Applying this
52 percent to the TRI analysis, we estimated that eight to 30 facilities may be affected by the rule.
In addition, we estimated that the quantity of wastewater generated by these facilities ranges from
10.7 to 86.2 million tons per year.19 This estimated range is based on an average flow rate for
direct dischargers of 3.22 million gallons per day and indirect dischargers of 720,000 gallons per
day.20
18	The 5th percentile of a range of values (e.g., flow rates for facilities in ISDBs) means that 95
percent of the values in the range are greater than that value. Similarly, the 95th percentile means
that five percent of the values are greater than that value.
19	In discussion with a petroleum refining industry trade association, it indicated that 100 million
tons per year was a reasonable estimate of the quantity of waste potentially affected by the rule.
Our upper bound estimate is of a similar magnitude and our lower bound estimate reflects the fact
that most wastewaters managed by facilities in surface impoundments may not contain non-priority
UTS pollutant at concentrations exceeding UTS.
20	For the lower bound of this range: 720,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171
tons per gallon x 7.5 indirect dischargers + 3.22 million gallons per day x 365 x 0.004171 x 0.5 direct
dischargers = 10.7 million tons per year. The upper bound is calculated in a similar fashion based
on 30 facilities, 16 indirect dischargers and 14 direct dischargers, and the applicable flow rates.
2-15

-------
Industries with Minor Effects
Relying largely on TRI data and following the approach described above, we found minor
impacts in six industry sectors. We categorized these sectors as minor impact industries because
fewer than approximately one percent of all facilities in the industry are expected to discharge
wastewaters that exceed UTS concentration levels. In these industries, we estimate that relatively
small quantities of waste might be affected.
Pesticide Industry
Our analysis of the pesticide industry includes both pesticide manufacturers and
formulators/packagers (SIC 2879). Pesticide manufacturers produce the active ingredients for these
products, while formulators/packagers process these ingredients with other substances and package
pesticide products for sale.
Our analysis again suggests potential under-reporting of ICRT wastewaters in the BRS,
which shows only 418,000 tons managed in land-based units. However, of the 11 facilities reporting
treatment data in PCS, five (45 percent) use land-based units. At average industry flow rates this
suggests much larger quantities of wastewaters managed in surface impoundments. We therefore
turned to recent Section 308 data to better determine potentially affected wastes. The Office of
Water recently collected data from 90 pesticide manufacturers and/or packagers in support of
effluent guideline development. Thirty-two of these facilities are direct dischargers, while 36 are
indirect dischargers (all others employ recycling or some other method to dispose of waste). These
data include concentration information on only one non-priority UTS pollutant, methoxychlor.
Therefore, we turned to TRI data to assess exceedences for non-priority UTS pollutants.
Based on an average flow rate of 2.33 million gallons per day (3.5 tons per year) and
loadings estimated using TRI data, we found exceedences at one facility for methyl isobutyl
ketone.21 This facility represents approximately one percent of the 90 pesticide facilities. We
estimated that the quantity of wastewater affected at this facility is about 3.5 million tons.22 We
also found potential exceedences of UTS constituents at 13 indirect dischargers. However, analyses
conducted for the capacity analysis suggest that only direct dischargers within this industry operate
surface impoundments.23 Therefore, we do not believe these facilities will be affected.
21	van der Leeden, Frits, Fred L. Troise and David Keith Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis
Publishers, 1990. See p. 349, Table 5-39 for data on water use in the pesticide industry.
22	This estimated quantity was calculated as follows; 2.33 million gallons per day x 365 days per
year x 0.004171 tons per gallon x 1 facility = 3.5 million tons.
23	Analysis of Section 308 data conducted for the capacity assessment by Radian, Incorporated.
2-16

-------
Inorganic Chemicals
Inorganic chemicals includes SIC codes 2812 through 2819. Our analysis of BRS data
showed that 7.5 million tons of ICRT waste could be managed in land-based units. Because little
current data on wastewaters exist for inorganic chemicals (effluent guidelines were developed in
1982 and only examine priority pollutants), we calculated concentrations in wastewaters for this
industry using TRI data.
In the high flow rate scenario of 1 million gallons per day we found 17 facilities with UTS
exceedences. Based on a low flow scenario of 50,000 gallons per day, we found that an additional
16 facilities exceeded UTS levels. These exceedences are for 14 constituents including barium,
phthalic anhydride, methanol, acetone, methyl isobutyl ketone, methyl ethyl ketone, and methyl
methaciylate. We believe, however, that impacts could be much lower than these numbers suggest.
Information from industry experts suggests that very few of these wastestreams are managed in land-
based units. Much of the treatment required for inorganic wastewaters involves chemical
precipitation and other physical/chemical processes that take place in tanks. Using several sources,
we estimate that only 17 to 36 percent of inorganic chemical facilities actually use surface
impoundments.24 Applying these percentages as correcting factors to our TRI data, we estimate
that three to twelve facilities, or less than one percent of a total of 685 facilities reporting to TRI,
may actually be affected by the Phase III LDR rule.25 The total quantity of potentially affected
waste from these facilities is estimated at between 1.0 and 4.5 million tons annually assuming an
average industry flow rate of 250,000 gallons per day (based on effluent guidelines).26
Iron and Steel
The iron and steel industry includes all processes in SIC codes 3312 through 3325. BRS data
show that only two million tons of ICRT waste are treated in land-based units in this industry each
year, while PCS shows that only seven percent of facilities in the industry use land-based units to
manage their wastewaters. For this industry as well, we calculated concentrations in wastewaters
using TRI data because effluent guideline data from 1982 do not provide the information necessary
to evaluate UTS constituents in these wastewaters.
24	Sources; PCS data show that 17 to 36 percent of inorganic chemical manufacturers
discharging to surface waters use land-based units. The Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D
Establishments, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, December 1987, shows that 26 percent of the
facilities in this industry report using surface impoundments.
25	Sixteen facilities x 17 percent = 2.7 (rounds up to 3 facilities); 33 facilities x 36 percent = 11.9
(rounds up to 12 facilities);
26	For the lower bound of this range, 250,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons
per gallon x 2.7 facilities = 1.0 million tons. The upper bound is calculated in a similar fashion
based on 11.9 facilities.
2-17

-------
We compared estimated concentrations to loadings of UTS constituents based on a low flow
scenario of 250,000 gallons per day and a high flow scenario of 10 million gallons per day. These
flow rates are based on data provided in the development document supporting effluent guidelines
for this industry.27 Using these assumptions, we found no facilities with exceedences at high flow
rates. At the low flows, we found that four facilities may exceed UTS levels for barium, xylene,
acetone, or vanadium. These facilities represent far less than one percent of the approximately 870
facilities in the iron and steel industry reporting to TRI, and would generate about three million tons
of affected waste per year based on an average flow rate of 500,000 gallons per day. Note that this
analysis does not adjust these estimates to consider whether these facilities manage these wastes in
surface impoundments.
Electric Power Generation
Classified under SIC codes 4911 and 4931, the electric power generation industry includes
public and privately-owned electric utilities that generate, transmit and/or distribute electrical energy.
Based on a review of steam-electric wastes only two types of waste streams are likely to be affected
by Phase III LDRs: demineralizer regenerate wastes and boiler chemical cleaning wastes. These are
both corrosive wastewaters that may contain the non-priority metals barium and vanadium at
concentrations exceeding UTS levels. However, in many instances, these wastes may be co-managed
with wastes that currently are RCRA-exempt and thus would not be subject to Phase III LDRs.28
Based on an analysis of the BRS, EPA found that the impacts of the rule on this industry
are likely to be minor. The Agency found that four facilities managed 60,000 tons of potentially
affected ICR wastes in surface impoundments regulated under RCRA. However, note that there
is significant uncertainty associated with this estimate. First, there are limited data available on
whether the wastewaters contain non-priority pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS levels and
thus the BRS estimates may overstate the effects of the rule. Second, there is uncertainty over the
extent to which facilities manage their ICR wastewaters in non-exempt surface impoundments.
Finally, EPA believes that BRS data may underestimate the quantity of deeharacterized ICR
wastewaters managed in land-based units because many facilities may not have reported waste that
were diluted immediately upon generation. Analyses of other data sources (PCS, TC RIA) and
discussions with EEI suggested that the number of affected facilities may be higher, based on the
number of facilities using surface impoundments. Unfortunately these databases did not allow us
to estimate the number of affected facilities because they do not contain data on all the applicable
criteria (e.g., whether wastewaters are ICR and contain non-priority UTS constituents are
concentrations exceeding UTS). A TRI analysis also was not possible because TRI does not include
SICs representing most steam-electric facilities. Due to these uncertainties, further analysis of the
impacts of the rule on this industry may be warranted.
27	Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Iron and Steel
Manufacturing, U.S. EPA Office of Water, October 1982.
28	Wastes generated from the burning of fossil fuels at electric utility plants mixed with other
wastes (including ICRT wastes) are temporarily exempt from RCRA. EPA plans to consider
whether to exempt these wastes permanently by April 1,1998. For more information see Appendix
F.
2-18

-------
Electrical and Electronic Components
The electrical and electronic components (EEC) industry is a specialized subsector of the
metal parts and machinery industry, and is limited to the manufacture of semiconductors, electronic
crystals, cathode ray tubes, and luminescent materials. We had very little data on this industry from
the effluent guidelines. Therefore, we estimated concentrations in wastewaters using TRI data at
a low flow of 100,000 gallons per day and a high flow of 1 million gallons per day. These flow rates
are drawn from limited data provided in the effluent guidelines development document for the EEC
industry.29
Using these assumptions, we found that 29 facilities exceeded the UTS levels at high flow
rates. At low flow rates, we found that an additional 26 exceeded UTS levels. We adjusted this
estimated range of the number of affected facilities to reflect the number likely to manage
wastewaters in land-based units. Based on PCS, 13 to 21 percent of facilities in the industry use
surface impoundments. Applying these percentages, we estimated that four to 12 facilities, or less
than one percent of the 1,898 facilities reporting to TRI, may actually be affected by the rule.30
In addition, we estimated the quantity of wastewater generated by these affected facilities at between
579,000 and 2.6 million tons per year. This is based on an average flow rate of one million gallons
per day for direct dischargers and 100,000 gallons per day for indirect dischargers.
Food Production
For this analysis, we evaluated six sectors within the food industry: dairy products, fruits and
vegetables, grain mill products, meat products, sugar processing, and seafood processing. Less than
100,000 tons of ICRT waste were reported in the BRS as being treated in land-based units in the
food industry, while PCS shows that about 43 percent of facilities in the industry use land-based
units in managing wastewaters. Effluent guidelines for the sectors we consider were developed in
1974, and contain limited constituent and flow data. Because the flow data reported in this
document are quite old, we relied on more recent published data to estimate average water use in
the industry.31
Using the reported average wastewater flow rate of 570,000 gallons per day and TRI loadings
information, we estimate that 11 indirect dischargers (out of 8,965 facilities) may have wastewaters
with exceedences for either acetone, methanol, or ethylene oxide. Using this average flow rate, we
estimated that the quantity of affected wastewater generated by these facilities is about ten million
29	Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards, Electrical and
Electronic Components Industry, U.S. EPA Office of Water, 1983.
30	Twenty-nine facilities x 13 percent = 3.8 facilities (rounds to four facilities) and 55 x 21
percent = 11.6 (rounds to 12 facilities).
31	The Water Encyclopedia, See p. 346, Table 5-39 for data on water use in the food industry.
2-19

-------
tons per year.32 It is important to note, however, that these estimates of the number of affected
facilities and quantity of affected waste are not corrected for surface impoundment use or ICRT
waste and thus that these estimates may overstate the effects of the rule.
Industries with No Impacts
Based on a review of all available data, we believe that six of the industries we analyzed are
unlikely to be affected by the Phase III LDR rule.
Pulp and Paper
The pulp and paper industry includes all facilities engaged in manufacturing pulp, paper and
paper board (principally SIC 2611,2621, and 2631). Use of surface impoundments is quite common
in this industry, and facilities also generate large quantities of characteristic waste. However, we
believe that UTS constituents present in ICRT waste will be controlled through the industry's new
effluent guidelines, which EPA proposed in October 1993. Data collected in support of this rule
serves as the basis for our analysis.33
As part of the effluent guideline development process, EPA sampled effluent data from 20
facilities representing 104 pulp and paper mills.34 Based on the prevalence of surface
impoundments in this industry, we assumed that all of these facilities manage their wastewaters in
land-based units. We then screened these data and found that 17 of the 20 facilities generated
characteristic wastewaters. We examined the constituents in these wastestreams, and eliminated
from further review all priority pollutants and pollutants specified in the industry's recently proposed
effluent guidelines. A review of the remaining constituents that could be subject to regulation
showed that none exceeded UTS levels at the final discharge point. However, this analysis may
understate the effects of the rule because it does not consider the potential impacts on the 461
facilities not represented by the Section 308 data. To the extent that these facilities have
wastestreams similar to those analyzed above, the rule is unlikely to affect them.
32	570,000 gallons per day x 11 facilities x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per gallon = 9.5
million tons per year.
33	Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp,
Paper and Paperboard Industry, U.S. EPA Office of Water, October, 1993.
:>4In developing these effluent guidelines, EPA focused on four subcategories of the industry:
bleached papergrade kraft and soda, papergrade sulfite, dissolving kraft, and dissolving sulfite mills.
EPA focused on these facilities because it was concerned by the constituents likely to be in the
wastewaters generated by these facilities due to the processes they use (e.g., bleaching).
2-20

-------
Pharmaceuticals
The pharmaceutical industry primarily includes facilities classified under SIC codes 2833 to
2836. Most pharmaceutical wastewaters are generated during fermentation and solvent extraction
processes, which employ solvents such as acetone, methanol, and isopropanol.
Our primary source for assessing impacts to the pharmaceutical industry was recent Section
308 data collected by the Office of Water's effluent guideline program in 1991. OW's survey
collected data on operations and wastewaters from 244 representative facilities. These samples
contained data on non-priority pollutants, and thus served as the basis for our analysis of this
industry. We were not able to determine from point of generation data whether these wastewaters
were ICRT, and therefore screened first for use of land-based units. Only 15 of the 244 facilities
were found to manage wastewaters in land-based units.
Effluent data from these 15 facilities showed that only one constituent, acetone, exceeded
UTS levels at two facilities. However, acetone is among the constituents proposed for regulation
in the pharmaceutical industry's revised effluent guidelines. As written in the Phase III LDR rule,
constituents which are controlled to BAT by the Clean Water Act will not be subject to UTS
standards under RCRA. As acetone will likely be among the pollutants controlled under the final
pharmaceutical effluent guidelines, we do not think that these wastestreams will require additional
treatment under Phase III.
Metal Products and Machinery and Electroplating/Metal Finishing
We discuss the Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) industry and the
Electroplating/Metal Finishing (EMF) industry together because their processes and waste streams
are quite similar, and because our analysis of these industries drew from the same data sources.
The MP&M category, formerly known as the Machinery Manufacturing and Rebuilding
(MM&R) category, includes the 15 industrial groups shown in Exhibit 2-5. EPA is currently
developing revised effluent guidelines for the seven Phase I industries. Effluent guidelines for Phase
II industries are expected to be proposed in 1997. The E/MF category covers a range of facilities
in SIC codes 34 through 39 that conduct any one of the following six operations: electroplating,
electroless plating, anodizing, conversion coating, chemical etching, or printed circuit board
manufacturing.
Our analysis of the MP&M and E/MF industries draws on Section 308 data collected by OW
and evaluated for the capacity analysis. This source contained good data on non-priority pollutants
and thus serves as the basis for this analysis. EPA collected data to construct 446 "model" facilities
that can be scaled up to represent the 10,600 facilities subject to MP&M Phase I effluent guidelines.
We examined this database to identify ICRT wastestreams, and found that all 446 model facilities
generated corrosive wastewaters. We next screened for land-based units, and found that only three
model facilities (representing a total of ten actual facilities) manage waste in these units. We
compared constituents in these wastestreams to UTS concentrations and found that none of the non-
priority pollutants exceeded UTS levels.
2-21

-------
Exhibit 2-5
MP&M INDUSTRIES
Phase I
Phase II
Aircraft
Motor Vehicles
Aerospace Vehicles
Bus and Truck
Hardware (machine tools, screw machines, etc)
Railroad
Ordnance
Ships and Boats
Stationary Industrial Equipment
Office Machines
Mobile Industrial Equipment
Household Equipment
Electronic Equipment
Instruments

Precious and Nonprecious Metals
Although sampling data have not been collected for MP&M Phase II and electroplating
facilities not covered by MP&M effluent guidelines, industry experts believe that these industries'
wastewaters and treatment processes are very similar to those of Phase I facilities.35 Therefore,
based on the very limited use of surface impoundments in the MP&M and E/MF industries and the
lack of non-priority pollutants exceeding UTS in Phase I facilities, we do not believe that either of
these sectors could be affected by Phase III LDRs.
Leather Treating
Leather treating processes (SIC code 3111) generate acidic wastewaters containing sulfides
and chromium, as well as ammonia, biocides, chlorides and surfactants. Leather treating was
included in this analysis because it generates characteristic wastewaters that could contain UTS
constituents at elevated levels.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with the
estimated average wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on our analysis, we found that no facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because no facilities generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels, assuming an average flow rate of 226,000 gallons per day.36
35	Personal communication with Paul Buellesbach, Radian Corporation
36	This average flow rate was taken from van der Leeden, Frits, Fred L. Troise and David Keith
Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis Publishers, 1990. See Table 5-39 for data on water use in the
leather treating industry.
2-22

-------
Industrial Laundries
Industrial laundries, classified under SIC code 7218 (Personal Services), provide laundered
items to industrial and commercial users, including chemical and manufacturing plants, automotive
services, janitorial services and other customers. EPA estimates that 1,000 to 1,500 industrial
laundries are currently operating in the U.S. The Agency is currently collecting data on these
facilities in support of new effluent guidelines, and for that reason has included it among the
industries profiled for the Phase III rule. Analyses completed for the capacity assessment suggest
that commercial industrial laundries discharge their wastewaters to POTWs, and most do not treat
their wastewater prior to discharge.37 Our analysis of BRS data, which focused on ICRT waste
managed in land-based, units, did not yield any quantity data on industrial laundries, and PCS data
show only four units under the entire Personal Services SIC code. We therefore believe that the
industry will not be affected by the Phase III LDR rule.
Industries with Inadequate Data
We were unable to characterize potential impacts to federal facilities and transportation
equipment cleaners (TEC) due to poor data on these facilities.
Federal Facilities
Federal facilities include all operations managed by the U.S. federal government, and cover
a wide range of services and processes. Since federal facilities are classified according to the
manufacturing processes and products manufactured at the facility, many of these facilities are likely
to be addressed in the analyses of other industries. However, EPA did investigate the availability
of data for conducting a stand-alone analysis of federal facilities. EPA identified and used the
Federal Facility Inventory for 1992 in an analysis of these facilities. As required under RCRA
Section 3016, every two years EPA compiles this database from data submitted by federal agencies
on treatment, storage, and disposal units at the facilities.
EPA's review of these data showed that of the 914 federal facilities in the database, 69 (eight
percent) manage wastewaters in nonhazardous land-based units (i.e., land treatment units or surface
impoundments).38 This finding indicates that a small percentage of federal facilities are potentially
affected by the rule. Unfortunately, the database did not support a more complete analysis since
information on constituents and constituent concentrations in the wastes managed in these land-
based units is not available from this source. EPA did not conduct any additional analysis for these
facilities, assuming that those facilities potentially affected were addressed under the analyses
conducted for other industries.
37	Based on an analysis of the industrial laundries category conducted for the capacity
assessment, considering preliminary data currently being collected to develop revised effluent
guidelines for this industry.
38	Note that this estimate does not include facilities that manage wastes in underground injection
wells.
2-23

-------
Transportation Equipment Cleaning (TEC)
For purposes of developing effluent guidelines, EPA's Office of Water divided the TEC
industry into two categories: truck, rail and barge tanks cleaning, and aircraft exterior and ihteribr
cleaning. Unfortunately, limited data were available to evaluate the extent to which facilities in fhis
industry are likely to be affected by the Phase III LDR rule. We principally relied on the available
data currently being collected by EPA to support development of these effluent guidelines for this
industry. EPA initially included 11,900 facilities in the TEC database of known or potential facilities
in the industry, including facilities in the two categories mentioned above. EPA distributed screener
surveys to 3,240 tank cleaning facilities and 760 aircraft cleaning facilities to more accurately
determine the scope of the industry. Based on the preliminary results of the tank cleaning
subcategory survey, EPA identified 734 facilities in the rail, truck and barge cleaning subcategory.
Scaling these results of the survey sample to the entire population, EPA estimated that there are
2,400 to 2,800 facilities in this subcategory.
Based on an analysis of the waste management practices at the 734 facilities identified in the
screener survey, EPA estimated that 98 of these facilities (13 percent) use land-based units in
managing their wastewaters (evaporation ponds, lagoons, or settling ponds). Unfortunately,
additional information on constituents contained in wastewaters managed in these land-based units
by these facilities is not available.39 In reviewing existing data, EPA generally found that a wide
array of constituents can be found at these facilities because hundreds of different chemicals are
shipped in tanks. Thus these facilities potentially could be affected by the rule.
Preliminary screener survey data for the aircraft cleaning subcategory will not be available
until the spring of 1995. EPA believes that some of these facilities may use land-based units in
managing their wastes and thus may be affected by the rule.
I imitations of Characteristic Waste Analysis
In general our analysis of potentially affected industries is limited by poor and incomplete
data. In most instances, data characterizing wastestreams are not available. We therefore had to
piece together information from a variety of sources in order to determine constituent
concentrations in wastestreams and whether these wastes are managed in surface impoundments.
Although this analysis represents our best estimates, we cannot be certain that we have accurately
captured all wastestreams likely to be affected. Particularly important uncertainties requiring more
or better data to resolve include:
• Limited constituent information in TRI data -- Of the 101 non-priority UTS
constituents that we consider in this analysis, only 48 are reported in TRI.
Also, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds annually of
TRI constituents are required to report. Both of these limitations may cause
us to underestimate the quantities of affected wastes.
39 Data on constituents and concentration levels will be available when EPA completes the
detailed questionnaire, which EPA plans to distribute to a subset of the facilities in the industry in
1995.
2-24

-------
Lack of data in TRI on ICRT waste and use of surface impoundments — As
we described above, much of the constituent concentration data that we
developed are based on TRI reporting. A significant limitation of these data
is that they do not include information on management in land-based units
or whether wastewaters are decharacterized ICRT wastes. This limitation
likely serves to overestimate the quantity of waste that could be affected by
the rule.
Poor testing for non-priority pollutants - Much of the Office of Water's
testing data collected during previous effluent guideline development efforts
was of little use in this analysis because it focused on priority pollutants.
Only in recent years have testing efforts expanded to incorporate a wider
range of contaminants. Therefore, few data exist on concentrations of non-
priority pollutants, which are the focus of this analysis. This limitation also
may cause us to underestimate the quantity of waste affected.
NEWLY LISTED WASTES
EPA conducted a number of analyses at the time that carbamates and spent aluminum
potliners were proposed for listing to determine the quantity of waste that would affected by new
treatment standards. These analyses, as well as studies conducted by industry, are the basis of the
estimates in this RIA.
Carbamates
In an effort to gather data in support of the carbamate listing, EPA conducted a survey in
1991 of carbamate facilities. Data collected through this survey, as well as information obtained
through other industry sampling efforts, were summarized in the capacity assessment that EPA
produced for the carbamate industry.40 This analysis served as the basis for waste quantity
estimates provided in the carbamate listing.
Based on these sources, the EPA estimates that approximately 440,000 tons of newly listed
carbamate K156 - K161 wastes are generated each year. An estimated 4,500 tons of this waste will
require additional treatment to meet UTS levels listed in the Phase III LDR rule. In Exhibit 2-6
we present the quantities associated with each waste code.
40 Draft Non-CBI Capacity Assessment for the Carbamate Industry (in support of preliminary LDR
capacity assessments), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Capacity Programs Branch, June 13,
1994.
2-25

-------
Exhibit 2-6
QUANTITY OF CARBAMATE
WASTE AFFECTED
Wastecode
Quantity (tons)
K156
0
K157
0
K158
10
K159
0
K160
740
K161
3,700
TOTAL
4,500
In addition, small quantities of U and P commercial chemical product waste included in the
carbamate listing could be affected. EPA estimates that 13 tons of carbamate P waste and 28 tons
of carbamate U waste will require additional treatment.
Spent Aluminum Potliners
EPA and industry have conducted a number of studies to characterize aluminum production
processes and estimate the quantity of spent aluminum potliners generated annually. This analysis
draws primarily on the survey that EPA conducted in 1991, which investigated most of the 23
facilities generating this waste, and a survey of the primary aluminum production industry conducted
by the Reynolds Metal Company in 1992.41 Based on these surveys and current market conditions,
EPA estimates that 120,000 tons of K088 waste are produced annually. All of this waste will require
alternative treatment to meet UTS levels. The Capacity Analysis Branch estimates that some of this
waste currently may be thermally treated. Because we are uncertain as to the quantity of waste
undergoing treatment, we estimate the impact of LDR standards on the total generated quantity.
41 Summary of Generation, Disposal and Treatment Practices for Spent Aluminum Potliners from
the Primary Reduction of Aluminum, U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Lab, March 12, 1990.
2-26

-------
COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS FOR PHASE HI WASTES	CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, we estimate the costs and economic impacts to industry of meeting Phase
III LDR requirements. This analysis focuses on the incremental cost of compliance with the new
standards, which is the difference between the cost of current waste management practices and that
necessary to comply with the rule. In this section, we first present a brief synopsis of our results.
We next discuss the methodology that we used to develop cost estimates for affected decharacterized
ICRT wastes and present detailed results. In the third section of this chapter, we review in greater
detail our estimates of compliance costs for the newly listed wastes. Finally, we describe the
economic impacts of the rule.
Summary of Results
Our analysis of Phase III rule costs considers compliance costs and economic impacts for
both the characteristic and newly listed wastes affected by the rule. These costs are summarized in
Exhibit 3-1.
For facilities with characteristic wastes regulated under the Phase III rule, affected generators
face four potential compliance options. Briefly, these options are to: (1) seek a CWA permit
modification specifying that pollutants exceeding UTS are treated to BAT levels; (2) obtain a RCRA
treatability variance for constituents that exceed UTS; (3) demonstrate that a POTW to which the
facility discharges wastewaters provides adequate treatment of constituents that exceed UTS levels;
or (4) treat to UTS levels prior to discharge.
In general, we expect facilities will seek permit modifications, treatability variances, or
certification of adequate POTW treatment because these compliance options can be implemented
at much lower cost than the option requiring treatment to UTS levels. We estimate the total
annualized costs of the rule for these wastes will range from approximately $197,000 to $598,000,
with the majority of the costs incurred by the organic chemicals industry. These are the costs of
sampling, analysis, and administrative processing of applications to modify Clean Water Act permits
and additional on-going monitoring of wastestreams to comply with the permits.
3-1

-------
Exhibit 3-1

ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS OF THE
PHASE III LDR RULE
Waste Type
Annualized Costs
Characteristic Wastes
Organic Chemical Industry
Petroleum "Refining Industry
$154,000 to $425,000
$43,000 to $173,000
Total Characteristic Wastes
$197,000 to $598,000
Newly Listed Wastes
Carbamates
Spent Aluminum Potliners
$5.5 million
$6.4 to $42.4 million
Total Newly Listed Wastes
$11.8 to $47.2 million
TOTAL Phase III Incremental Costs
$12.0 to $47.8 million
Note: These estimated costs represent the incremental costs of
the rule based on a comparison of the costs of treating and
disposing of the wastes with and without the rule.
Annualization is based on a period of 20 years and an
interest rate of 7.0 percent.
The costs of treating the newly listed wastes to LDR standards are substantially higher and
are expected to occur each year. These costs range from approximately $11.8 million to $47.2
million per year, and are attributable primarily to thermal treatment of aluminum potliner wastes
(K088). These costs represent a substantial increase in the average expenditures on pollution
control in the aluminum industry (approximately 40 percent), but are not expected to have as
significant an impact on the total cost of producing aluminum.
Overall, the estimates presented in Exhibit 3-1 provide an accurate assessment of the impacts
of the Phase III rule, as long as generators of characteristic wastes can obtain CWA permit
modifications indicating that BAT treatment occurs for those constituents exceeding UTS levels at
the end-of-pipe. However, if this is not possible, costs of the Phase III rule could increase
significantly. We estimate that average per facility costs of treating all constituents to UTS levels
in the organic chemical industry could be as high as $1 million per year. In a sensitivity analysis,
we considered the costs of the rule under two scenarios: (1) assuming that 80 percent of the
facilities comply with the rule by obtaining permit modifications and 20 percent comply by treating
their wastes and (2) assuming that 60 percent comply by obtaining permit modifications and 40
percent comply by treating their wastes. Based on the first scenario, the estimated annualized costs
of the rule would range from $6.6 million to $18.2 million. Based on the second scenario, the
estimate annualized costs are expected to be between $12.9 million and $35.7 million. While these
costs do not represent a major increase in annual pollution control expenditures for large chemical
or petroleum refining plants, they are substantially higher than the costs of all facilities obtaining
CWA permit modifications.
3-2

-------
CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
In our analysis of affected characteristic wastes, we estimate potentially significant impacts
in two industry sectors -- organic chemical manufacturing and petroleum refining. These two
industries are the only ones for which we have conducted a detailed analysis of costs. In addition,
we estimate that twelve other industries will experience either minor effects (i.e., no more than one
percent of all facilities affected) or no effects. For two industry sectors, we lacked the data
necessary to determine impacts.
Methodology
We calculated facility costs of compliance under two options: (1) modifying NPDES permits
to specify a Clean Water Act (CWA) Best Achievable Technology (BAT) standard for UTS
constituents; or (2) implementing the treatment technologies necessary to bring concentrations to
UTS levels. We review each of these options below.
Permit Modification
Under this option, we evaluated different approaches for direct and indirect dischargers. We
assume that indirect dischargers, rather than modifying their permits, will seek to demonstrate to
regulatory authorities that the POTW to which they are sending their wastewater is adequately
treating for UTS constituents. We make this assumption because it represents the least costly
approach for these facilities to take. We assumed that direct dischargers are operating under BAT.
NPDES permit writers would therefore be able to modify these facilities' existing permits to specify
a BAT standard for all UTS constituents amenable to treatment in CWA systems.
Our costs are based on the estimated number of indirect and direct dischargers with UTS
exceedences. - For direct dischargers, we first evaluated the costs associated with determining
whether constituents in their effluent exceeded UTS. According to the Office of Solid Waste,
facilities will be able to rely on best professional judgment to determine whether UTS constituents
are present at levels exceeding the standard. Only those facilities that believe they are exceeding
UTS levels for non-priority pollutants will be required to test their wastewaters.1 Hence, the costs
of testing should be limited primarily to those facilities that exceed UTS levels.2
We next evaluated the administrative costs associated with permit modification. We assume
that indirect dischargers would provide data to the CWA control authority demonstrating that the
POTW to which they are discharging their wastewater is meeting BAT or UTS levels for regulated
constituents. We are uncertain as to the costs that generator facilities would encounter under this
option. For example, it is not clear whether generators or POTWs would assume the costs
1	Personal communication with Peggy Vyas, OSW, September 30, 1994.
2	Some additional facilities who are unsure about whether their effluent meets UTS levels would
also be likely to test. At this point, we have not attempted to quantify the costs for these additional
facilities.
3-3

-------
associated with effluent testing. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that generators would be
responsible for these costs, but would not incur the administrative costs associated with permit
modification.
In addition, we calculated the incremental annual cost of on-going monitoring of constituents
that are added to CWA permits. On-going monitoring takes place on a regular basis as required
in facility permits.
For the permit modification compliance option, we calculated the total cost to facilities
associated with:
•	On-site effluent sampling - We assume this is carried out by facility
personnel. While contractors often conduct sampling at smaller facilities, we
believe that most of the facilities affected by the Phase III rule are larger and
would use their own personnel to conduct sampling. We assume that four
sampling efforts would be conducted within a four week period.
•	Laboratory testing necessary to determine concentration levels achieved
through BAT treatment ~ Due to the variability of effluent on the organic
chemical industry (which is the industry primarily affected by this rule) we
assume that facilities will collect and test four samples to characterize their
wastewaters.3 We assume that facilities will send these samples to
commercial laboratories for testing.
•	Administrative costs - This includes the personnel resources required to
complete and finalize a permit modification. The Office of Water has not
determined whether facilities would be required under this compliance option
to submit a new permit application, or simply send a letter requesting that
certain constituents be added to their existing permit.
•	On-going monitoring ~ Facilities with CWA permits are required to monitor
the waste stream concentrations of constituents included in the permit. Our
cost estimates include the annual cost of sampling, analysis, and reporting.
Unlike the preceding three categories of cost, we assume that the costs of on-
going monitoring will continue to be incurred after the initial modification
of the permit.
In Exhibit 3-2 we present our cost estimate for this compliance option. To calculate costs
for this option, we apply total costs to all direct dischargers with UTS exceedences, and sampling
and testing costs to all indirect dischargers with exceedences. We assume that the costs of on-going
monitoring are applicable to both direct and indirect dischargers.
3 Information from Dow Chemical suggests that four analyses are typical for a permit
application. Sheila Frace of EPA's Office of Water confirms that this is a reasonable estimate.

-------
Exhibit 3-2
PER FACILITY PERMIT MODIFICATION COSTS
Activity
Costs
On-site sampling4
$7,680
Laboratory testing5
$10,800 to $16,800
Administrative costs'
$9,600 to $15,360
On-going monitoring7
$3,180
ANNUALIZED TOTAL8

Indirect dischargers
$4,920 to $5,490
Direct dischargers
$5,830 to $6,940
For indirect dischargers, ail average annualized permit modification cost of $5,210 is used in the
analysis. For the direct dischargers, the average annualized costs are $6,390.
It is worth noting that a number of facilities will renew their permits in conjunction with the
normal five year permit cycle. According to EPA's Office of Water, approximately 20 percent of
NPDES permits are renewed each year. Given that the Phase III rule will grant a two-year capacity
variance, we would expect up to 40 percent of facilities to incorporate CWA BAT levels for UTS
constituents into their permits as part of their permit renewal process. These facilities will likely
incur some additional costs associated with testing their effluent for UTS constituents, although
these costs will not be as high as those incurred by facilities modifying their permits. Because we
are not certain as to the number of facilities that will be able to modify their permit within the
4	Assumes two two-person teams conducting 24 hour testing once each week over at four week
period, at $40/hr. Total labor cost equals $7,680 (4 people x 12 hours = 48 hours of labor x $40 =
$1,920 x 4 sampling efforts). Sampling would be conducted by manual grab, using flow proportioned
automatic samplers.
5	Range of sample costs ($2,500 to $4,000) based on quotes from one generator (Dow Chemical)
and Huntingdon and ADL laboratories. We assume four samples would be tested, and include $200
for shipping for each sample. [4($2,500) + 4($200)] = $10,800; [4($4,000) + 4($200)] = $16,800.
6	Personnel resources required for permit modification and negotiations with a state control
authority estimated at 25 to 40 percent of a staff engineer's time over a six month period (240 to
384 hours). Personnel costs estimated at $40/hour. Based on engineering judgment, Mark
Klingenstein and information provided by Helen Johnson of Dow Chemical, September 28, 1994.
7	A detailed description of the methodology and data used to calculate on-going monitoring costs
is included in Appendix Q,
8	Annualization of costs associated with one-time on-site sampling, laboratory testing, and
administrative costs is based on a 20 year period and an interest rate of 7 percent. On-going
monitoring costs are already stated in terms of annual costs. We assume that indirect dischargers
will only incur costs related to sampling, testing, and on-going monitoring. Direct dischargers will
incur these costs, plus administrative costs.
3-5

-------
renewal process, we do not adjust cost figures to reflect this option. However, we would expect to
see somewhat lower incremental costs resulting from the rule for these facilities.
Treatment to UTS
In addition to the permit modification option, we also evaluated the per facility costs of
treating to UTS levels in the organic chemical and petroleum industries. For this compliance option,
we determined the treatment technologies that would be necessary to achieve UTS levels at facilities
with exceedences. The appropriate technology for various facilities is largely a function of their total
wastewater flow rates, the constituents requiring treatment, and whether the facility is a direct or
indirect discharger. We selected technologies based on a review of industry effluent guideline
development documents and EPA technology assessment information. All proposed treatment
technologies would work within existing systems or be installed at end-of-pipe. Due to the limited
time period for completion of this RIA, we were not able to evaluate upstream modifications to
wastewater management, such as segregation and separate treatment of ICRT wastes, or the cost
of transferring treatment to tanks, both of which might reduce the costs of the rule. Appendix Q
provides additional information on the methodology used in estimating treatment costs.
For the organic chemical facilities, we calculated the costs associated with the following
treatment scenarios:
•	Indirect dischargers ~ The estimates of UTS concentrations that we
developed for the organic chemical industry using TRI data show relatively
high levels of organics among indirect dischargers. We expect that extended
aeration activated sludge is needed for these facilities to reduce overall
organic loadings, followed by granular activated carbon to "polish" the
remaining organics.9 Some facilities showed exceedences for barium as well
as organics. For these indirect dischargers, we also propose introduction of
ferric sulfide in the secondary clarifiers to precipitate the barium. We
assume non-hazardous waste incineration as the sludge management option,
and an average facility wastewater flow of 280,000 gallons per day.10
•	Direct Dischargers - The estimates of UTS concentration levels that we
developed for the organic chemical industry using TRI data show much lower
organics levels among direct dischargers. The addition of a granulated
carbon system is expected to be sufficient to control for organics at these
facilities.11 In only a few instances is barium likely to exceed UTS among
9	Sources for technologies; (1) Innovative and Alterative Technology Assessment Manual, U.S.
EPA, 1980; and (2) Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Organic Chemical, Plastics and Synthetic Fiber Industry, U.S. EPA Office of Water, 1987.
10	All flow rate assumptions based on organic chemical industry flow rate data reported in the
ISDB and Draft OCPSF Industrial User Compliance Evaluation Report,
11	Based on engineering judgment, Mark Klingenstein, SAIC,
3-6

-------
direct dischargers - at low flow rates we estimate only two facilities will have
such exceedences. At the barium concentrations we estimated for these
facilities, we would expect the proposed granulated carbon system to remove
this constituent in addition to organics.12 We assume an average flow for
direct dischargers of 1.37 million gallons per day.
In Exhibit 3-3, we present the per facility cost for these scenarios. Capital costs are highest
among direct dischargers, primarily due to the large wastewater flows at these facilities. However,
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are greater for the systems installed at indirect dischargers.
Exhibit 3-3
PER FACILITY TREATMENT COSTS:
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Technology
Capital
Cost
Annual
O&M Costs
Total
Annualized
Costs1
Indirect Dischargers
Extended aeration activated sludge
(including belt press)
Granulated carbon system
Ferric sulfate addition2
Sludge incineration (fluidized bed)
Sampling and testing3
On-going monitoring
$1,327,000
$1,131,000
$9,000
$1,060,000
$61,000
$255,000
$61,000
$240,000
$21,480
$1,120

Total: Indirect dischargers with barium
exceedences
$3,527,000
$639,600
$972,524
Total: Indirect dischargers without barium
exceedences
$3,518,000
$578,600
$910,674
Direct Dischargers
Granuiated carbon system
Sampling and testing
On-going monitoring
Total
$5,089,000
$198,000
$21,480
$1,120
$220,600
$700,965
1	Based on a 20 year operating life for capital equipment and an interest rate of 7.0
percent.
2	This treatment is only for those facilities that have exceedences of barium.
3	Based on an average of the range of testing costs provided by Dow and two
laboratories.
12 Ibid.
3-7

-------
For the petroleum refining industry, we calculated the costs associated with the following
treatment scenarios:
•	Indirect dischargers ~ As in the organic chemical industry, UTS
concentrations that we developed for petroleum refiners using TRI data show
higher levels of organics among indirect dischargers as compared to direct
dischargers. We estimated that a granulated carbon system would be
necessary to reduce organics, and assumed an average daily wastewater flow
rate of 720,000 gallons per day.13
•	Direct Dischargers — Concentrations of organics among direct dischargers
appear to be lower than those for indirect dischargers. Powdered activated
carbon adsorption (PACT) would likely be sufficient to control for organics
at these facilities.14 For direct dischargers we assume an average flow of 3.2
million gallons per day.
In Exhibit 3-4, we present the per facility cost for these scenarios.
Results
For this analysis of the nationwide costs of the rule, we estimated the costs assuming all
facilities comply with this rule by obtaining permit modifications. In addition, we conducted a
sensitivity analysis to estimate the potential costs if some facilities are required to treat their wastes
in order to comply with the rule. The sensitivity analysis evaluated the costs of the rule under two
scenarios: (1) assuming that 80 percent of the affected facilities comply by obtaining permit
modifications and 20 percent comply by treating their wastes, and (2) assuming that 60 percent
comply by obtaining permit modifications and 40 percent comply by treating their wastes. The
results of these analyses are summarized below.
13	In addition, one indirect discharger potentially has exceedences of barium. We did not cost
out additional treatment for this facility, under the assumption that the granulated carbon system
proposed would effectively reduce this constituent,
14	Based on engineering judgment, Mark Klingenstein, SAIC, In addition, there were four direct
dischargers with exceedences for barium. We did not cost out additional treatment for these
facilities. Two of these facilities are unlikely to require additional treatment, assuming that the
carbon adsorption treatment proposed would effectively reduce this constituent (since the
concentration level in the wastestream was very close to the UTS level). The other two facilities
may require additional treatment, with costs of a similar order of magnitude as for the treatment
of barium for organic chemical facilities (i.e., $9,000 capital costs and $61,000 annual O&M costs).
3-8

-------
Exhibit 3-4
PER FACILITY TREATMENT COSTS: PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Technology
Capital
Cost
Annual
O&M Cost
Annualized
Costs1
Indirect Dischargers
Granulated carbon system
Sampling and testing
On-going monitoring
Total
$4,119,000
$527,000
$21,480
$1,000
$549,480
$938,284
Direct Dischargers
Powdered activated carbon adsorption
Sampling and testing2
On-going monitoring
Total
$265,000
$992,000
$21,480
$1,000
$1,014,480
$1,059,494
1	Based on a 20-year operating life for capital equipment and a discount rate of 7.0
percent.
2	Based on an average of the range of testing costs provided by Dow and two
laboratories.
Organic Chemicals
We estimated that the annualized national costs of obtaining CWA permit modifications for
affected facilities in the organic chemical industry could range from approximately $154,000 to
$425,000 at the 28 to 73 facilities potentially affected by the Phase III rale. If facilities cannot
obtain a permit modification, however, the costs would be substantially higher. Annualized costs
of treating to UTS for an individual facility could be as high as $1 million per year. The national
costs under this scenario depend on the actual number of facilities that would need to install UTS
treatment capacity. We conducted a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the costs under two alternative
scenarios: (1) assuming 20 percent of the affected facilities must treat their wastes and (2) assuming
40 percent of the affected facilities must treat their wastes. EPA believes that these scenarios
provide a reasonable estimate of the potential high-end costs of the rule for these affected facilities.
NPDES Permit Modification
Our aggregate national estimate of Phase III compliance costs is based on the estimated
number of direct dischargers that would seek to modify their NPDES permit, and the number of
indirect dischargers that could demonstrate compliance at POTWs. As described in the
methodology section of this chapter, we estimated the per facility cost associated with this option,
and multiplied it by the number of facilities affected under lower and upper bound assumptions
about constituent concentrations. In Exhibit 3-5, we present the results of these calculations.
3-9

-------
Under the lower bound estimates of affected facilities, a total of 28 organic chemical facilities
are projected to have UTS exceedences. Annualized permit modification costs under this scenario
are approximately $154,000. At the upper bound, we estimated UTS exceedences at 73 facilities.
Annualized costs associated with this scenario are approximately $425,000.15

Exhibit 3-5

COSTS FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE
ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
Facilities with Exceedences at High Flow Rates
Facility Type
Number of
facilities
Annualized
Cost per facility
Total Annualized
Cost
Direct
7
$6,390
$44,730
Indirect (deferral to POTW)
21
$5,210
$109,410
Total
28

$154,140
Facilities with Exceedences at Low Flow Rate
Direct16
38
$6,390
$242,820
Indirect (deferral to POTW)
35
$5,210
$182,350
Total
73

$425,170
Sensitivity Analysis
We believe that as many facilities as possible will take advantage of this compliance option,
rather than treat to UTS. However, for some facilities with exceedences of constituents that are not
amenable to biological treatment, permit modifications may be more difficult to obtain. Exhibit 3-6
presents cost estimates for the two scenarios considered in the sensitivity analysis.
15	As noted earlier, these estimates may lead to some overstatement of the cost impacts because
some facilities will incur some of the permit modification costs as part of their normal permit
renewal cycle.
16	Includes two dischargers that potentially have exceedences of barium. We did not cost out
additional treatment for these facilities, under the assumption that the granulated carbon system
proposed would effectively reduce this constituent.
3-10

-------


Exhibit 3-6


SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRY
Scenario 1: Assuming 80 Percent of the Affected Facilities Obtain
Permit Modifications and 20 Percent Treat Their Wastes
Facilities with Exceedences
- Lower Bound





Number of Facilities1
Annualized Costs per
Facility
Total Annualized
Costs4
Facility Type
Permit
Modifications
Treatment
toUTS
Permit
Modification2
Treatment
to UTS3

Direct
5.6
1.4
$6,390
$700,965
$1,017,135
Indirect with Barium
Indirect without Barium
1.6
15.2
0.4
3.8
$5,210
$5,210
$972,524
$910,674
$397,346
$3,539,753
TOTAL




$4,954,234
Facilities with Exceedences
- Upper Bound




Direct
30.4
7.6s
$6,390
$700,965
$5,521,590
Indirect with Barium
Indirect without Barium
2.4
25.6
0.6
6.4
$5,210
$5,210
$972,524
$910,674
$596,018
$5,961,690
TOTAL




$12,079,298
Scenario 2: Assuming 60 Percent of the Affected Facilities Obtain
Permit Modifications and 40 Percent Treat Their Wastes
Facilities with Exceedences
- Lower Bound




Direct
4.2
2.8
56,390
$700,965
$1,989,540
Indirect with Barium
Indirect without Barium
1.2
11.4
0.8
7.6
$5,210
$5,210
$972,524
$910,674
$784,271
$6,980,516
TOTAL




$9,754,327
Facilities with Exceedences
- Upper Bound




Direct
22.8
15.2s
$6,390
$700,965
$10,800,360
Indirect with Barium
Indirect without Barium
1.8
19.2
1.2
12.8
$5,210
$5,210
$972,524
$910,674
$1,176,407
$11,756,659
TOTAL




$23,733,426
1.	The number of affected facilities is calculated based on the total number of affected facilities multiplied
by the percentage of facilities assumed to obtain permit modifications (80 percent or 60 percent) and to
treat wastes to UTS (20 percent or 40 percent). For the purposes of this sensitivity analysis, we did not
round these values,
2.	These annualized costs include the costs incurred by facilities to obtain permit modifications and perform
on-going monitoring.
3.	These annualized costs equal the annualized capital and O&M costs incurred by facilities treating their
wastes.
4.	These values reflect annualized costs incurred by both those facilities that obtain permit modifications
and those facilities that treat to UTS.
5.	Under this scenario, for this industry there were two direct dischargers that potentially have exceedences
of barium. We did not cost out additional treatment for these facilities, under the assumption that the
proposed granulated carbon system would effectively reduce this constituent.
3-11

-------
For the affected organic chemical facilities, Exhibit 3-6 shows the per facility and nationwide
annualized costs for the facilities assumed to obtain permit modifications. In addition, it shows the
annualized capital and operating costs per facility and the nationwide costs of the rule for the
facilities assumed to treat their wastes. We evaluated separately those facilities with exceedences
of barium (the only non-priority metal that exceeded UTS standards), as these waste streams will
require specific treatment for this constituent. Under the first scenario, the annualized costs are
estimated to be between $5.0 million and $12.1 million. Under the second scenario the total costs
are higher; the estimated annualized costs are expected to range from $9.8 million to $23.7 million.
This analysis indicates that if a substantial number of facilities must rely on treatment to comply with
the rule, the national costs of the rule rise significantly. At this time, however, EPA believes that
most facilities will be able to take advantage of the CWA permit modification option. Therefore,
the cost estimates presented in Exhibit 3-5 should reflect the best estimate of the costs of the rule
for organic chemicals facilities.
Petroleum Refining
We estimate that costs to petroleum refiners for compliance with the Phase III LDR rule
are between approximately $43,000 and $173,000 per year, assuming compliance through permit
modification. As in the case of organic chemicals, however, the costs could rise significantly if many
of the facilities are unable to obtain permit modifications. Below we review these costs estimates
and the results of the sensitivity analysis.
NPDES Permit Modification
As with the organic chemical manufacturing industry, our estimate of national costs is based
on the number of indirect and direct dischargers expected to exceed UTS levels in their discharges.
Exhibit 3-7 presents the costs associated with this option.

Exhibit 3-7

COSTS FOR PERMIT MODIFICATION FOR THE
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Facilities with Exceedences at High Flow Rates
Facility Type
Number of
Facilities
Annualized Cost
per Facility
Total Annualized
Cost
Direct
1
$6,390
$6,390
Indirect (deferral to POTW)
7
$5,210
$36,470
Total
8

$42,860
Facilities with Exceedences at Low Flow Rates
Direct
14
$6,390
$89,460
Indirect (deferral to POTW)
16
$5,210
$83,360
Total
30

$172,820
3-12

-------
In the lower bound scenario, one direct discharger and seven indirect dischargers are
estimated to have UTS exceedences. The cost of this compliance option for these facilities would
be approximately $43,000 per year. In the upper bound scenario, we estimated that a total of 30
facilities could be affected. The annualized costs of compliance for this group would equal
approximately $173,000. As with the organic chemical facilities, we believe that as many generators
as possible will opt for this compliance approach.
Sensitivity Analysis
Exhibit 3-8 presents the per facility and nationwide cost estimates of the rule for the two
scenarios considered in the sensitivity analysis: (1) assuming that 80 percent of the affected
petroleum refiners comply by obtaining permit modifications and the remaining 20 percent comply
by treating their wastes, and (2) assuming that 40 percent of the affected facilities would comply by
treating their wastes, while the remaining 60 percent would obtain permit modifications. Under the
first scenario, the estimated annualized costs range from $1.6 million to $6.1 million. Under the
second scenario, the estimated annualized costs are expected to be between $3.1 million and $12.0
million. As can be seen from these results, nationwide compliance costs increase significantly if
facilities cannot comply by obtaining a permit modification since the cost of treatment per facility
is approximately $1 million. Again, however, EPA currently believes that most facilities will qualify
for permit modifications.
3-13

-------


Exhibit 3-8



SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF THE COSTS FOR THE PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
Scenario 1: Assuming 80 Percent of the Affected Facilities Obtain
Permit Modifications and 20 Percent Treat Their Wastes
Facilities with Exceedences - Lower Bound

Number of Facilities1
Annualized Costs per
Facility
Total
Annualized
Costs4
Facility Type
Permit
Modifications
Treatment
to UTS
Permit
Modification2
Treatment
to UTS3

Direct
0.8
0.2
$6,390
$1,059,494
$217,011
Indirect
5.6
1.4
$5,210
$938,284
$1,342,774
TOTAL




$1,559,785
Facilities with Exceedences - Upper Bound
Direct
11.2
2.8
$6,390
$1,059,494
$3,038,151
Indirect
12.8
3.2
$5,210
$938,284
$3,069,197
TOTAL




$6,107,348
Scenario 2: Assuming 60 Percent of the Affected Facilities Obtain
Permit Modifications and 40 Percent Treat Their Wastes
Facilities with Exceedences - Lower Bound
Direct
0.6
0.4
$6,390
$1,059,494
$427,632
Indirect
4.2
2.8
$5,210
$938,284
$2,649,077
TOTAL




$3,076,709
Facilities with Exceedences - Upper Bound
Direct
8.4
5.6
$6,390
$1,059,494
$5,986,842
Indirect
9.6
6.4
$5,210
$938,284
$6,055,034
TOTAL




$12,041,876
1.	The number of affected facilities is calculated based on the total number of affected
facilities multiplied by the percentage of facilities assumed to obtain permit modifications
(80 percent or 60 percent) and to treat wastes to UTS (20 percent or 40 percent). For the
purposes of this sensitivity analysis, we did not round these values.
2.	These annualized costs include the costs incurred by facilities to obtain permit
modifications and perform on-going monitoring.
3.	These annualized costs equal the annualized capital and O&M costs incurred by facilities
treating their wastes.
4.	These values reflect annualized costs incurred by both those facilities that obtain permit
modifications and those facilities that treat to UTS.
3-14

-------
NEWLY-LISTED WASTES
Methodology
Two newly-listed wastes are included in the Phase III LDR rule: carbamates and spent
aluminum potliners. To estimate the costs of the rule for these wastes, we evaluate the incremental
costs associated with requiring treatment. We estimate the incremental costs based on the costs of
treatment plus disposal under the rule less the baseline costs of disposing of the wastes in a Subtitle
C landfill without treatment. We base treatment costs for affected carbamate wastes on thermal
destruction at a Subtitle C incinerator, followed by ash disposal at a Subtitle C landfill. Because the
generators lack the technology to incinerate this waste on-site, it will likely be sent to commercial
thermal treatment units. We estimate the cost of this treatment at $1,484 per ton, which includes:
•	Commercial thermal treatment costs of $1,382 per ton;17
•	Transportation costs of $50 per ton;18 and
•	Subtitle C disposal costs for the ash of $207 per ton.19 This translates to a
cost of $52 per ton of waste prior to incineration, assuming that the quantity
of ash residuals that will require disposal after incineration equals 25 percent
of the quantity of waste incinerated.20
The baseline costs are estimated at $257 per ton, based on the same estimates of transport and
Subtitle C landfill disposal costs.
17	Incineration cost obtained from survey of facilities conducted from 1989 to 1993 by EI Digest,
see "Hazardous Waste Incineration 1994," Jon Hanke, EI Digest, June 1994. Costs in 1993 inflated
to 1994 using the GDP deflator for services from 1993 to 1994: $1,335 x (1+.035) = $1,382 per ton.
18	Source: Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance, prepared by
DPRA Incorporated for EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, September 1994. Cost based on
the commercial transportation price per ton-mile for bulk solid hazardous waste shipped 200 miles
(we estimate that most carbamate generators are within this distance of a commercial incinerator).
Costs in 1992 were inflated to 1994 using the average GDP deflator for services from 1992 to 1994:
$45.85 x (1+.0405)2 = $49.64 per ton.
19	Landfill costs obtained from Draft Economic Impact Analysis of the Identification and Listing
of Carbamate Production Waste (Non-CBI Version), U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, October 1993.
Costs in 1993 inflated to 1994 using the average GDP deflator from 1993 to 1994: $200 x (1+.035)
= $207 per ton.
20	Source: Baseline and Alternative Waste Management Cost Estimates for Third Third Land
Disposal Restrictions, prepared by DPRA Incorporated for EPA's Office of Solid Waste, May 1990.
3-15

-------
For spent aluminum potliners, we assume that under the rule all waste will be treated and
disposed at the Reynolds Metals facility in Gum Springs, Arkansas, According to Reynolds
management, treatment costs to generators will vary based on the quantity of waste delivered and
other factors. We estimate the cost of this treatment at $310 to $610 per ton, which incliides: $
•	Treatment at Reynolds Metals at a cost of $200 to $500 per ton, which ^
includes ash disposal.21 Ash generated from combustion of this waste has
been delisted for the Reynolds facility only, and will be landfilled at this site
or another Reynolds site in Arkansas.
•	Transportation costs of $110 dollars per ton.22
For the baseline, we assume that these wastes would be disposed at a Subtitle C landfill, at the cost
of $257 per ton, which includes transportation costs of $50 per ton and landfill costs of $207 per ton.
Several technologies have been or are being developed to recover materials from spent
potliners, including cryolite recovery, carbon recovery and aluminum fluoride recovery. An analysis
completed in 1990 compared the costs of these recovery processes to that of disposal in a Subtitle
C landfill.23 This study found that capital costs for implementing these technologies are significant,
and, in most instances, were not off-set by the value of recovered materials to the point where
recycling was more economical then Subtitle C landfilling.
21	Based on conversation with Jack Gates, Vice President, Reynolds Metals Company, September
28, 1994.
22	Source: Estimating Costs for the Economic Benefits of RCRA Noncompliance, Cost based on
the commercial transportation price for bulk solid hazardous waste at a distance of 500 miles or
more (at least 19 of the 23 affected aluminum reduction facilities are located further than 500 miles
from Reynolds). Costs in 1992 were inflated to 1994 using the average GDP deflator from 1992 to
1994: $105.80 x (1+.0405)2 = $114.54 per ton.
23	Analysis of the Recycling Incentives Created by Proposed Statutory Changes to RCRA: K061 and
K088 Case Studies, prepared by DPRA Incorporated for the U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, July
1990.
3-16

-------
Recycling technologies, however, may be less expensive than use of the Reynolds thermal
treatment process. Several recycling processes are currently being evaluated for their ability to
comply with LDR standards and their cost-effectiveness.24 Representatives at several companies
developing alternative recycling or treatment technologies suggest that their technologies offer a
method of waste management that is less expensive than the Reynolds process.25 Precise cost
estimates of using alternative recycling technologies are difficult to obtain because these technologies
have not yet been implemented on a full-scale commercial basis. However, these representatives
believe that their recycling processes would be less expensive when compared to the cost of using
the Reynolds thermal treatment. A large portion of the potential cost savings could come from
reduced transportation costs because at least some of these alternative technologies could be located
near aluminum production facilities, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, sale of the
recycled product could reduce costs further. In some cases, sale of the recycled product could offset
all operation and maintenance costs of using the technology (capital costs may not be recouped,
however).
We were unable to determine when alternative technologies would be implemented on a
commercial basis and the extent to which they would be used by aluminum producers. Nevertheless,
representatives of the companies we contacted suggest that the cost of compliance could be reduced
substantially if these alternative technologies are used.26 Consequently, the cost estimates based
on the assumption that all spent aluminum potliners would be treated at the Reynolds facility may
represent an upper bound on the actual compliance costs that would be incurred in response to the
rule.
24	Personal communications with Paul Woodin, Columbia Aluminum Corporation, October 5,
1994 and November 16, 1994, and Don Backfish, Noranda Aluminum, November 15, 1995. These
companies also indicated that their decisions on recycling options will depend on whether EPA
determines that potliners are inherently waste-like (such a determination may increase the cost of
recycling).
25	We contacted representatives from Ausmelt Technology Corporation; Barnard Environmental;
Enviroscience, Incorporated; and Ormet Primary Aluminum Corporation. These companies are
developing technologies that can recycle spent aluminum potliners into products such as mineral
wool and vitrified material.
26	The cost of compliance may depend on whether EPA grants a capacity variance.
Conversations with representatives of companies that produce aluminum or are developing
alternative technologies suggest that there is uncertainty about how a capacity variance would affect
the cost and use of the technologies. For example, if a capacity variance is not granted and
alternative technologies are not readily available, aluminum producers may enter into long-term
contracts to use the Reynolds thermal treatment process and reduce the incentive to develop
alternative technologies; in contrast, the lack of a variance could increase pressure to implement
quickly alternative technologies. If, however, a variance is granted, there would be additional time
to develop alternative technologies, but the incentive to implement them quickly may be reduced.
Because of these uncertainties, we are unable to specify how a capacity variance would affect
compliance costs.
3-17

-------
Carbamates
As described in Chapter 2, approximately 4,450 tons of carbamate waste will require thermal
treatment to meet standards under the Phase III LDR rule. To estimate the incremental cost of
the rale, we multiplied the affected quantity of waste by the estimated cost per ton for treatment
and the estimated cost per ton of disposal in a Subtitle C landfill and subtracted the baseline costs
from the treatment costs. In Exhibit 3-9, we present treatment and baseline cost estimates for
carbamate waste and an estimate of the incremental costs of the rule.
Exhibit 3-9
ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS OF THE
CARBAMATE WASTES

Tods
Total Costs
Total Incremental
Costs
LDR
Treatment
Baseline
Carbamate Wastes




K158
10
$14,838
$2,570
$12,268
K160
740
$1,097,975
$190,180
$907,795
K161
3,700
$5,489,875
$950,900
$4,538,975
TOTAL
4,450
56,602,688
$1,143,650
$5,459,038
The costs we present here represent those at the national average price for commercial
incineration. However, it is important to note that these prices vary considerably by region and
customer. Individual generators may therefore encounter different prices. In particular, generators
already shipping large quantities of other wastes to a commercial facility may face lower prices.
Spent Aluminum Pntlinp.rs
Based on information provided by generators and noted in the draft Phase III LDR rule, we
have assumed that most spent aluminum potliner waste (K088) affected by the Phase III rule will
be treated by thermal destruction at the Reynolds Metals facility. Based on a waste quantity
estimate of 120,000, total incremental costs of the rule will range from $6.4 to $42.4 million each
year.27 According to the Capacity Analysis Branch, some of this waste may already be undergoing
thermal treatment. Because we are uncertain as to the portion of waste that might currently be
incinerated, we estimate the cost of treating the total quantity. EPA will continue to investigate
current treatment for potliners, and for the present note that this cost estimate may be somewhat
high.
27 120,000 tons x ($200 + $110 transportation cost) - 120,000 tons x ($207 + $50) = $6,360,000.
120,000 tons x ($500 + $110 transportation cost) - 120,000 tons x ($207 + $50) = $42,360,000.
3-18

-------
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE ffl LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
We measure the economic impacts of the Phase III Rule by comparing the estimated costs
of regulatory compliance with the historic costs in the industry activity. Based on the results of our
cost analysis, we consider the potential economic impacts on:
•	The aluminum industry's compliance with LDR standards for spent potliners.
•	The organic chemical and petroleum refinery industry's compliance with
LDR standards for characteristic waste; and
In the following sections we describe our methodology and results.
Methodology
Characteristic Wastes
As in our cost analysis, our assessment of economic impacts focuses on the two industries
expected to incur significant costs - the organic chemical and petroleum refining industries. We
lacked the financial data that would be required to estimate economic impacts at the facility level.
Therefore, we compared compliance costs to historic industry costs over a ten-year time period. To
gather the historic data we referred to two measures:
•	Historic annual pollution control costs -- We obtained data on pollution
control capital expenditure and operating costs Pollution Abatement Costs and
Expenditures, 1982-1991, and information on the number of establishments •
from County Business Patterns: United States 1982-1991™
•	Historic annual cost of operations - Data on capital expenditure and
operating costs are from the Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for
Industry Groups arid Industries, 1982-1991, and information on the number of
establishments from County Business Patterns: United States 1982-1991.29
28	Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures, 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce; County Business Patterns: United States, 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
29	Historic cost of operation capital expenditure and operating cost data are from, Annual Survey
of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries, 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S.
Department of Commerce; County Business Patterns: United States, 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census,
U.S. Department of Commerce.
3-19

-------
To arrive at the historic industry pollution control costs and cost of operations for average
facilities, we first calculated average facility annual costs. This figure is based on total industry costs
divided by the number of facilities in that industry. We then took the average of the per facility
costs over a ten-year period to arrive at the historic average annual cost per facility. We use these
costs as the baseline in our analysis.
As described earlier in this chapter, we developed compliance cost estimates representing
the increase in annual capital expenditures and annual operating costs for average facilities in each
industry sector. Our estimates assume that facilities are able to modify their permits to incorporate
BAT levels for affected constituents. To determine the magnitude of economic impacts associated
with compliance with the rule, we compare the cost of compliance to the historical data detailed
above.
Newly-listed Wastes
For newly-listed wastes, we focused on the incremental compliance costs for the spent
aluminum potliner wastes. The estimated incremental compliance costs for these wastes represent
the majority of the costs for treating all newly-listed wastes. To determine the economic impact of
the rule on this industry, we compared the incremental cost of the rule to historic pollution control
operating costs and historic operating costs.
Based on studies conducted by the EPA, we estimate that 23 facilities will be affected by the
rule.30 In this analysis, we assumed that facilities generate on average 5,000 tons of spent potliners
each year, and face an average incremental cost of $203 per ton.31
Results
Characteristic Wastes
For characteristic wastes, our analysis shows that the impact on organic chemical producers
and petroleum refiners will be quite minimal. Compliance costs represent less than one percent of
historic pollution control and operating costs for both of these industries. However, for those
facilities that must treat to UTS in order to comply, costs would be more significant. Here again
we emphasize that few facilities are likely to comply by treating to UTS, and that as many facilities
as possible will try to comply by modifying their permits. In Exhibit 3-10, we detail the costs and
economic impacts of this compliance option.
30	Summary of Generation, Disposal and Treatment Practices for Spent Aluminum Potliners from
the Primary Reduction of Aluminum, U.S. EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, March 12,
1990.
31	Average generation based on production of 120,000 tons of waste by 23 facilities. Average
incremental cost based on treatment cost range of $200 to $500 per ton and transportation costs of
$110 per ton: [($200 + $500)/2 + 110] - ($207 + $50) = $203.
3-20

-------
Exhibit 3-10
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PHASE 01 RULE COMPLIANCE

Historic Pollution
Historic
Compliance


Control Costs
Operating
Costs
Economic

(per facility)
Costs
(per
Impact


(per facility)
facility)32

Option 1: Modify
Permit
Organic Chemical
Petroleum Refining
$3 million
$11 million
$76 million
$471 million
$5,800
$5,800
ป
ฃ 1
percent
ฃ 1
Dercent
Newly-listed Wastes
The estimated incremental compliance costs for treating the newly-listed spent aluminum
potliners represents the majority of the costs for treating all newly-listed wastes affected by the rule.
As shown in Exhibit 3-11, the incremental costs of treating spent aluminum potliners represents an
estimated 40 percent of historic pollution control operating costs for aluminum producers.33
Treatment costs represent only one percent of total historic operating costs. The difference between
the economic impact figures suggests that, while the compliance costs of the rule may pose
significant additional pollution control costs, these costs are less significant when compared to the
total operating costs, suggesting the rule has only small impacts on the price of aluminum.
32	Per facility compliance costs were based on average costs to direct and indirect dischargers.
33	We did not consider the impact on capital costs, as the assumed compliance option (off-site
treatment) will not incur capital expenditures. It is worth noting that the majority of the 31
aluminum reduction facilities included in our historic cost estimates are large facilities (i.e., greater
than 500 employees). Therefore, historic costs for aluminum producers are not skewed towards
those of small facilities, as might be the case for organic chemical historic costs.
3-21

-------
Exhibit 3-11
HISTORIC OPERATING COSTS FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
Per Facility Costs
Historic Cost
(per facility)
Compliance
Costs
(per facility)
Economic
Impact
Pollution Control Operating Costs
$2.6 million
$1.0 million
40 percent
Total Operating and Management
Costs
$135.6 million
$1.0 million
1 percent
EPA also assessed the effect of Phase III compliance costs on the competitiveness of
domestic producers in the international market, in part because our data may not reflect recent
fluctuations in the aluminum market. During the early 1990's international aluminum prices fell
drastically as cheap aluminum from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) flooded an
international market already above capacity. In 1991 international prices averaged approximately
$0.68 per pound, while U.S. production costs were between $0.67 and $0,68.34 During the next two
years, however, CIS production increased 17-fold, as producers were able to compete due to
artificially low costs caused by large government energy subsidies.35 During the next three years
only those countries with cheap power sources, such as hydroelectricity, and inexpensive labor pools,
were able to compete with Russian producers, while smelters in Central Europe, who maintained
the highest production costs, began to close.36
Since 1994, however, international aluminum prices have risen as global supplies have
decreased and demands have continued to grow. CIS exports have decreased during this period
because of a 1994 agreement between international producers in which CIS producers agreed to
reduce production rates in return for western technical and financial assistance to update their
facilities. Russian production rates also decreased because of increased alumina prices and energy
costs, due in part to pressure from the International Monetary Fund on the Russian government to
raise energy prices to international levels.37 During this same period international aluminum
demands have continued to grow, driven by the automotive, beverage container, and construction
34	Aluminum Manufacturers - Industry Report, prepared by Kember Securities Group, Inc., April
26, 1991.
35	"Optimism Despite Cutbacks: Aluminum Industry is Concerned About Continuing Outflow
of Cheap Produce from USSR," Aluminum Today, September 1994.
36	ปgurvey Gf Aluminium: Russia is in the Market - Amid Continuing Recession, the Industry
is Trying to Adjust to the Deluge of Metal Exported by Former Soviet World," Financial Times
(London), October 19, 1993.
37	"Optimism Despite Cutbacks," Aluminium Today, 1995.
3-22

-------
industries.38 During the last two decades primary aluminum consumption has grown 3.7 percent
per year, out-pacing copper, zinc, and lead.39 Between 1993 and 1994, however, western world
consumption rates grew by 8.7 percent, and have not subsided in 1995.40
This shift in international supply and demand has been reflected by increasing prices: the
average international price per pound jumped from 72 cents in the fourth quarter of 1994, to 97
cents in the first quarter of 1995.4i Though initial 1995 prices were higher than the annual average
to date, mid-year predictions estimated prices of approximately 85 cents per pound,42 and analysts
expect prices to continue increasing as producers are slow to increase capacity and as demands
continue to grow. In response to these market factors, industry analysts at Merrill Lynch and
Lehman Brothers have estimated 1996 primary aluminum prices of $1.00 to $1.10 per pound,
respectively, while Merrill Lynch has estimated an even further increase in 1997, to an estimated
price of $1.15 per pound.43 During the last several years primary aluminum costs have also grown,
but not at the pace seen for aluminum prices.
To analyze the effect of the Phase III rule on the domestic aluminum industry, we compared
the estimated compliance costs with average aluminum costs and prices. Based on estimated
compliance costs of $6.4 to $42.4 million, and historic annual production rates of approximately 8.1
million pounds per year, the Phase III compliance costs correspond to an incremental cost of $0,001
to $0,005 per pound.44 In relation to present average western production costs ($0,564 per
pound45), this would account for an additional 0.2 to 0.8 percent of costs. Industry analysts also
estimate that prices will increase by 35 percent during the next two years. These price increases are
driven by an international market where supplies are struggling to meet demands. This rising
market suggests that the relatively small incremental costs of the Phase III LDR rule will not have
a significant impact on the competitiveness of domestic primary aluminum producers.
38	"Survey of Aluminum," 1993,
39	Aluminum Outlook Update - Industry Report, prepared by Lehman Brothers, Inc., August 10,
1995.
40	Aluminum Fundamentals, Pricing Outlook to 1997 - Industry Report, Salomon Brothers Inc.,
August 14, 1995.
41	Nonferrous Metals & Mining Monthly: Global Industry Report, prepared by Merrill Lynch Capital
Markets, August 4, 1995.
42	Global Industry Report, Merrill Lynch, 1995.
43	Global Industry Report, Merrill Lynch, 1995, and Aluminum Price Outlook, Lehman Brothers,
1995.
44	Estimated annual production rates are based on the average of 1982 to 1991 annual
production rates, as reported in Annual Survey of Manufactures: Statistics for Industry Groups and
Industries.
45	"Aluminum Market Facing 'Hangover'," American Metal Market, February 1, 199, p. 4.
3-23

-------
BENEFITS ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER 4
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents an assessment of the benefits of the Phase III LDR rule for both ICRT
wastes and newly listed wastes. For ICRT wastes, the magnitude of benefits depends on the
compliance option implemented by the affected facilities. As discussed earlier, generators of
affected wastewaters will have a number of compliance options under the rule. For direct
dischargers, facilities may: (1) treat their waste to meet UTS standards; (2) seek modifications to
their CWA permits to include BAT standards for UTS constituents; or (3) seek a treatability
variance under RCRA for UTS constituents. For indirect dischargers, a fourth option includes
demonstrating that the POTW treating their wastewater provides adequate treatment of affected
pollutants.
In this benefits assessment, we estimate the loadings and risk reductions likely to occur if
facilities comply with the rule under the first option (i.e., that treatment occurs). If facilities can
comply under the second, third or fourth options, loadings reductions and risk reductions may be
lower or zero, depending on whether any facilities must treat their wastes.1
As a starting point for the benefits assessment, we used the results of the affected quantities
analysis described in Chapter 2. We evaluated the pollutant loadings reductions and risk reductions
for those industries estimated to have major impacts, including organic chemicals and petroleum
refining. In addition, this benefits assessment only considered those wastestreams expected to
require treatment under the rule (i.e., those with contaminant concentrations that exceed UTS
levels). In the assessment, we used the wastestream quantity and loadings data developed for the
Chapter 2 analysis.
1 EPA believes that most facilities will be able to comply by obtaining permit modifications. The
cost analysis in Chapter 3 assumed that this was the case. If it is the case, loadings and risk
reductions would be very small or zero. This assessment also did not include an adjustment to
reflect the fact that some of the wastestreams identified as affected by the TRI analysis may not be
managed in land-based units and thus would not be affected by the rule. The assessment may
understate benefits to the extent that we omitted benefit categories and did not consider the effects
of 53 non-priority pollutants not addressed in TRI, as discussed below.
4-1

-------
Based on the results of this analysis, 20 of the 48 constituents considered were identified as
pollutants of concern (i.e., a wastestream contained this constituent at a concentration level
exceeding UTS), and thus warranted consideration in our benefits assessment.2 In our risk
assessment, we were able to evaluate the risks associated with 15 of these 20 constituents; health
based criteria were not available for the other five constituents. The loadings reductions evaluation
considered all 20 constituents.
For newly listed wastes, we assessed the potential benefits of the rule by estimating the
incremental reduction in human health risks resulting from implementation of the rule. First, we
quantified the baseline risks associated with current waste management practices, which typically
consist of disposal in Subtitle C landfills. We used data on the concentration of regulated
constituents, fate and transport processes, and various exposure scenarios to calculate cancer and
noncancer risks to human health. We then compared these baseline risks to the post-regulatory risks
assuming treatment to UTS levels before disposal of spent aluminum potliners. The incremental
risk reduction is used as in indicator of the rule's benefits.
Scope of the Assessment
There are a broad range of benefits that may result from environmental regulations that
improve and maintain water quality, including human health, ecological, and economic welfare
benefits. To evaluate these benefits, it is necessary to evaluate the physical effects of the
regulations, identify the categories of benefits likely to result from these physical changes, and
evaluate the scope and magnitude of these benefits. This requires linking the expected physical
effects to goods and services valued by society.
I CRT Wastes
In this assessment, we considered human health benefits related to avoiding cancer and
noncancer risks. We evaluated these effects in terms of the estimated reductions in risks likely to
result from the rule. In addition, we estimated the loadings reductions potentially resulting from
the rule. While loadings reductions are an imperfect measure of benefits because they do not
indicate how these reductions affect human health or the environment, they do provide a baseline
indicator of the physical effects of the rule.
We were unable to evaluate the potential ecological benefits from the rule, EPA Ambient
Water Quality Criteria were not available for any of the 20 constituents of concern, and thus we
were unable to compare estimated baseline constituent concentrations with ecological standards to
evaluate ecological risk. We also were unable to evaluate the potential recreational benefits under
2 Recall that in the impact analysis, we focused on those UTS constituents that are non-priority
pollutants, based on the fact that priority pollutants are expected to be adequately controlled under
the CWA. In addition, we limited our analysis to those constituents that had data available through
TRI. Of the 216 UTS constituents, 101 are non-priority pollutants. TRI data were available for 48
of these 101 constituents.
4-2

-------
the rale. Recreational benefits could arise if constituent concentration levels affect fish populations,
which potentially may reduce catch rates and consumer welfare. Our assessment did not consider
this category of benefits because we did not have data on the ecological effects of the rule.
Finally, we did not consider passive use benefits in our analysis. People may hold passive
use values for water resources; passive use value reflects the value placed on a resource for reasons
other than use, such as the value of knowing that the resource exists and will be available to future
generations. The information required to value the passive use benefits associated with this rule is
not available.
Newly listed Wastes
As discussed earlier, the rule establishes standards for two categories of newly listed wastes:
carbamate wastes and spent aluminum potliners. The benefits of the rule depend on the
incremental risk reductions that may result from treatment of the wastes. We expect that the
benefits of regulating carbamate wastes will be minimal because the quantity of waste affected is
very small. As discussed in Chapter 2, an annual total of 4,500 tons of carbamate wastes are
expected to be affected by the rule.
In contrast, EPA data show that each year 120,000 tons of spent aluminum potliners will
require treatment to achieve UTS levels. Because of the relatively large quantity of spent aluminum
potliners that will be treated, we believe that the largest incremental risk reduction for newly listed
wastes is likely to result from regulation of spent aluminum potliners. Consequently, we performed
a benefits assessment only for the regulation of spent aluminum potliners.
For this benefits assessment, we examined benefits related to the potential reductions in
human health risks. First, we estimated the cancer and noncancer risks posed by the baseline
management practice of disposing of untreated spent aluminum potliners in Subtitle C landfills.
Next, we assessed the post-regulatory risks associated with the disposal of spent aluminum potliners
after treatment to UTS levels. We limited the post-regulatory analysis by examining the risks related
to what is expected to be the most prevalent compliance alternative, a thermal treatment process
developed by Reynolds Metals Company. Finally, as a measure of the rule's benefits, we compared
the baseline and post-regulatory risks to estimate incremental risk reductions. For both baseline and
post-regulatory risks, we did not quantify benefits related to changes in property value or ecosystem
function, although these might represent additional benefits of the rule.
Summary of Results
ICRT Wastes
The results of this assessment indicate that the benefits of the rule range between very small
and zero, depending on whether facilities comply with the rule by treating their affected
wastestreams (option one) or comply by either revising their CWA permit, obtaining a treatability
variance under RCRA, or demonstrating that the POTW treating their wastestream provides
adequate treatment of affected pollutants (options two, three, or four).
4-3

-------
Even at the high-end (i.e., under option one), the estimated benefits are very small.
•	High-end loadings reductions range between 36 and 269 tons per year for
direct dischargers and 1,490 and 22,621 tons per year for indirect dischargers.
For direct dischargers, these loadings reductions represent a very small
percentage of total TRI chemical loadings to surface waters (0.03 to 0.20
percent). For indirect dischargers, these loadings reductions represent
between 0.8 and 11.9 percent of all TRI loadings transferred to POTWs.
The loadings reductions achieved under the rule are likely to be in the lower
end of this range. This is the case because the lower end is based on the
assumption that POTWs will not require treatment of wastestreams
containing acetone, butanol, and methanol because POTWs effectively
remove these constituents prior to discharge.
•	Based on the results of the screening and more detailed risk assessments, the
estimated baseline risks associated with only four wastestreams potentially
exceed commonly assumed threshold cancer and noncancer risk levels. We
estimated that three wastestreams containing aniline pose baseline cancer
risks ranging from 1 x 10"5 to 2 x 10"3 which would be reduced to between 8
x 108 and 3 x 10"6 under the Phase III rule. A fourth wastestream containing
acrylamide poses baseline cancer risk at a level of 2 x 103, The rule is
estimated to reduce this risk to between 2 x 10"4 and 4 x 10"3. However, our
analysis may overstate the baseline risk from these wastestreams. All four of
these wastestreams are discharged to POTWs; if POTW treatment removes
these constituents ^from the wastewater prior to discharge to surface water
and/or if no drinking water intake is located downstream from the POTW's
outfall, baseline risks will be lower. We currently do not have information
related to these two factors for these wastestreams.
In reviewing the results of the benefits assessment for the Phase III rule, the reader should
be aware that even the small estimates of benefits are based on two important assumptions that
almost certainly lead to overstatement of the net improvements in environmental quality. First, the
analysis assumed that all affected facilities comply with the rule by treating the affected wastestreams
(rather than one of the other three options). Second, the analysis did not incorporate an adjustment
to reflect the fact that some of the wastestreams identified as affected by the impacts analysis may
not be managed in surface water impoundments and thus would not be affected by the rule. Such
an adjustment is warranted because the TRI data used in the affected quantities analysis does not
include data on waste management locations. The cost analysis (see Chapter 3) used the adjusted
results of the affected facilities assessment (Chapter 2), based on the percentage of facilities in the
industry managing wastewaters in surface water impoundments. For the risk assessment, such an
adjustment would require specific information on management practices for each affected
wastestream — information we do not have.
At the same time, however, the reader should bear in mind that there are a number of
potential benefits that we have been unable, to consider. First, the data from TRI that we used in
the benefits assessment did not provide complete coverage of all non-priority pollutants. TRI
loadings data were available for only 48 of the 101 non-priority constituents, and releases of less
than 10,000 pounds per year did not have to be reported. Second, certain categories of benefits
4-4

-------
could not be analyzed with available data and methods. Ecological effects could not be considered
due to the lack of water quality criteria, which in turn made it impossible to evaluate possible
impacts on recreational fishing. Furthermore, no data are available on passive use values.
Based on available data, the benefits of the regulating ICRT wastes in the Phase III rule
appear to be quite small. While inclusion of additional pollutants and benefit categories could
certainly increase the net benefits of the rule, we have no evidence suggesting the increase is likely
to be large, particularly given the relatively small number of affected facilities and the minimal
reductions in total pollutant loadings for the 48 non-priority constituents that we were able to
analyze.
Newly listed Wastes
Our examination of the benefits of regulating newly listed wastes focused on the rule's effects
on waste management practices for spent aluminum potliners. We calculated incremental benefits
using different baseline risk scenarios. The analysis suggests that under central tendency
assumptions, the incremental benefits for individual risks are negligible. Under high-end
assumptions, however, there may be some reductions in individual risks. The analysis indicates that
relatively high individual cancer risks on the order of 10"4, as well as high noncancer risks, may be
prevented by implementation of the rule.
The analysis of baseline individual risks indicates that there is less than a one in one million
central tendency lifetime cancer risk resulting from ingestion of groundwater contaminated by a
Subtitle C landfill. In addition, the analysis shows that the expected daily intake of contaminated
drinking water will not result in an exceedance of the reference dose for any of the regulated
constituents in spent aluminum potliners. Under more conservative high-end assumptions, however,
human health risks are higher. Individual cancer risk is approximately 10"4 while the reference dose
is exceeded for four regulated constituents, arsenic, lead, cyanide, and fluoride. These high-end
estimates reflect approximately the 90th percentile scenario. That is, we believe that there is roughly
a 90 percent probability that individual risk would be equal to or lower than the high-end risk
levels.3
Examination of the post-regulatory risks indicate that there are no appreciable risks
associated with treatment of spent aluminum potliners to UTS levels. We based our assessment on
a study performed by the EPA as well as a study performed as part of a RCRA Part B permit
application submitted by Reynolds Metals Company. These two studies quantify the health risks of
wastes treated by the thermal treatment technology developed by Reynolds Metals Company. There
are, however, a number of different technologies that may be used to treat the waste. We did not
3 As used here, the 90th percentile value for risk does not reflect the use of the 90th percentile
values for each of the input parameters of the risk calculation. Although we did not perform Monte
Carlo analysis for this risk assessment, the risk driving parameter-dilution/attenuation factors for
fate and transport processes-was calculated by EPA using Monte Carlo analysis. The high-end risk
values presented here reflect our use of the 90th percentile of EPA's distribution of
dilution/attenuation factors in combination with average or central tendency assumptions for all
other input parameters.
4-5

-------
investigate the risks related to these other technologies. It should be noted that several companies
have provided EPA evidence that technologies they are developing can effectively treat spent
aluminum potliners.
METHODOLOGY
In this section we present the methodology used to evaluate the benefits of regulating ICRT
and newly listed wastes and discuss the results in more detail.
ICRT Wastes
Loadings Reductions
We estimated the loadings reductions that result from the rule based on the difference
between estimated loadings under baseline conditions and under the rule. We estimated loadings
under baseline conditions using the following flow volumes and loadings data (these same data were
used in the impacts analysis).
•	For the organic chemicals industry, we estimated that wastestream flow rates
range between 100,000 and 5.53 million gallons per day for direct dischargers
and 100,000 and 2.0 million gallons per day for indirect dischargers.
Constituent concentration levels were estimated based on loadings data from
TRI.
•	For the petroleum industry, we estimated that wastestream flow rates range
between 250,000 and 10.0 million gallons per day for direct dischargers and
200,000 and 1.77 million gallons per day for indirect dischargers. Constituent
concentration levels were estimated based on loadings data from TRI.
We estimated loadings under the rule using the same flow data described above and assuming
concentration levels are equal to UTS.
Risk Assessment
For the risk assessment, we first conducted a screening analysis to identify the
constituent/wastestream combinations that may pose risk to human health. The screening analysis
used very conservative (i.e., high risk) assumptions to compare estimated concentration levels for
the affected wastestreams with human health-based reference levels. For those wastestreams
estimated to exceed the reference concentrations, we conducted a more detailed risk assessment
based on site-specific data.
4-6

-------
Screeniiip Analysis
As a first step in the evaluation of potential risk reductions likely to result from the rule, we
conducted a screening analysis. This screening analysis identified those wastestreams with
constituents that exceed a lifetime risk level of Iff6 for cancer risks or that exceed the reference dose
(RfD) for noncancer risks, under conservative baseline conditions. This screening approach
implicitly assumes that significant benefits will not result unless risk levels are currently above these
threshold levels.
Wastewater discharges may pose risk to exposed individuals via many pathways. In our
analysis, we considered four pathways: (1) direct ingestion of drinking water; (2) ingestion of
contaminated fish tissue; (3) human ingestion of dairy products contaminated because dairy cattle
consumed water from affected surface waters; and (4) human ingestion of beef products
contaminated because beef cattle consumed water from affected surface waters. Our analysis
focused on these pathways because we expected these pathways to represent the most significant
pathways of risk to human health.
The screening analysis consisted of three steps: (1) estimating the human health-based
reference concentrations; (2) estimating the high-end exposure concentrations for baseline releases
of non-priority pollutants; and (3) comparing reference concentrations to exposure levels for each
affected wastestream to identify those potentially posing risk to human health.
Estimation of Reference Concentrations
For the purposes of the screening analysis, we estimated a reference concentration for each
constituent using the following conservative approach.
•	For each constituent/pathway combination, we "back-calculated" a health-
based number (HBN). The HBN reflects the concentration in surface water
that would result in human exposure at the threshold cancer or noncancer
risk levels defined above.4
•	The HBNs for each pathway were developed by applying equations for
estimating fate of constituents in surface waters, uptake by dairy and beef
cattle (when applicable), intake by humans, and the resulting exposure levels.
In the analysis, we used high-end values for parameters that drive exposures
(such as the volume flow rate of receiving waters) and central tendencies for
other parameters. The equations used in the analysis were taken from Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund and the Combustor Indirect Exposure
4 This approach is similar to that taken in the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR).
4-7

-------
Methodologies report.5 Cancer , potency factors and RfDs were taken from IRIS.
Appendix S contains a summary of the equations and input parameters used in the
analysis.
• We compared the HBNs for the four pathways to determine the dominant
pathway. The dominant pathway is the pathway posing the highest level of
risk to an exposed individual. The HBN associated with the dominant
pathway was used in the analysis.6 (Note that under this back-calculation
approach, the smallest HBN establishes the most stringent limit on
concentration levels and thus represents the dominant pathway.)
Estimation of Exposure and Risk Levels
In the second step of the screening analysis, we estimated exposure concentrations based on
a simple dilution model. For both direct and indirect discharges, the analysis accounts for mixing
of the effluent discharges with the surface waters receiving these discharges (thus reducing exposure
concentrations). We conservatively assumed that the effluent would be discharged into a third-order
stream with average width of 18 feet, average depth of 0.6 feet, and average flow of 13.4 million
cubic meters per year.7
In addition, for indirect discharges, we assumed additional reductions in exposure
concentrations due to mixing of the affected wastestream with other wastewaters treated at the
POTW. We assumed that flow rates at POTWs receiving effluent from affected facilities range from
one to three million gallons per year. Also, we assumed that acetone, butanol, and methanol are
fully treated by the POTW, and therefore there is no risk associated with these pollutants under
baseline conditions. POTWs commonly are able to remove these three constituents from
wastewaters and may even use them as inputs to stimulate biological activity in treatment processes.8
5	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Risk
Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B,
Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals), Interim, December 1991, and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Methodology for Assessing
Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions, Interim Final, January 1990.
(And Addendum, Review Draft, November 1993).
6	Direct ingestion of drinking water was the dominant pathway for all 15 pollutants considered
in the risk assessment.
1 Frits van der Leeden, Fred L. Troise and David Keith Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Second
Edition, Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers, Inc., 1990; and U.S. Geological Survey, "Water
Resources Data," State Water-Data Reports, Water Year 1992.
8 Note that there may be some risk associated with discharges of these pollutants to POTWs if
aeration treatment occurs prior to biological treatment, since aeration treatment may lead to
emissions to air of these pollutants.
4-8

-------
For the other constituents of concern, some reductions in effluent concentrations may occur prior
to discharge by the POTW to surface waters due to treatment at the POTW. To be conservative,
we assumed that no removal of these other constituents occurs at the POTW,
Overall, the exposure assessment approach used in the screening analysis is very conservative.
For example, we did not consider biodegradation or hydrolysis of the constituents in surface waters,
and we assumed that the receiving water bodies are small (third-order) streams. In addition, for
indirect discharges, we do not consider the effectiveness of current POTW treatment at removing
constituents prior to discharge to surface waters. Use of this conservative approach seeks to ensure
that the screening analysis identifies all wastestreams potentially posing human health risk.
Comparison of Reference and Exposure Concentrations
In the third step of this screening analysis, we compared the HBN concentrations with
exposure concentrations to identify those wastestreams potentially posing risk to human health in
excess of the assumed threshold limits for cancer and noncancer risk.
Overall, this three step assessment approach should overstate the potential risk associated
with exposure to constituents in the affected wastestreams, and thus should serve as an effective
screen. Any wastestreams not posing baseline risks under these high-end assumptions will not
generate significant benefits as concentrations are reduced to UTS levels under the rule.
Wastestreams that show exceedences of the reference concentrations under the screening analysis
required additional analysis based on actual conditions to better evaluate exposure and risk levels.
This additional analysis was conducted in the more detailed risk assessment.
More Detailed Risk Assessment
For those wastestreams with risk levels exceeding the cancer or noncancer risk thresholds,
we conducted a more detailed risk assessment, relying on actual site-specific data for these identified
wastestreams, rather than the conservative assumptions used in the screening analysis. In particular,
we collected data on the flow rate of the surface water body receiving the effluent discharges. Also,
as necessary we collected data on the actual flow rate of the POTW receiving the identified
wastestream. All other assumptions used in this more detailed risk assessment are the same as those
used in the screening analysis.
To obtain flow rate data, we used TRI data and the Select Industrial Discharge System
(SIDS) to identify the location of the facility and the name of the water body or POTW receiving
the discharge. We then identified the water body to which the POTW discharges. For the identified
water bodies, we collected average flow rate data using SIDS.
In this more detailed assessment, we intended to consider the risks associated with the
dominant pathway, as well as risks for other pathways for which the HBN was within one order of
magnitude of the HBN for the dominant pathway. For the 15 constituents analyzed, however, none
of the other three pathways met this criterion.
4-9

-------
Newlv I isted Wastes
We examined the incremental risk reduction associated with regulating spent aluminum
potliners. This required the identification of both baseline (pre-regulatory) and post-regulatory
disposal management practices and their resulting risks. According to EPA data, approximately
120,000 tons of spent aluminum potliners are generated each year by 23 aluminum reduction
facilities operating in 14 states. Currently, the waste is managed in a variety of ways, including
disposal in Subtitle C landfills, recycling, and incineration. The most frequently used strategy for
waste management is the disposal in Subtitle C landfills; about 80 percent or more of the generated
spent aluminum potliners is landfilled.* We assume in this analysis that the baseline risks result
from the placement of untreated spent aluminum potliners into Subtitle C landfills.
The rule would require treatment of spent aluminum potliners to meet UTS levels before
it is land disposed. Because concentration-based numerical treatment standards are being used in
the rule, any treatment technology may be used as long as UTS levels are attained. EPA believes
that there several technologies that could potentially treat the waste to UTS levels. For example,
EPA stated in the proposed delisting of kiln residue from the thermal treatment process used at the
Reynolds Metals Company facility in Gum Springs, Arkansas that spent aluminum potliners treated
in this manner have been shown to be nonhazardous.10 Several primary aluminum producers are
currently using the Reynolds' treatment technology for their spent aluminum potliners. Reliable
data characterizing spent aluminum potliners treated by other technologies are not available. In this
analysis, we base our assessment of post-regulatoiy risks on the use of the Reynolds' treatment
technology.
Baseline Risks
The rule establishes 27 concentration standards for constituents found in spent aluminum
potliners. These regulated constituents may cause cancer and noncancer effects in humans. Spent
aluminum potliners disposed in the Subtitle C landfills should not pose any risk to public health
because these landfills are designed to prevent the release of contaminants into underlying
groundwater. Leachate collection and monitoring systems as well as landfill liners are required to
operate a Subtitle C landfill. In most cases, these engineered and operational leak controls
effectively reduce the risks of groundwater contamination. There is, however, the possibility that
these leak controls may partially fail over time, releasing leachate into groundwater. Contaminated
groundwater may then travel down-gradient where it may serve as the supply for a drinking water
well. Ingestion of groundwater contaminated with the regulated constituents may cause carcinogenic
and noncarcinogenic effects in humans. We believe that direct ingestion of contaminated
groundwater is the dominant pathway of exposure. We did not examine in this assessment the risks
associated with indirect human exposure to contaminated groundwater, such as the use of
contaminated groundwater to irrigate crops or water livestock that are consumed by humans.
9	USEPA (1995). Proposed Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction - K088. Prepared by the Office of
Solid Waste.
10	USEPA (1991). "Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Use of EPA's Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) and Proposed
Exclusion," 56 FR 32993-33012, July 18.
4-10

-------
This general description of the potential risks posed by disposal of spent aluminum potliners
in Subtitle C landfills indicates that the following data are needed to characterize and quantify the
risks: the concentration of toxic constituents, the extent of failure of Subtitle C leak controls, fate
and transport of hazardous constituents, and human receptor characteristics. We discuss below the
methodology for the risk assessment by presenting the assumptions used.
Toxicity and Concentration of Regulated Constituents
Information on the toxicity and concentration of regulated constituents is necessary to assess
the risks of landfilled spent aluminum potliners. Due to data limitations, we are unable to analyze
the risks posed by all of the regulated constituents. For example, we found toxicity information
consisting of values for cancer slope factors (CSFs) and/or reference doses (RfDs) for only some of
the regulated constituents; CSFs and RfDs are used to assess cancer and noncancer risks,
respectively. In addition, data characterizing the concentration of one regulated constituent was not
available from EPA. Therefore, we examine approximately 60 percent of the regulated constituents.
This may result in an understatement of the risks of spent aluminum potliners.
We obtained information on the toxicity of the regulated constituents from the SmartTox
Database, which compiles information from EPA's IRIS and HEAST databases. For some
constituents, toxicity data are available for different pathways of exposure. Since we believe that
landfilled spent aluminum potliners pose risk mainly through the ingestion of contaminated
groundwater, we used CSFs and RfDs for the oral pathway.
For the concentration of regulated constituents, we use data from several EPA studies. Our
analysis requires information on the constituent concentrations found in the leachate from spent
aluminum potliners. These leachate concentrations were measured by EPA using the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).11 We use in our analysis TCLP data for the 11
regulated constituents that are metals. For organic constituents, TCLP data are not readily
available. However, EPA has characterized the total concentrations of organic constituents in the
waste.12 To convert total concentration into leachate concentration, we assume that the ratio of
total concentration to leachate concentration is 20 for the five organic constituents examined in our
analysis.13 In Exhibit 4-1, we summarize the toxicity and concentration data.
11	USEPA (1991). Characterization of Spent Aluminum Potliners from the Primary Reduction of
Aluminum.
12	USEPA Office of Solid Waste (1995). Proposed Best Demonstrated Available Technology
(BDAT) Background Document for Spent Potliners from Primary Aluminum Reduction - K088. EPA
analyzed eight samples; we use a value that averages over these samples.
13	This assumption is consistent with the approach taken in Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule.
4-11

-------
Exhibit 4-1
TOXICITY AND CONCENTRATION OF REGULATED CONSTITUENTS
Constituent
Average Le achate
Concentration
(mg/1)
Oral CSF
(mg/kg/day)"1
Oral RfD
(mg/kg/day)
Antimony
0.07

0.0004
Arsenic
0.243
1.75
0.0003
Barium
0.213

0.07
Beryllium
0.0267
4.3
0.005
Cadmium
0.015

0.0005
Chromium (Total)
0.015

0.0051
Lead
0.115

o
o
o
o
Mercury
0.0002

0.0003
Nickel
0.0475

0.02
Selenium
0.03

0.005
Silver
0.02

0.005
Cyanide (total)
108.8

0.02
Fluoride
2332

0.05
Benzo(a)pyrene
1.19
7.3

Fluoranthene
1.74

0.04
Pyrene
1.41

0.03
1	The RfD for Chromium VI is used.
2	No CSF or RfD is available for lead, but we included this
regulated constituent in our analysis because the neurobehavioral
effects of lead have been the subject of regulatory measures. In
lieu of an RfD, we rely on EPA's proposed Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead in source water. This MCL
value of 0.005 mg/1 reflects the detection limit for lead and does
not necessarily imply a safe level of ingestion. Assuming a body
weight of 70 kg and a daily intake of 1.4 liters of water, we
assume in lieu of an RfD that the intake of lead should not
exceed 0.0001 mg/kg/day.
4-12

-------
Leak Rates for Subtitle C Landfills
Health risks will result from the landfilling of spent aluminum potliners only if leachate
escapes the leachate controls at Subtitle C landfills. Although leak controls should be effective at
least in the near-term, the possibility remains that they will become less effective over time. For
example, over the long run, the integrity of the liner and the leachate collection system may decrease
and leakage may go unaddressed by the landfill operator. The amount of leachate that is likely to
be released from a Subtitle C landfill is not known with certainty.
Based on the judgment of EPA, we believe that Subtitle C leak controls may be 70 to 85
percent effective in preventing leachate releases.14 That is, we assume in this analysis that between
15 and 30 percent of the total leachate generated at a Subtitle C landfill could escape the leak
controls and contaminate underlying groundwater.
Fate and Transport
Once leachate escapes leak controls at a Subtitle C landfill, it can enter groundwater and
migrate to down-gradient drinking water wells. The fate and transport of the pollutants will be
subject to various physical and chemical process that will cause the contaminants to dilute and
attenuate. The result is that the contaminant concentration at the well will be lower than the
concentration of the contaminants in the "pure" leachate at the landfill.
EPA has modeled fate and transport processes and has incorporated their effects on
contaminant concentration by the use of dilution/attenuation factors (DAFs). The value of a DAF
is simply the ratio of the contaminant concentration in "pure" leachate to the concentration at a
down-gradient well. Due to time and resource constraints, we did not perform facility- or
constituent-specific fate and transport modeling to calculate DAFs for this risk assessment. We
relied on DAFs calculated for EPA's Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule.15 For the TC Rule,
different assumptions about hydrogeologic settings, degradation rates, and distances to the nearest
well were used to calculate a distribution of DAF values. It is assumed that there is an infinite
source and that the DAFs apply identically to each individual constituent.
It is important to note that the DAF distribution for the TC Rule reflects assumptions for
unlined Subtitle D landfills. Since the risk assessment for spent aluminum potliners examines the
conditions at Subtitle C landfills, we adjusted the Subtitle D DAFs to account for the leak controls
present at Subtitle C landfills. We use the approach taken in the Phase II Land Disposal Restriction
rule. We assume that leak controls at Subtitle C landfills will prevent most of the leachate from
escaping from the landfill, but that some leachate will leak and contaminate groundwater. If, for
example, 30 percent of the leachate leaks from a Subtitle C landfill, then we assume that the
contaminant concentrations at a down-gradient well will be 70 percent less than would be the case
for an unlined Subtitle D landfill. Since the down-gradient well concentrations from a Subtitle C
14	EPA stated in the 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Phase II Land Disposal
Restriction rule that after 30 years of operation, the liner of a Subtitle C landfill would be about 85
percent effective. Other sources at EPA's Office of Solid Waste suggest that the effectiveness
ranges between 70 and 80 percent.
15	USEPA Office of Solid Waste (1990). Background Document, Toxicity Characteristic
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
4-13

-------
landfill are expected to be lower than for a Subtitle D landfill, the DAFs will be higher for Subtitle
C than for Subtitle D landfills. For example, in this analysis we use the 50th and 90th percentile
Subtitle D DAF values 182,000 and 47, respectively. A 30 percent leak rate implies that the
corresponding 50th and 90th percentile Subtitle C DAF values are 607,000 and 157, respectively.
Human Receptor Characteristics
We examine in this analysis the risks to people who obtain drinking water from wells drawing
contaminated groundwater. The risks will depend on human receptor characteristics such as the
duration of exposure, body weight, and daily intake of water.
Risk Calculations
Using the parameters described above, we calculated the individual risk resulting from the
disposal of spent aluminum potliners in Subtitle C landfills. Due to the uncertainty and variability
in the values for these parameters, we performed risk calculations using a range of values. We
combined various combinations of the following parameter values.
•	Leak rates at Subtitle C landfills were assumed to be 15 percent or 30
percent. An average value of 23 percent was also examined.
•	Fate and transport modeling results a DAF distribution for Subtitle D
landfills; the 50th and 90th percentile values of the distribution are 182,000
and 47, respectively. These values were adjusted to reflect a range of
partially effective leak controls and Subtitle C landfills.
•	Human receptor characteristics are assumed to be a body weight of 70 kg,
ingestion of 1.4 liters of water per day, and an exposure duration of nine or
30 years.
We used these parameter values and the data on leachate concentration and constituent
toxicity to calculate the risk to an exposed individual. The cancer risk was estimated for each
individual constituent for which a CSF exists; these values were summed to calculate the lifetime
cancer risk. For noncancer risks, we quantified the daily intake of each contaminant and compared
it to the RfD for each constituent. We identified those constituents for which the hazard quotient
(the ratio of the daily intake to the RfD) was greater than one.
Post-Regulatory Risks
The rule requires that the regulated constituents in spent aluminum potliners meet
concentration limitations specified as UTS before the waste may be land disposed. EPA believes
that a number of technologies may be implemented to treat the waste adequately. In the preamble
to the rule, EPA identified six companies that are developing such technologies. These technologies
use a variety of treatment and/or recycling approaches, such as vitrification or precipitation of
regulated constituents in K088. These technologies, however, have not been examined thoroughly
by the Agency. EPA has examined another technology that appears to meet the rule's standards.
After analysis of the Reynolds Metals Company thermal treatment process, EPA has proposed that
4-14

-------
residuals from spent aluminum potliners treated in this manner be delisted as a hazardous waste.
The Agency's delisting process, as well as the permitting process required for operation of the
Reynolds treatment facility in Gum Springs, Arkansas, provide information on the possible risks
posed by that treatment technology.
This treatment technology consists of thermal treatment of spent aluminum potliners, which
will result in the release of pollutants into the air. Following thermal treatment, the kiln residue is
placed in a Subtitle D nonhazardous waste landfill where there may be potential contamination of
groundwater.
It is beyond the scope of this analysis to characterize the risks involved in all of the treatment
technologies being developed. Consequently, we relied on the risk assessments for the Reynolds
treatment process performed for the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and
for EPA. Although other treatment technologies may be implemented in the near future, we use
the data available for the Reynolds process to describe the risks associated with treatment of spent
aluminum potliners to UTS levels.
RESULTS
I CRT Wastes
The results described below provide a high-end estimate of the benefits of the rule, assuming
facilities comply with the rule by treating the affected wastestreams to meet UTS levels (option 1
described above). Actual benefits may be lower or zero, if facilities comply through one of the other
three options.
Loadings Reductions
Based on our analysis, we estimated that the rule will result in total loadings reductions
ranging from 1,527 to 22,890 tons per year. These reductions occur at 129 to 291 facilities involving
175 to 647 constituent/wastestream combinations. These results are summarized in Exhibit 4-2.
Most of the reductions (98 percent) occur at organic chemicals facilities, with the remainder
occurring at petroleum refiners.16
We expect that the loadings reductions achieved under the rule are likely to fall at the lower
end of this range. This is so because biological treatment at POTWs usually removes acetone,
butanol, and methanol from effluent discharged to the POTW. Therefore, indirect dischargers are
likely to be able to reach agreements with POTWs allowing the facilities to continue to discharge
these constituents to the POTW above UTS levels. This has a big impact on the loadings reduction
estimates. Our loadings reduction estimates range between 20,817 to 21,322 tons per year including
these constituents versus between 1,527 to 1,833 tons per year not including these constituents (the
range varies depending on the flow rate assumptions).
16 Note that the number of affected facilities identified here does not match the numbers in
Chapter 2 because for the benefits assessment we were unable to make adjustments to account for
facilities not managing their wastewaters in surface impoundments.
4-15

-------
Overall, these loadings reductions are very small compared to total toxic loadings to surface
waters by direct dischargers based on TRI (for all TRI chemicals). The estimated loadings
reductions by direct dischargers range between 0.03 and 0.20 percent of total TRI releases to surface
waters. For indirect dischargers, these loadings reductions represent between 0,8 and 11.9 percent
of TRI loadings in discharges to POTWs. Note that toxics in discharges to POTWs may be removed
by POTW treatment prior to discharge to surface waters, as assumed for acetone, butanol, and
methanol in the case of the lower bound estimates.
Exhibit 4-2

ESTIMATED LOADINGS REDUCTIONS BY AFFECTED FACILITIES

Estimated Loadings Reductions (tons/year)
Industry
Law Flow1
High Flow1
Organic Chemicals:


Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers2
With Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
Without Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
237
20,697
1,393
32
20,471
1,338
Total
With Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
Without Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
20,934
1,630
20,503
1,370
Petroleum Refining:


Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers2
With Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
Without Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
30
358
173
4
310
153
Total
With Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
Without Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
388
203
314
157
Total
With Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
Without Acetone, Butanol & Methanol
21,322
1,833
20,817
1,527
1 Low flow and high flow refer to the wastestream flow rates assumed for the industries. Note that the
estimated loadings reductions are higher under the low flow rate because facilities would need to
remove more of the constituent from the wastestream to comply with the UTS level, the lower the
wastestream flow rate. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
2 Biological treatment at POTWs usually removes acetone, butanol, and methanol from effluent
discharged to the POTW. Thus, indirect dischargers are likely to be able to reach agreements with
POTWs allowing the facilities to continue to discharge these constituents to the POTW above UTS
levels and the loadings reductions achieved under the rule would be significantly lower, as shown.
4-16

-------
Screening Analysis Risk Assessment
Overall for the organic chemicals and petroleum refining industries 14 to 26 wastestreams
at 14 to 25 facilities were identified as posing risk to human health based on the screening analysis.
This range reflects uncertainty in the flow rates of the affected facilities. A summary of the
screening analysis results appears in Exhibit 4-3.


Exhibit 4-3


COMPARISON OF ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FACILITIES AFFECTED BY
THE RULE AND NUMBER OF FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS
EXCEEDING THRESHOLD RISK LEVELS
Industry
Estimated Number of Facilities
Affected Based on the Impact Analysis
Estimated Number of Facilities with
Wastestreams Exceeding Threshold
Risk Levels
Low Flow
High Flow
Low Flow
High How
Organic Chemicals
233
113
25
13
Petroleum Refining
58
16
1
1
Total
291
129
26
14
Note that the number of affected facilities identified here does not match the numbers in Chapter 2
because for the benefits assessment we were unable to make adjustments to account for facilities not
managing their wastewaters in surface impoundments.
Organic Chemicals
The impact analysis estimated that 113 to 233 organic chemical manufacturing facilities
managing between 155 and 404 constituent/wastestream combinations would be affected by the rule.
We were only able to evaluate the baseline risks associated with 346 of these 404
constituent/wastestream combinations because no health risk information was available for the six
constituents in the 58 other wastestreams.17
The screening risk assessment identified nine to 20 wastestreams with cancer risk levels
exceeding 10"6 under baseline conditions and three to six wastestreams with noncancer risk levels
exceeding reference doses. These 12 to 26 wastestreams contain one of five constituents: aniline
17 The six constituents for which we did not have health risk information include methyl
methacrylate, ethylene oxide, methyl isobutyl ketone, chloroprene, p-cresol, and allyl chloride.
4-17

-------
(nine to 19 wastestreams), acrylamide (zero to one wastestream), pyridine (two wastestreams in both
scenarios), barium compounds (one wastestream in both scenarios), and acetonitrile (zero to two
wastestreams).
For these 12 to 26 wastestreams, we conducted a more detailed risk assessment, using site-
specific data, including data on the actual flow rate of the surface water bodies receiving these
wastewater discharges. The results of the full risk assessment are described further below.
Petroleum Refining
The impact analysis estimated that 16 to 58 petroleum refining facilities involving 20 to 84
constituent/wastestream combinations would be affected by the rule. Based on the screening
analysis, we identified one wastestream (containing pyridine) posing noncancer risk at levels
exceeding threshold levels. The results of the more detailed risk assessment for this facility are
describe below.
More Detailed Risk Assessment
We conducted a more detailed risk assessment for 21 of the 26 wastestreams identified as
potentially posing risk based on the screening analysis for both the organic chemicals and petroleum
refining industries. This risk assessment is based on the average flow rate data for the water bodies
receiving these wastestreams. We were unable to obtain site-specific flow rate data for the other
facilities because the wastestream ultimately was discharged to a large bay or lake. The dilution
model that we used in our analysis to estimate mixing of effluent discharges with receiving waters
is not able to address mixing for these water bodies. A summary of the results of this analysis
appears in Exhibit 4-4.
The results of our more detailed risk assessment indicate that the benefits from the rule are
extremely small. Based on our assessment, we identified four wastestreams potentially posing cancer
risk exceeding the threshold risk levels.18 Three wastestreams pose baseline cancer risk ranging
from 1 x 105 to 1 x 10"* due to exposure to aniline. We estimated that under the rale, treatment
of these wastestreams to meet UTS levels will reduce these risks to between 8 x 10'8 and 3 x 10"*.
A fourth wastestream containing acrylamide poses baseline cancer risk of 2 x 10"3. We estimated
that treatment of this wastestream to UTS levels will reduce this risk to between 2 x 104 and 4 x 10"3.
However, even for these facilities, our analysis may overstate the baseline risks associated
with exposure to these constituents for two reasons. First, the affected facilities discharge these
wastestreams to POTWs. Treatment at the POTWs may remove some or all of these constituents
from these wastestreams prior to discharge to surface waters. For example, EPA's Treatability
Manual (1983) indicates that 95 percent removal of aniline can be achieved through activated sludge
18 Note that for these four wastestreams, we attempted to verify whether these facilities managed
their wastestreams in surface impoundments. We did verify that wastestreams 3 and 14 are managed
in surface impoundments, and thus will be affected by the rule. We were unable to verify whether
wastestreams 4 and 15 are managed in surface impoundments.
4-18

-------
Exhibit 4-4
RESULTS OF DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT
Wastes tream
Constituent
Direct/
Indirect
Discharger
Risk
Type
Loadings
(Ibs/yr)
Baseline Risk Level
Actual Flow Rate'
UTS Risk Level
Actual Flow Rate1
1
ANILINE
D
C
1,800
<10'6
-
2
ANILINE
I
C
17,155
<10'6
-
3
ANILINE
I
C
392,304
1x10'"
<10"6
4
ANILINE

C
23,000
lxlO"5
< 10"6 to 3xl0'6
5
ANILINE
D
C
750
<106
-
6
ANILINE
I
C
3,000
<106
-
7
ANILINE
I
C
33,000
A
ฉ
&
-
8
ANILINE
I
C
300,000
<106
-
9
ANILINE
I
C
750
<10'6
-
10
ANILINE
I
C
2,100
A
p
-
11
ANILINE
D
C
2,900
A
o
-
12
ANILINE
D
C
815
A
o
-
13
ANILINE
D
C
7,419
A
p
Ov
-
14
ANILINE
I
C
200,000
8xl0'5
<10'6 to 2xl0'6
15
ACRYLAMIDE
I
C
53,638
2x10ฐ
2xl0'4 to 4x10ฐ
16
ACETONITRILE
D
NC
33,000

-------
treatment.19 If this rate of removal is achieved, the baseline risk associated with the wastestreams
containing aniline would be on the order of 7 x 10"7 and 6 x 10"6. We were unable to obtain
information on the treatability of acrylamide. Second, if no drinking water intake is located
downstream from the POTWs' outfalls, then no one would be exposed at these risk levels, and thus
no risk reductions would result under the rule.
For the other 17 wastestreams analyzed, actual flow rates of the receiving waters were
significantly greater than the conservative flow rate assumption used in the screening analysis. Using
these data in our more detailed analysis, we estimated that these wastestreams will not pose any risk
above threshold levels. The results of this risk assessment indicate that mixing of the effluent
discharges with the actual flow of the receiving waters sufficiently reduces the concentration levels
in the water to risk levels below threshold cancer or noncancer risk levels.
We were unable to evaluate whether the actual baseline risk exceeded threshold risks levels
for five of the wastestreams identified by the screening analysis. For these wastestreams, the
screening analysis estimated baseline risks ranging between 2 x 10"4 and about 1 x 10"6 (i.e., these
estimated risks are only slightly above threshold risk levels). These wastestreams may pose baseline
risk exceeding threshold levels and the rule may result in additional risk reduction benefits,
depending on the actual flow rates of the receiving water bodies, as well as whether POTW
treatment removes the constituent from the waste streams prior to discharge and whether a drinking
water intake is located downstream from the discharge point. However, we do not expect these
potential benefits to significantly increase the overall magnitude of the benefit estimates from the
rule.
Newlv T jsted Wastes
We describe below the results of the human health risk assessment of spent aluminum
potliners. Both baseline risks and post-regulatory risks are discussed. The reduction of risks reflects
the benefits of regulating spent aluminum potliners.
Baseline Risks
As described previously, we evaluated the risks of disposing of untreated spent aluminum
potliners in Subtitle C landfills. We estimated the risks using a range of assumptions for the failure
of Subtitle C landfills, the effects of fate and transport, and human receptor characteristics.
The analysis shows that the risk calculations are most sensitive to the assumptions used for
fate and transport processes, which are embodied in DAF values. The large degree of uncertainty
and variability in fate and transport processes are expressed by the three to four orders of magnitude
that separate the DAF values corresponding to the 50th and 90th percentiles of the DAF
distribution. When the other parameters are varied between the ranges described previously, the
resulting risk estimates change by no more than a factor of three.
19 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Treatability
Manual, Volume I. Treatability Data, February 1983.
4-20

-------
The results of the analysis are summarized in Exhibit 4-5, which shows both central tendency
and high-end risk estimates for risk-driving constituents. The baseline individual risks for both
cancer and noncancer effects are expected to be negligible under central tendency assumptions;
these risks, however, may be substantial under high-end assumptions. The values in Exhibit 4-5 are
based on the 50th and 90th percentile Subtitle C DAF values (790,000 and 204, respectively,
reflecting a leak rate of 23 percent) and an exposure duration of nine years.20

Exhibit 4-5


BASELINE RISKS

Type of Risk
Central Tendency Risk
High-End Risk
Cancer risk (lifetime risk)


Arsenic
1.4 x 10"9
5.3 x lO"6
Beryllium
3.7 x 10"10
1.4 x 10"6
Benzo(a)pyrene
2.8 x 10"8
1.1 x 10"4
Sum
3.0 x 10"8
1.1 x 10*
Chemicals with noncancer risk
None
Fluoride (3.8)
(hazard quotient)


Post-Regulatory Risks
We assessed human health risks for managing spent aluminum potliners after the
implementation of the rule by examining the risks that result from the use of the Reynolds treatment
technology. Based on studies performed by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology and by EPA, we believe that there are no appreciable post-regulatory risks.
The state of Arkansas required Reynolds Metal Company to apply for permits to operate
its facility and release contaminants into the environment. As part of this permitting process,
Reynolds assessed the risks posed by the facility's air emissions. Air dispersion modeling was
performed for emissions from pre-treatment operations as well as stack emissions from the facility's
kiln. Several regulated constituents were examined, including PAHs and carcinogenic heavy metals.
Fluoride and cyanide were not included in the Reynolds analysis. In addition, the analysis
considered a multi-pathway exposure scenario that incorporated incidental ingestion of soil
contaminated through direct particulate deposition and the consumption of fruits and vegetables
20 The results presented here do not reflect all combinations of the different input parameter
assumptions that we examined. The risk estimates do not change significantly from the results
shown if the leak rate and exposure duration parameters are varied. In addition, the leak rate of
23 percent reflects the average of the 15 to 30 percent leak rate range suggested by EPA.
4-21

-------
from home gardens contaminated through direct deposition onto plant surfaces and uptake from
contaminated soil, Reynolds concluded that the excess cancer risk is less than 10"6 beyond the
facility boundary.21
A risk assessment was also performed for the kiln residue (spent aluminum potliners that
have undergone thermal treatment) from the Reynolds facility. As part of EPA's proposed delisting
of the kiln residue, the Agency examined the risks posed by landfilled kiln residue. EPA used its
Composite Model for Landfills to model groundwater contamination and subsequent exposure
through the ingestion of the groundwater. In addition, the Agency considered the potential risks
via non-groundwater routes of exposure, specifically, with regard to airborne and waterborne
dispersal of contaminants. EPA concluded that the Reynolds process "can render spent potliners
non-hazardous."22
Incremental Risk Reduction
The post-regulatory and baseline risks can be compared to estimate the incremental risk
reduction resulting from implementation of the rule. Studies of the Reynolds treatment technology
show that post-regulatory individual cancer risks from air emissions are expected to be less than 10"6
and risks due to groundwater contamination are expected to be negligible. Our assessment of
baseline risks show that appreciable risks are not likely to result from disposal of spent aluminum
potliners in Subtitle C landfills; the incremental risk reduction is negligible. Under high-end
assumption, however, the incremental risk reduction could be appreciable since the corresponding
baseline cancer risk could be on the order of 10"4, while noncancer risks may be posed by arsenic,
lead, cyanide, and fluoride.
We do not believe that the rule will result in significant benefits for incremental population
risk reduction because baseline population risks are probably low. The magnitude of population
risks depends on the level of individual risk and the number of people exposed to contaminated
groundwater. For example, under the high-end individual lifetime cancer risk of 10"4, one annual
cancer case could result if the exposed population were 700,000 people. Available evidence suggests
that a relatively low number of people are exposed to groundwater contaminated by landfilled spent
aluminum potliners. According to interviews with personnel at several facilities generating spent
aluminum potliners, a majority of the landfilled waste is disposed of in two Subtitle C landfills, one
in a rural area near Arlington, Oregon and the other near the city of Fort Wayne, Indiana. The
exposed population is expected to be low in sparsely populated areas, as well as in densely populated
areas where people are likely to be served by public water supplies with sources sufficiently distant
from the landfill. This suggests that the baseline population risks at these two landfills are likely to
be low. It should be noted, however, that we have not investigated other landfills that receive or
used to receive spent aluminum potliners; we are unable to specify the population that is likely to
be exposed at these other locations.
21	The Reynolds study is included in the RCRA Part B Permit Application (Appendix V: Risk
Evaluation) obtained from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
22	USEPA (1991). "Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Use of EPA's Composite Model for Landfills (EPACML) and Proposed
Exclusion," 56 Federal Register 32993-33012, July 18.
4-22

-------
til-" -
Appendix A
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix A
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
The organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF) industry includes facilities
manufacturing plastic materials, synthetic resins, and nonvulcanizable elastomers (SIC 2821);
vulcanizable elastomers (SIC 2822); cellulosic man-made fibers (SIC 2823); synthetic organic fibers,
except cellulose (SIC 2824); cyclic crudes and intermediates, dyes, and organic pigments (SIC 2865);
and industrial organic chemicals not elsewhere classified (SIC 2869). According to the 1987 Census
of Manufactures, there were 1,512 establishments in this industry.
Effluent guidelines for the industry were finalized in 1987. No information on non-priority
UTS constituents of concern for the Phase III LDR rule were available from these effluent
guidelines documents.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected bv the Phase III I PR Rule.
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Due to a lack of effluent guidelines data on non-priority UTS constituents in wastestreams
generated by the organic chemical industry, we relied largely on TRI data to assess which facilities
might have wastestreams containing non-priority constituents exceeding UTS levels. For this
analysis, we combined TRI loadings data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater
discharges to estimate the concentrations of these constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then
compared these concentration levels to UTS levels to identify facilities and wastestreams potentially
exceeding UTS. In addition, since the TRI does not contain information on waste management
practices, we considered data from other sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT
wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used in the
analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry. Establish low-end and high-end estimates of flow rates.
A-l

-------
Step 3:	Applying the low-end and high-end flow rate estimates to the TRI loadings
data, identify facilities almost certain to have wastestreams with constituents
concentrations exceeding UTS levels (i.e., UTS exceedences even at very
high wastewater flows) and facilities that might have wastestreams exceeding
UTS levels (i.e., exceedences at very low wastewater flows).
Step 4:	Adjust the resulting estimates of the number of affected facilities to
reflect the likelihood that facilities in the industry manage and treat
their ICRT wastes in surface impoundments.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule for two reasons.
First, the TRI only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents. Second, only those
facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are required to report
to the TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments also could
be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that 28 facilities (7 direct dischargers and 21 indirect
dischargers) are almost certain to be affected and an additional 45 (31 direct dischargers and 14
indirect dischargers) may be affected by the rule. Below we summarize how we calculated these
estimates and provide additional information characterizing the industry.
In 1992, 1,305 OCPSF facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals, with 821 reporting
releases to water or to POTWs. Of the 821 facilities reporting releases to water or to POTWs, 474
reported a quantifiable discharge of at least one of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants. Of these
474 facilities, 159 directly discharged wastewaters to surface waters, 296 discharged wastewaters to
POTWs, and 18 did both. Wastewaters from these facilities contained at least one of 20 non-priority
UTS pollutants, including methanol, acetone, methyl methacrylate, * xylene, pyridine,
dichlorodiflouromethane, barium, phthalic anhydride, butanol, carbon disulfide, ethylene oxide,
methyl ethyl ketone, cresol, methyl isobutyl ketone, aniline, acetonitrile, trichloroflouromethane,
chloroprene, and acrylamide.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with low-end
and high-end wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on this analysis, we found that 113 facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because they generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels at high-end flow rates of 5.33 million gallons per day for direct
dischargers and two million gallons per day for indirect dischargers. Of these 113 facilities, 8 are
direct dischargers, 102 are indirect dischargers, and 3 are both direct and indirect dischargers. This
analysis also showed that an additional 120 facilities may be affected by the rule, based on a low-end
flow rate of 100,000 gallons per day (for both direct and indirect dischargers). Of these 120
facilities, 49 are direct dischargers, 68 are indirect dischargers, and 3 are both direct and indirect
dischargers. These flow rate data are based on data from the ISDB and an EPA study on indirect
A-2

-------
dischargers.1 Table A-l shows the loadings levels for the pollutants of concern for these 233
facilities.
We adjusted this estimated range of the number of affected facilities to reflect the number
of facilities likely to manage wastewaters in surface impoundments. The treatment process data
collected by the Office of Water to support development of effluent guidelines for this industry
suggest that approximately 21 percent of all indirect dischargers use surface impoundments, while
approximately 60 percent of direct dischargers use these units.2 These data were collected in the
mid-1980s and comments from representatives of the OCPSF industry suggest that surface
impoundment use has likely declined since that time. These estimates span the estimated range
developed based on PCS. The PCS database shows that 506 OCPSF facilities have NPDES permits,
affecting 2,812 outfalls and 200 of these facilities reported treatment information, affecting 577
outfalls.3 Based on an analysis of the treatment data, 88 facilities reported treatment types likely
to occur in surface impoundments, affecting 124 outfalls.4 Comparing the number of outfalls and
facilities with land-based units to the total number of outfalls and facilities for which treatment data
were available, we estimated that 21 to 44 percent of direct dischargers use surface impoundments.5
We decided to use the percentages from the effluent guidelines data because it is a more
conservative estimate, and because it provides estimates for both direct and indirect dischargers
(unlike the PCS data, which only provides information for direct dischargers).
1	Draft OCPSF Industrial User Compliance Evaluation Report, prepared by SAIC for the U.S.
EPA Office of Water, September 1992. This report collected data from regional and state
enforcement offices on 555 indirect dischargers, and evaluated flow data from 84 of these facilities.
2	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. "Development Document for Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards, New Source Performance Standards, and Pretreatment Standards
for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers Point Source Category" Volume I and II.
October 1987.
3	PCS only contains data for direct dischargers, thus explaining the difference in the number of
facilities in PCS and the number reporting to TRI. Also reporting of treatment information to PCS
is voluntary.
4	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; and extended aeration.
5	Twenty-one percent equals 124 outfalls with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 577
outfalls for which facilities reported treatment information. Forty-four percent equals 88 facilities
with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 200 facilities reporting treatment information.
A-3

-------
Applying the estimates of 21 percent for indirect dischargers and 60 percent for direct
dischargers to the TRI analysis, we estimated that between 7 and 38 direct dischargers and 21 and
36 indirect dischargers may actually be affected by the rule.6 In addition, we estimated the quantity
of wastewater generated by these affected facilities at between 24 and 95 million tons per year. This
is based on average flow rates of 1.37 million gallons per day for direct dischargers and 280,000
gallons per day for indirect dischargers.7
In our analysis, we assumed that all facilities with exceedences of UTS manage
decharacterized ICRT waste in their surface impoundments. As a check on this assumption, we
analyzed data from BRS to evaluate the quantity of ICR waste that is managed in land-based units.
This analysis showed that 33.5 million tons of ICR wastes were managed in land-based units by this
industry in 1991. This value falls within our range estimated based on the TRI analysis, suggesting
that our approach is reasonable. However, EPA believes that BRS data may underestimate the
quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters managed in land-based units because many facilities
may not have reported wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.8
We also collected data on the quantity of wastewaters managed in surface impoundments
potentially affected by the rule in conversations with the Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA). These data showed a higher quantity of affected waste than estimated based on our TRI
analysis. In a CMA survey of 10 large member companies (that together operate 199 facilities),
these companies reported that the rule potentially would affect approximately 123 surface
impoundments handling about 282 million tons per year of formerly characteristic waste. These
impoundments represented non-hazardous impoundments managing wastes that were ICR at point
of generation. This difference in reported quantities may result from the fact that the CMA data
did not consider whether these wastewaters contained non-priority UTS constituents at
concentrations exceeding UTS levels. Note, however, that the 282 million tons understates the
quantity of waste potentially affected by the rule because it represents only a portion of the organic
chemical manufacturing industry. We were unable to obtain data on quantities of potentially
affected wastes for other facilities from the trade associations.
6	For direct dischargers, the range is calculated as follows: 11 facilities x 60 percent = 6.6
facilities (rounds up to 7 facilities), and 63 facilities x 60 percent = 37.8 (rounds up to 38 facilities).
For indirect dischargers: 102 facilities x 21 percent = 21.4 (rounds down to 21 facilities); 170
facilities x 21 percent = 35.7 facilities (rounds up to 36 facilities). Note that in these calculations,
we treated facilities that are both direct and indirect dischargers as direct dischargers.
7	For the lower bound of this range, 7 direct dischargers at mean flow rate of 1.37 million gallons
per day = 9.6 million gallons per day and 21 indirect dischargers at 280,000 gallons per day = 5.9
million gallons per day. Converting this total quantity to tons yields: 15.5 million gallons per day
x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per gallon = 23.6 million tons per year. For the upper bound
of this range, 38 direct dischargers x 1.37 million gallons per day = 52.1 million gallons per day and
36 indirect dischargers x 280,000 gallons per day = 10.1 million gallons per day. Converting this
total quantity to tons yields: 62.1 million gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per
gallon = 94.6 million tons per year.
8	In fact, such wastes should have been included in BRS; however, EPA discussions with industry
suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
A-4

-------
The primary limitation of our approach is that the analysis of the TRI data does not consider
53 non-prioritv UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. The impacts
of the rale due to the remaining non-priority pollutants are unclear.
A-5

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
1
Methanol
0
322,000
~

2
Acetone
0
484,345
V

2
Methanol
0
25,000

~
3
Methanol
0
38,016
s

4
Methyl Methacrylate
0
1,900


4
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
5
Pyridine
5
0

V
6
Methanol
34,000
0


7
Methanol
3,512
0

~
8
Acetone
220
0


8
Acetone
110
0

~
8
Dichlorodifluoromethane
98
0

V
9
Acetone
0
6,900
•/

9
Acetone
0
250

V
9
Barium Compounds
0
650

V
• 9
Methanol
0
1,900,000
~

9
Methanol
0
1,200,000
~

9
Methanol
0
39,000
~

9
Phthalic Anhydride
0
250

s
10
Acetone
0
71,000
~

10
Barium Compounds
0
790

•/
10
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
87,000
~

11
Acetone
0
71,782
~

11
Methanol
0
368,842
~

11
Methanol
0
39,982
~

11
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
6,500
~

12
Carbon Disulfide
0
7,300

s
13
Ethylene Oxide
0,
3,753
~

14
Methanol
0
1,154,756


15
Acetone
0
406

s
15
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
750

~
16
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
52,000
~

17
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
250

~
18
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250


18
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
710


19
Acetone
0
15,000
~

A-6

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
19
M-Cresol
0
5,223
/

19
Pyridine
0
250
~

20
Carbon Disulfide
0
3,707

~
21
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
2,000
~

22
Methanol
0
28,000


23
Methanol
0
12,910

~
23
Methanol
0
32,029

~
24
Barium Compounds
0
11,378
~

25
Acetone
0
1,778
~

26
Aniline
0
97,707
~

27
Aniline
0
4,600

~
27
Methanol
0
231,000
~

28
Ethylene Oxide
58
0

~
29
Aniline
0
684

~
30
Methanol
0
1,727,500
ฆ/

31
Aniline
0
250

~
31
Ethylene Oxide
0
4,661
~

31
Methanol
0
531,967
~

32
Methanol
0
2,812,300
v'

32
Methanol
0
1,800

~
33
Methanol
0
236,000
~

34
M-Cresol
0
1,809

~
35
Acetone
0
160,603
V

35
Acetone
0
10,000
S

36
Methyl Methacrylate
250
0

~
37
P-Cresol
0
250

~
38
Acetone
0
632

~'
39
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
112,305
~

39
Phthalic Anhydride
0
217

~
40
Methanol
0
96,000
~

40
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
5,011 .
~

41
Methanol
0
3,890

~
41
O-Xylene
0
572

~
42
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
250

~
43
Methanol
0
1,400,000


44
Methanol
0
1,191,000
~

A-7

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
45
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250


46
Aniline
0
602

V
47
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
5,700

V
48
Methanol
0
6,900

•/
48
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
250

S
49
Acetone
8,600
0


50
Methanol
0
10,000

V
50
Methanol
0
20,000

V
50
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
2,800


50
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
37,996


51
Aniline
1,800
0

•/
51
Methanol
12,000
0

V
51
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
180
0


52
Acetone
700
0

•/
52
Methanol
2,312
0


52
Methyl Methacrylate
320
0


53
Acetone
1,772
0

s
53
Methanol
22,225
0

V
54
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
119

V
55
P-Cresol
0
669,569
•/

56
Acetonitrile
0
5,500

V
57
Acetone
9,900
0


57
Trichlorofluoromethane
782
0


58
Methyl Methacrylate
0
257

V
59
Barium Compounds
0
953

V
60
Acetone
0
1,007

•/
61
Methanol
0
28,757


62
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

•/
63
Acetone
2,895
0

V
64
Methanol
0
14,211

V
65
Carbon Disulfide
18,000
0

V
65
Methyl Methacrylate
104
0

s
65
N-Butyl Alcohol
5,900
0


65
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
280
0

s
65
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
300

V
66
Methanol
0
24,453


A-8

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
66
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
1,484


67
Acetone
0
5,900
~

67
Acetone
0
15,621
~

67
Acetone
0
731


67
Methanol
0
272,100
~

67
Methanol
0
4,226


67
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
16,434


67
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
290,016
~

67
Phthalic Anhydride
0
250


67
Phthalic Anhydride
0
250

~
68
Aniline
0
17,155


69
Methanol
0
48,000
•/

70
Ethylene Oxide
0
4,810

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
87
Acetone
0
250

V
87
Methanol
0
9,902

S
87
Methanol
0
2,321


87
Methyl Methacrylate
0
250

V
87
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

V
88
Methanol
0
48,600


89
Acetone
0
250

V
89
Methanol
0
140,438
V

89
Methanol
0
30,000

/
A-10

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
104
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
84
0

S
104
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
130
0

~
105
Methanol
0
2,700,000
~

105
Methyl Methacrylate
0
250

~
106
Aniline
0
250

~
107
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
250

~
108
Methanol
0
4,200

~
109
Acetone
0
5,773
~

109
Methanol
0
6,975

~
110
Methanol
0
151,000


111
O-Cresol
0
33,225


111
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250


111
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
110


112
Methyl Methacrylate
0
250

~
113
Methanol
0
4,521

~
114
Acetone
0
32,000
~

114
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
619

~
115
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
598
0


116
Methanol
0
4,000,000
~

117
Aniline
750
0

~
117
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
1,500
0

/
117
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
220
0

~
118
Acetone
0
2,633
~

118
Methanol
0
93,300
~

119
Acetone
250
0

~
119
Acetone
0
9,900


119
Acetone
0
250

~
119
Cresol (Mixed Isomers)
250
0

~
119
Methanol
0
48,600
~

119
Methanol
3,855
0

~
119
Methanol
13,000
0

•/
119
O-Xylene
470
0

~
120
Acetone
0
650,000
~

120
Acrylamide
0
53,638

~
121
Acetone
0
25,000


121
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
3,891
~

A-ll

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
122
Acetone
0
420,665


122
M-Cresol
0
449

•/
123
Acetone
0
250


124
Aniline
0
3,000


-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
145
Trich lorofluoromethane
370
0
~

146
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
135


147
Acetonitrile
33,000
0

~
148
Acetone
0
18,500
~

148
Acetone
0
198,200
~

148
Ethylene Oxide
0
250

~
148
Methanol
0
1,100,000


148
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
2,489


148
O-Xylene
0
1,353

~
149
Methanol
0
310,000
~

149
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
23,200


150
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
94


150
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
750

~
151
Barium Compounds
,i0
500

~
152
Acetone
0
6,900


152
Aniline
0
266

/
152
Methanol
0
402,601
~

153
Acetone
6,700
20
•/

153
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
664

~
154
Ethylene Oxide
0
9,815
ฆ/

155
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
250
0

~
156
Barium Compounds
1,534
0


156
Barium Compounds
0
1,212

~
156
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
3,100
0

~
15?
Methanol '
0
47,042


15?
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
158
Methanol
0
2,100

~
159
Methanol
0
5,600

~
159
Methanol
0
125,883
~

159
Methanol
0
1,200,000
~

160
Aniline
0
22,022


160 .
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
32,077


161
Methanol
0
852,933
~

161
Methanol
0
150,000
~

162
Methanol
0
2,400

~
162
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
7,737


A-13

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
163
Acetone
0
63,252
-/

163"
Methanol
0
8,711

~
164
Acetonitrile
0
100,000


165
Acetone
0
5,000
-/

165
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
20,611
~

165
Methyl Methacrylate
0
8,452
~

166
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
150,000


167
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
10,522


167
Methyl Methacrylate
0
250

~
168
Methanol
0
1,358,253


169
Methyl Methacrylate
0
660

~
169
M-Xylene
0
250

~
169
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
2,393

~
169
P-Cresol
0
2,100


170
Methanol
0
1,800,000


170
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
7,109


170
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
4,088
~

171 ,
Aniline
0
750

~
172
Aniline
0
2,100

~
173
Carbon Disulfide
1,453
0


173
Pyridine
15
0

~
174
Aniline
2,900
0

~
175
Acetone
12,317
0
V

176
Methanol
0
22,959


177
Ethylene Oxide
0
250

~
177
Methanol
0
4,654


177
Methanol
0
800,000


178
Methyl Methacrylate
0
250


178
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
6,808

~
178
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
178
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
179
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
2
136

~
180
Methanol
0
670,000
~

181
O-Cresol
0
89

~
181
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
2,278
~

182
Acetone
0
420,000
~

A-14

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS'
182
Methanol
0
830,000
~

182
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
797

~
183
Acetone
0
33,283


183
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
399,089


183
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
107

~
183
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
270

~
184
Carbon Disulfide
0
7,774

~
185
N-Butyl Alcohol •
0
6,264

~
186
Methanol
0
125,000
~

187
Methanol
50,900
0

/
188
Methanol
6,500
0


189
Pyridine
0
5

~
190
Methanol
24,000
0

~
191
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
200
0

~
191
P-Cresol
913
0

~
192
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1,966
0

~
193
Acetone
13
628,885


193
Methanol
5,400
0


193
O-Xylene
339
0


194
Barium Compounds
750
0

~
195
Acetonitrile
2,674
0

~
195
N-Butyl Alcohol
6,300
0


196
Methanol
46,000
0


197
Aniline
815
0


197
Aniline
7,419
0

~
197
Ethylene Oxide
1,500
0

~
197
Methanol
5,200
0

~
197
Methanol
4,593
0

v'
198
Acetone
3,300
0


198
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
62
0

~
199
Acetone
580
0

~
199
Methanol
60,000
0

~
200
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
570
0

~
201
Methanol
27,000
0

~
202
Aniline
1,700
200,000
S

203
N-Butyl Alcohol
6,500
0

~
A-15

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
' May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
204
Barium Compounds
1,800
0


205
Acetone
0
15,000


206
Acetone
250
0


207
Methanol
0
5,700

~
208
Barium Compounds
0
24,872
~

209
Methyl Methacrylate
0
50

~
210
Methanol
0
4,000


211
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
12,277
~

212
Barium Compounds
0
24,000
•/

213
Aniline
0
250

~
214
Methanol
0
25,000

~
215
Acetone
0
95

~
215
Barium Compounds
0
2,560

~
216
Methanol
0
2,642

~
217
Acetone
0
250


218
Trich lorofluorom ethane
250
0

>/
219
Methanol
18,000
98

~
219
Methanol
2,512
0

~
219
Methyl Isobutyi Ketone
250
0

~
219
Methyl Isobutyi Ketone
250
0

•/
220
Methanol
3,300
0


221
T rich iorofluoromethane
9
0

S
222
Methanol
1,100
85,000
ฆ/

223
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
23,983

~
223
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
234


224
Pyridine
0
48


225
Acetone
0
1,200

~
225
Acetone
0
250

~
225
Acetone
0
340,952

-------


Table A-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
231
Acetone
0
530,000


232
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
750


233
Cresol (Mixed Isomers)
0
956


"Almost certain to exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituent concentrations exceeding
UTS at high-end flow rates. "May exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituents exceeding
UTS at low-end flow rates. Note that those wastestreams exceeding
UTS at high-end flow rates also

exceed UTS at low-end flow rates.




A-17

-------
Appendix B
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix B
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
The petroleum refining industry consists of facilities primarily engaged in producing gasoline,
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual fuel oils, and lubricants, through fractionation or straight
distillation of crude oil, redistillation of unfinished petroleum derivatives, cracking or other processes
(SIC code 2911). According to the 1987 Census of Manufactures, there are 309 establishments in
this industry, 221 with 20 or more employees. Effluent guidelines for this industry were finalized
in 1982. EPA currently is reviewing these guidelines and collecting preliminary data on the industry
to determine whether to revise these guidelines. As part of this preliminary data gathering, EPA
identified 192 refineries that were operating in 1991.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected bv the Phase PI I.PR RhIp.
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Unfortunately, no single data source contained all the information required to assess these three
criterion for all industries. Therefore, we relied on various sources to provide data, as well as
support development of reasonable assumptions in developing estimates of the number of facilities
and quantity of waste affected.
In particular, for the petroleum refining industry, we principally relied on the TRI database.
We also collected information from the BRS, ISDB and PCS databases and through discussions with
representatives from an industry trade association. We combined TRI loadings data and industry-
specific data on flow rates for wastewater discharges to estimate the concentrations of non-priority
UTS pollutants in facilities' wastestreams. We then compared these concentrations to UTS levels
to identify facilities and wastestreams potentially exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI does not
contain information on waste management practices, we considered data from other sources to
evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline
the steps and assumptions used in the analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of a non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
B-l

-------
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry. Establish low-end and high-end estimates of flow rates.
Step 3:	Apply low-end and high-end flow rate estimates to the TRI loadings
data to identify facilities almost certain to have wastestreams with
constituents concentrations exceeding UTS levels (i.e., UTS
exceedances even at very high wastewater flows) and facilities that
might have wastestreams exceeding UTS levels (i.e., exceedances at
very low wastewater flows).
Step 4:	Adjust the resulting estimate of the number of affected facilities to
reflect the likelihood that facilities in the industry manage and treat
their decharacterized ICRT wastes in surface impoundments.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule primarily for two
reasons. First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents.
Second, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are
required to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface
impoundments also could be affected by the rule. Our approach also may overstate the number of
facilities and quantity of waste affected because we did not adjust our estimates to account for
whether the identified wastestreams contain decharacterized ICRT wastes.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that eight facilities are almost certain to be affected and an
additional 22 facilities may be affected by the rule. Below we summarize how we calculated these
estimates and provide additional information characterizing the industry.
In 1992, 202 petroleum refiners reported releases of TRI chemicals, with 155 reporting
releases to water or to POTWs. These 202 facilities are likely to include most of the petroleum
refiners potentially affected by the rule; 202 facilities approximately equals the number of facilities
in operation in 1991 (192), as identified by EPA in its preliminary data search. Of the 155 facilities
reporting releases to water or to POTWs, 108 reported a quantifiable discharge of at least one of
the non-priority UTS pollutants. Of these 108 facilities, 69 directly discharged wastewaters to
surface waters, 30 discharged wastewaters to POTWs, and nine did both. Wastewaters from these
facilities contained at least one of 10 non-priority UTS pollutants, including xylene, methanol, methyl
ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetone, butanol, acetonitrile, pyridine, cresol or barium.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with low-end
and high-end wastewater flow rates for petroleum refining facilities and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on this analysis, we found that 16 facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because they generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels at high-end flow rates of 10 million gallons per day for direct
dischargers and 1.77 million gallons per day for indirect dischargers. This analysis also showed that
an additional 42 facilities may be affected by the rule, based on a low-end flow rate of 250,000
gallons per day for direct dischargers and 200,000 gallons per day for indirect dischargers. These
B-2

-------
flow rates are based on 1983 data from the ISDB. The high-end and low-end values represent the
95th percentile and 5th percentile values for the facilities in that database.1 Table B-l shows the
loadings for the pollutants of concern for these 58 facilities.
We adjusted this estimated range of the affected number of facilities to reflect the number
of facilities likely to manage wastewaters in surface impoundments. The PCS database shows that
262 petroleum refiners have NPDES permits and 105 of these facilities reported treatment
information. Based on an analysis of these treatment type data, 55 facilities use treatment types
likely to occur in land-based units.2 Comparing the number of facilities with land-based units to the
total number of facilities for which treatment data were available, we estimated that 52 percent of
petroleum refining facilities use surface impoundments.
Applying this 52 percent to the TRI analysis, we estimated that eight to 30 facilities may be
affected by the rule. In addition, we estimated that the quantity of wastewater generated by these
facilities ranges from 10.7 to 86.2 million tons per year.3 This estimated range is based on an
average flow rate for direct dischargers of 3.22 million gallons per day and indirect dischargers of
720,000 gallons per day."
In our analysis, we assumed that all facilities manage decharacterized ICRT wastes in their
surface impoundments. To check this assumption, we analyzed data from the BRS to evaluate the
quantity of ICRT waste generated and managed in land-based units. Unfortunately, this analysis
did not yield a meaningful check on our assumption due to uncertainty over the quality of the BRS
data. Based on 1991 BRS data, petroleum refiners managed 4.3 million tons of ICRT wastewaters
in land-based units. However, EPA believes that this value understates the quantity of
decharacterized ICRT wastewaters managed in land-based units because many facilities did not
1	The 5th percentile of a range of values (e.g., flow rates for facilities in ISDB) means that 95
percent of the values in the range are greater than that value. Similarly, the 95th percentile means
that five percent of the values are greater than that value.
2	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
3	In discussions with a petroleum refining industry trade association, it indicated that 100 million
tons per year was a reasonable estimate of the quantity of waste potentially affected by the rule,
Our upper bound estimate is of a similar magnitude and our lower bound estimate reflects the fact
that most wastewaters managed by facilities in surface impoundments may not contain non-priority
UTS pollutant at concentrations exceeding UTS.
4	For the lower bound of this range: 720,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons
per gallon x 7.5 indirect dischargers + 3.22 million gallons per day x 365 x 0.004171 x 0.5 direct
dischargers = 10.7 million tons per year. The upper bound is calculated in a similar fashion based
on 30 facilities, 16 indirect dischargers and 14 direct dischargers, and the applicable flow rates.
B-3

-------
report wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.5 This may explain
the disparity between our estimated range and the BRS total. Thus, we were unable to use these
data to evaluate the reasonableness of our assumption.
As indicated above, the lack of information on ICRT wastes in the TRI database may cause
our analysis to overstate the effects of the Phase III LDR rule. Equally important in identifying the
limitations of our TRI analysis is recognition that the analysis of the TRI data does not consider 53
non-priority UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. Petroleum
refiners already control for one of these pollutants, sulfides, as part of the effluent guidelines. The
impacts of the rule due to the remaining non-priority pollutants is unclear.
5 In fact, such wastes should have been included in the BRS; however, EPA discussions with
industry suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
B-4

-------


Table B-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS
CONTAINING NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS




Almost



Release
Release
Certain to
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Exceed
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
UTS
UTS
1
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
250
0

~
2
P-XYLENE
250
0


2
O-XYLENE
250
0


2
M-XYLENE
250
0


3
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
220

~
4
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
40,000


4
METHANOL
0
160,000


5
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
670

~
,6
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
289
0

v'
7
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
6,400


8
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
750


9
P-XYLENE
0
634

~
9
O-XYLENE
0
634


* 10
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
250

~
11
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
265

~
12
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
2,963


13
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
11,000


14
M-XYLENE
310
5


15
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
22,000


16
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
750


17
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
210


18
P-XYLENE
0
650

~
18
O-XYLENE
0
650

v'
18
M-XYLENE
0
1,301

/
19
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
250
0


20
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
2,600


21
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
690

~
22
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
640

~
23
M-XYLENE
244
0


24
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
5
250


25
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
288
0

~
25
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
220
0


B-5

-------


Table B-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS
CONTAINING NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS




Almost



Release
Release
Certain to
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Exceed
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(lbs/yr)
UTS
UTS
26
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
314
0


26
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
1,016
0


26
BARIUM COMPOUNDS
17,049
0


27
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
1,200
0

V
27
ACETONE
1,500
0


28
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
1,500
0

v'
29
BARIUM COMPOUNDS
3,286
0

V
30
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
823
0


-------


Table B-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREA
CONTAINING NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING
MS
UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release
to Water
(Ibs/yr)
Release
to POTW
(Ibs/yr)
Almost
Certain to
Exceed
UTS
May
Exceed
UTS
45
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
250
0

ฆ/
46
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
220
0


47
P-XYLENE
0
486


47
O-XYLENE
0
636


47
M-XYLENE
0
1,302


47
CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
8,566


47
BARIUM
0
1,725

~
48
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
5
7,025
V

49
CRESOL (MIXED ISOMERS)
14
29,500


50
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
250
0

v'
51
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
530
0


52
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
0
29,000
~

52
METHANOL
0
76,000


53
XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)
250
0

~
54
METHYL ETHYL KETONE
7,400
0


-------
Appendix C
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF
THE PESTICIDES INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix C
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF
THE PESTICIDES INDUSTRY
The pesticides industry includes both manufacturers and formulators/packagers.1 Pesticide
manufacturing facilities produce the pesticide active ingredients. Formulators/packagers process
active ingredients with other ingredients into pesticide formulations and package them for
distribution and sale. Of the two sectors of the pesticides industry, the pesticide manufacturing
sector is of greater concern for the purposes of the Phase III LDR rule because facilities in this
sector are more likely to generate wastewaters of concern and to manage them in land-based units.
In developing effluent guidelines for the pesticides manufacturing industry, EPA divided the
industry into two subcategories: (1) facilities that produce organic pesticide chemicals, and (2)
facilities that manufacture metallo-organic pesticide chemicals. These facilities typically are classified
under SIC 2879 (pesticides and agricultural chemicals not elsewhere classified). These facilities also
may be part of an integrated chemical manufacturing plant that produces other chemical products
and may be classified under one or more of the following SIC groups within Chemical and Allied
Products (SIC code 28): 2833, 2834, 2842, 2843, 2861, 2865, 2869, or 2899. EPA promulgated the
final rule for the effluent guidelines for the pesticides industry in September 1993.
According to 1986 data collected by EPA in support of the pesticide manufacturing effluent
guidelines, the pesticide chemicals manufacturing industry includes 90 facilities. Over half of these
pesticide manufacturing facilities also conduct pesticide formulating and packaging activities. In
addition, more than half of the pesticide manufacturing facilities are also currently regulated under
the effluent guidelines for the Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry
category. Of these 90 facilities, 32 facilities are direct dischargers, 36 are indirect dischargers, 15
facilities dispose of their wastewaters by either on-site or off-site deep well injection or incineration,
and eight facilities do not generate process wastewater because they recycle, reuse or do not use
water.2
There are approximately 128 pesticide active ingredients and classes of pesticide active
ingredients representing 186 individual active ingredients manufactured by 225 separate production
processes. Of these 225 processes, 178 are batch processes. A "typical facility in the pesticide
industry manufactures only one active ingredient and is the only facility in the country producing
that pesticide active ingredient. "Typical" production is between 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds
of total product per year.
Because of the wide variety of raw materials and processes used and products manufactured,
a wide variety of pollutants are found in this industry's wastewaters. Pesticide manufacturers use
a range of in-plant and end-of-pipe controls to treat these pollutants, such as steam stripping,
1	This appendix is largely drawn from an analysis of the effluent guideline Section 308 data for
this industry conducted by Radian Corporation.
2	The sum of this breakdown exceeds 90 because one facility was counted under two categories.
C-l

-------
biological treatment, activated carbon, chemical oxidation, and hydrolysis. In the effluent guidelines
surveys, pesticide manufacturing facilities reported three types of wastewaters: pesticide active
ingredient process wastewaters, other pesticide wastewaters, and other facility wastewaters. Pesticide
active ingredient process wastewaters are those waters leaving the manufacturing process. Other
pesticide wastewaters are pesticide-containing wastewater generated from sources not directly
associated with the manufacturing process, such as employee shower water or contaminated
stormwater. Other facility wastewaters are generated by other manufacturing operations, such as
organic chemicals production occurring at the facility.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Unfortunately, no single data source contained all the information required to assess these three
criterion for all industries. Therefore, we relied on various sources to provide data, as well as
support development of reasonable assumptions in developing estimates of the number of facilities
and quantity of waste affected.
Because the effluent guidelines data for this industry only provided concentration data on
one non-priority UTS constituent (methoxychlor), we relied largely on TRI data to assess the
number of facilities that may be affected by the rule. In our analysis, we combined TRI loadings
data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater discharges to estimate the concentrations
of these constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then compared these concentration levels to
UTS levels to identify facilities and wastestreams potentially exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI
does not contain information on waste management practices, we considered data from other
sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below
we outline the steps and assumptions used in the analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of a non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry.
Step 3:	Applying the flow rate estimate to the TRI loadings data, identify
facilities may have wastestreams exceeding UTS levels.
C-2

-------
Step 4;	Eliminate from the universe of affected facilities those facilities that are
indirect dischargers. Indirect dischargers were eliminated from the Phase III
universe because these facilities generally are the smaller facilities in the
category, are located close to POTWs and use their services, and do not have
wastewater flow rates of large enough quantities to use a land-based unit.
Assumption: To retain as many facilities as possible in this analysis, it was assumed
that all direct dischargers use land-based units as part of their
wastewater treatment systems.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule for two reasons.
First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents. Second,
only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are required
to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments also
could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on the results of the analysis of the TRI data, we estimated that one facility may be
affected by the rule. Below we summarize the results of this analysis and provide additional
information characterizing the industry.
In 1992, 207 facilities in SIC code 2879 reported releases to TRI, 91 of which reported
releases to surface waters or POTWs.3 Of these 91 facilities, 51 facilities reported a quantifiable
discharge of at least one of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants; 20 facilities directly discharged to
surface waters, 30 discharged their wastewaters to POTWs, and one did both.
For the 20 direct dischargers, we identified one facility that may be affected by the rule
because it generates wastewaters containing UTS pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS levels,
assuming an average flow rate of 2.33 million gallons per day.4 Wastewater at this facility contained
methyl isobutyl ketone. We estimated that the quantity of wastewater affected at this facility is
3	The TRI data record multiple SIC codes for facilities that report multiple SIC codes because
they manufacture more than one product. Our analysis included all observations with 2879
anywhere in the SIC code field (i.e., SIC 2879 may not be the primary code of the facility). This
approach may overstate the effects of the rule on this industry, if the affected wastewater identified
in the analysis is generated during the manufacture of a product other than pesticides.
4	This average flow rate was taken from van der Leeden, Frits, Fred L. Troise and David Keith
Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis Publishers, 1990. See Table 5-39 for data on water use in the
pesticide industry. We were unable to obtain flow rate data from the effluent guidelines
development documents that could be used to estimate a lower bound flow rate.
C-3

-------
about 3.5 million tons.5 Table C-l shows the loadings data for this facility. We also found potential
exceedances of UTS constituents at 13 indirect dischargers. However, as previously explained, only
direct dischargers within this industry are likely to operate surface impoundments. Therefore, we
do not believe these facilities will be affected by the rule. Thus, we estimated that only one facility
will be affected by the Phase III rule. This facility represents approximately one percent of the 90
pesticide facilities.
In addition, we analyzed the effluent guidelines data to determine whether any facilities are
likely to be affected by the rule due to exceedances for methoxychlor. Based on that analysis, we
found only one facility generated wastewaters containing this constituent. However, the
concentration level of the methoxychlor in the facility's wastestream did not exceed the UTS level,
and thus this facility would not be affected by the rule.
In our analysis, we assumed that all direct dischargers in this industry manage wastewaters
containing UTS constituents in surface impoundments. To review the reasonableness of this
assumption, we evaluated PCS data. The PCS database showed that 43 pesticide manufacturers have
NPDES permits, 11 of which reported information on treatment type.6 Based on an analysis of
treatment types, five of these 11 facilities (45 percent) manage their wastewaters in land-based units.7
This suggests that our assumption that all direct dischargers use surface impoundments is very
conservative.
In addition, we reviewed the BRS to evaluate the quantity of ICR waste managed in land-
based units by the pesticides industry. Based on this analysis, pesticide manufacturers managed
418,000 tons of ICR wastes in land-based units in 1991. However, EPA believes that this value may
understate the quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters managed in land-based units because
many facilities did not report wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous
wastes.8 This may explain why our estimated quantity exceeds the quantity of ICR managed in land-
based units reported in BRS. Thus, it is difficult to use these data to evaluate the reasonableness
of our assumption.
The primary limitation of this analysis is that the TRI data does not consider 53 non-priority
UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. Ten of these 53 non-priority
UTS constituents are pesticides addressed under the effluent guidelines for this industry. The
impacts of the rule due to the remaining non-priority pollutants are unclear.
5	This estimated quantity was calculated as follows: 2.33 million gallons per day x 365 days per
year x 0.004171 tons per gallon x 1 facility = 3.5 million tons.
6	Reporting of treatment type is optional in PCS.
7	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing and sludge lagoons, oxidation, stabilization and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
8	In fact, such wastes should have been included in BRS; however, EPA discussions with industry
suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
C-4

-------


Table C-l


SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS
CONTAINING NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release to Water
(Ibs/yr)
Release to POTW
(Ibsfrr)
May Exceed
UTS'
1
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
1,966
0
~
1. Based on an average flow rate of 2.33 million gallons per day.
C-5

-------
r ' • S i	i • jx-
Appendix D
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix D
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE INORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
The inorganic chemicals industry includes facilities manufacturing alkalies and chlorine,
industrial gases, inorganic pigments, and other inorganic chemicals (SIC codes 2812 through 2819).
According to the 1987 Census of Manufactures, there are 1,393 establishments in this industry, up
from 1,365 based on the 1982 Census. Note that these values include some double counting because
a facility may operate within two or more of these four digit SIC codes. In 1982, there were 802
facilities classified under SIC 821.
Effluent guidelines for this industry were finalized in 1982. These guidelines principally
addressed priority pollutants. No information on the non-priority pollutants of concern for the
Phase III LDR rule were available from the effluent guideline development documents. The Office
of Water currently is reviewing guidelines for this industry.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Unfortunately, no single data source contained all the information required to assess these three
criterion for all industries. Therefore, we relied on various sources to provide data, as well as
support development of reasonable assumptions in developing estimates of the number of facilities
and quantity of waste affected.
In particular, for the inorganic chemicals industry, we principally relied on the TRI database.
We also collected information from the BRS, PCS and Industrial D Screener Survey. We combined
TRI loadings data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater discharges to estimate the
concentrations of these constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then compared these
concentration levels to UTS levels to identify facilities and wastestreams potentially exceeding UTS.
In addition, since TRI does not contain information on waste management practices, we considered
data from other sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT wastewaters in surface
impoundments. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used in the analysis in more detail.
Step 1;	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
D-l

-------
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry. Establish low-end and high-end estimates of flow rates.
Step 3:	Apply low-end and high-end flow rate estimates to the TRI loadings
data to identify facilities almost certain to have wastestreams with
constituents concentrations exceeding UTS levels (i.e., UTS
exceedances even at very high wastewater flows) and facilities that
might have wastestreams exceeding UTS levels (i.e., exceedances at
very low wastewater flows).
Step 4:	Adjust the resulting estimates of the number of affected facilities to
reflect the likelihood that facilities in the industry manage and treat
their decharacterized ICRT wastes in surface impoundments.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule primarily for two
reasons. First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents.
Second, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are
required to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface
impoundments also could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that three facilities are almost certain to be affected and
an additional nine facilities may be affected by the rule. Below we summarize how we calculated
these estimates and provide additional information characterizing the industry.
In 1992, 685 inorganic chemical manufacturing facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals,
with 250 reporting releases to water or to POTWs. These 685 facilities are likely to reflect most of
the inorganic chemical facilities potentially affected by the rule. That is, 685 compares well to the
estimate of about 802 facilities in the entire industry. It is reasonable to assume that the remaining
facilities do not use TRI chemicals in large enough quantities to report to TRI. Also, these smaller
facilities are unlikely to use surface impoundments for treatment of ICRT wastewaters and thus
probably would not be affected by the rule.
Of the 250 facilities reporting releases to water or to POTWs, 72 reported a quantifiable
discharge of at least one of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants. Of these 72 facilities, 28 directly
discharged wastewaters to surface waters, 32 discharged wastewaters to POTWs, and 12 did both.
Wastewaters from these facilities contained 17 UTS non-priority pollutant, including barium,
methanol and acetone.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with low-end
and high-end wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on this analysis, we found that 17 facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because they generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels at high-end flow rates of one million gallons per day. This
analysis also showed that an additional 16 facilities may be affected by the rule, based on a low-end
D-2

-------
flow rate of 50,000 gallons per day. Table D-l shows the loadings levels for the pollutants of
concern for these 33 facilities.
We adjusted this estimated range of the affected number of facilities to reflect the number
of facilities likely to manage wastewaters in surface impoundments. The PCS database shows that
331 inorganic chemical facilities have NPDES permits (affecting 1,532 outfalls) and 89 of these
facilities reported treatment information (affecting 215 outfalls).1 Based on an analysis of the
treatment data, 32 facilities reported treatment types likely to occur in surface impoundments,
affecting 36 outfalls. Comparing the number of outfalls and facilities with land-based units to the
total number of outfalls and facilities for which treatment data were available, we estimated that 17
to 36 percent of facilities use surface impoundments.2 The number of inorganic chemical facilities
reporting use of surface impoundments based on the Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D
establishments, 26 percent, falls within this range. Based on the survey, of the 1,302 inorganic
chemical facilities managing Subtitle D waste in 1985,345 facilities managed these wastes in surface
impoundments.
Applying this range of 17 to 36 percent to the TRI analysis, we estimated that three to
twelve facilities, or less than one percent of the 685 inorganic chemical manufacturing facilities
reporting to TRI, may actually be affected by the rule.3 In addition, we estimated the quantity of
wastewater generated by these affected facilities at between 1.0 and 4.5 million tons per year. This
is based on an average flow rate for facilities in the industry of 250,000 gallons per day (average flow
rate based on the effluent guidelines).4
In our analysis, we assumed that all facilities manage decharacterized ICRT wastes in their
surface impoundments. This assumption is reasonable because a large portion of the industry relies
on production activities occurring at high or low pH (i.e., corrosive). As a check on this assumption,
we analyzed data from the BRS to evaluate the quantity of ICRT waste managed in land-based
units. Our analysis for the inorganic chemicals industry indicated that 7.5 million tons of ICRT
wastes are managed in land-based units for this industry. This quantity is the same order of
magnitude as our estimate of the quantity of waste affected, suggesting that our approach is sound.
'Reporting of treatment information to PCS is voluntary.
Seventeen percent equals 36 outfalls with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 215
outfalls for which facilities reported treatment information. Thirty-six percent equals 32 facilities
with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 89 facilities reporting treatment information.
3Sixteen facilities x 17 percent = 2.7 facilities (rounds up to 3 facilities); 33 facilities x 36
percent = 11.9 (rounds up to 12 facilities).
"For the lower bound of this range, 250,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons
per gallon x 2.7 facilities = 1.0 million tons. The upper bound is calculated in a similar fashion
based on 11.9 facilities.
D-3

-------
As noted above, the analysis of the TRI data does not consider 53 non-priority UTS
constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. Of the 53 pollutants not
considered, six are dioxins and furans and 13 are pesticides, which are unlikely to be a concern for
the inorganic chemicals industry. The impacts of the rule due to the remaining non-priority
pollutants is unclear. If the non-priority UTS organic pollutants omitted from TRI are present in
wastewaters at concentration levels that are similar to the levels for the pollutants considered in
TRI, the additional number of affected facilities is likely to be small. The only two inorganic
pollutants not included in the analysis, fluoride and sulfide, are likely to be present at a number of
inorganic chemical manufacturers. However, CWA permitting authorities may set limits for these
pollutants at facilities where they are present in appreciable quantities (i.e., above UTS). As such,
the impact of the rule for these two pollutants may be minor.
D-4

-------
Tabic IM
SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA TOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING
NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release
to Water
(Ibsfrr)
Release
to POTW
(lbs/yr)
Almost
Certain to
Exceed UTS1
May
Exceed
UTS'
1
Barium
0
3,114

~
1
Methanol
0
1,257,129
~

2
Barium
1,534
0

~
3
Phthalic Anhydride
0
250
/

4
Barium
0
2,000

~
5
Barium
1,060
0

~
6
Barium
0
4,500
~

7
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
440
0
/

7
Methanol
4,000
0

~
8
Barium
782


~
9
Methanol
52,769
26,765
/

10
Methanol
0
1,600

~
11
Barium
0
250

~
12
Barium
0
5,010
~

13
Carbon Disulfide
1,453
0

~
14
Barium
2
3,001

~
14
Methanol
0
5,362

~
14
Acetone
0
6,860
~

15
Barium
11,000
0
~

16
Acetone
0
2,115
~

16
Acetonitrile
0
250,131
~

16
Methanol
0
5,182

~
16
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
948
~

16
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
132

~
16
Methyl Methacrylate
17,001
4,780
~

17
Barium
0
2,560

~
18
Acetone
6,400
0
~

D-5

-------
Table D-l
SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING
NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release
to Water
(Ibs/yr)
Release
toPOTW
(lbs/yr)
Almost
Certain to
Exceed UTS1
May
Exceed
UTS'
19
Freon 113
960
0
~

20
Barium
750
0

~
21
Methanol
0
1,608
~

22
Barium
0
24,200
~

23
Methanol
2,032
0

/
24
Acetone
250
0

~
24
Methyl Methacrylate
250
0

~
25
Acetone
0
265

~
26
Methanol
1,522
0

/
27
Methanol
2,512
0

~
28
Barium
580
0

~
28
Xylene
300
0

~
28
Acetone
8,100
0
/

28
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
11,000
0
~

28
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
770
0
/

29
Methanol
0
368,462
~

30
Acetone
3,100
0
~

30
Aniline
250
0

/
31
Vanadium
750
0

/
32
Ethylene Oxide
58
0

~
32
Acetone
8,600
0
~

32
Methanol
13,000
0

~
32
Dichlorofluoromethane
2,100
0
~

33
Methanol
0
7,060

~
1. "Almost certain to exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituent concentration exceeding
UTS at high-end flow rates, "May exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituents exceeding
UTS at low-end flow rates. Note that those wastestreams exceeding UTS at high-end flow rates also
exceed UTS at low-end flow rates, although we have not included a / in the last column for these
wastestreams.
D-6

-------
Appendix E
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY

-------
ffiyr • * <-
Appendix E
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
The iron and steel industry includes facilities in SIC codes 3312 through 3325. For the
purposes of the water effluent guidelines, this industry has been broken into twelve subparts: coke
making, sintering, iron making, steel making, vacuum degreasing, continuous casting, hot forming,
salt bath descaling, acid pickling, cold forming, alkaline cleaning, and hot coating. The effluent
guidelines for this industry were finalized in 1982. The development document for these guidelines,
reports a total of 1,020 active plants (as of July 1981), 903 of which directly or indirectly discharge
wastewater. In 1992, 870 iron and steel facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected bv the Phase PI LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Due to a lack of effluent guideline data on non-priority UTS constituents in wastestreams
generated by the iron and steel industry, we relied largely on TRI data to assess which facilities
might have wastestreams containing non-priority constituents exceeding UTS levels. In our analysis,
we combined TRI loadings data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater discharges
to estimate the concentrations of non-priority UTS constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then
compared these concentration levels to UTS levels to identify facilities with wastestreams potentially
exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI does not contain information on waste management
practices, we considered data from other sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT
wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used in the
analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of a non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry. Establish low-end and high-end estimates of flow rates.
E-l

-------
Step 3:	Applying the low-end and high-end flow rate estimates to the TRI
loadings data, identify facilities almost certain to have wastestreams
with constituent concentrations exceeding UTS levels (i.e., UTS
exceedances even at very high wastewater flows) and facilities that
might have wastestreams exceeding UTS levels (i.e., exceedances at
very low wastewater flows).
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule primarily for two
reasons. First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents.
Second, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are
required to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface
impoundments also could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that no facilities are almost certain to be affected and four
facilities may be affected by the rule. Below we summarize how we calculated these estimates and
provide additional information characterizing the industry.
In 1992,870 iron and steel manufacturing facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals, with
360 reporting releases to water or to POTWs. Of these 360 facilities, 17 reported a quantifiable
discharge of at least one of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants. Ten of these facilities directly
discharged wastewaters to surface waters, four discharged wastewaters to POTWs, and three did
both. Wastewaters from these facilities contained at least one of six non-priority UTS pollutants
including barium, cresol, acetone, methanol, vanadium, or xylene.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with low-end
and high-end wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on our analysis considering high-end flow rates of 10
million gallons per day, we found that no facilities are likely to be affected by the rule because no
facilities generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS constituents exceeding UTS levels at
these assumed flow rates. Based on a low-end flow rate of 250,000 gallons per day, we estimated
that four facilities may be affected by the rule. The flow rate estimates are based on data from the
effluent guidelines development documents. In addition, we estimated that the quantity of affected
wastewater generated by these facilities is 3.0 million tons per year, based on an average flow rate
for this industry of 500,000 gallons per day.1 Table E-l shows the loadings levels for the pollutants
of concern for these four facilities.
The above analysis shows that the Phase III LDR rule is unlikely to have a large effect on
the iron and steel industry. The four facilities represent far less than one percent of facilities in the
industry. Furthermore, the above analysis did not consider whether these facilities manage
wastewaters in surface impoundments and whether the wastestreams are likely to contain
decharacterized ICRT wastes. We collected additional data related to these two factors for this
industry, although we did not use this information to adjust the TRI analysis.
1 This quantity is calculated as follows: 500,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171
tons per gallon x 4 facilities = 3.0 million gallons per year.

-------
The PCS database shows that 329 iron and steel manufacturing facilities have NPDES
permits and 106 of these facilities reported treatment information.2 Based on an analysis of the
treatment data, seven facilities reported treatment types likely to occur in surface impoundments,3
Comparing the number of facilities with land-based units to the total number of facilities for which
treatment data were available, we estimated that seven percent of facilities use surface
impoundments,4 Also the number of iron and steel facilities reporting use of surface impoundments
based on the Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle D establishments is a similar magnitude, nine
percent. Based on that survey, of the 2,151 facilities managing Subtitle D waste in 1985, 185
facilities managed these wastes in surface impoundments.5
In addition, we reviewed the 1991 BRS to investigate the quantity of ICR waste generated
and managed in surface impoundments by facilities in this industry. Based on this analysis, we found
that 2.1 million tons of ICR wastes are managed in surface impoundments. The fact that our
estimate is a similar order of magnitude suggests that our approach is reasonable. Note however
that EPA believes that BRS data may understate the quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters
managed in land-based units because many facilities did not report wastes that were diluted
immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.6 Therefore, we did not rely on these data in our
analysis.
The primary limitation of this analysis is that the TRI data does not consider 53 non-priority
UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. The impacts of the rule due
to the remaining non-priority pollutants is unclear.
2	Reporting of treatment information to PCS is voluntary.
3	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
4	Seven percent equals seven facilities with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 106
facilities reporting treatment information.
5	It is not clear why the total number of iron and steel facilities for 1985 based on the Screening
Survey (2,151) is about twice as much as EPA's estimate of the number of active plants as of July
1981 (1,020).
6	In fact, such wastes should have been included in the BRS. however, EPA discussions with
industry suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
E-3

-------


Table E-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING NON-
PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release to Water
(Ibs/yr)
Release to
POTWflbsfyr)
Almost Certain
to exceed UTS'
May
Exceed
UTS'
1
Barium Compounds
12,314
0

~
1
Xylene (Mixed Isomers
250
0

~
2
Xylene (Mixed isomers)
250
1,500

~
3
Acetone
0
250

~
4
Barium
4,600
0

~
4
Vanadium
3,500
0

~
1, "Almost certain to exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituent concentration exceeding
UTS at high-end flow rates, "May exceed UTS" includes those wastestreams with constituents exceeding
UTS at low-end rates.
E-4

-------
Appendix F
SUMMARY OF ANALYSES FOR STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATORS

-------
Appendix F
SUMMARY OF ANALYSES FOR STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATORS
The electric power generation industry includes privately and publicly-owned facilities that
generate, transmit and/or distribute electric power for sale.1 This industry encompasses SIC codes
4911 (Electric Services) and 4931 (Electric Services and Other Services Combined).2 EPA developed
water effluent guidelines for a subsector of this industry, steam electric generating plants, in 1982,
Steam electric plants include those facilities that use fossil or nuclear fuel to produce steam which
is used to power a turbine and generate electricity. Based on the development documents for these
effluent guidelines, there were 842 steam electric generation facilities in 1978. EPA currently is
conducting a preliminary study to determine whether to revise the guidelines for this industry
subcategory and plans to complete this study in 1995.
Steam electric facilities generate a variety of wastewaters both on a continuous and
intermittent basis. Wastewaters generated on a continuous basis include once-through cooling water,
recirculating cooling system blowdown, fly ash and bottom ash, boiler blowdown and wet flue gas
blowdown. In addition, these facilities generate several other types of wastes on a regular basis
including ion exchange and demineralizer regeneration wastes, evaporator blowdown, reverse
osmosis brine, and water softening wastes. Finally there are many wastes generated periodically
from cleaning of boiler and generating units.
In August 1993, EPA promulgated a final regulatory determination exempting four high-
volume wastes generated at coal-fired electric generating plants from Subtitle C regulations - fly
ash, bottom ash, boiler ash and flue gas emission control wastes.3 This final rule, however, did not
permanently exempt these wastes if they are co-managed with other low-volume wastes generated
at these facilities. If these four wastes are co-managed with other wastes, EPA classifies them as
"remaining" wastes; "remaining wastes" also include wastes generated by electric utility facilities that
use other types of fossil fuel (e.g., oil) to generate power. EPA plans to cqnsider whether to exempt
remaining wastes from Subtitle C regulation by April 1,1998. In the mean time, remaining wastes
1	This introductory section largely was taken from a draft of the capacity analysis for this industry
prepared for EPA by ICF Incorporated and a letter from James Roewer, Utility Solid Waste
Activities Group to Kristine Cornils, ICF, Inc., Re: Information on Steam Electric Utilities
Regarding the Applicability of Phase III Land Disposal Restrictions, October 7, 1994.
2	Electric Services and other Services combined includes establishments primarily providing
electric services in combination with other services, with electric services a major part, but less than
95 percent of the total.
3	Environmental Protection Agency, Final Regulatory Determination on Four Large-Volume
Wastes from the Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants, 40 CFR Part 261, 58 FR
42466, August 9, 1993.
F-l

-------
are temporarily exempt from Subtitle C regulation.4 This exemption is important to our analysis of
the Phase III LDR rule since potentially affected wastes that are co-managed with these other
exempt wastes would not be affected under the rule until EPA determines how to regulate these
wastes.
Based on information provided by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), utilities produce two
types of wastes that they believe may be subject to further treatment under the Phase III LDR rule:
(1) demineralizer regenerate (i.e., wastewater produced in ion exchange processes applied to boiler
influent), and (2) chemical cleaning wastes that are produced when boilers are cleaned. These
wastes are corrosive wastewaters that may contain the non-priority UTS metals barium and
vanadium at concentrations exceeding UTS levels. In particular, boiler chemical cleaning wastes are
generated infrequently - boiler cleaning occurs at a facility every two to five years. EEI estimates
that 375,000 tons of this waste is generated annually. Facilities usually ship these wastes off-site for
treatment and disposal. The BRS data did not identify any facilities that managed boiler cleaning
wastes in RCRA-exempt surface impoundments. Regeneration of deionizing units is performed on
a more regular basis (every one to four days). EEI estimates that 25 million to 1.7 billion tons of
these wastewaters are generated annually. Ion exchange regenerant wastes frequently are mixed and
managed with RCRA-exempt wastes, but may be handled independently at some facilities; these
facilities potentially would be affected by the rule. In addition, EEI identified two additional wastes,
boiler and cooling tower blowdown and coal pile run-off, that could exhibit the corrosivity
characteristic under unusual circumstances and thus could be affected by the rule.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
In addition, for this industry, we considered whether these wastes were co-managed with RCRA-
exempt wastes and thus would not be affected by the rule.
Unfortunately, no single data source contained all the information required to assess these
criteria for this industry. Therefore, we relied on various sources to provide data, as well as support
development of reasonable assumptions and judgements in developing estimates of the number of
facilities affected by the rule. These sources include the BRS, TRI, and PCS, as well as information
4 Note that recently in the Mobil decision {Mobil Oil Corp v. EPA, CA DC, No. 92-1211,
9/23/94), the federal appeals court vacated EPA regulations promulgated in 1989 related to mixtures
of mining wastes and characteristic wastes. Apparently this court decision only affects mining wastes
and does not directly effect mixtures of other exempt wastes and characteristic wastes.
F-2

-------
collected in discussions with the EEL To evaluate the number of facilities and quantity of waste
affected by the rule, we largely relied on available information related to the first two criteria due
to lack of concentration data for non-priority UTS constituents in wastewaters managed at these
facilities.
Results
Based on our analysis, we estimated that the rule may have minor effects on this industry.
This finding largely relied on an analysis of the BRS database. This analysis of BRS showed that
four facilities generate ICR wastes managed in surface impoundments and thus may be affected by
the rule. Note, however, that there is significant uncertainty associated with this estimate. First,
there are limited data available on whether the wastewaters contain non-priority pollutants at
concentrations exceeding UTS levels, and thus the BRS estimates may overstate the effects of the
rule. Second, there is uncertainty over the extent to which facilities manage their ICR wastewaters
in non-exempt surface impoundments. Finally, EFA believes that BRS data may underestimate the
quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters managed in land-based units because many facilities
may not have reported wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.5
Also there is some uncertainty in interpreting BRS survey responses as to what constitutes a surface
impoundment and which units are regulated under RCRA. Analyses of the various data sources and
discussions with EEI generally conform with our BRS findings, but none of the databases allow us
to consider all of the factors concurrently. Further analysis of the impacts of the rule on this
industry may be warranted. Below we discuss the results of our analyses and provide additional
information characterizing the industry.
Based on the BRS data, EPA identified 33 facilities that managed ICR wastewaters on-site.
Data on the type of waste management units used at the facility were available for 21 of these 33
facilities, accounting for 94 percent (689,000 tons) of the reported waste managed on-site by these
facilities. Based on analyses of this treatment data, EPA found that four facilities managed 60,000
tons of potentially affected ICR wastes in surface impoundments regulated under RCRA.6
In our analysis, we assumed that the wastewaters at these facilities contained non-priority
UTS pollutants at concentrations exceeding UTS. To evaluate the reasonableness of this
assumption, we reviewed the TRI data to estimate constituent concentrations in wastewaters
managed by electric utilities. This database, however, is of limited value since electric utilities are
not required to report to TRI (since TRI covers manufacturing establishments in SIC codes 20 to
39). Based on the available data, only eight facilities in this industry (SIC codes 4911 and 4931)
reported releases of TRI chemicals in 1992 and only one reported releases to water or POTWs.7
This one facility did not report releases of any of the non-priority UTS constituents.
5	In fact, such wastes should have been included in BRS; however, EPA discussions with industry
suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
6	Note that this analysis of the BRS was run independently of the analysis reported in Appendix
P. The values reported in this analysis are different from those presented in Appendix P because
they include consideration of the regulatory status of the units.
7	We assume that these facilities reported to TRI because they also have operations under one
of the SIC codes covered by TRI.
F-3

-------
Other sources of data suggest that the number of facilities affected by the rule may be
higher, particularly given the potentially large number of facilities that use surface impoundments.
First, EPA reviewed data available in the TC RLA. This data source showed that 37 percent of
steam-electric generating facilities manage their wastes in surface impoundments, suggesting that
a larger number of facilities may be affected than estimated based on the BRS analysis. This data'
source, however, did not contain information on concentration levels of any of the non-priority UTS
constituents for facilities in this industry and did not indicate whether these units also managed
RCRA-exempt wastes. Thus, we could not estimate the number of facilities affected by the rule
using this data source.8
Second, we reviewed the PCS database to obtain data on the number of facilities in the
industry using surface impoundments. The PCS database shows that 1,450 facilities in the electric
utility industry have NPDES permits. Of the 344 facilities that provided treatment information, 56
(16 percent) reported treatment types likely to occur in land-based units.9 Note that the number
of facilities (1,450) in this database exceeds the number of facilities based on the effluent
development documents reported earlier (842) because the development documents only address
steam-electric plants. Again, this data source suggests that a larger number of facilities potentially
could be affected by the rule than estimated based on the BRS analysis. However, PCS did not
provide the data needed to evaluate the effects of the rule considering all the applicable criteria.
PCS did not provide data on constituent concentration levels, did not indicate whether wastewaters
in these surface impoundments contain decharacterized ICRT wastes, and did not indicate whether
the surface impoundments are RCRA-exempt.
Finally, as indicated above, we obtained information from discussions with EEI. Based on
these conversations, EEI indicated that most of the waste generated by electric utilities that it
believes may be ICR (demineralizer regenerate and chemical cleaning wastes) is managed in
nonhazardous surface impoundments, which compare the majority of the estimated 540 surface
impoundments in use in the industry. EEI also indicated that many facilities may co-manage these
wastewaters with exempt wastes, but that this practice is declining. While, this information suggests
that many facilities potentially would be affected by the rule, additional data on the concentrations
of constituents in these wastes and the number of facilities actually managing ICR wastes in non-
exempt surface impoundments is required to determine the impacts of the rule on this industry.
8	Note that the capacity analysis included information on concentration levels of several priority
pollutants that are TC characteristic (i.e., D004 through D043). These data show concentrations of
TC constituents in wastes on an as-generated basis (i.e., prior to treatment) and usually do not show
concentrations for other constituents in these wastes; thus we were unable to use this information
in this analysis.
9	Reporting of treatment information is optional in PCS.
F-4

-------
Appendix G
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INDUSTRY
t

-------
Appendix G
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS INDUSTRY
The electronics and electrical components industry includes facilities in the following SIC
Industry Groups: 357 (Computer and Office Equipment), 361 (Electric Transmission and
Distribution Equipment), 362 (Electrical Industrial Apparatus), 363 (Household Appliances), 364
(Electric Lighting and Wiring Equipment), 365 (Household Audio and Video Equipment, and Audio
Recordings), 366 (Telecommunications Equipment), 367 (Electronic Components and Accessories),
and 369 (Miscellaneous Electrical Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies). According to the 1987
Census of Manufactures, there were about 16,000 establishments in SIC code 36, covering the seven
three-digit subcategories in this SIC group listed above, plus about 2,100 establishments in SIC code
357,
Effluent guidelines for this industry were finalized in 1983. No information on non-priority
UTS constituents of concern for the Phase III LDR rule were available from these effluent
guidelines documents.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastes;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents of concentrations exceeding UTS.
Due to a lack of effluent guidelines data on non-priority UTS constituents in wastestreams
generated by facilities in the electronics and electrical components industry, we relied largely on TRI
data to assess which facilities might have wastestreams containing non-priority constituents exceeding
UTS levels. We combined TRI loadings data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater
discharges to estimate the concentrations of these constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then
compared these concentration levels to UTS levels to identify facilities and wastestreams potentially
exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI does not contain information on waste management
practices, we considered data from other sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage ICRT
wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used in the
analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of a non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
G-l

-------
Evaluate the flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry. Establish low-end and high-end estimates of flow rates.
Applying the low-end and high-end flow rate estimates to the TRI
loadings data, identify facilities almost certain to have wastestreams
with constituents concentrations exceeding UTS levels (i.e., UTS
exceedances even at very high wastewater flows) and facilities that
might have wastestreams exceeding UTS levels (i.e., exceedances at
very low wastewater flows).
Adjust the resulting estimates of the number of affected facilities to
reflect the likelihood that facilities in the industry manage and treat
their ICRT wastes in surface impoundments.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule primarily for two
reasons. First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents.
Second, only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are
required to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface
impoundments also could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that four to 12 facilities may be affected by the rule. Below
we summarize how we calculated these estimates and provide additional information characterizing
the industry.
In 1992,1,898 electrical and electronic components manufacturing facilities reported releases
of TRI chemicals, with 786 reporting releases to water or to POTWs. Of the 786 facilities reporting
releases to water or to POTWs, 128 reported a quantifiable discharge of at least one of the 101 non-
priority UTS pollutants. Of these 128 facilities, 15 directly discharged wastewaters to surface waters,
103 discharged wastewaters to POTWs, and 10 did both. Wastewaters from these facilities contained
at least one of nine non-priority UTS pollutants, including barium, methanol, acetone, acetonitrile,
freon 113, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl latone, butanol, and xylene.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with low-end
and high-end wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on this analysis, we found that 29 facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because they generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels at high-end flow rates of one million gallons per day. This
analysis also showed that an additional 26 facilities may be affected by the rule, based on a low-end
flow rate of 50,000 gallons per day. These flow rate data are based on data from the effluent
guidelines. Table G-l shows the loadings levels for the pollutants of concern for these 55 facilities.
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
G-2

-------
We adjusted this estimated range of the affected number of facilities to reflect the number
of facilities likely to manage wastewaters in surface impoundments. The PCS database shows that
309 electrical and electronic components manufacturing facilities have NPDES permits (affecting
918 outfalls) and 82 of these facilities reported treatment information (affecting 196 outfalls).1
Based on an analysis of the treatment data, 17 facilities reported treatment types likely to occur in
surface impoundments, affecting 25 outfalls.2 Comparing the number of outfalls and facilities with
land-based units to the total number of outfalls and facilities for which treatment data were
available, we estimated that 13 to 21 percent of facilities use surface impoundments.3
Applying this range of 13 to 21 percent to the TRI analysis, we estimated that four to twelve
facilities, or less than one percent of the 1,898 manufacturing facilities reporting to TRI, may
actually be affected by the rule.4 In addition, we estimated the quantity of wastewater generated by
these affected facilities at between 579,000 and 2.6 million tons per year. This is based on an
average flow rate for direct dischargers of one million gallons per day and indirect dischargers of
100,000 gallons per day (average flow rate based on BRS data).5
In our analysis, we assumed that all facilities with exceedances of UTS manage
decharacterized ICRT wastes in their surface impoundments. As a check on this assumption, we
analyzed data from the BRS to evaluate the quantity of ICR waste that is managed in land-based
units. This analysis showed that 19.5 million tons of ICR wastes were managed in land-based units
by this industry in 1991. This quantity is relatively large compared to our estimate of
decharacterized ICR wastes with UTS exceedances, suggesting that a large portion of facilities in
this industry may manage decharacterized ICR wastes with other wastewaters in surface
impoundments and that our assumption is reasonable.
The primary limitation of our approach is that the analysis of the TRI data does not consider
53 non-priority UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. The impacts
of the rule due to the remaining non-priority pollutants is unclear.
1	PCS only contains data for direct dischargers, thus explaining the difference in the number of
facilities in PCS and the number reporting to TRI. Also reporting of treatment information to PCS
is voluntary.
2	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
3	Thirteen percent equals 25 outfalls with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 196
outfalls for which facilities reported treatment information. Twenty-one percent equals 17 facilities
with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 82 facilities reporting treatment information.
4	Twenty-nine facilities x 13 percent = 3.8 facilities (rounds up to 4 facilities); 55 facilities x 21
percent =11.6 (rounds up to 12 facilities).
5	For the lower bound of this range, 100,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons
per gallon x 3.8 facilities = 579,000 tons. The upper bound is calculated as follows: 149,000 gallons
per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per gallon x 11.6 facilities = 2.6 million tons. The
148,000 flow rate is the weighted average flow rate for direct and indirect dischargers where 52 of
the 55 affected facilities are indirect dischargers and three are direct dischargers.
G-3

-------

Table G-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(lbs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
1
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
550

~
2
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
0
190


2
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
4,800
~

3
Acetone
0
1,400
~

4
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
250
0

s
5
Acetone
0
750

~
5
Freon 113
0
250


6
Acetone
0
327

~
7
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
250
250

~
8
Acetone
0
1,000
~

9
Methanol
0
58,159
~

10
Freon 113
0
124

~
11
Acetone
0
2,175
~

11
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
2,065
~

12
Barium Compounds
0
1,000

~
13
Barium Compounds
0
3,100

~
14
Acetone
0
120

~
15
Acetone
0
250

~
16
Freon 113
0
44

~
16
Acetone
0
150

~
17
Methanol
0
22,323
~

18
Acetone
0
5,334
~

19
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
19
Freon 113
0
250
~

20
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
21
Acetone
0
3,270
~

22
Acetone
0
3,989
~

22
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
1,009
~

23
Acetone
0
526

~
24
Methanol
0
5,500

~
25
Acetone
0
1,800
~

G-4

-------

Table G-l



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility-

to Water,
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
26
Methanol
0
2,200

~
26
Acetone
0
2,200
~

27
Acetone
250
21,412
~

28
Acetone
0
250

~
29
Acetone
250
1,100
/

30
Freon 113
0
250
~

30
Acetone
0
250

~
31
Methanol
0
33,000
~

31
Methanol
0
3,600

~
31
Acetone
0
630

~
32
Acetone
0
430

~
33
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
2,100
~

33
Acetone
0
890
~

34
Acetone
0
1,800
~

35
Acetone
0
31,000
~

36
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
350

~
36
Acetone
0
7,100
~

37
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
340

~
37
Acetone
0
11,000
~

38
Methanol
0
6,190


38
Acetone
0
46,450
~

39
Acetone
0
550

~
40
Acetone
0
5,000
ฆ/

41
Acetone
0
250

~
42
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
43
Methanol
0
190,000
~

44
Methanol
0
2,300

~
45
Acetone
0
250

~
46
Acetone
0
4,248
~

47
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
0
8,030
~

48
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
G-5

-------

Table G-I



SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS CONTAINING

NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS



Release
Release
Almost
May
Facility

to Water
to POTW
Certain to
Exceed
Number
Constituent
(Ibs/yr)
(Ibs/yr)
Exceed UTS
UTS
49
Acetone
0
12,507
~

50
Methanol
2,006
0

~
51
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
52
Acetone
0
250

~
53
N-Butyl Alcohol
0
22,000
~

54
Xylene (Mixed Isomers)
0
250

~
54
Methyl Ethyl Ketone

250

~
55
Acetone

689

~
G-6

-------
Appendix H
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE FOOD INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix H
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE FOOD INDUSTRY
The food industry includes a wide array of facilities involved in food processing. For the
purposes of this analysis, we considered the potential impacts of the rule on the following six
subsectors of the industry: dairy products (2021-2026); fruits and vegetables (2032-2035,2037-2038);
grain mill products (2041, 2043-2048); meat products (2011, 2013, 2015); sugar processing (2061-
2063); and seafood processing (2091-2092). These subsectors include those for which EPA has
promulgated effluent guidelines; EPA issued guidelines for the meat products subsector in 1976 and
for the five other subsectors in 1974 with revisions in 1986. According to the 1987 Census of
Manufactures, there are 8,965 establishments in this industry.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase ITT T JVR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Due to a lack of data on non-priority UTS constituents in wastestreams generated by the
food industry in the effluent guidelines development documents, we relied largely on TRI data to
assess which facilities might have wastestreams containing these constituents at concentrations
exceeding UTS levels. For this analysis, we combined TRI loadings data and industry-specific data
on flow rates for wastewater discharges to estimate the concentrations of these constituents in
facilities' wastestreams. We then compared these concentration levels to UTS levels to identify
facilities and wastestreams potentially exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI does not contain
information on waste management practices, we considered data from other sources to evaluate
facilities likely to manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline the steps
and assumptions used in the analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
Step 2:	Evaluate the flow rates of wastewater discharges by facilities in the
industry.
H-l

-------
Step 3:	Applying the flow rate estimates to the TRI loadings data, identify
facilities that may have wastestreams with constituents exceeding UTS
levels.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule for two reasons.
First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents. Second,
only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are required
to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments also
could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that 11 facilities may be affected by the rule. These
facilities represent less than one percent of the industry and thus we do not expect the rule to have
a significant impact on this industry. Below we summarize how we calculated this estimate and
provide additional information characterizing the industry.
In 1992, 2,100 food facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals, with 731 reporting releases
to water or to POTWs. Of these 731 facilities, 17 reported a quantifiable discharge of at least one
of the 101 non-priority UTS pollutants. Of these 17 facilities, one discharged wastewaters to surface
waters, fifteen discharged wastewaters to POTWs, and one did both. Wastewaters from these
facilities contained at least one of five non-priority UTS pollutants, including acetone, methanol,
butanol, ethylene oxide, and cresol.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with the
average wastewater flow rate for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting concentration
estimates to UTS levels. Based on this analysis, we found that 11 facilities are likely to be affected
by the rule because they generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS constituents exceeding
UTS levels at an average wastewater flow rate of 570,000 gallons per day.1 All of these 11 facilities
are indirect dischargers. In addition, we estimated the quantity of wastewater generated by these
affected facilities at 9.5 million tons per year.2 Table H-l shows the loadings levels for the pollutants
of concern for these 11 facilities.
In our analysis, we assumed that all facilities with wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS levels manage these wastewaters in land-based units.
To evaluate the reasonableness of this assumption, we analyzed the PCS database. The PCS
database showed that 1,474 food facilities have NPDES permits and 339 of these facilities reported
1	The estimated average flow rate was taken from van der Leeden, Frits, Fred L. Troise and
David Keith Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis Publisher, 1990. See Table 5-39 for data on water
use in the food industry. We were unable to obtain flow rate data from the effluent guidelines
development documents that could be used to estimate a lower bound flow rate.
2	Calculated as follows: 570,000 gallons per day x 365 days per year x 0.004171 tons per gallon
x 11 facilities = 9.5 million tons.
H-2

-------
treatment information.3 Based on an analysis of the treatment data, 147 facilities reported treatment
types likely to occur in surface impoundments.4 Comparing the number of facilities with land-based
units to the total number of facilities for which treatment data were available, we estimated that 43
percent of direct dischargers use surface impoundments. If the percentage of indirect dischargers
that use land-based units is similar to the percentage for direct dischargers, our analysis would
overstate the number of affected facilities and the quantity of waste generated by them.
In our analysis, we also assumed that all facilities with exceedances of UTS manage
decharacterized ICRT wastes in their surface impoundments. As a check on this assumption, we
analyzed data from BRS to evaluate the quantity of ICR waste that is managed in land-based units
by the food industry. This analysis showed that only 85,000 tons of ICR wastes were managed in
land-based units by this industry in 1991. However, EPA believes that BRS data may underestimate
the quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters managed in land-based units because many
facilities did not report wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.5
This may explain why our estimated quantity of wastewaters affected by the rule exceeds the quantity
of ICR managed in land-based units reported in BRS. Thus, it is difficult to use these data to
evaluate the reasonableness of our assumption.
The primary limitation of our approach is that the analysis of the TRI data does not consider
53 non-priority UTS constituents and thus may underestimate the effects of the rule. The impacts
of the rule due to the remaining non-priority pollutants are unclear.
3	PCS only contains data for direct dischargers, thus explaining the difference in the number of
facilities in PCS and the number reporting to TRI. Also reporting of treatment information to PCS
is voluntary.
4	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
5	In fact, such wastes should have been included in BRS; however, EPA discussions with industry
suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
H-3

-------
Table H-l
SUMMARY OF TRI LOADINGS DATA FOR FACILITIES WITH WASTESTREAMS
CONTAINING NON-PRIORITY UTS CONSTITUENTS AT LEVELS EXCEEDING UTS
Facility
Number
Constituent
Release to Water
(lbs/yr)
Release to POTW
(lbs/yr)
May Exceed
UTS1
1
Acetone

29,134
~
1
Methanol

174,122
~
2
Methanol

15,000
~
3
Methanol

26,000
~
4
Acetone

47,000
~
4
Methanol

50,000
~
5
Ethylene Oxide

3,700
~
6
Methanol

1,800,000
~
7
Ethylene Oxide

24,172
~
8
Acetone

750
~
9
Methanol

191,475
~
10
Methanol

87,000
~
11
Acetone

9,040
~
1. Based on an average flow rate of 570,000 million gallons per day.
H-4

-------
Appendix I
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF METAL PRODUCTS
AND MACHINERY AND ELECTROPLATING/METAL FINISHING

-------
Appendix I
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF METAL PRODUCTS
AND MACHINERY AND ELECTROPLATING/METAL FINISHING
We discuss the Metal Products and Machinery industry category and the Electroplating/
Metal Finishing category together because their processes and wastestreams are quite similar and
our analyses of these industries rely on the same data sources.1
Industry Overview
Metal Products and Machinery Category
The Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) category, formerly the Machinery
Manufacturing and Rebuilding (MM&R) category, includes facilities that generate wastewater while
processing metal parts, metal products, and machinery, including manufacture and assembly,
rebuilding, repair, and maintenance operations (covers a range of facilities, principally in SIC codes
34 through 39). The MP&M category includes 15 major industrial groups, shown below, which have
been divided into two groups, reflecting the groupings for the two-phased development of the
effluent guidelines. EPA selected seven subcategories for Phase I based on an analysis of the types
of wastewaters created, the likely regulatory impact of new effluent standards, and the extent to
which facilities in the different groups are not currently affected by existing wastewater discharge
guidelines and standards. MP&M Phase II represents the remaining industrial groups in the MP&M
category.
MP&M Phase I Industrial Groups
MP&M Phase II Industrial Groups
Aircraft
Motor Vehicles (i.e., automobiles)
Aerospace Vehicles;
Bus and Truck
Hardware (Machine Tools, Screw Machines,
Metal Forging and Stamping, Metal Springs,
Heating Equipment, Fabricated Structural Metal)
Railroad
Ordinance
Ships and Boats
Stationary Industrial Equipment (including
Electrical Equipment)
Office Machines
Mobile Industrial Equipment
Household Equipment
Electronic Equipment (including Communications
Equipment)
Instruments (Measurement and Control
Instruments and Specialty Equipment)

Precious and Nonprecious Metals and
Instruments
1 This appendix is based largely on analyses conducted for the capacity assessment (see the
appendices to the development document for the capacity analysis).
1-1

-------
According to Dun and Bradstreet (D&B), there are approximately 970,000 facilities covered
by these designations. The seven major industrial groups in MP&M Phase I represented
approximately 270,000 of these facilities (or over 25 percent of all MP&M facilities). EPA's data
collection efforts for the MP&M Phase I category indicated that the number of facilities in this
industry category is significantly smaller than the D&B data, at about 10,600 facilities. Responses
to EPA's screener surveys indicated that less than half of the original 270,000 facilities used the
identified metal processes (i.e., many facilities were wood, warehouse or nonmanufacturing facilities)
and less than half of the remaining facilities used process water. Assuming a similar revision to the
number of facilities in the MP&M Phase II subcategory as in Phase I (i.e., four percent of D&B
estimated number of facilities), the estimated number of facilities in the MP&M Phase II category
is 28,000.
The MP&M category has been included in the effluent guidelines program because many
of the facilities identified in this category use processes that generate large quantities of corrosive
(i.e., high or low pH that would meed the RCRA hazardous waste characteristic for corrosivity)
wastewaters. These wastewaters include both acidic and alkaline streams and include both
concentrated solutions (i.e., process baths) and rinsewaters. Common practice in the MP&M
industry category is to collect acidic wastewaters in one tank and alkaline wastewaters in a separate
tank. Wastewaters are then used for pH adjustments and to precipitate metals.
Effluent guidelines for MP&M Phase I are scheduled for proposal in November 1994, with
promulgation of final regulations planned for June 1996. MP&M Phase II effluent guideline efforts
are scheduled to begin in 1995.
Electroplating/Metal Finishing Category
The E/MF category covers a range of facilities in SIC codes 34 through 39 that conduct any
one of the following six operations: electroplating, electroless plating, anodizing, conversion coating,
chemical etching, or printed circuit board manufacturing. If a facility uses one of these six core unit
operations, an additional 40 metal finishing operations that discharge wastewater are covered under
the effluent guidelines (e.g., cleaning, machining, polishing).
EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for the electroplating industry in January 1981 and for
the metal finishing industry in July 1983. During the development of these guidelines, EPA
identified approximately 13,500 facilities in the electroplating/metal finishing industry. EPA
currently is collecting preliminary information on the metal finishing category, investigating the
overlap with the MP&M category, and considering this category for a future rulemaking. Data
collected for the MP&M category showed that about 3,600 facilities in the MP&M Phase I category
currently are subject to electroplating/metal finishing effluent guidelines.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by Phase ITT I J)R Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
1-2

-------
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater; .
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
For these two industry categories, we were able to rely principally on one data source - data
collected under Section 308 of the CWA for use in developing effluent guidelines for the MP&M
Phase I industry category. The Office of Water collected data on unit operations and treatment
trains, wastewater generation and flow rates, and contaminants in the wastestreams, using screener
questionnaires, detailed questionnaires, and sampling programs. These surveys addressed over 300
pollutants, covering most of the non-priority UTS constituents. Due to the size of the industry, a
total of 446 statistically representative facilities were selected to serve as model plants representing
the entire MP&M Phase I subcategory. Scaling factors for each facility were developed to expand
the 446 model facilities to the 10,600 facilities identified in the MP&M Phase I subcategory. Due
to similarities between MP&M Phase I facilities and MP&M Phase II and E/MF facilities, we relied
on these Section 308 data for all three industry categories. Below we outline the steps and
assumptions used in our analysis for the three industry groups.
MP&M Phase I Facilities
The approach for identifying facilities in the MP&M Phase I category that are likely to be
affected by the Phase III LDR rule was developed as a result of numerous discussions with the
effluent guidelines development project teams regarding the data that were collected for that effort.
The discussions resulted in an approach consisting of a series of queries and assumptions based on
expert knowledge of the industry that are designed to identify facilities in the affected universe. The
queries and assumptions used are described below.
Step 1:	Query the database to identify those processes that generate corrosive
wastewaters (based on pH levels);
Step 2:	Query the database to identify model facilities that perform the
identified processes and generate corrosive wastewaters. (Identifying
facilities likely to generate corrosive wastewaters was conducted in
this two step process due to the way that pH data was collected and
incorporated into the database.)
Step 3:	Query the database to identify facilities with a TC organic constituent
in their wastewaters at the point of generation.
Assumption: Ignitable, reactive, or TC pesticide wastewaters are not generated by
the MP&M industry.
1-3

-------
Assumption:
All wastewaters that contain at least one of the TC organic
constituents at the point of generation are considered as TC organic
wastewaters, to be conservative.
Step 4:	For those model facilities and wastestreams identified in Steps 2 and
3, query the database to identify those facilities that are likely to have
land-based units, based on facilities with flow rates through their
treatment system of at least 100,000 gallons per day (gpd).
Assumption: Only a small percentage of the largest facilities in the industry are
likely to use land-based units in their treatment trains. A flow rate
of 100,000 gpd through a treatment system was estimated as
representative of these large facilities. Facilities with flows below
these levels are unlikely to need the capacity of a land-based unit and
may use tanks. This assumption was tested/verified in Step 7.
Step 5:	For those large model facilities identified in Step 4, identify facilities
likely to be affected by the rule by comparing end-of-pipe constituent
concentrations to UTS levels.
Step 6:	Apply the scaling factors to the identified model facilities to estimate
the total number of facilities likely to be affected.
Step 7:	Test/validate our earlier assumption that only large facilities are likely
to use land-based units by identifying smaller facilities (i.e., facilities
with flow rates less than 100,000 gpd) that use treatment types that
may occur in land-based units.
Assumption: In the detailed questionnaire, EPA collected data on the type of
treatment performed, but not on the unit in which the treatment is
performed. The list of treatment codes in the Data Collection
Portfolio Dictionary was reviewed to identify the treatments that may
occur in a land-based unit.
Step 8:	For facilities identified in Step 7, identify those facilities likely to be
affected by the rule by comparing end-of-pipe constituent
concentrations to UTS levels.
MP&M Phase II Facilities
To identify affected facilities for this industry subcategory, we relied on the available data
for the Phase I MP&M facilities. Our approach applied the estimated percentage of MP&M Phase
I facilities affected by the rule to the total number of MP&M Phase II facilities. We developed this
approach after discussions with the MP&M project team that indicated that MP&M Phase I and
MP&M Phase II facilities generate similar wastewaters from similar processes.
1-4

-------
E/MF Facilities
For this industry category, our approach for estimating the number of affected facilities also
relied on data for the MP&M Phase I industry category, as well as available data on the number of
facilities in the E/MF and MP&M industry categories. As outlined below, the approach essentially
involved removing from the total number of E/MF facilities, those facilities already addressed by the
MP&M category, and for the remaining E/MF facilities estimating the number affected based on
MP&M Phase I category data.
Step 1:	Remove from the scope of E/MF, all Phase I MP&M facilities that
use one of the six identified E/MF unit operations.
Step 2:	Remove from the scope of E/MF, all Phase II MP&M facilities that
use one of the six unit operations.
Assumption: Because MP&M Phase I and Phase II facilities are similar, our
analysis assumed that the percentage of MP&M Phase I facilities that
use one of the six E/MF unit operations (33 percent) also applies for
Phase II facilities.
Step 3:	Of the remaining facilities, identify those likely to be affected by the
rule based on the percentage of MP&M Phase I facilities estimated
to be affected by the rule.
Assumption: The MP&M and E/MF industries are similar, as illustrated by the
significant overlap in operations covered by each category. Based on
these similarities, we assumed that the affected wastewaters for the
E/MF facilities are similar in terms of constituents and concentrations
above UTS levels to those affected wastewaters identified for MP&M
Phase I facilities.
Results
Based on our analysis of the 308 data, we found that no facilities are likely to be affected
by the Phase III LDR rule for the MP&M and E/MF industries. Below we summarize these results.
MP&M Phase I Facilities
The analysis of the largest facilities (i.e., those facilities with flow rates of at least 100,000
gpd) yielded two facilities that generate ICRT wastewaters with hazardous constituents above UTS
levels at the point of discharge (i.e., end-of-pipe) and managed in a land-based unit. However, the
three constituents contained in the wastestreams at these two facilities (phenol, 2-chlorophenol, and
trichloroethane) are priority pollutants. Thus, we found that no MP&M Phase I facilities managed
ICRT containing non-priority UTS pollutants exceeding UTS levels in land-based units, and thus
no facilities are likely to be affected by the rule.
1-5

-------
The analysis of the facilities that have wastewater flows below 100,000 gpd found one
additional facility that met all of the criteria (i.e., ICRT wastewater containing UTS constituents
exceeding UTS and managed in a land-based unit). Again, however, the two UTS constituents
present in this facility's wastestream (phenol and 2-chlorophenol) are priority pollutants, and thus
the facility is not expected to be affected by the rule.
MP&M Phase II Facilities and E/MF Facilities
Our approaches for identifying facilities in the MP&M Phase II category and the E/MF
category that are likely to be affected by the rule both are based on the data for the Phase I MP&M
category. Because we found that no facilities in the Phase I MP&M category are likely to be
affected by the Phase III LDR rule, we estimated that no facilities in the MP&M Phase II and the
E/MF categories will be affected by the rule.
1-6

-------
Appendix J
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix J
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
PUT P AND PAPFR TNDINTRY
JL M / VX ซJL/ MT imjL	JLJL^I U kj JL
The pulp and paper industry consists of companies that are engaged in the manufacture of
pulp, paper, paperboard, and converted paper products,1 These facilities are classified in the paper
and allied products category (major SIC group 26), principally under the following three SIC codes:
2611 (pulp mills), 2621 (paper mills), and 2631 (paperboard mills). Based on data collected by EPA
in developing revised effluent guidelines for this industry, there are 565 pulp and paper
manufacturing facilities in the United States. Effluent guidelines for this industry were initially
established in 1974, with revisions in 1986. EPA proposed revised guidelines for this industry in
December 1993 and expects to finalize these guidelines in 1995.
The pulp and paper industry includes integrated pulp and paper facilities (290 facilities) and
non-integrated facilities (275 facilities). Integrated facilities manufacture pulp on site from virgin
wood fiber, secondary fiber, or non-wood fiber. Non-integrated mills manufacture paper or
paperboard from purchased pulp or paper produced elsewhere. Integrated pulp and paper mills can
be classified further according to their pulping process: (1) chemical pulp mills; (2) semi-chemical
pulp mills; (3) mechanical pulp mills; and (4) secondary fiber mills.
Mills with chemical pulping processes mix concentrated chemical solutions with raw materials
at high temperature and under pressure to produce a variety of pulps with unique properties. This
"cooking" process dissolves the lignin that binds cellulose fibers together. The different types of
chemical pulping primarily differ according to the types of chemicals and chemical recovery
processes used. There are three types of chemical pulping: (1) kraft pulping - which uses an
alkaline solution of sodium sulfide and sodium hydroxide; (2) sulfite pulping - which uses an acid
solution of sulfurous acid and busulfite ion; and (3) soda pulping - which uses an alkaline solution
of only sodium hydroxide.
Mills with semi-chemical pulping processes use a combination of chemical and mechanical
treatments. Wood chips are mixed in a relatively mild chemical solution prior to mechanical refining
for fiber separation. The resulting =pulp can have a wide range of properties depending upon the
degree of mechanical and chemical methods that are used.
Mills with mechanical pulping processes use little or no chemicals and moderate or no heat.
There are five types of mechanical pulping: (1) stone groundwood - which uses mechanical pressure
to force logs against a stone grindstone and washes fibers and fiber fragments torn away from the
wood with water; (2) refiner mechanical - which passes wood chips between pairs of rotating
grooved steel plates to separate the fibers; (3) thermo-mechanical - which preheats wood chips with
steam prior to refining in double-disc refiners; (4) chemi-mechanical - which treats wood chips with
caustic soda solution prior to refining in double-disc refiners; and (5) ehemi-thermo-mechanical -
which pretreats wood chips with caustic soda to allow separation of nearly intact fibers with
minimum energy requirements for mechanical refining.
This industry background section largely was taken from the capacity analysis.
J-l

-------
Mills with secondary fiber pulping processes use a ragger and a junker to repulp secondary
fiber to remove contaminants (such as ink, adhesives and coatings, and plastic films). The ragger
uses a wire to remove strings, wires, and rags, and the junker uses centrifugal force to remove heavy
contaminants. Other systems are sometimes used to remove contaminants, depending upon the
grade of the waste paper and the desired final product. These processes commonly use caustic soda,
soda ash, and sodium silicate for repulping. When the contaminant to be removed is ink, a mill uses
surfactants, including detergents and dispersants, and heat to remove ink particles from the fiber.
Ink particles are removed from the stock by washing, which uses screens or thickeners, and/or
flotation, which uses air bubbles. Mills with secondary fiber pulping processes can be classified as
either deink mills or non-deink mills.
Pulp and paper facilities can either produce unbleached or bleached final products.
Bleaching is used at 30 percent of pulp and paper facilities to whiten the pulp by chemically altering
the coloring matter to brighten the product. The type and degree of pulp bleaching required is
dependent upon the wood type, the pulping process used, and the desired qualities of the final
product. Chlorine and chlorine-containing chemicals frequently are used for pulp bleaching;
however, the industry has recently been reducing the amount of such chemicals used by substituting
chlorine dioxide for chlorine in the first stage of bleaching, reducing the use of hypochlorite, and
improving delignification prior to bleaching.
The use of water varies in each of the processes and the resulting wastewaters may contain
a range of chemicals. Pulp mills that use logs as raw material may use water for log conveyance,
log washing, and wet debarking. Mechanical pulping uses water in several different ways: as a
coolant, a carrier to sluice pulp from the grinder, a diluent for subsequent pulp screening and
cleaning steps, and a material used in washing or pretreating chips. Water is used in chemical
pulping in several different ways: as a solvent for cooking chemicals, a pulp cooking medium, a pulp
wash water, and a diluent for screening, cleaning, and subsequent pulp processing. In the chemical
recovery cycle, water initially containing weak black liquor from the pulp mill is separated from this
black liquor in multi-stage evaporators and then recondensed. The evaporator condensate is either
discharged as wastewater or recycled to the pulp mill. Water also is used to wash the solid
precipitates formed in the recovery cycle of kraft pulping chemical processes. In the wastepaper
processing (deinking or non-deinking), water is mixed with wastepaper to remove pulp particles.
Bleaching is a staged process that uses water to perform washes between stages to remove bleaching
chemicals and wood components extracted during bleaching. As a result, bleaching wastewater has
a high chlorine content. Finally, water is used in pulp handling and papermaking processes to
suspend, dilute, and transport the pulp to the paper machine. Water that drains from the wet end
of the paper machine is called white water and is normally captured and reused in other parts of the
mill or discharged.
Wastes from the various processes typically are aggregated into one wastestream. Primary
wastewater treatment at pulp and paper facilities includes screening, gravity sedimentation, and
dissolved-air flotation. Common secondary wastewater treatment processes include oxidation and
aeration lagoons, activated sludge system, and biological filter system. Most facilities use surface
impoundments in treating their wastewaters. These surface impoundments are used for either
activated sludge or aerated stabilization treatment.
For the purposes of developing effluent guidelines for this industry, EPA divided the industry
into 12 subcategories. Table J-l lists these subcategories and indicates the number of mills in each.
J-2

-------
Table J-l
NUMBER OF MILLS IN THE PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY BY SUBCATEGORY'
Subcategoiy
Number of Mills2
Dissolving Kraft
3
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
88
Unbleached Kraft
58
Dissolving Sulfite
5
Papergrade Sulfite
11
Semi-Chemical
21
Mechanical Pulp
57
Non-wood Chemical Pulp
12
Secondary Fiber Deink
43
Secondary Fiber Non-deink
342
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
115
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from
Purchased Pulp
169
Total
565
1	Counts were from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards for the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source
Category," Office of Water, Effluent Guidelines Division, October, 1993.
2	Mills are counted in every subcategory in which they have production.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III I.PR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharaeterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
J-3

-------
For the pulp and paper industry, we largely relied on data collected by EPA to support the
development of revised effluent guidelines for the industry (Section 308 data).2 As part of that
effort, EPA focused on collecting data for four of the pulp and paper industry subcategories:
bleached papergrade kraft and soda, papergrade sulfite, dissolving kraft, and dissolving sulfite mills.
EPA collected detailed data at 20 facilities, representing the 107 mills in these four subcategories.
EPA collected data on the pulp making, paper making, bleaching, and chemical recovery processes.
EPA focused on these four subcategories because it was concerned by the constituents likely to be
present in wastewaters generated by these types of facilities because of the processes used at the
facilities (e.g., bleaching).
Our analytic approach was developed as a result of numerous discussions with effluent
guidelines development project teams about the data collected by EPA. Our analysis focused on
the first and third criteria listed above; we assumed that all pulp and paper facilities use land-based
units in managing the potentially affected wastes. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used
in the analysis in more detail.
Using Section 308 data, identify facilities using processes that
generated wastewaters containing ICRT wastes.
Determine if the end-of-pipe discharges of wastewaters from these
processes contain non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations
exceeding UTS.
For those facilities identified in based on Steps 1 and 2, collect end-
of-pipe flow rate information to be used in estimating the quantity of
waste likely to be affected by the rule.
Extrapolate results of the analysis for the 20 mills for which there
were effluent guidelines data to the 107 pulp and paper mills
represented by these 20 facilities.
There are several limitations to this approach. First, the effluent guidelines did not include
data on some underlying hazardous constituents, including some metals and semi-volatiles. Second,
this analysis did not address the 461 facilities in the other eight industry subcategories, and thus may
understate the impacts of the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that no facilities are likely to be affected by the rule. EPA's
analysis of the effluent guidelines data for the 20 facilities found that 17 of the 20 facilities had
wastestreams containing ICRT wastes. In addition, this analysis identified five non-priority UTS
2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Proposed Effluent
Limitations, Guidelines, and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source Category,
October, 1993.	1
Step 1:
Step 2:
Step 3:
Step 4:
J-4

-------
constituents in wastewaters at these 20 facilities. In its recent rule, EPA proposed CWA effluent
standards for two of these constituents (acetone and 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzofuran) and thus
wastestreams containing these constituents would not be affected by the rule. Nine of the 20
facilities generated wastewaters containing at least one of the other three UTS constituents (barium,
vanadium and carbon disulfide). Finally, the analysis showed that the concentrations of these
constituents were below UTS levels at these nine facilities. Thus, EPA found that none of the
facilities are likely to be affected by the rule because they do not generate wastewaters containing
non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS levels. Extrapolating these results
to the 107 pulp and paper mills represented by these 20 facilities, EPA concludes that none of these
mills are likely to be affected by the rule.
Note that although the assumption that all facilities use land-based units in managing their
wastewaters did not affect our findings, this assumption may be conservative. The PCS database
shows that 457 pulp and paper manufacturing facilities have NPDES permits (affecting 1,745
outfalls) and 172 of these facilities reported treatment information (affecting 435 outfalls).3 Based
on an analysis of the treatment data, 95 facilities reported treatment types likely to occur in surface
impoundments.4 Comparing the number of facilities with land-based units to the total number of
facilities for which treatment data were available, EPA estimates that 55 percent of facilities use
surface impoundments.5
*
The primary limitation of this analysis is that EPA did not consider the potential effects of
the rule on facilities in the other eight industry subcategories due to a lack of data on these facilities.
If these facilities, generate similar wastestreams to the 20 facilities analyzed above (i.e., wastewaters
containing similar constituents at similar concentration levels), then the rule may not affect these
other 461 facilities.
3	Reporting of treatment information to PCS is voluntary.
4	Treatment types assumed to occur in land-based units included evaporation; sedimentation;
equalization; neutralization; aerated, polishing, and sludge lagoons; oxidation, stabilization, and
holding ponds; aerobic digestion; and extended aeration.
5	Fifty-five percent equals 95 facilities with treatment in surface impoundments divided by 172
facilities reporting treatment information.
J-5

-------
Appendix K
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES
OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix K
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES
OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY1
Industry Overview
The Pharmaceutical industry includes facilities involved in the manufacture, extraction,
processing, purification, and packaging of chemical products to be used as medication for humans
and animals. These facilities typically are classified under SIC Codes 2833 through 2836 and part
of SIC Code 2844.2 In particular for these analyses, the pharmaceutical industry includes the
manufacture of any of the following products:
•	Biological products except diagnostic substances (SIC Code 2836), medicinal
chemicals and botanical products (SIC Code 2833), and pharmaceutical
products (SIC Code 2834);
•	All fermentation, biological and natural extraction, chemical synthesis, and
formulation products considered as pharmaceuticaliy active ingredients by the
Food and Drug Administration that are not covered by SIC Codes 2833,
2834, or 2836;
•	Products with multiple end uses which are attributable pharmaceutical
product, component of a pharmaceutical formulation, or pharmaceutical
intermediate. Products which have nonpharmaceutical uses may also apply
provided that the product was primarily intended for use as a pharmaceutical;
•	Products not covered by SIC Codes 2833, 2834, and 2836 if they are
manufactured by a pharmaceutical manufacturer by processes which generate
wastewaters which closely correspond to those of pharmaceutical products;
and
•	Cosmetic preparations (SIC Code 2844) which function as a skin treatment.
1	This appendix is largely taken from an analysis of the Section 308 data for this industry,
conducted by Radian Corporation.
2	In the analysis, we principally relied on data recently collected to support development of
revised effluent guidelines for this industry. These survey data cover all pharmaceutical facilities
identified by EPA and do not specifically focus on SIC codes. The SIC codes mentioned here
reflect the major ones. Note that in the analysis of the BRS and PCS databases, EPA did not
include SIC 2844 (perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations) because it is likely to cover
many facilities not in the industry.
K-l

-------
EPA finalized effluent guidelines for this industry category in 1983. EPA currently is revising
these effluent guidelines and planned to publish the proposed rule in February 1995. The final rule
is scheduled for promulgation in February 1996.
In collecting data for development of revised effluent guidelines, EPA distributed a screening
survey to 1,163 known or suspected pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities in 1989. EPA identified
560 manufacturers based on responses to the survey. In 1991, the Agency sent a more detailed
questionnaire to 280 of these facilities and received responses from 244 of them (35 of the facilities
that received questionnaires either were closed or no longer manufactured pharmaceutical products
and thus did not respond to the survey, and one facility did not respond). For its detailed
questionnaire EPA did not survey all 560 of the identified facilities because it determined that it was
unnecessary to survey stand-alone research facilities, facilities that do not discharge wastewater, or
facilities that do not use solvents and whose only source of wastewater is from formulation and
mixing.
Industry Processes
For the revised effluent guidelines, EPA has divided the pharmaceutical manufacturing
industry into four subcategories, based on the manufacturing operations conducted:
•	Fermentation,
•	Biological and natural extraction,
•	Chemical synthesis, and
•	Formulation and mixing/compounding.
Pharmaceutical research is a fifth subcategory, but EPA is not planning to regulate this subcategory
under the revised effluent guidelines.
Fermentation is commonly used in the manufacture of antibiotics and steroids. It is often
a large-scale batch process, consisting of three basic steps: inoculum and seed preparation,
fermentation, and product recovery. Most wastewater is generated during the fermentation and
product recovery steps. During the product recovery steps, solvents are used in solvent extraction
and ion exchange or adsorption. The most commonly used solvents in solvent extraction are
acetone, methanol, isopropanol, ethanol, amyl alcohol, and methyl isobutyl ketone. In addition,
recovery by direct precipitation using heavy metal precipitating agents generates wastewaters
contaminated with metals. Responses to EPA's effluent guidelines survey showed that, in general,
fermentation plants produce wastewaters with high BOD5, COD, and TSS concentrations, relatively
large flows, and a pH ranging between 4.0 and 8.0.
Biological and/or natural extraction involves the extraction of products from natural materials
such as plant tissue, animal glands, and parasitic fungi. These processes typically use small-scale,
assembly-line batch methods. Wastewaters come principally from spent raw materials and solvents
used for extraction. In addition, wastewaters contain detergents and disinfectants used in washing
floors and equipment. Generally, wastewater from biological/natural extraction facilities are
K-2

-------
characterized by low BOD5, COD, and TSS concentrations, small flows, and a pH range of
approximately 6.0 to 8.0,
Most active ingredients in drugs are produced through chemical synthesis. Chemical
synthesis is the production of drug compounds through the use of organic and inorganic reactions.
Typically, these are batch reactions which involve alkylations, carboxylations, esterifications,
halogenations, and sulfonations. Wastewaters primarily are generated from process steps which
require the emptying and filling of batch vessels. They are generally characterized as having high
BODs, COD, and TSS concentrations, large flows, and highly variable pH values, ranging from 1.1
to 11.0.
Finally, mixing, compounding, and formulating operations convert the bulk product into a
final dosage for consumption (tablets, liquids, capsules, ointments, etc.). Floor and equipment wash
water, wet scrubbers, and spills account for the majority of wastewaters generated by this process.
Wastewaters from these operations generally have low BODs, COD, and TSS concentrations,
relatively small flows, and pH values between 6.0 and 8.0.
A wide variety of treatment technologies are used by pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities
to treat their wastewaters. Since 1986, the use of neutralization, equalization, activated sludge,
primary clarification, multimedia filtration, steam stripping, secondary clarification, granular activated
carbon, and oxidation have all increased, while the use of aerated lagoons, chlorination, waste
stabilization ponds, and trickling filters have slightly decreased. Other treatment technologies used
by the industry include: settleable solids removal, primary sedimentation, polishing ponds,
evaporation, dissolved air flotation, pH adjustment, or phase separation.
Variability of Wastewater Flows
The flow and composition of wastewaters discharged from a pharmaceutical facility can be
highly variable as a result of three common practices found in the pharmaceutical industry:
campaigning, batch processing, and wastewater commingling. A facility typically manufactures many
different pharmaceutical products during different campaigns (i.e., limited production efforts in
which specific products are manufactured). Between campaigns, the process equipment must be
cleaned to avoid contamination between processes. Thus, changeovers produce wastewaters whose
composition depends on the product manufactured on that process line. Batch-type production is
the most common manufacturing operation used by the industry. Often, many different batch
operations are running simultaneously in separate vessels. The timing, composition, and
concentrations of wastewater discharges vary between individual batches, contributing to the
variability of wastewaters produced by a facility. In addition, pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities
typically commingle their wastes, adding to the variability of wastewaters. Often, organic-
contaminated wastes from different processes will be mixed in order to accumulate a sufficient
amount for the economical operation of a treatment unit.
K-3

-------
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by Phase III LDR Rule
EPA identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
For the analysis of the pharmaceuticals industry, EPA relied on data collected under Section 308
of the CWA and used in developing effluent guidelines. This approach for identifying facilities in
the pharmaceutical category that are likely to be affected by the Phase III LDR rule was developed
as a result of numerous discussions with the effluent guidelines development project teams regarding
these data and how they are currently managed in the CBI and non-CBI versions of the
pharmaceuticals database. The non-CBI version was provided in its entirety for this Phase III effort.
The analysis to identify facilities affected by the rule focused on the latter two criteria listed
above - on the use of land-based units to manage wastewaters and the presence of non-priority UTS
constituents in wastewaters at concentrations exceeding UTS - and EPA did not consider whether
these wastewaters were likely to contain decharacterized ICRT wastes (due to lack of data).3
Step 1:
Assumption:
Step 2;
Assumption:
Step 3:
3 Given the results of our analysis discussed below, it was not necessary to refer to other data
sources to address this criterion.
K-4
Identify the treatment types that are likely to occur in a land-based
unit and identify those facilities that use those treatment types.
Aerated stabilization basins and wastewater stabilization ponds are
the treatment types likely to occur in a land-based unit.
For the facilities identified in Step 1, identify wastestreams containing
non-priority UTS pollutants and calculate end-of-pipe concentrations
and flow rates.
All priority pollutants will be addressed under the CWA through the
effluent guidelines program.
Compare end-of-pipe concentrations to UTS levels to estimate the
facilities and wastestreams likely to be affected by the rule.

-------
Note that the data collected to support the effluent guidelines is likely to cover most of the
non-priority UTS constituents found in wastewaters generated by pharmaceutical facilities. This is
the case because the current sampling and survey procedures for the effluent guidelines involve data
collection for a long list of pollutants including priority and non-priority pollutants.4
Results
In this analysis, EPA found that the Phase III LDR rule is unlikely to affect any facilities in
the pharmaceutical industry. The results of this analysis are presented below.
Based on this analysis of the effluent guidelines data, EPA identified 15 out of 244
pharmaceutical facilities that use aerated stabilization basins and/or wastewater stabilization ponds
(i.e., land-based units). Based on the available end-of-pipe discharge data, wastewaters managed
at these facilities contained only three non-priority UTS constituents: isobutyl alcohol, methanol
and acetone (2-propanol). Only one of these three constituents, acetone, exceeded UTS levels at
two facilities. However, acetone is among the constituents that EPA plans to propose for regulation
under the pharmaceutical industry's revised effluent guidelines. This rule is expected to be proposed
in February 1995, and will be finalized in February 1996. As written in the Phase III LDR rule,
constituents which are controlled to BAT by the Clean Water Act will not be subject to UTS
standards under RCRA. Thus, based on this regulatory schedule, these two facilities will not be
affected by the rule.
4 EPA's initial sampling program for this industry analyzed for the presence and concentration
of all pollutants on the "Industrial Technology Division List of Analytes." In its detailed
questionnaire from 1990, EPA considered 109 non-priority pollutants likely to be present in
pharmaceutical facilities' wastewaters, based on data from the sampling program.
K-5

-------
J ,.y ,	^
Appendix L
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES

-------
Appendix L
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF INDUSTRIAL LAUNDRIES1
Industry Overview
Industrial Laundry facilities (SIC code 7218) are primarily engaged in supplying laundered
or, to a limited extent, dfy-cleaned work uniforms, wiping towels, safety equipment (e.g., gloves,
flame-resistant clothing), dust covers and cloths, and similar items to industrial or commercial users.
These items may belong to the industrial laundry and supplied to users on a rental basis, or they
may be the customer's own goods.
Estimates of the number of facilities in this industry range between about 1,000 and 1,500.
There are 1,379 operating industrial laundries according to the 1987 Census of Service Industries,
up from 1,288 based on the 1982 Census. According to the 1982 Census, approximately 1,000 of
these facilities operate their own laundry facilities; the remainder are mostly sales establishments,
administrative centers, or distribution centers. The Agency currently is collecting additional data
and refining estimates of the number of facilities in the industry based on screener questionnaire
responses. EPA is developing new effluent guidelines for this industry (no standards are currently
in existence). It plans to propose guidelines in December 1996 and to finalize them in 1998.
The laundries industry is extremely labor intensive and conservative in equipment usage.
Equipment usage has not changed greatly in recent years. Basic laundry equipment is durable and
there is a strong tendency in this industry to purchase used or rebuilt machinery when replacing
equipment. The major customers of industrial laundries are chemical and manufacturing plants,
automotive repair shops and service stations, machine shops, printing establishments, and janitorial
services.
The three basic processes used at industrial laundries are laundering, dry cleaning, and dual-
phase processing. In the laundering process, soiled materials are first sorted by color and then by
the need for stain treatment. Each laundry load is placed in a washing machine that progresses
through various washing stages, including a bleach or brightening cycle for many items. In the dry-
cleaning process, fabrics are cleaned using an organic solvent. Dual-phase or dual-stage processing
uses a cleaning method that employs a water/detergent wash and a separate solvent wash to clean
items that contain large amounts of both water-soluble solids and oil and grease. Relatively large
quantities of dry-cleaning solvent may enter the wastewater stream as a result of dual-phase
processing; however, this method is being phased out as a laundry process.
1 This appendix is largely based on the analysis conducted for the capacity assessment (see the
appendices to the capacity analysis development document).
L-l

-------
In typical laundries, there are three principal sources of wastewater: water washing
laundering processes, plant and equipment cleaning, and sanitary water. Dual-phase laundering and
dry cleaning are minor sources of process wastewater because dual-phase is rarely used and dry-
cleaning utilizes only small quantities of process water. The total volume of wastewater ranges from
8,600 to 290,000 gallons per day (gpd) and averages 68,000 gpd per facility. The quantity discharged
depends on the efficiency of the equipment, water conservation methods employed, types of items
laundered, and types and loadings of soils on items. The characteristics of the wastewaters depend
on the general type of cleaning, types and quantities of soils, and composition of the various
laundering chemicals used. All known industrial laundries discharge to POTWs; there are no direct
dischargers. As a result, many facilities do not treat their wastes prior to discharge.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
For the industrial laundries category, we relied on information from PCS and BRS, as well
as on professional judgment to evaluate the number of affected facilities. Limited data are available
from the effluent guidelines program because effluent guidelines currently do not exist for this
industry category; the available data includes data collected to date to support development of new
effluent guidelines. In addition, TRI data are not available because TRI only covers manufacturing
facilities (i.e., SIC codes 20 through 39).
Results
We estimated that no industrial laundry facilities will be affected by the Phase III LDR rule
because these facilities typically do no use land-based units to manage their wastewaters. First, most
industrial laundries do not conduct on-site treatment of wastewaters prior to discharging to a
POTW. In addition, if treatment is performed on-site, it is not biological treatment nor other
treatment activities that routinely occur in land-based units. Rather, conventional treatment
methods in this industry include lint screens, oil skimmers, and heat reclaimers. Furthermore,
industrial laundry facilities do not generate wastewater at a rate that would warrant the use of a
land-based unit in a treatment system if treatment were performed.
Data collected to' date from the effluent guideline screener questionnaires and limited
sampling efforts support this characterization of the industry. EPA anticipates that data collected
in the 200 additional screener questionnaires, the outstanding detailed questionnaires, or future
sampling efforts will not yield new or different information regarding on-site treatment or the use
of land-based units. Our analysis of BRS data, which focused on ICRT wastewaters managed in
land-based units, supported this expectation, as it did not yield any quantity data on industrial
laundries. Also, PCS data showed only four land-based units under the entire Personal Services SIC
code (SIC 72) and no units under SIC Code 7218.
L-2

-------
Appendix M
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES
OF THE LEATHER TREATING INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix M
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES
OF THE LEATHER TREATING INDUSTRY
The leather tanning industry includes facilities in SIC code 3111.1 Establishments in this
industry engage in tanning, currying, and finishing raw or cured hides and skins. Tanning is the
reaction of collagen fibers with tannins, chromium, alum, or other tanning agents that help preserve
the skin. In addition, the industry includes converters and dealers that buy hides and skins or
leather and contract with tanners or finishers to process these products. The effluent guidelines for
this industry were finalized in 1982. According to the 1987 Census of Manufactures, there are 319
establishments in the leather treating industry, 258 tanneries, 16 converters, and 45 contract
tanneries.
The three major types of manufacturing processes in the leather treating industry include
beamhouse operations, tanyard processes, and retanning and wetfinishing processes. Beamhouse
operations include washing and soaking hides or skins and removing the attached hair. Tanyard
processes involve reactions of tanning agents with the skins or hides and stabilization of the
proteinaceous matter in these skins and hides. Further tanning is performed as part of the retanning
and wet finishing processes, using chemical agents such as syntans, dyes, lubricants and various
finishes. In general, leather treating processes generate acidic wastewaters principally containing
sulfides and chromium, as well as ammonia, biocides, chlorides, and surfactants. Tanners tend to
discharge their wastewaters to POTWs.
Approach for Identifying Facilities Affected by the Phase III LDR Rule
We identified facilities potentially affected by the rule based on facilities with wastestreams
that met the following three criteria:
•	Contained decharacterized ICRT wastewater;
•	Managed in a land-based unit; and
•	Contained non-priority UTS constituents at concentrations exceeding UTS.
Due to a lack of effluent guideline data on non-priority UTS constituents in wastestreams
generated by the leather tanning industry, we relied largely on TRI data to assess which facilities
might have wastestreams containing non-priority constituents exceeding UTS levels. In our analysis,
we combined TRI loadings data and industry-specific data on flow rates for wastewater discharges
to estimate the concentrations of non-priority UTS constituents in facilities' wastestreams. We then
compared these concentration levels to UTS levels to identify facilities with wastestreams potentially
1 This overview of the industry was taken from a draft of the capacity analysis for this industry
(see the appendix for this industry in the capacity analysis development documents).
M-l

-------
exceeding UTS. In addition, since TRI does not contain information on waste management
practices, we considered data from other sources to evaluate facilities likely to manage 1CRT
wastewaters in surface impoundments. Below we outline the steps and assumptions used in the
analysis in more detail.
Step 1:	Using TRI data, identify facilities that report discharges of a non-
priority UTS pollutants to POTWs or to surface waters and collect
data on the reported loadings for each facility by constituent.
Step 2:	Evaluate the average flow rate of wastewater discharges by facilities
in the industry.
Step 3:	Applying the estimated average flow rate to the TRI loadings data,
identify facilities that may be affected by the rule because they have
wastestreams with non-priority UTS constituents with concentrations
exceeding UTS levels.
This approach may understate the number of facilities affected by the rule for two reasons.
First, the TRI database only includes data on 48 of the 101 non-priority UTS constituents. Second,
only those facilities generating more than 10,000 pounds of TRI constituents per year are required
to report to TRI. Smaller facilities that manage ICRT wastewaters in surface impoundments also
could be affected by the rule.
Results
Based on our analysis, we found that no facilities are likely to be affected by the rule. In
1992, 74 leather treating facilities reported releases of TRI chemicals, with 61 reporting releases to
water or to POTWs; seven are direct dischargers, 44 are indirect dischargers, and 10 are both. Of
these 61 facilities, 8 reported a quantifiable discharge of at least one of the 101 non-priority UTS
pollutants. All eight of these facilities discharged wastewaters to POTWs. Wastewaters from these
facilities contained at least one of six non-priority UTS pollutants, either methanol, butanol, xylene,
methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone, or acetone.
To assess the number of affected facilities, we combined the TRI loadings data with the
estimated average wastestream flow rates for facilities in this industry and compared the resulting
concentration estimates to UTS levels. Based on our analysis, we found that no facilities are likely
to be affected by the rule because no facilities generate wastewaters containing non-priority UTS
constituents exceeding UTS levels, assuming an average flow rate of 226,000 gallons per day.2
2 This average flow rate was taken from van der Leeden, Frits, Fred L. Troise and David Keith
Todd, The Water Encyclopedia, Lewis Publishers, 1990. See Table 5-39 for data on water use in the
leather treating industry. We were unable to obtain flow rate data from the effluent guidelines
development documents that could be used to estimate a lower bound flow rate.
M-2

-------
The above analysis shows that the Phase III LDR rule is unlikely to have a significant effect
on the leather treating industry. However, our analysis of the TRI data does not address 53 non-
priority UTS constituents since these pollutants are not considered in TRI, and thus may
underestimate the effects of the rule. Therefore we also conducted analyses of the BRS and PCS
databases to evaluate the extent to which facilities in this industry manage ICRT wastes in land-
based units.
The results of our analyses of the BRS and PCS databases supported our findings from the
TRI analyses - that is that the rule is likely to have no effects on this industry. Our analysis of BRS
did not identify any ICR wastes managed in land-based units by facilities in this industry.
Furthermore, our analysis of PCS did not yield any facilities in the industry that reported to PCS
(i.e., there are no leather treating facilities that are direct dischargers with NPDES permits in the
database). This finding is not surprising since PCS only addresses direct dischargers, and most
facilities in the industry apparently discharge to POTWs. Unfortunately, the PCS data did not allow
us to evaluate the extent to which indirect discharges manage wastewaters in land-based units prior
to discharging them to POTWs.
M-3

-------
Appendix N
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF FEDERAL FACILITIES

-------
Appendix N
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF FEDERAL FACILITIES1
Federal facilities include all operations and facilities managed by the U.S. federal government
and cover a wide range of services and processes. In the SIC code system, these facilities are
classified according to the operations of the facility and do not have a separate code. For example,
steam electric plants that are operated by the federal government are classified under the same SIC
code as privately-owned facilities -- SIC 4911. Operations likely to occur at federal facilities include
electroplating and metal finishing, manufacturing of electrical and electronic components,
manufacturing of metal products and machinery, and transportation equipment cleaning.
Since federal facilities are classified according to the manufacturing processes and products
manufactured at the facility, many of these facilities are likely to be addressed in the analyses of
other industries. However, EPA did investigate the availability of data for conducting a stand-alone
analysis of federal facilities. EPA identified and used the Federal Facility Inventory for 1992 in an
analysis of these facilities. As required under RCRA Section 3016, every two years EPA compiles
this database from data submitted by federal agencies on treatment, storage, and disposal units at
the facilities. The database contains general information on the facility, as well as data on
environmental monitoring, contamination and response actions, RCRA treatment, storage and
disposal units, and releases of hazardous wastes.
EPA's review of these data showed that of the 914 federal facilities in the database, 69 (eight
percent) manage wastewaters in nonhazardous land-based units (i.e., land treatment units or surface
impoundments).2 This finding indicates that a small percentage of federal facilities are potentially
affected by the rule. Unfortunately, the database did not support a more complete analysis since
information on constituents and constituent concentrations in the wastes managed in these land-
based units is not available from this source. EPA did not conduct any additional analysis for these
facilities, assuming that those facilities potentially affected were addressed under the analyses
conducted for other industries.
1	This appendix largely draws from a draft version of the analysis of this industry conducted for
the capacity assessment.
2	Note that this estimate does not include facilities that mange wastes in underground injection
wells.
N-l

-------
Appendix O
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING INDUSTRY

-------
Appendix O
RESULTS OF SCREENING ANALYSES OF THE
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT CLEANING INDUSTRY
The transportation and equipment cleaning (TEC) industry includes firms that clean the
interiors and exteriors of transport vehicles for the transportation industry. For the purposes of the
water effluent guidelines, EPA has divided this industry category into two subcategories: (1) tank
truck, rail tank car, barge tank, and ocean/sea tanker cleaning, and (2) aviation equipment cleaning.
The first subcategory is a service-oriented industry, whereas the cleaning of aircraft is believed to
be a vertically integrated function of fleet maintenance operations at airline companies. EPA has
found that facilities in this industry are classified under a range of SIC codes, thus making it difficult
to identify facilities based on these codes.
Unfortunately, limited data are available to evaluate the extent to which facilities in this
industry are likely to be affected by the Phase III LDR rule. We principally relied on the available
data currently being collected by EPA to support development of these effluent guidelines for this
industry. The TEC industry currently is not regulated under the water effluent guidelines program.
However, EPA currently is developing guidelines for this industry. The Agency plans to propose
these guidelines by the end of 1996 and to finalize regulations in 1998.
EPA initially included 11,900 facilities in the TEC database of known or potential facilities
in the industry, including facilities in both the tank cleaning and aviation equipment cleaning
subcategories. EPA distributed screener surveys to 3,240 tank cleaning facilities and 760 airplane
cleaning facilities to more accurately determine the scope of and identify facilities in the industry.
Based on the preliminary results of this survey, EPA identified 734 facilities in the rail, truck and
barge tank cleaning subcategory. Scaling the results of this survey sample to the entire population,
EPA estimated that there are 2,400 to 2,800 facilities in this subcategory.
Based on an analysis of the waste management practices at the 734 facilities identified in the
screener survey, EPA estimated that 98 of these facilities (13 percent) use land-based units in
managing their wastewaters (evaporation ponds, lagoons, or settling ponds). Unfortunately,
additional information on constituents contained in wastewaters managed in these land-based units
by these facilities is not available.1 In reviewing existing data, EPA generally found that a wide array
of constituents can be found at these facilities because hundreds of different chemicals are shipped
in tanks. Thus these facilities potentially could be affected by the rule.
Preliminary screener survey data for the aircraft cleaning subcategory will not be available
until the spring of 1995. EPA believes that some of these facilities may use land-based units in
managing their wastes and thus may be affected by the rule.
1 Data on constituents and concentration levels will be available when EPA completes the
detailed questionnaire, which EPA plans to distribute to a subset of the facilities in the industry in
1995.
O-l
/

-------
Appendix P
APPROACH AND RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSES OF
THE BIENNIAL REPORT SURVEY (BRS)

-------
Appendix P
APPROACH AND RESULTS OF THE SCREENING ANALYSES OF
THE BIENNIAL REPORT SURVEY (BRS)
EPA conducted screening analyses of the BRS database to estimate the quantity of ICR
waste generated and managed in land-based units by industries. The 1991 BRS provides the most
recent data available on the generation and management of hazardous wastes by facilities. However,
the BRS does not include data on constituent concentrations in wastes, and thus EPA could not rely
solely on this data source in evaluating the number of facilities and quantity of waste likely to be
affected by the Phase III LDR rule. Furthermore, EPA believes that BRS data may understate the
quantity of decharacterized ICR wastewaters managed in land-based units because many facilities
may not have reported wastes that were diluted immediately upon generation as hazardous wastes.1
However, the BRS does provide an indication of the industries that manage these wastewaters in
surface impoundments, and EPA thus used the BRS in determining which industries to include in
the analysis. The results also served as reference points against which to evaluate estimates of the
quantity of affected waste developed from other data sources.
This appendix outlines the approach used to estimate the quantity of ICR wastes managed
in land-based units and summarizes the results of these analyses.
Analytic Approach
For each industry, the BRS analysis involved identifying facilities in the industry that
generated ICR wastes and managed them in land-based units prior to discharge to POTWs or
surface waters. To identify these facilities, the following screening criteria were applied:
Step 1:	Screen for SIC codes of concern.
Step 2:	Screen for ICR waste codes (D001 through D003).
Step 3:	Screen for form codes representing wastewaters (to exclude non-
wastewaters).
Step 4:	Screen for facilities that managed their wastes on-site or discharged
them to POTWs (exclude facilities that shipped wastes off-site and
did not treat wastes on-site).
Step 5:	Screen for waste management in land-based units and collect data on
the quantity of ICR waste for these facilities.
1 In fact, such wastes should have been included in BRS. However, EPA discussions with
industry suggest that this requirement has been broadly misinterpreted in the past.
P-l

-------
EPA conducted analyses for 13 of the 16 industries considered in the R1A. Table P-l
summarizes the industries and corresponding SIC codes used in the analyses. Note that these
industries in some cases have been defined somewhat more broadly than the definition ultimately
used in the screening analyses of affected facilities (see Appendices B through P). Federal Facilities
and Transportation Equipment Cleaning and Metal Finishing/Electroplating industries were not
analyzed using BRS data because facilities in these industries could not be identified by SIC code;
facilities in these industries are classified under a wide range of SIC codes, but do not include all
facilities classified under these codes.
Table P-l
nr T* fl 1 A T1V /"Vf"? TfAD
SUMMARY Or SIC CODES CONSIDERED rOR
CAm Turn TCTDV TNT 'I'U !ฆซ TJDQ AM AT VQCC
JbAv^H iJNl/lJdl I UN Jl Jt JLtji IjKjj oJM/u^Y otjM
Organic Chemicals (OCPSF)
SIC 2821-2824, 2865-2869
Petroleum Refining
SIC 2900-2999
Inorganic Chemicals
SIC 2812-2819
Pharmaceuticals
SIC 2833-2836
Pulp and Paper
SIC 2600-2699
MP&M
SIC 3400-3499, 3500-3569, 3581-3599
Electrical and Electronic Components
SIC 3612-3699, 3571-3579
Food
SIC 2000-2099
Electric Power Generation
SIC 4911
Pesticides
SIC 2879
Iron and Steel
SIC 3312-3325
Leather Treating
SIC 3100-3199
Results
Based on this analysis, the 13 industries managed 79.5 million tons of ICR wastes in land-
based units in 1991. The organic chemicals industry managed the largest share of these wastes --
42 percent. Table P-2 summarizes the results of the analysis. Note that two of the industries,
industrial laundries and leather treating, did not have any facilities in the BRS database that met
all of the screening criteria and thus the estimated quantity of ICR waste managed in land-based
units for these industries equals zero.
P-2

-------
Table P-2
ESTIMATED QUANTITY OF ICR WASTE MANAGED IN
LAND-BASED UNITS, BY INDUSTRY
(1991 BRS Data)
Industry
Quantity
(tons/yr)
Percent
Petroleum Refining
4,290,312
5.4%
Organic Chemicals
33,517,667
42,2%
Inorganic Chemicals
7,528,884
9.5%
Pesticides
417,959
0.5%
Food
85,988
0.1%
Electrical and Electronic
Components
19,457,184
24.5%
Electric Power Generation
714,403
0.9%
Pharmaceuticals
262,939
0.3%
Pulp and Paper
2,119,004
2.7%
Metal Products & Machinery
8,995,349
11.3%
Iron and Steel
2,125,134
2.7%
Industrial Laundries
0
0.0%
Leather Treating
0
0.0%
Total:
79,514,823
100.0%
P-3

-------
Appendix Q
COST METHODOLOGY FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
AND PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRIES

-------
Appendix Q
COST METHODOLOGY FOR THE ORGANIC CHEMICAL
AND PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRIES
This appendix provides additional information on the data sources and methods used in
developing estimates for the costs associated with on-going monitoring and with treatment of
wastewater streams. Based on the affected industry analyses, we estimated that the Phase III LDR
rule could have significant impacts on the organic chemicals and petroleum refining industries (i.e.,
the rule would affect more than one percent of the facilities in the industry). Cost estimates were
calculated for these two industries; other industries were estimated to incur only minor or no effects,
and were not considered in our cost analysis.
We first discuss in this appendix the costs associated with on-going monitoring. Facilities
that comply with the Phase III LDR rule by either modification of their CWA permit or treatment
of constituents to UTS levels will incur on-going monitoring costs. Second, we present our
methodology for estimating the treatment costs incurred by facilities that achieve compliance by
treating wastewater streams to UTS levels. We do not describe here other compliance costs, such
as the costs related to re-opening CWA permits; the assumptions and methods for this category of
costs is described in detail in Chapter 3.
Estimating On-Going Monitoring Costs
Approach
Under the Phase III rule, affected facilities will be required to perform on-going monitoring
of their wastestreams. All facilities that have CWA permits must perform monitoring tests as
required under the CWA. If affected facilities modify their CWA permits by adding additional
constituents to the permit, these facilities will incur incremental on-going monitoring costs. Facilities
that comply by treating their wastewaters must also perform on-going monitoring; the rule stipulates
that these facilities must monitor their treated constituents on a quarterly basis. We estimated a
range of on-going monitoring costs for facilities under each of two compliance options. This range
reflects uncertainty and variability in several factors, including assumptions about the cost of testing
an individual constituent and the number of constituents that will be tested (affected in part by the
presence of high or low wastewater stream flows).
Permit Modification
Our calculation of incremental on-going monitoring costs for the permit modification
compliance option was based on available data for the current costs of monitoring constituents
already specified in CWA permits. For EPA's Discharge Monthly Report requirements for CWA
permits, the Agency has collected information on the annual monitoring costs for sampling, analysis,
Q-l

-------
and reporting.1 On average, this monitoring is performed 12 times a year. The constituent
monitoring costs are stated in terms of annual costs per constituent per facility. For the category
of "major industrial facilities," the average constituent monitoring costs are $2,230. We used this
value in our calculations because we believe that this broad category encompasses the organic
chemicals and petroleum refining facilities included in our analysis.
Estimation of on-going monitoring costs also required estimating the number of constituents
at each facility that are expected to exceed UTS concentrations and would subsequently be included
in the CWA permit specifying achievement of BAT levels. We estimated the average number of
exceedences per facility by using the screening analyses described in Appendix A and Appendix B.
Values reflecting both high-flow and low-flow were calculated. These values for both industries are
shown below:
•	Organic chemicals
under high-flow: 1.33 exceedences per facility
under low-flow: 1.69 exceedences per facility
•	Petroleum refining
under high-flow: 1.25 exceedences per facility
under low-flow: 1.44 exceedences per facility
With these data, we calculated the per facility costs for on-going monitoring for facilities that
modify their CWA permits. The results are presented in Table Q-l. For most of the calculations
included in the R1A, we use a single value for on-going monitoring costs. Averaging over high- and
low-flows, high and average constituent monitoring costs, and both organic chemicals and petroleum
refining industries, we obtain a value of approximately $3,180 per facility per year.
Treatment to UTS
Facilities that treat their constituent concentrations to UTS levels will be required to perform
quarterly monitoring of their wastestreams to ensure that adequate treatment is taking place. We
assume that quarterly monitoring and CWA permit monitoring differ only in terms of frequency of
testing. The costs for CWA permit monitoring are based on monthly monitoring performed to
complete CWA Discharge Monthly Reports. We assumed that the cost for each of the monthly tests
for CWA permits was equivalent to 1/12 the annual cost of CWA monitoring. We then multiplied
this value by four to calculate the annual cost of quarterly testing of constituents treated to UTS.
This yielded a value of $743 per constituent per year per facility.
1 Personal communication with Brian Bell, EPA Office of Water. Discharge Monthly Reports
are submitted only by direct dischargers. We assume that the costs incurred by direct dischargers
will be representative of those incurred by both direct and indirect dischargers considered in this
analysis.
Q-2

-------
Table Q-l
ON-GOING MONITORING COSTS PER FACILITY FOR
PERMIT MODIFICATION
Industry
Annual On-Going
Monitoring Cost
per Facility
Organic Chemicals

High-Flow
$2,966
Low-Flow
$3,769
Petroleum Refining

High-Flow
$2,788
Low-Flow
$3,211
To calculate monitoring costs on a per facility basis, we required an estimate of the expected
number of UTS exceedences per facility for both organic chemicals and petroleum refining
industries. For these data, we used the results of the analysis performed for calculation of on-going
monitoring costs for permit modification.
We combined the constituent monitoring costs with the number of constituents expected to
exceed UTS levels to estimate the on-going monitoring costs for facilities that treat to UTS. The
results of the analysis are presented in Table Q-2. For many calculations in the RIA, we use an
average value for the range of costs shown in Table Q-2, For the organic chemicals industry, we
use an average of $1,120; for the petroleum refining industries, we assumed a cost of $1,000.
Table Q-2
ON-GOING MONITORING COSTS PER FACILITY FOR
TREATMENT TO UTS
Industry
Annual On-Going
Monitoring Cost
per Facility
Organic Chemicals

High-Flow
$989
Low-Flow
$1,256
Petroleum Refining

• High-Flow
$929
Low-Flow
$1,070
Q-3

-------
Fsrimatine Treatment Costs
Approach
Developing estimates of the compliance costs associated with the treatment to UTS option
involved three steps:
•	Identity treatment type for reducing constituent concentrations in the
affected wastestreams to below UTS levels;
•	Develop per facility capital and operating and maintenance (O&M) cost
estimates for these treatment technologies; and
•	Apply these cost estimates to the estimated number of affected facilities, as
developed in our affected facilities analyses.
EPA identified treatment options based on reviews of development documents for the effluent
guidelines for these industries, as well as on engineering judgement. The Agency considered
treatment technologies that would work within existing systems or could be installed at end-of-pipe.
Note that for each industry, EPA analyzed direct and indirect dischargers separately and combined
the resulting estimates to obtain an aggregate estimate for the industry.
There are several limitations associated with this approach. Most importantly, the analysis
did not consider in-plant modifications or changes to current wastewater management techniques,
such as segregation and separate treatment of ICRT wastes, that potentially could be implemented
at a lower cost than the identified end-of-pipe treatment options. In addition, EPA did not consider
the costs of shifting treatment to tanks, which might reduce the costs of complying with the rule.
Thus, the resulting cost estimates provide an upper bound of the costs incurred by the facilities
estimated to be affected by the rule.
Organic Chemicals
For the treatment to UTS option, EPA estimated that indirect dischargers in the organic
chemicals industry would treat their wastes to meet UTS levels using activated sludge treatment
followed by granular activated carbon treatment. Extended aeration activated sludge treatment was
selected as the initial treatment process that facilities would install to reduce organic loadings in
their wastewater since based on our affected facility analysis, wastewaters generated by indirect
dischargers contained high levels of organics that are generally biodegradable, including acetone,
methanol and other organics. EPA assumed that carbon treatment then would "polish" the
remaining organics. In addition, for indirect dischargers whose affected wastewaters contain barium,
EPA also estimated that facilities would add ferric sulfate feed to secondary clarifiers to precipitate
the barium. In both cases, EPA assumed that the resulting sludge would be incinerated. The costs
for each system are summarized in Table Q-3.
Q-4

-------
Table Q-3
PER FACILITY TREATMENT COSTS:
ORGANIC CHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Technology
Capital
Cost
Annual
O&M Costs
Annualized
Costs1
Indirect Dischargers
Extended aeration activated sludge
(including belt press)
Granulated carbon system
Ferric sulfate addition2
Sludge incineration (fluidized bed)
Sampling and testing3
On-going monitoring
$1,327,000
$1,131,000
$9,000
$1,060,000
$61,000
$255,000
$61,000
$240,000
$21,480
$1,120

Total: Indirect dischargers with barium
exceedences
$3,527,000
$639,600
$972,524
Total: Indirect dischargers without barium
exceedences
$3,518,000
$578,600
$910,674
Direct Dischargers
Granulated carbon system
Sampling and testing
On-going monitoring
Total
$5,089,000
$198,000
$21,480
$1,120
$220,600
$700,965
1	Based on a 20-year operating life for capital equipment and a discount rate of 7.0
percent.
2	This treatment is only for those facilities that have exceedences of barium.
3	Based on an average of the range of testing costs provided by Dow and two
laboratories.
The estimated costs of extended aeration sludge treatment include the costs for aeration
basins and equipment, a clarifier (clari-flocculator type), sludge pumps, and a belt press (including
the costs of the press, conveyor systems, piping, and instrumentation). These costs were estimated
using cost curves from the effluent guidelines development documents and assumed a nominal 24
hour detention time.2 The fluidized bed incinerator capital costs include the costs of the incinerator,
enclosure building, piping, and necessary utility systems; O&M costs include ash disposal. The
2 For these cost curves and other cost data for the organic chemical industry, see U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual, 1980
and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Effluent Guidelines
Limitations and Standards for Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Resins, 1987.
Q-5

-------
granulated carbon system costs include the costs of contact vessels and piping. These costs were
based on a cost curve for a small, end-of-pipe system, assuming a medium-sized capacity system.
The capital costs were annualized assuming a 20-year life for the equipment and an interest rate of
seven percent. All costs were adjusted to 1994 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index
(CCI).
For direct dischargers, EPA estimated that facilities would use activated carbon treatment
to comply with the rule. EPA believed that this treatment system would suffice since these facilities
have lower organic chemical concentrations in their wastewaters than the indirect dischargers, based
on the affected industry analysis of the TRI data. However, use of this treatment technology
assumes a relatively low suspended solids level; if higher suspended solids levels are encountered,
some pretreatment might be required. Table R-l also presents these cost estimates. For these
direct discharges activated carbon treatment costs are based on a cost curve for large, end-of-pipe
systems, assuming a medium capacity system as defined based on that curve. The capital costs
include the cost of contact vessels, piping, carbon handling, and a small, on-site, regeneration
furnace. As in the case of indirect dischargers, the capital costs are also presented on an annualized
basis and all costs were converted to 1994 dollars.
In the final step of our analysis, we applied these cost estimates to the estimated number of
affected facilities, based on the analyses summarized in Chapter 2. These cost estimates are
presented in Chapter 3.
Petroleum Refining
Under the treatment to UTS option, EPA estimated that indirect dischargers in the
petroleum refining industry would comply with the rule by installing a granulated carbon adsorption
system. EPA estimated the capital and O&M costs of this system, assuming an average flow rate
at a facility of 720,000 gallons per day. These capital costs include the costs of carbon units, pumps,
piping, and carbon handling equipment. These costs were taken from the development documents
for the petroleum industry.3 The estimated cost of a system of the appropriate size (based on the
assumed average flow rate) was developed based on a linear interpolation of the cost data in the
development document and adjusted to 1994 dollars using the ENR CCI. In addition, the
annualized costs were calculated, assuming a 20-year operating life for capital equipment and a
seven percent interest rate. These costs are summarized in Table Q-4.
For direct dischargers, EPA estimated that facilities would comply with the rule using
powdered activated carbon adsorption (to be used in addition to existing biological treatment
systems). The capital and O&M costs of this system were estimated based on data in the
development documents using a similar approach as for indirect dischargers. The costs assume an
average flow rate of 3.2 million gallons per day. The costs include carbon storage and feed
equipment costs.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development Document for Effluent Guideline
Limitations and Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, 1979.
Q-6

-------
Table Q-4
PER FACILITY COSTS FOR PETROLEUM REFINERS
Technology
Capital
Cost
Annual
O&M Cost
Annualized
Costs1
Indirect Dischargers
Granulated carbon system
Sampling and testing2
On-going monitoring
Total
$4,119,000
$527,000
$21,480
$1,000
$549,480
$938,284
Direct Dischargers
Powdered activated carbon adsorption
Sampling and testing2
On-going monitoring
Total
$265,000
$992,000
$21,480
$1,000
$1,014,480
$1,059,494
' Based on a 20-year operating life for capital equipment and a discount rate of 7.0
percent.
2 Based on an average of the range of testing costs provided by Dow and two
laboratories.
In the final step of this analysis, EPA applied these cost estimates to the estimated number
of petroleum refiners affected by the rule. The resulting cost estimates are reviewed in Chapter 3.
Q-7

-------
Appendix R
ECONOMIC IMPACT CALCULATIONS

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1982
1983
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$178.4
359
$0.5
$0.77
$201.6
428
$0.5
$0.71
2822
$42.0
43
$1.0
$1.50
$60.0
38
$1.6
$2.38
2823
$27.1
10
$2.7
$4.17
$23.0
11
' $2.1
$3.16
2824
$64.6
32
$2.0
$3.11
$58.5
59
$1.0
$1.50
2865
$109.5
133
$0.8
$1.27
(D)
125
$0.0
$0.00
2869
$602.8
344
$1.8
$2.70
$595.6
388
$1.5
$2.32
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$1,265.3
310
$4.1
$6.29
$1,297.0
292
$4.4
$6.71
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$37.8
36
$1.1
$1.62
$82.4
28
$2.9
$4.44

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1984
1985
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$179.2
329
$0.5
$0.79
$203.5
340
$0.6
$0.85
2822
$70.2
33
$2.1
$3.09
$69.2
35
$2.0
$2.82
2823
$18.3
8
$2.3
$3.32
(D)
9
$0.0
$0.00
2824
$70.2
60
$1.2
$1.70
(D)
65
$0.0
$0.00
2865
$119.2
125
$1.0
$1.39
(D)
128
$0.0
$0.00
2869
$649.3
384
$1.7
$2.46
$674.3
384
$1.8
$2.51
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$1,473.5
278
$5.3
$7.70
$1,515.9
268
$5.7
$8.07
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$86.3
28
$3.1
$4.48
$94.4
31
$3.0
$4.35

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1986
1988
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24,2865-69








2821
$233.6
350
$0.7
$1.00
$220.2
331
$0.7
$0.83
2822
$58,4
39
$1.5
$2.24
$60.9
46
$1.3
$1.66
2823
$17.5
9
$1.9
$2.91
$16.9
7
$2.4
$3.03
2824
$54.2
67
$0.8
$1.21
$64.4
68
$0.9
$1.19
2865
$151,9
123
$1.2
$1.85
$173.0
123
$1.4
$1.77
2869
$655.9
383
$1.7
• $2.56
$833.8
432
$1.9
$2.42
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$1,443.3
272
$5.3
$7.94
$1,426.3
226
$6.3
$7.92
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$51.1
35
$1.5
$2.18
$76.7
30
$2.6
$3.21

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1989
1990
Met Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$309.9
346
$0.9
$1.01
$403.6
343
$1.18
$1.30
2822
$80.8
39
$2.1
$2.33
$84.1
43
$1.96
$2.16
2823
(D)
7
$0.0
$0.00
(D)
9
$0.00
$0.00
2824
$68.7
59
$1.2
$1.31
(D)
62
$0.00
$0.00
2865
$236.1
126
$1.9
$2.11
($33.1)
130
($0.25)
($0.28)
2869
$982.1
419
$2.3
$2.64
$1,198.8
424
$2.83
$3.12
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$1,525.2
219
$7.0
$7.84
$2,011.0
212
$9.49
$10.47
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
($88.4)
29
($3.0)
($3.43)
$87.1
30
$2.90
$3.21

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SUMMARY
SIC Code
1991
TOTAL
UPPER BOUND
LOWER BOUND
Net Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Ave. Cost
1994$
Ave. Cost per
Establishment
Wtd. Ave. Annual
Operating Cost
Wtd. Ave. Annual
Operating Cost
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69







2821
$544.4
341
$1.60
$1.70
$1.00
$0.46
$0.02
2822
$86.7
44
$1.97
$2.10
$2.26
$0.46
$0.02
2823
$41.5
10
$4.15
$4.43
$3.50
$0.46
$0.02
2824
$61.4
65
$0.94
$1.01
$1.57
$0.46
$0.02
2865
($28.9)
132
($0.22)
($0.23)
$1.12
$0.46
$0.02
2869
$1,082.9
421
$2.57
$2.74
$2.61
$0.46
$0.02
Petroleum Refining
2911
•



AVERAGE
$2.01


2911
$2,237.9
220
$10.17
$10.85
$8.20
$0.93
$0.02
Spent A1 Potliners
3334







3334
$94.3
32
$2.95
$3.14
$2.58
$2.28
$2.28
NOTES:
(D) = Information withheld to avoid disclosing operations of individual companies.
(Z) = Less than half the unit shown.
No PACE data is available for 1987.
Costs adjusted to July 1994 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.
SOURCES:
"Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
"County Business Patterns", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1982
1983
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$67.4
359
$0.19
$0.29
$63.5
428
$0.15
$0.22
2822
(D)
43
$0.00
$0.00
$9.8
38
$0.26
$0.39
2823
(D)
10
$0.00
$0.00
$5.5
11
$0.50
$0.76
2824
$24.0
54
$0.44
$0.68
$4.3
59
$0.07
$0.11
2865
(D)
133
$0.00
$0.00
$23.7
125
$0.19
$0.29
2869
(D)
344
$0.00
$0.00
$114.9
388
$0.30
$0.45
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$699.3
310
$2.26
$3.47
$460.2
292
$1.58
$2.38
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
(D)
36
$0.00
$0.00
$15.4
26
$0.59
$0.89

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1984
1985
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$35.3
329
$0.11
$0.16
$54.8
340
$0.16
$0.23
2822
$6.3
33
$0.19
$0.28
$7.2
35
$0.21
$0.29
2823
$1.4
8
$0.18
$0.25
$4.1
9
$0.46
$0.65
2824
$13.7
60
$0.23
$0.33
$22.8
65
$0.35
$0.50
2865
$27.0
125
$0.22
$0.31
$31.7
128
$0.25
$0.35
2869
$132.4
384
$0.34
$0.50
$167.9
384
$0.44
$0.62
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$303.2
278
$1.09
$1.58
$278.9
268
$1.04
$1.49
Spent AI Potliners
3334








3334
$29.4
28
$1.05
$1.53
$17.2
31
$0.55
$0.79

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1986
1988
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$93.1
350
$0.27
$0.40
$119.9
331
$0.36
$0.45
2822
$22.1
39
$0.57
$0.85
$43.3
46
$0.94
$1.18
2823
$3.8
9
$0.42
$0.63
$2.4
7
$0.34
$0.43
2824
$27.2
67
$0.41
$0.61
$15.9
68
$0.23
$0.29
2865
$55.0
123
$0.45
$0.67
$79.4
123
$0.65
$0.81
2869
$145.0
383
$0.38
$0.57
$350.4
432
$0.81
$1.02
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$413.2
272
$1.52
$2.27
$470.3
226
$2.08
$2.61
Spent A1 Potliners
3334


-





3334
$14.3
35
$0.41
$0.61
$15.5
30
$0.52
$0.65

-------
| Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Capital Expenditures
(in millions of )
SUMMARY
SIC Code
1991
TOTAL
UPPER BOUND
LOWER BOUND
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Weighted
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Weighted
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69







2821
$292.6
341
$0.86
$0.92
$0.44
$0.39
$0.02
2822
$77.6
44
$1.76
$1.88
$1.16
$0.39
$0.02
2823
$28.0
10
$2.80
$2.99
$0.95
$0.39
$0.02
2824
$42.2
65
$0.65
$0.69
$0.46
$0.39
$0.02
2865
$175.3
132
$1.33
$1.42
$0.72
$0.39
$0.02
2869
$637.8
421
$1.51
$1.62
$0.92
$0.39
$0.02
Petroleum Refining
2911




AVERAGE
$0.77


2911
$1,434.4
220
$6.52
$6.96
$3.05
$0.08
$0.02
Spent A1 Potliners
3334







3334
$36.1
32
$1.13
$1.20
$0.94
$2.28

NOTES:
(D) = Information withheld to avoid disclosing operations of individual companies.
(Z) = Less than half the unit shown.
No PACE data is available for 1987.
Costs adjusted to July 1994 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.
SOURCES:
"Pollution Abatement Costs and Expenditures", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
"County Business Patterns", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce;

-------
|j Economic Impact Analysis - Pollution Control Capital Expenditures
J (in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1989
1990
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost in
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$155.4
346
$0.45
$0.51
$238.5
343
$0.70
$0.77
2822
$74.0
39
$1.90
$2.14
$88.1
43
$2.05
$2.26
2823
(D)
7
$0.00
$0.00
(D)
9
$0.00
$0.00
2824
(D)
59
$0.00
$0.00
(D)
62
$0.00
$0.00
2865
$68.3
126
$0.54
$0.61
$149.9
130
$1.15
$1.27
2869
$407.0
419
$0.97
$1.09
$586.8
424
$1.38
$1.53
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$388.2
219
$1.77
$2.00
$893.0
212
$4.21
$4.65
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$16.1
29
$0.56
$0.63
$32.1
30
$1.07
$1.18

-------
SUMMARY
TOTAL
UPPER BOUND
LOWER BOUND
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Weighted
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Weighted
Average Annual
Capital Cost



$3.70
$0.39
$0.02
$3.07
$0.39
$0.02
$6.87
$0.39
$0.02
$9.61
$0.39
$0.02
$3.58
$0.39
$0.02
$5.33'
$0.39
$0.02
AVERAGE
$5.4


$12.28
$0.08
$0.02



$5.29
$2.28
$2.28
NOTES:
Costs in millions of dollars
(D) = Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies.
(Z) = Less than half of the unit shown.
Costs adjusted to July 1994 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.
SOURCES: "Annual Survey of Manufactures", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
"County Business Patterns", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1990
1991
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost .
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$2,446.7
498
$4.9
$5.42
$2,264.8
519
$4.4
$4.66
2822
$378.6
76
$5.0
$5.50
$365.4
92
$4.0
$4.24
2823
$71.5
9
$7.9
$8.77
$106.3
13
$8.2
$8.72
2824
$815.9
71
$11.5
$12.69
$810.4
78
$10.4
$11.09
2865
$958.3
181
$5.3
$5.85
$717.3
190
$3.8
$4.03
2869
$4,241.9
651
$6.5
$7.19
$4,578.3
661
$6.9
$7.39
Petroleum Refining
2911







2911
$3,969.2
326
$12.2
$13.44
$5,864.4
343
$17.1
$18.24
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$189.1
54
$3.5
$3.87
$209.5
57
$3.7
$3.92

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1988
1989
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24,2865-69








2821
$1,618.0
487
$3.3
$4.17
$1,988.7
510
$3.9
$4.39
2822
$216.4
115
$1.9
$2.36
$266.5
86
$3.1
$3.49
2823
$113.2
10
$11.3
$14.21
$105.3
10
$10.5
$11.86
2824
$635.5
81
$7.8
$9.85
$699.7
74
$9.5
$10.65
2865
$436.0
186
$2.3
$2.94
$590.7
185
$3.2
$3.60
2869
$2,780.3
685
$4.1
$5.09
$3,516.6
648
$5.4
$6.11
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$2,362.7
336
$7.0
$8.82
$3,005.8
335
$9.0
$10.10
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$150.2
49
$3.1
$3.85
$183.0
52
$3.5
$3.96

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1986
1987
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24,2865-69








2821
$1,310.7
477
$2.7
$4.11
$1,311.0
540
$2.4
$3.50
2822
$116.6
87
$1.3
$2.00
$170.5
122
$1.4
$2.02
2823
$54.9
18
$3.1
$4.56
$23.8
19
$1.3
$1.81
2824
$465.9
76
$6.1
$9.17
$464.0
80
$5.8
$8.36
2865
$335.8
183
$1.8
$2.75
$392.1
183
$2.1
$3.09
2869
$1,504.8
619
$2.4
$3.64
$2,067.1
632
$3.3
$4.72
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$2,316.7
441
$5.3
$7.86
$2,103.4
457
$4.6
$6.64
Spent AI Potliners
3334








3334
$71.3
52
$1.4
$2.05
$223.0
67
$3.3
$4.80

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1982
1983
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24,2865-69








2821
$898.8
518
$1.7
$2.67
$756.4
634
$1.2
$1.80
2822
$246.4
92
$2.7
$4.12
$101.5
89
$1.1
$1.72
2823
$88.4
24
$3.7
$5.67
$44.4
24
$1.9
$2.79
2824
$442.9
64
$6.9
$10.66
$257.4
70
$3.7
$5.55
2865
$454.7
186
$2.4
$3.76
$532.4
178
$3.0
$4.52
2869
$2,580.5
582
$4.4
$6.83
$1,821.6
666
$2.7
$4.13
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$6,322.4
460
$13.7
$21.17
$4,319.1
439
$9.8
$14.86
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$181.2
49
$3.7
$5.69
$390.7
38
$10.3
$15.53

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Capital Expenditures
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1984
1985
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Total
Capital
Expenditures
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$925.3
469
$2.0
$2.87
$1,135.3
470
$2.4
$3.45
2822
(D)
80
$0.0
$0.00
$118.2
78
$1.5
$2.16
2823
(D)
18
• $0.0
$0.00
$43.8
18
$2.4
$3.47
2824
$334.9
72
$4.7
$6.76
$611.5
77
$7.9
$11.33
2865
$261.9
181
$1.4
$2.10
$398.3
182
$2.2
$3.12
2869
$1,617.7
643
$2.5
$3.66
$2,013.0
635
$3.2
$4.52
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$3,494.4
433
$8.1
$11.73
$3,072.5
442
$7.0
$9.92
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$154.4
42
$3.7
$5.34
$122.8
45
$2.7
$3.89
~

-------
SUMMARY
TOTAL
UPPER BOUND
LOWER BOUND
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Weighted
Average Annual
Operating Costs
Weighted
Average Annual
Operating Costs



$46.49
$0.46
$0.02
$39.67
$0.46
$0.02
$102.52
$0.46
$0.02
$129.66
$0.46
$0.02
$48.32
$0.46
$0.02
$59.24
$0.46
$0.02
AVERAGE
$71.0


$458.35
$0.93
$0.02



$135.62
$2.28
$2.28
NOTES:
Costs in millions of dollars
(D) = Withheld to avoid disclosing data for individual companies.
(Z) = Less than half of the unit shown.
Costs adjusted to July 1994 dollars using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index.
SOURCES: "Annual Survey of Manufactures", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.
"County Business Patterns", 1982-1991, Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1990
1991
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69


•





2821
$22,496.2
510
$44.1
$48.70
$21,731.3
519
$41.9
$44.68
2822
$3,145.6
86
$36.6
$40.38
$2,876.0
92
$31.3
$33.36
2823
$1,168.9
10
$116.9
$129.05
$1,251.5
13
$96.3
$102.72
2824
$7,460.8
74
$100.8
$111.31
$6,949.6
78
$89.1
$95.07
2865
$8,161.7
185
$44.1
$48.71
$8,001.4
190
$42.1
$44.93
2869
$35,320.3
648
$54.5
$60.18
$36,174.9
661
$54.7
$58.39
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$142,528.3
335
$425.5
$469.71
$128,260.8
343
$373.9
$398.99
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$5,850.8
54
$108.3
$119.62
$5,589.8
57
$98.1
$104.64

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1988
1989
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$22,007.3
487
$45.2
$56.71
$23,248.4
498
$46.7
$52.57
2822
$3,054.1
115
$26.6
$33.33
$2,969.5
76
$39.1
$44.00
2823
$1,098.7
10
$109.9
$137.89
$1,162.5
9
$129.2
$145.44
2824
$7,281.7
81
$89.9
$112.82
$7,785.2
71
$109.7
$123.47
2865
$7,214.1
186
$38.8
$48.68
$8,106.3
181
$44.8
$50.43
2869
$31,664.8
685
$46.2
$58.01
$34,298.6
651
$52.7
$59.32
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$100,909.3
336
$300.3
$376.91
$114,218.5
326
$350.4
$394.51
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$5,066.8
49
$103.4
$129.77
$5,702.8
52
$109.7
$123.49

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1986
1987
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$15,570.5
477
$32.6
$48.83
$17,865.1
540
$33.1
$47.71
2822
$2,015.5
87
$23.2
$34.66
$2,570.2
122
$21.1
$30.38
2823
$1,089.7
18
$60.5
$90.57
$1,011.8
19
$53.3
$76.79
2824
$7,048.4
76
$92.7
$138.74
$6,697.4
80
$83.7
$120.72
2865
$5,154.4
183
$28.2
$42.14
$6,475.3
183
$35.4
$51.02
2869
$21,576.6
619
$34.9
$52.15
$28,713.6
632
$45.4
$65.51
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$99,792.6
441
$226.3
$338.53
$108,267.4
457
$236.9
$341.62
Spent A1 Potli.ners
3334








3334
$3,779.3
52
$72.7
$108.73
$3,820.2
67
$57.0
$82.22

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1982
1983
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24,2865-69








2821
$12,588.9
518
$24.3
$37.43
$14,186.6
634
$22.4
$33.79
2822
$2,661.2
92
$28.9
$44.55
$2,595.8
89
$29.2
$44.04
2823
$1,169.0
24
$48.7
$75.01
$1,320.0
24
$55.0
$83.05
2824
$6,714.1
64
$104.9
$161.56
$7,051.9
70
$100.7
$152.12
2865
$5,926.1
186
$31.9
$49.07
$5,978.6
178
$33.6
$50.72
2869
$23,986.1
582
$41.2
$63.47
$25,276.0
666
$38.0
$57.31
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$182,841.1
460
$397.5
$612.12
$167,790.3
439
$382.2
$577.14
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$4,909.8
49
$100.2
$154.31
$5,132.0
38
$135.1
$203.93

-------
Economic Impact Analysis - Total Annual Operating Costs
(in millions of dollars)
SIC Code
1984
1985
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Net
Operating
Costs
Number of
Establishments
Average
Cost per
Establishment
Average
Cost
1994$
Organic Chemicals
2821-24, 2865-69








2821
$15,356.0
469
$32.7
$47.57
$15,465.6
470
$32.9
$46.96
2822
$2,733.3
80
$34.2
$49.64
$2,315.0
78
$29.7
$42.35
2823
$1,193.5
18
$66.3
$96.34
$1,114.8
18
$61.9
$88.38
2824
$7,454.9
72
$103.5
$150.44
$7,033.4
77
$91.3
$130.35
2865
$6,048.6
181
$33.4
$48.56
$6,243.1
182
$34.3
$48.95
2869
$27,382.5
643
$42.6
$61.88
$24,988.9
635
$39.4
$56.16
Petroleum Refining
2911








2911
$169,045.5
433
$390.4
$567.26
$156,947.5
442
$355.1
$506.71
Spent A1 Potliners
3334








3334
$5,561.7
42
$132.4
$192.41
$4,321.9
45
$96.0
$137.05

-------
Appendix S
RISK ASSESSMENT EQUATIONS

-------
Appendix S
RISK ASSESSMENT EQUATIONS
This Appendix summarizes the equations used in evaluating the risks associated with the
affected wastestreams based on the four pathways analyzed. These four pathways include ingestion
of drinking water, ingestion of contaminated fish tissue, ingestion of dairy products contaminated
because dairy cattle consumed water from the affected surface waters, and ingestion of beef products
contaminated because beef cattle consumed water from affected surface waters. The equations are
taken from the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA 1991) and Combustor Indirect
Exposure Methodologies report (EPA 1990 and EPA 1993). Sources for the values of input
parameters are listed in Exhibits U-l and U-2 at the end of this Appendix.
Ingestion of Drinking Water
The following equations were used in evaluating the risk associated with exposure to
constituents through the drinking water pathway. These equations estimate mixing of the effluent
discharge and the receiving surface water body, partitioning between suspended solids and the water
column1, intake by humans, and the resulting cancer or noncancer exposure risk, as outlined below.
Csw = Ceff * Qeff	(DW-1)
(Vfic + Qeff)
Cdw = Csw/( 1 + [fa/ * TSS * 10"6 kg/mg])	(DW-2)
/ - * CRw	(DW-3)
BW
Cancer Risk:
Noncancer Risk:
_ ED * EF * CSForal ^ j	(DW-4)
AT * 365 dayjyr
hr = nm	
-------
where:
Ceff
concentration in effluent (mg/'L)
Qeff
flow of effluent (m3/yr)
Vfe
flow of surface water (m3/yr)
Csw
concentration in surface water (mg/L)
Cdw
concentration in drinking water (mg/L)
kdw
suspended sediment/surface water partition coefficient (L/kg)
TCC
total suspended solids (mg/L)
BW
body weight (kg)
CRw
consumption rate of water (L/day)
I
intake (mg/kg/day)
ED
exposure duration (vr)
EF
exposure frequency (day/yr)
CSForal
cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)'1
AT
averaging time (yr)
RfD
reference dose (mg/kg/day)
TR
total cancer risk (unitless)
HR
hazard ratio, noncancer risk (unitless)
Ingestion of Fish Tissue
The following equations were used in estimating the risk associated with exposure from
ingestion of contaminated fish tissue. These equations evaluate mixing of the effluent discharge and
receiving surface water, partitioning between suspended solids and the water column, uptake by fish,
intake by humans, and the resulting cancer or noncancer exposure risk.
Csw = Ceff * Qeff	(F-l)
(Vfx + Qeff)
Cdw = Csw/( 1 + [kd^ * TSS * 10"6 kgjmg))	(F-2)
Cfish = Cdw * BCF	(F-3)
Cfish * CRfish * 10"3	(F-4)
BW
Cancer Risk:
TR - ED *EF* CSForal . /	(F-5)
AT * 365 day/yr
S-2

-------
Noncancer Risk:
HR = IfRfD
(F-6)
where:
Ceff
concentration in effluent (mg/L)
Qeff
flow of effluent (mVyr)
Vfx
flow of surface water (rrrVyr)
Csw
concentration in surface water (mg/L)
Cdw
concentration in drinking water (mg/L)
kdOT
suspended sediment/surface water partition coefficient (L/kg)
TSS
total suspended solids (mg/L)
C
Mish
concentration level in fish tissue (mg/kg)
BCF
bioconcentration factor (L/kg)
CRM,
consumption rate of fish (g/day)'
BW
body weight (kg)
I
intake (mg/kg/day)
ED
exposure duration (yr)
EF
exposure frequency (day/yr)
CSForal
cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)"1
AT
averaging time (yr)
RfD
reference dose (mg/kg/day)
TR
total cancer risk (unitless)
HR
hazard ratio, noncancer risk (unitless)
Ingestion of Dairy/Beef Products Contaminated Because
Dairy/Beef Cattle Consumed Contaminated Surface Water
The following equations were used to estimate resulting risk levels from exposure via two
pathways: (1) human ingestion of dairy products contaminated because dairy cattle consumed water
from affected surface waters; and (2) human ingestion of beef products contaminated because beef
cattle consumed water from affected surface waters. The only difference in the application of these
equations occurs in the input values for the biotransfer factor (Ba) which measures the degree to
which contaminants are transferred from the environment (water) to specific animal tissues, and the
animal product consumption rate (CRp — i.e., the amount of dairy products or beef products
consumed by an individual). These equations evaluate mixing of the effluent discharge with
receiving surface waters, uptake by dairy or beef cattle, intake by humans, and the resulting cancer
or noncancer risk levels.
Cw = Ceff * Qeff	(Ap4)
(Vfx + Qeff)
Canimat = Ba * Qw * CSW	(AP-2)
S-3

-------
Cancer:
Noncancer:
F * CR
/ = r. * 	2		(AP-3)
BW * 10'3 g/kg .
TR - 1 * ED * EF * CSForal	(AP-4)
AT * 365 day/yr
HR = I/RfD
Ceff	concentration in effluent (mg/L)
Qeff	flow of effluent (mVyr)
Vfx	flow of surface water (m3/yr)
Csw	concentration in surface water (mg/L)
Qnimai	concentration in beef (dairy) product (mg/kg)
Ba	biotransfer factor (day/kg) - separate values for beef and dairy, by constituent
Qw	quantity of water consumed by cattle (L/day)
I	intake (mg/kg/day)
F	fraction of individual's consumption of beef product (dairy product) that is
contaminated
CRp	consumption rate of beef (dairy) product (g/day)
BW	body weight (kg)
ED	exposure duration (yr)
EF	exposure frequency (day/yr)
CSForal	cancer slope factor (mg/kg/day)"1
AT	averaging time (yr)
RfD	reference dose (mg/kg/day)
TR	total cancer risk (unitless)
HR	hazard ratio, noncancer risk (unitless)
Input Parameters
Exhibits S-l and S-2 summarize the values and sources for all input parameter assumptions
used in our analysis. For many of these parameters, including TR, HR, AT, EF, ED, BW, CRw,
F, CRp, and Qw we used inputs commonly used in other EPA risk analyses. For Qlsh) we used a
high-end estimate for fish consumption by the adult general population. For the inputs related to
mixing of effluent discharges with receiving waters, (i.e., OCw, TSS, and Vfx), we used values that
would yield high-end risk values. For example, we used the lower bound of the estimated range for
TSS in streams and rivers. This assumption would translate into higher exposure risk estimates
based on the drinking water pathway.
S-4

-------
Exhibit S-l
RISK ASSESSMENT INPUT PARAMETERS
Abbreviation
Input Parameters
Value
Reference
OQw
Fraction of Organic Content of Surface
Water (unitless)
0.05
U.S. EPA (1993)
TSS
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
10
U.S. EPA (1993)
Vfx
Flow Rate of Receiving-Waters (m3/yr)
1.34E+07
Van Der Leeden (et al.
1990)
CRw
Consumption Rate of Water (L/day)
2
U.S. EPA (1990a)
TR
Total Cancer Risk (unitless)
1E-06
U.S. EPA (1991)
AT
Averaging Time (years)
70
U.S. EPA (1990a)
ED
Exposure Duration (years)
30
U.S. EPA (1991)
EF
Exposure Frequency (days/year)
350
U.S. EPA (1991)
HR
Hazard Ratio, Noncancer Risk
(unitless)
1
U.S. EPA (1990b)
BW
Body Weight (kg)
70
U.S. EPA (1990a)
CRfiSh
Consumption Rate of Fish (g/day)
16.5
USDA (1977-1978)
F
Fraction of Individual's Consumption of
Product that is Contaminated



Beef
Dairy
0.44
0.4
U.S. EPA (1990a)
U.S. EPA (1990a)
CRp
Consumption Rate of Animal Product
(g/day)



Beef
Dairy
o o
o o
U.S. EPA (1990a)
U.S. EPA (1990a)
Qw
Ingestion Rate of Drinking Water for
Cattle (L/day)
50
Travis and Arms (1988)
RfD
Reference Dose (mg/kg/day)
Chemical
Specific
IRIS (1994)
CSForal _
Cancer Slope Factor (mg/kg/day)'1
Chemical
Specific
IRIS (1994)
S-5

-------
Exhibit S-2
EQUATIONS USED TO DERIVE CHEMICAL SPECIFIC INPUT PARAMETERS
Abbreviation
Variable
Equation Used to Derive
Chemical Specific Values
Source
Kow
Octanol - water partition
coefficient (unitless)
Log Kow
Kollig (1993)
Koc
Organic - carbon-
normalized partition
coefficient (L/kg)
Log Koc = Log Kow - 0.21
U.S. EPA (1993)
KcU
Suspended sediment/
surface water partition
coefficient (L/kg)
Kd^ = Koc * OCw
U.S. EPA (1993)
BCF
Bioconcentration factor

-------
REFERENCES
Baes, C.F., R.D. Sharp, A.L. Sjoreen, and R.W. Shor. 1984, "Review and Analysis of Parameters
and Assessing Transport of Environmentally Released Radionuclides Through Agriculture."
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Kollig, Heinz P. 1993. "Environmental Fate Constants for Organic Chemicals Under Consideration
for EPA's Hazardous Waste Identification Projects." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory, August.
Travis, C.C., and A.D. Arms. 1988. "Bioconcentration of Organics in Beef Milk and Vegetation."
Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 271-274. As cited in U.S. EPA.
"Estimating Exposure to Dioxin-Like Compounds." Review Draft, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. August, 1992.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1977-1978. "National Food Consumption Survey."
U.S. EPA. 1990a. "Exposure Factors Handbook." Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Exposure Assessment Group. Washington, D.C. March.
U.S. EPA. 1990b. "Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with Indirect Exposure to
Combustor Emissions. Interim Final." Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
Washington, D.C. January.
U.S. EPA. 1991. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS): Volume I - Human Health
Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Base Preliminary Remediation Goals)."
Interim. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, D.C. December.
U.S. EPA, ORD. 1993. "Addendum to the Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated
with Indirect Exposure to Combustor Emissions." Review Draft, November.
Van Der Leeden, F., F.L. Troise, and D.K. Todd. 1990. The Water Encyclopedia. Second Edition.
Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
S-7

-------
Appendix T
AMERICAN AIRLINES COMMENT

-------
1 ' <-A-G0C(3
AmericanAirlines
MAINTENANCE & ENGINEERING CENTER
February 18,1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RCRA Docket (OS-305)
401 M Street, S.W.		
Washington, D.C. 20460	ฆ!
^	&
Re: Docket No. F93-TTCA-E fr I'ff; Comments in Response to EPA's
Notice of Data Availability (Published January 19, 1993) Proposing
New Treatment Standards for Land Disposal of Characteristic
Wastes
Dear Sir or Madam:
American Airlines, Inc. ("American") is pleased to submit these comments in
response to EPA's Notice of Data Availability (published January 19, 1993)
("Notice") and Supplemental Information Report ("Report") proposing changes in
the treatment standards for the land disposal of characteristic wastes.
I. Summary of American's Position.
American operates two Qass I nonhazardous injection wells and is
particularly concerned about the proposed restrictions upon characteristic wastes
which are rendered nonhazardous through aggregation prior to injection in Class I
nonhazardous deep wells ("deep wells") regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act ("SDWA") Underground Injection Control ("UIC) program. The data relied
upon by EPA in considering this action do not include many operators like
American which legitimately aggregate wastewaters to facilitate centralized
treatment and inject decharacterized wastewaters in deep wells. When the volume
of these waste streams is added to that considered in EPA's Report, it is clear that
the proposed elimination of authority to inject decharacterized wastes and the
imposition of an F039 treatment standard would have a devastating impact upon
industry.
Although EPA must respond to the decision in Chemical Waste Management.
Inc. v. U.S.E.PA., 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), the Court did not vacate the rules
- *

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 2
authorizing injection of decharacterized wastes.1 Accordingly, EPA should allow
these rules to remain in place while it develops the factual record justifying
decharacterization and deep well injection as a form of treatment satisfying RCRA
ง 3004(ra)(l). American believes that the proposed application of the F039
standard to deep well injection is unnecessary to satisfy the "minimize threat"
standard mandated by ง3004(m)(l), will be devastating to many operators and
extremely costly for others to meet, all without any showing that the additional
treatment required to meet such a standard would result in a greater minimization
of threats to human health and the environment than the current rules. EPA has
previously found that treatment beyond decharacterization and deep well injection
would not further minimize threats to human health and the environment2 and
should not impose upon deep well injection a standard designed for surface disposal
where the consequential cost and disruption are not offset by reduced threat.
While American does not support the addition of raw water into
characteristic waste streams as a method of avoiding practical treatment
alternatives, legitimate aggregation of wastewaters to facilitate centralized
treatment and injection of decharacterized wastewater in deep wells clearly satisfies
RCRA ง 3004(m)(l). Reduction of the concentration of the hazardous constituent
below characteristic levels reduces its toxicity and' minimizes the short-term threat
presented by the waste. Injection of the resulting decharacterized waste in deep
wells minimizes the long-term threat by placing the nonhazardous waters in remote
locations where the opportunity for exposure to humans or contamination of usable
groundwater is minimized.
American opposes the imposition of F039 or any other treatment standard
developed for surface disposal. If a record supporting decharacterization and deep
well injection cannot be developed to meet the requirements of 5 3004(m)(l), EPA
should develop a treatment standard specifically for Class / nonhazardous deep weU
injection based upon the ง 3004(m)(l) "minimize threat" standard. Since deep well
injection clearly presents a different (and much lower) threat than surface disposal,
two different standards make logical sense. - Finally, any change which results in
restrictions upon or prohibition of the injection of characteristic wastes rendered
nonhazardous prior to disposal should be implemented in a fashion which allows
industry sufficient-time for compliance. The decharacterization standard has been
in place since 1990 and operators such as American spent millions of dollars
1	40 C f.R. งง 148.1(d), 263.1(c)(3).
2	See 55 Fed. Reg. 22520,22658 (June 1,1990).

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 3
designing and building wastewater treatment facilities to meet current legal
requirements. To make a major change at this time will likewise cost millions of
dollars and take substantial time to design and build.
II. EPA's Proposed Action Will Affect Much Larger Volumes of Wastes
and Have a Greater Impact than Discussed in the Report.
EPA recognizes that it does not have an accurate assessment of the total
volume of waste which will be affected by its proposed action. Report at pp. 44,45,
57 and 64. Specifically, EPA has reviewed Biennial Reports and TSDR Capacity
Data Sets which EPA recognizes do not reflect quantities of waste disposed "if
wastes were diluted very shortly after generation and not reported in the survey." Id.
at 44. Additionally, some operators are not counted because, due to their industrial
codes, they do not file reports. The operators handling wastes in this fashion are
among those which will be most severely affected by EPA's proposed action. In
addition to underestimating the total volume of waste affected, EPA's analysis of
the impact of its proposed *detiซn and the practical options which would remain for
operators of deep wells fails to consider the drastically different waste management
practices which currently include injection of decharacterized wastewaters.
American is an example of an operator who would be severely impacted by
the proposed action but who apparently is not represented in EPA's analysis.
American's servicing and repair of its aircraft result in the generation of several
hazardous wastes, some listed and some characteristic. The American facility
utilizes over 200 tanks in which various aircraft parts are cleaned (through corrosive
etching) or in which certain plating operations take place. The etching and plating
solutions, as well as virtually all other listed ami characteristic wastes generated by
American, are segregated for off-site treatment
The sole exception to American's waste segregation program is the large
volume of rinsewaters used throughout the plant. After a part is dipped in an
etching or plating tank, it is removed from the tank and rinsed in a freshwater rinse
tank. These rinse tasks receive veiy small amounts of the etching or plating
solutions which may remain on or in the part These contaminants, called "drag-
out" may cause the constituent concentration level within a particular rinse tank to
briefly (and randomly) reach a characteristic level. The effluent from all 109 rinse
tanks is aggregated in closed piping and header systems and is directed to an on-site
treatment facility.3 The aggregated waste stream on occasion exhibits a
3 American's treatment facility was constructed in 1990 at a total cost of approximately 17 million.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 4
characteristic concentration levei for a toxic metal (chromium~D007) and is
therefore continuously monitored for that constituent and is treated according to the
appropriate BDAT standard when and if the concentration exceeds the
characteristic level. When the concentration exhibited by the aggregated waste
stream is below the characteristic level, American injects the wastewaters directly
into two Class I nonhazardous deep wells located on its facility. When the
concentration level meets or exceeds the characteristic level, the waste stream is
diverted for treatment in the on-site facility, the resulting sludge is shipped off-site
for further treatment, and the nonhazardous effluent waters are injected in the
wells.
m • ~
American's operations typically result in the injection of over 300 gallons per
minute, 24 hours per day. American is therefore injecting approximately 165 million
gallons or 1.38 billion pounds of wastewaters per year in its two injection wells.
Because the wastewater injected by American is not hazardous, these volumes are
not reflected in Biennial Reports. Additionally, because American refurbishes
rather than manufactures the aircraft, its industry code is 4512 and American is
therefore not included in TSDR survey data. Thus, American represents but one
example of an operator with a significant volume of wastes that will be affected by
the proposed rule, but who has not been considered by EPA.
The limited data reviewed by EPA not only understates the total volume of
wastes at issue (and the resulting impact of EPA's proposed action from a cost and
national capacity standpoint), the data also does not reflect the vastly different
waste management practices at issue. American, for example, has engaged in waste
minimization and pollution prevention procedures to the full extent practical by
undertaking waste segregation and off-site shipment of all listed and characteristic
wastes. However, American has no practical alternative to its handling of its
rinsewaters. It would be virtually impossible to monitor each of 109 rinse tanks and
design diversion and segregation facilities to capture the incremental volume of
waters in a particular tank which briefly and randomly reaches a characteristic
concentration leveL American believes that the legitimate aggregation of
wastewater streams and injection of the decharacterized wastewaters, at least under
circumstances such as these, fully satisfies the requirements of ง 3004(m)(l).4
4 EPA has recognized that aggregation for centralized treatment is an appropriate and sometime*
necessary waste management practice that is not considered dilution. See, e.g., 53 Fed. Reg. 2X124
(July 26,1988).
# I

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
PageS
EPA's Report draws no distinction between American's situation and that
presented by a hypothetical operator who mixes small volumes of a characteristic
ignitable waste with a large nonhazardous waste stream specifically to avoid what
would otherwise be a simple process of segregating its ignitable wastes for treatment
or off-site disposal. The striking difference between these types of practices
illustrates how EPA has not considered the full impact of its proposed action. The
hypothetical operator described above may be considered by some to be simply
using dilution to avoid practical treatment alternatives that are readily available.
However, American is an example of an operator who segregates and treats its
waste to the full extent practical and utilizes aggregation and injection as the only
reasonable alternative for its operations.
These factors highlight the need for the careful consideration of treatment
requirements tailored specifically for deep well injection that do not needlessly
prohibit waste management practices which, as will be discussed below, already
satisfy the ง 3004(m)(l) requirements. So long as a record supporting
decharacterization can be established to support the ง 3004(m)(l) standards, EPA's
current rules are valid.
III. lie Court Did Not Vacate the Rules Authorizing the Injection of
Decharacterized Waste Streams; It Only Required a Better Record to
Support EPA's Rules.
Considering the severe capacity and disruption problems which would follow
from hastily* promulgating new standards which effectively prohibit injection of
decharacterized wastes, such a prohibition is not advisable nor is it in fact required,
at least in the near term.5 The Court merely remanded the rules authorizing the
injection in deep wells of wastes rendered nonhazardous at the point of disposal.6
Specifically, the Court rejected only EPA's present justification for the rule, not the
5	As discussed in Section V below, American also believes thai, grew adequate time to supplement the
record, injection of wastes rendered nonhazardous through legitimate aggregation can be shown to
fully satisfy all requirements of RCRAi3004(m)(l),
• ซ ซ •
6	976 F.2d at 24-26. 5<* also, Order of January 11, 1993. Had the Court vacated the rules, they
~ would be of no further force and effect upon issuance of the Court's mandate. Independent U.S.
Tanker Owner Committee v. Dole, 809 FM 847,855 (D.C Or. 1987). By remanding the rules for
further consideration, the Court exercised its equitable discretion to leave the challenged rules in
place during such reconsideration. See Ferttiuer Institute v. US&PA., 935 FJd 1303, 1312 (D.C.
Cir. 1991); Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. V.SฃJ*A., 886 ฅM 355,361 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 6
rule itself.7 Thus, the rule remains in effect and need not be replaced by a new
treatment standard before EPA and industry have been afforded time sufficient to
supplement the record to provide the necessary justification-8
There is also no practical urgency in withdrawing the authority to inject
decharacterized wastes in deep wells. EPA has previously determined that injection
of nonhazardous wastes in Class I wells is "fully protective of underground drinking
water and human health and the environment" Report at 26, n. 11. See also, 55
Fed. Reg. 22658. Having acknowledged both the severe disruption and capacity
problems which will result from its proposed action (Report at 42) and the fact that
more time is needed to develop a "minimize threat" standard as is required under
ง 3004(m)(l) (Report at 28, 38), EPA should allow the current rule to remain in
place while it considers hard data and studies currently available to support the
present rule or, alternatively, develops a treatment standard specifically for deep
well injection.9
IV. The Treatment Standard Proposed by EPA (F039) Is Inappropriate
for Deep Weil Injection and Is Not Required by RCRA ง 3004(m)(l).
EPA proposes the utilization of an F039 "universal" treatment standard for
disposal in either CWA surface impoundments or Gass I injection wells. This
standard is clearly inappropriate, at least as it applies to injection wells, for a
number of reasons. F039 was developed as a standard for "multi-source leachates"
which are defined as liquids which have "percolated through or drained from the
treatment, storage, or disposal of more than one listed hazardous waste."10 The
primary example of a multi-source leachate is liquid draining into soils from a
landfill unit.11 Surface disposal, including temporary placement in CWA surface
7	976 F.2d at 25.
8	The Court recognized that even simple dilution of wastes to eliminate their hazardous characteristic
could constitute treatment satisfying the requirements of ง 3004(m)(l) under certain circumstances.
976 F.2d at 15-16.
9	Since whatever treatment standard is ultimately developed may itself provide a capacity problem,
American suggests that EPA reserve the National Capacity Variance and case-by-case extensions to
provide time for compliance with the ultimate standard issued by EPA.
10	See Final BDAT Background Document for U and P Wastes and Multi-Source Leachate, Volume A,
NTIS #PB90-234337 (May 8,1990), at 1-3.
11 Id. at 2-2.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 7
impoundments, presents demonstrably greater risks to human health and the
environment than does deep well injection. Specifically, surface disposal by
definition occurs above groundwater supplies. Leachates from surface disposal
therefore present a greater risk of groundwater contamination and exposure to
humans. Migration of surface-disposed wastes would also be subject to different
dilution and attenuation factors ("DAFs") than deep well disposal12
Deep well injection "beneath the lowermost formation containing, within
one-quarter mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water,"13
virtually eliminates these threats by placing the wastes-previously rendered
nonhazardous-beyond human or usable groundwater contact Section 3004(m)(l),
rather than defining the treatment required, defines the purposes that the method of
treatment imposed by the EPA must achieve.14 These purposes are the
minimization of "short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment" Id. Surface disposal presents a far greater risk of human contact or
contamination of USDW than does deep well injection and therefore may merit
greater limitation on constituent concentration levels. The F039 standard draws no
distinction between surface and deep well disposal and thus requires treatment prior
to injection to concentration levels which will not further "minimize threats"13
beyond the reduced threat achieved by injection in properly-constructed deep wells.
Such standard will, however, require costly adjustments or shutdowns by many deep
well operators.
12	EPA utilized a DAF of 100 for surffcs disposal of TCLF toxics based upon subsurface fate and
transport modeL 35 fed. Reg. 11803 (March 29, 1990). This factor is inapplicable to subsurface
fate and transport of diluted wastes injected into formation below any possible USDW.
13	40 CJFJL1144.6(a).
14	976 F2d at 15. The Court rejected the argument tliat 13004(ni)(l) mparts the use of best
demonstrated available technologies ("BDAT) (which F039 represents) and instead recognized
that Sti/treitmeat that meets the objectives of ง 3004(m)(l) is permissible under the statute. Id.
The proper inquiry is therefore whether F039 is necessary to minimize threats when the
decharacterized wastes are injected in deep wells rather than placed oa the surface where there is a
recognized risk of direct human contact and seepage to groundwater supplies.
15	EPA has recognized that treatment of wastes which were decharacterized prior to injection would
not further minimize threats to human health and the environment 55 Fed. Reg. at 22658, coL 2
(June 1, 1990). It is therefore unreasonable for EPA to require treatment of waste destined for
deep well disposal to an F039 standarjL thereby mandating treatment which EPA has considered
unnecessary io satisfy the requirements of i 3004(m)(l).

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 8
Application of an F039 standard to deep well injection also results in a
contradictory regulatory framework which in some cases results in the characteristic
standards defining wastes as hazardous becoming arbitrary "triggers" requiring
treatment of nonhazardous constituents in the same waste stream which are not
otherwise prohibited from land disposal.16 For example, an operator whose
aggregated waste stream is characteristic as to only one of five constituents presently
need only treat that characteristic constituent prior to deep well injection and does
not have to treat the other four constituents within the waste stream (assuming they
never reach their individual characteristic levels). However, since the treatment
standards for TCLP toxic metals under F039 often exceed the characteristic level
and treatment standards for the individual metal constituents, the proposed
standard could require that operator to treat some or all of these noncharacteristic
(and therefore nonhazardous) constituents in its waste stream prior to injection,
despite the fact that only a single constituent ever reached a characteristic concentration
level and was therefore "hazardous.n7 This anomalous result ignores the "minimize
threat" standard since these "other constituents" are being treated not because they
present a threat or are hazardous but because they merely happen to be within a
waste stream in which a characteristic (and therefore hazardous) constituent is
present.
Another contradictory result follows if decharacterization and injection is
rejected as a proper method of treatment under ง 3004(m)(l). "Operator A," whose
aggregated waste stream is below the characteristic level for a particular constituent,
will be forced to treat that constituent if it exceeds a characteristic level prior to
aggregation. „ .Operator B," with a waste stream chemically identical to the
aggregated waste stream of Operator A in all respects except that it did not result
from aggregation, will be allowed to inject that waste stream. This result makes
little sense from a policy standpoint since both waste streams are chemically
identical and thus present exactly the same toxicity and "short-term and long-term
16	It is fundamental that only "hazardous" wastes fall within RCRA's land ban restrictions, 40 C.F.R.
ง 268, and only becomes "hazardous" based upon the toxicity characteristic upon reaching or
exceeding its characteristic concentration leveL 40CF.R. ง261.
17	For example, a wastewater containing 0.4 mg/1 of radmimii would not require treatment prior to
injection since the characteristic concentration levปl lor-cadmium in wastewaters is 1.0 mg/L 40
C.F.R. ง 268.43(a). However, if the same wastewater also contained 1.5 mg/1 of selenium (which
~ would require treatment as it exceeds its IX) mg/1 characteristic level), application of an F039
standard would also require treatment of the cadmium constituent to reduce its concentration level
to 0-2 mg/1 as required by F039. Thus, the rule would allow injection of one waste stream
containing 0.4 mg/1 of	(if no characteristic constituent is also present) but would prohibit
the injection of the same concentration of ^in the other waste stream.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18,1993
Page 9
threats to human health and the environment" Yet only Operator A must treat his
waste stream prior to injection.
Finally, the cost and time required to comply with an F039 standard will be
extreme. As discussed above, EPA's analysis doesn't include the volume of
decharacterized waste streams that are currently injected11 and therefore fails to
take into consideration the additional cost of treatment for the never-characteristic
"other constituents" within an aggregated waste stream which would be required to
be treated under an F039 standard. For example, an operator may have
constructed treatment facilities to treat his single characteristic waste in response to
EPA's prior land ban restrictions. But if faced with compliance to an F039
standard, an operator would be required to treat or ship off-site the "other
constituents" which never reach a characteristic level but which are present in
concentrations higher than allowed under F039. American has determined that it
would take at least two years and cost approximately $21 million to construct an on-
site treatment facility that could treat all constituents in its waste stream to an F039
standard. Transportation and off-site treatment is even more prohibitive, costing
approximately $13 million per month.
The cost and disruption which will resulf frdtaf the imposition of an F039
standard-a standard which is unnecessary to meet ง 3004(m)(l) requirements-are
likewise unnecessary as a coercive vehicle to promote waste minimization and
pollution prevention. Other incentives exist to encourage such practices. As
discussed above, American segregates all wastes to the extent practical and is
engaged in recycling and other efforts to minimize its disposal. Only its aggregated
rinsewaters are injected because there is simply no practical way to segregate rinse
waters from each individual rinse tank which randomly "spike" above a characteristic
level. While an F039 standard may be appropriate for surface disposal and the
threats thereby presented, the standard is clearly inappropriate for deep well
injection, fails to consider the fact that deep well injection of decharacterized wastes
in and of itself "minimizes threats" presented by such wastes, and results in needless
costs and disruption in existing sound waste management practices.
18 See Report at 69.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 10
V. Decharacterization Through Legitimate Aggregation and Injection in
Deep Wells Satisfies the Toxicity and 'Minimize Threat" Standards of
ง 3004(m)(l),
As discussed in Section III above, the Court did not vacate the current rules
allowing deep well injection of wastes rendered nonhazardous at the point of
disposal. Instead, the Court rejected the justification presented by the EPA to show
that the practice satisfied the statutory requirements of ง 3004{m)(l). Injection of
wastewaters which are decharacterized through legitimate aggregation does in fact
satisfy all requirements of ง 3004(m)(l).
The first requirement under a ง 3004(m)(l) is to substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste.19 The toxicity of a characteristic waste depends upon the
concentration levels of hazardous constituents present in the waste; by definition,
the wastes are not "hazardous" unless concentrations reach characteristic levels.20
Reducing the concentration level of the constituents therefore reduces the toxicity
of the waste regardless of whether there is a reduction in the number of individual
molecules of the constituent within the waste stream.
To determine the reasonable limit to which constituent concentration levels
should be reduced in order to minimize threats to human health and the
environment presented by deep well injection, it is necessary to define the "threat"
and examine the concentration levels which are in fact toxic to humans. EPA
utilized this form of risk analysis in .determining characteristic levels for toxicity.
First, EPA determined "chronic toxicity reference levels . .. below which chronic
exposure for individual toxicants in drinking water is considered safe or considered
to pose minimal risk." 55 Fed. Reg. 11801, 11813 (March 29, 1990). A dilution
attenuation factor- fDAF*) was then determined to estimate the dilution and
attenuation of the constituents in the waste as they travel from landfill disposal to a
USDW. Id. at 11816. These two figures were then used to calculate characteristic
levels which define the waste as "hazardous" and trigger the ban on land disposal.
A similar analysis applied to Class I wells reveals that decharacterization and
deep wen" injection satisfy the "minimize threat" standards of ง 3004(m)(l). Since
the chronic toxicity reference levels have already been determined, the remaining
19 Section 3004{m)(l) alternatively provides that Use level or treatment method may instead
"substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.*
20 40 C.F.R. |? !61J(a), 261.20.

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 11
issue is whether the concentration of the toxic constituent would exceed the chronic
toxicity reference level if the waste reached a USDW. However, since the
decharacterized wastes are injected beneath any possible USDW,21 deep well
injection presents a significantly lesser risk of contamination and human exposure.
Thus, the actual threat for which EPA established the characteristic levels-potential
contamination of USDW at a level toxic to human health-is minimized to a greater
degree than permissible surface disposal.
EPA has previously determined that decharacterization and deep well
injection is "fully protective of underground sources of drinking water and human
health and the environment." Report at 26, n. 11. See also, 55 Fed. Reg. 22658. It
correctly concluded that treatment beyond elimination of hazardous characteristics
and deep well injection "would not further minimize threats to human health or the
environment." 55 Fed. Reg. at 22658. The Court likewise did not reject
decharacterization and dilution as an appropriate treatment standard for injected
wastes; it simply rejected EPA's justification which was expressed as a need to
accommodate the SWDA and conclusions that all deep wells could meet no-
migration requirements. 976 F.2d at 25. American suggests that given adequate
time to develop the factual record, a treatment standard of decharacterization and
injection in Class I nonhazardous wells can be shown to fully satisfy the 'minimize
threat" standard.
VI. EPA Should Develop a Treatment Standard Specifically For Deep
Well Injection.
Considering the different risks presented by surface disposal and the fact that
Congress has mandated a "minimize threat" analysis under $ 3004

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
February 18, 1993
Page 12
Treatment Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 887 F.2d 355, 362 (D.C.
Cir. 1989).
VII. Conclusion.
For the reasons discussed above, American urges that an F039 standard not
be adopted, and that EPA instead leave the present rules authorizing injection of
decharacterized wastes in place and allow time for a record to be established that
decharacterization plus injection is a statutorily-pennissible treatment standard.
If you would like additional information, please contact Kenneth Ede at
(918) 292-2835 or outside counsel Scott R. Rowland at (918) 587-0000.
cc: LA. Laster, Vice President,
Base Maintenance
Mr. R. W. Curtis
Mr. Kenneth F. Ede
John F. Montgomery, Ph.D.
Michele Valdez, Esq.
David P. Page, Esq.
Scott R. Rowland, Esq.
Very truly yours,
Facilities
Manager, Facilities
Maintenance-and Engineering

-------
r iisi
Appendix U
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION
RULE (HWIR) ON THE AFFECTED UNIVERSE FOR THE PETROLEUM REFINING
AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES

-------
Appendix U
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFICATION
RULE (HWIR) ON THE AFFECTED UNIVERSE FOR THE PETROLEUM REFINING
AND ORGANIC CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES
This appendix describes EPA's analysis of the effect of Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
(HWIR) exit criteria on wastewaters regulated by the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
rule. In the Phase III rule, underlying hazardous constituents in decharacterized wastewaters
managed in land-based units must meet UTS or BAT standards prior to final discharge. In this
appendix, EPA considers the joint effect of HWIR risk-based exit levels and the Phase III standards
on affected wastes.
The HWIR exit levels, if considered in the context of the Phase III LDR rule, could have
an effect in one of three ways. First, they could act as a cap on UTS levels at the point of disposal
(i.e., the less stringent standard would apply), therefore taking effect only for those wastestreams
where UTS is exceeded. Second, the HWIR exit levels could replace UTS values as a point of
disposal criteria for RCRA equivalency. Because some HWIR levels are more stringent than UTS,
this second option could imply that some wastestreams not currently affected by Phase III could
additionally be brought into the affected universe.
The use of HWIR exit levels at the point of disposal, however, may be problematic. The
methods used to determine the risk-based HWIR exit levels may not consider the direct discharge
of polluted wastewaters into surface waters or POTWs. They may instead only consider such
situations as the overflow of contaminated wastewater from surface impoundments, which would
include such factors as possible pollutant attenuation in soils, therefore reducing the final
concentrations entering the surface water. Therefore, the third option for the incorporation of
HWIR exit levels into the Phase III rule would be application only at the point of generation,
perhaps in conjunction with additional point of disposal requirements.
To address the first option, this analysis estimates the change in the number of facilities
affected by the Phase III LDR rule if HWIR exit levels cap the UTS treatment standards at the
point of disposal. To address the second option EPA analyzed the number of affected facilities if
HWIR exit levels instead replace UTS standards. At this point, although we lack complete data to
assess the third option, we have analyzed Generator Survey data for one industry, organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetic fibers (OCPSF), to determine the percentage of facilities that would exit at
the point of generation as a result of HWIR.
U-l

-------
METHODOLOGY
To determine the effect of incorporating HWIR exit levels into the rule as a cap on
treatment standards, EPA compared end-of-pipe wastestream constituent concentrations to HWIR
exit levels for only those samples found to exceed UTS. EPA compared the high-flow and low-flow
constituent concentrations for each sample with the HWIR exit levels to determine the number of
exceedences within the two affected industries. If a facility determined "likely" or "possibly" affected
by the rule under the UTS screen was found unaffected in the HWIR screen (at both high- and low-
flow concentrations), the facility was then considered to drop out of the group of affected facilities.
To determine the effect of replacing (rather than capping) UTS with HWIR exit levels at the point
of disposal, EPA compared all non-priority pollutant samples (with and without UTS exceedences)
to the HWIR exit levels, using both the high- and low-flow concentrations. If a wastestream
constituent concentration exceeded the HWIR exit level at the high-flow concentration estimate, the
facility was considered very likely affected. If only the low-flow concentration exceeded the HWIR
level, however, the facility was considered only possibly affected.
Point of Generation Analysis
EPA compared Generator Survey point of generation data for the OCPSF industry, available
from the Phase IV analysis, with HWIR exit levels to determine the effect on the Phase III rule.
If a facility wastestream contained no non-priority pollutants at a concentration greater than the
HWIR level at the point of generation, that facility dropped out of the affected universe. Due to
a lack of related point of generation and disposal data, however, we could not determine whether
the facilities that dropped from the affected universe due to an HWIR screen at the point of
generation would have been considered affected by the rule under the original UTS screen.
RESULTS
Petroleum Refining Industry
			———. i i
EPA's analysis of the petroleum refining industry found that eight of the 16 facilities
considered likely to be affected by the Phase III LDR rule, would no longer be affected if HWIR
exit levels were included as treatment standard caps (see Exhibit U-l). The analysis also showed
that none of the 42 facilities considered "possibly affected" by the UTS screen would remain affected
under the new analysis. In the analysis using HWIR levels in place of UTS values, we found that
of the 108 facilities, four were likely to be, and five would possibly be, affected by the Phase III rule.
The number of facilities possibly affected increased by one in comparison to the HWIR cap value,
because one facility with no UTS exceedences does have an HWIR exceedence.
U-2

-------
Exhibit U-l
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES FOR THE
PETROLEUM REFINING INDUSTRY
ฆ
UTS
Screen
HWIR Cap
Screen
HWIR
Replacement
Screen
Number of Facilities Considered
108
58
108
Number of Facilities Very Likely Affected
16
4
4
Number of Facilities Possibly Affected
ฆ 42
4
5
OCFSF Industry
EPA's analysis of the OCPSF industry found that 11 of the 113 facilities found very likely
affected by the UTS screen, would no longer be affected if HWIR exit levels capped UTS in the
Phase III LDR rule (see Exhibit U-2). In addition, 78 of the 120 facilities found possibly affected
would also drop from the list of affected facilities. Using HWIR standards in place of the UTS
levels, we found that 80 facilities would certainly be affected, and an aditional 107 would possibly
be affected.
Exhibit U-2
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSES FOR THE
OCPSF INDUSTRY

UTS
Screen
HWIR
Cap
Screen
HWIR
Replacement
Screen
Point of
Generation
Analysis
Number of Facilities Considered
1,305
233
474
24
Number of Facilities Very Likely Affected
113
• 48
80
16
Number of Facilities Possibly Affected
120
96
107
--
U-3

-------
EPA's analysis of the effect of HWIR at the point of generation found that of the 24
facilities with wastewaters containing nonpriority pollutants, eight would meet HWIR exit criteria.1
Because we could not determine whether those facilities that would exit at the point of generation
would also have been originally affected at the point of disposal, it is possible that less than one
third of the affected universe would exit Phase III because of the HWIR point of generation exit
option.
CONCLUSION
The results of this analysis show that incorporating HWIR exit levels as additional or
exclusive treatment standards at the point of disposal could significantly reduce the number of
facilities affected by the Phase III LDR rule. For the petroleum refining industry, the analysis using
only UTS levels found that 15 to 54 percent of all facilities discharging non-priority pollutants (16
to 58 out of 108) would be affected. When incorporating HWIR levels as a cap, these values drop
to 3.7 to 7.4 percent (4 to 8 out of 108). When HWIR levels are used in place of UTS, however,
these values increase slightly to 3.7 to 8.3 percent of the facilities (4 to 9 out of 108). For the
OCPSF industry, the original analysis found that 24 to 49 percent of all facilities discharging non-
priority pollutants (113 to 233 out of 474) would be affected. With an HWIR cap, the number of
affected facilities would drop to 10 to 30 percent (48 to 144 of 474). When HWIR levels are used
in place of the UTS standards, however, 17 to 39 percent of the facilities are affected (80 to 187 of
474).
1 Generator Survey data provides a maximum and minimum concentration for each sample. We
used only the concentration maximum to provide a conservative (high) estimate of affected facilities.
U-4

-------
ADDENDUM TO THE REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
OF THE PHASE 10 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTION FINAL RULE:
REVISED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
February 14,1996

-------
INTRODUCTION
As part of the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RLA) of the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) rule, we estimated the benefits that would result from the proposed regulation of spent
aluminum potliners.1 We focused our analysis on potential cancer and noncancer human health risk
reduction benefits. We performed a risk assessment of baseline (current) waste management
practices and compared their human health risks with those posed by post-regulatory management
practices.
After completion of the risk assessment performed for the RIA, new fate and transport data
for spent aluminum potliner disposal became available. EPA performed constituent-specific fate
and transport modeling using its Composite Model for Leachate Migration and Transformation
Products (EPACMTP). Using these additional data, our assessment of baseline risks shows that
individual lifetime cancer risks increase to about 10'6 under central tendency assumptions and 10 '
under high-end assumptions. In addition, the new estimates suggest that under high-end
assumptions baseline concentrations in drinking water may be high enough to present non-cancer
risks; previously, baseline non-cancer risks were estimated to be negligible. Since post-regulatory
risks were shown in the RIA to be negligible, these higher baseline risks indicate that the
incremental risk reduction benefits are greater than previously estimated. The rule has the potential
to reduce individual risks substantially.
We describe below our methodology and results of the risk assessment using constituent-
specific fate and transport modeling. For some parts of the assessment, we used approaches and
assumptions that are similar to those used in the analysis performed for the RIA. We do not
reiterate some of the background provided in the RIA; consequently, the reader should refer to
Chapter 4 of the RIA for additional information.
METHODOLOGY
Baseline Risks
Our risk assessment is based largely on EPA's modeling of the fate and transport of
regulated constituents that: may leach from spent aluminum potliners in a Subtitle C landfill; may
contaminate underlying groundwater; and may migrate down-gradient to a drinking water well2 The
general approach in EPA's analysis is similar to that used in the risk assessment we performed for
the RIA.
EPA's analysis improves upon the fate and transport modeling approach that we used in the
RIA. In the RIA, we applied generic dilution/attenuation factors (DAFs) to relate the concentration
of contaminants in the leachate to their concentration in a down-gradient well. The use of generic
1	The Phase III LDR was proposed on March 22, 1995 (60 FR 11702-11766). See Regulatory
Impact Analysis of the Phase III Land Disposal Restriction Rule, which can be found in the docket for
this rule.
2	A summary of the EPA analysis can be found in the docket to this rule.
1

-------
DAFs did not reflect constituent-specific fate and transport processes, site-specific hydrogeological
conditions, or waste characterization data available for the relevant baseline disposal sites. The
Agency used EPACMTP to perform constituent-specific fate and transport modeling. This model
takes into account transport through unsaturated and saturated zones, first-order degradation with
daughter product formation, and linear and nonlinear sorption. Using Monte Carlo analysis,
EPACMTP can also be linked to data on the landfill characteristics, hydrogeology, climate, and
human receptor locations.3 We believe that this constituent-specific modeling can be used to predict
fate and transport more accurately than the use of generic DAFs.
EPA's Office of Solid Waste provided us with the results of their EPACMTP modeling. For
each chemical modeled, four estimates were available for contaminant concentrations in a down-
gradient drinking water well. These estimates reflect different combinations of assumptions related
to DAF values and leak rates (the extent to which leachate leaks from a Subtitle C landfill and
enters into underlying groundwater); the 50th and 90th percentile DAF values; and leak rates of 20
and 30 percent. The concentration estimates were most sensitive to the two different DAF
assumptions, so we based our analysis of central tendency risks on the 50th percentile DAF value,
while the high-end risks were based on the 90th percentile DAF. For both the central tendency and
high-end calculations, we estimated two risk values, each based on one of the two leak rate
assumptions.
We combined these groundwater concentrations with toxicity data and exposure assumptions
to calculate individual lifetime cancer risk, as well as hazard quotients for noncarcinogens. To
obtain toxicity information, we used EPA's IRIS and Health Effects Assessment Summary Table
(HEAST) databases. For both the central tendency and high-end risk calculations, we used standard
central tendency exposure assumptions:
•	Ingestion of 1.4 liters of water per day.
•	Body weight of 70 kilograms.
•	Exposure duration of 9 years.
•	Exposure frequency of 350 days per year.4
Post-Regulatnrv Risks
As described more fully in the RIA, we based our assessment of post-regulatory risks on two
studies: one performed by Reynolds Metals Company for the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology and the other completed by EPA. The Reynolds study examined human health
risks caused by the dispersion of contaminants released into the air during pre-treatment and
3	EPA Office of Solid Waste, EPACMTP Background Document, C08-94.501, December 1994.
4	EPA Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGS): Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based
Preliminary Remediation Goals)," Interim, December, 1991.
2

-------
treatment (incineration) operations. They concluded that cancer risks do not exceed 10"6 beyond
the property boundary.5 The EPA study examined the potential risks posed by kiln residue, which
the Agency proposed to delist. EPA concluded that the Reynolds process "can render spent
potliners non-hazardous." Available data suggest that post-regulatory cancer risks are likely to be
negligible.
RESULTS
Incorporating the newly available constituent-specific fate and transport modeling, our risk
assessment indicates that baseline cancer and noncancer risks are one to two orders of magnitude
higher than previously estimated. As shown in Exhibit 1, cancer risks range from 10"6 under central
tendency assumptions to about 10'3 under high-end assumptions. In addition, noncancer risks are
expected under high-end assumptions.6 The risk values are most sensitive to central tendency and
high-end assumptions regarding landfill characteristics, hydrogeology, climate, and human receptor
locations. The risks are affected relatively less by differences in assumptions about leak rates.
To estimate incremental risk reduction, we compared the baseline risks to post-regulatory
risks. We did not perform additional analysis of post-regulatory risks. Evidence presented in the
RIA suggests that post-regulatory cancer risks are less than 10"6 and therefore negligible.
Consequently, the benefits of regulating spent aluminum potliners are higher than previously
estimated. Under central tendency assumptions, individual lifetime cancer risks resulting from
current waste management practices are slightly higher than post-regulatory risks (10"6 vs. less than
10"6); some incremental benefits may therefore be realized as a result of the LDRs. Under high-end
assumptions, however, the regulation could reduce cancer risks by one or two orders of magnitude,
while noncancer risks could be eliminated. Although population risks would also be reduced
correspondingly, we are unable to specify the magnitude of the exposed population. As described
in the RIA, interviews with several Subtitle C landfills that currently receive spent aluminum
potliners suggest that the exposed population is likely to be low.
5	The Reynolds analysis may underestimate these risks, however. The air dispersion modeling
did not include analysis of fluoride and cyanide, two chemicals that EPA is regulating in the Phase
III rule. Staff from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology state that the
Reynolds RCRA Part B Permit application is presently under review and note that the omission of
these chemicals may be a deficiency in the air dispersion modeling. The absence of analysis for
fluoride and cyanide introduces additional uncertainty into our assessment of post-regulatory risks.
6	Attachment 1 contains a spreadsheet showing the risk calculations. It is included at the end
of this document.
3

-------


Exhibit 1



REVISED ESTIMATE FOR BASELINE RISKS


Central Tendency Risk
High-End Risk
Type of Risk
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
Cancer Risk
(lifetime risk)




Arsenic
Beryllium
Benzo(a)pyrene
2x 107
6x 10"9
2 x 10"6
4 x lO"7
2 x lO"8
7 x 10"6
4x lO"5
2 x 1CT6
9 x 10"4
9 x 10" 5
3 x 104
1 x 10"3
Total
(may not sum
due to
rounding)
2 x 10^
8 x 104
9x 104
2x 10"3
Chemicals with
Noncancer Risk (hazard
quotient)
None
None
Fluoride (33)
Fluoride (67)
Arsenic (1.3)
4

-------
ATTACHMENT 1
CENTRAL TENDENCY RISK CALCULATIONS

Groundwater Exposure Cone. (mg/L)
Cancer Risk
Non-Cancer Risk (Hat Quotient)
Constituent
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
Antimony
1E-05
3E-05


0.0
0.0
Arsenic
4E-05
1E-04
2E-07
4E-07
0.0
0.0
Barium
9E-06
2E-05


0.0
0.0
Beryllium
6E-07
2E-06
6E-09
2E-08
0.0
0.0
Cadmium
6E-07
2E-06


0.0
0.0
Chromium (total)
SE-06
1E-05


0.0
0.0
Lead
2E-08
6E-08


0.0
0.0
Mercury
3E-08
8E-08


0.0
0.0
Nickel
1E-0S
3E-05


0.0
0.0
Selenium
5E-06
IE-OS


0.0
0.0
Silver
3E-06
7E-06


0.0
0.0
Cyanide (total)
2E-07
7E-07


0.0
0.0
Fluoride
3E-01
8E-01


0.1
0.3
Benzo(a)pyrene
1E-04
4E-04
2E-06
7E-06


Fluoranthene
2E-04
5E-04


0.0
0.0
Pyrene
2E-04
4E-04


0.0
0.0
SUM


2E-06
8E-06
0.1
0.3
HIGH END RISK CALCULATIONS

Groundwater Exposure Cone. (mg/L)
Cancer Risk
Non-Cancer Risk (Haz. Quotient)
Constituent
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
20% Leak Rate
30% Leak Rate
Antimony
4E-03
6E-03


0.2
0.3
Arsenic
1E-02
2E-02
4E-05
9E-05
0.7
1.3
Barium
3E-03
5E-03


0.0
0.0
Beryllium
2E-04
3E-04 ป
2E-06
3E-06
0.0
0.0
Cadmium
2E-04
3E-04


0.0
0.0
Chromium (total)
2E-03
3E-03


0.0
0.0
Lead
8E-06
IE-OS


0.0
0.0
Mercury
1E-05
2E-05


0.0
0.0
Nickel
4E-03
7E-03


0.0
0.0
Selenium
2E-03
3E-03


0.0
0.0
Silver
9E-04
IE-03


0.0
0.0
Cyanide (total)
8E-05
IE-04


0.0
0.0
Fluoride
1E+02
2E+02


33.3
66,7
Benzo(a)pyrene
5E-02
8E-02
9E-04
IE-03


Fluoranthene
7E-02
1E-01


0.0
0.1
Pyrene
6E-02
9E-02


0,0
0.1
SUM


9E-04
2E-03
34.3 ฆ
68.5
NOTES:
1.	Cancer risk = Groundwater exposure concentration * Cancer exposure factor * Cancer slope factor
2.	Cancer exposure factor = (1.4 L/day) / 70 kg * (9 yrs / 70 yrs) * (350 days / 365 days)
3.	Noncancer risk (hazard quotient)ฎ Groundwater exposure concentration * Noncancer exposure factor / Reference dose
4.	Noncancer exposure factor = (1.4 L/day) / 70 kg
5.	Cancer slope factors and reference doses are taken from IRIS and HEAST and are described in the RIA.
6.	Groundwater exposure concentrations were obtained from Zubair Saleem, EPA/OSW. A description of EPA's analysis is included in this docket.
7.	Missing cancer risk values indicate that no cancer slope factors are available.
8.	Missing non-cancer risk values indicate that no oral reference doses are available.

-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION |!. Report No.
PAGE	]
|	EPA530-R-97-021
	I	
4, Title and Subtitle
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS FINAL RULE
AND ADDENDUM: REVISED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINERS
15, Report Date
|	February 1996
16.
7. Authors)
18. Performing Organization Rept No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
110. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
|11. Contract ฉ or Grant (G) No.
KG)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
113. Type of Report & Period Covered
I TECHNICAL REPORT
114.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words)
ESTIMATES THE COSTS, ECONOMIC IMPACTS, AND BENEFITS OF THE PHASE III LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS (LDR) RULE. PROVIDES BACKGROUND
TO THE LDR PROGRAM AND THE PHASE III RULE. DISCUSSES METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING AFFECTED QUANTITIES OF CHARACTERISTIC WASTES
AND NEWLY LISTED WASTES, ADDENDUM INCLUDES NEW FATE AND TRANSPORT DATA FOR SPENT ALUMINUM POTLINER DISPOSAL AND THE EFFECT
ON THE RISK ASSESSMENT.
17. Document Analysis a. Descriptors
b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSAT1 Field Group
18. Availability Statement
119. Security Class (This Report) | 21. No. of Pages

| UNCLASSIFIED | 25?
RELEASE UNLIMITED
1 1
120. Security Class (This Page) 122. Price

| UNCLASSIFIED |
(Sec ANSI-Z39.18)
OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)

-------