[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8229]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 14, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Part 455
Pesticide Chemicals Category, Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards; Proposed Rule
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 455
[FRL-4859-7]
RIN 2040-AC21
Pesticide Chemicals Category, Formulating, Packaging and
Repackaging Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This is a proposed regulation under the Clean Water Act to
limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United
States and into publicly owned treatment works by existing and new
facilities that formulate, package or repackage products containing
pesticide active ingredients. This regulation proposes effluent
limitations guidelines based on ``best practicable control technology
(BPT)'', ``best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)'',
``best available technology (BAT)'', new source performance standards
(NSPS), and pretreatment standards for new and existing indirect
dischargers (PSNS and PSES, respectively). The existing effluent
limitations guidelines based on the achievement of BPT are not being
changed by this proposed regulation. EPA is also proposing to establish
a new subcategory which applies to refilling establishments whose
principal business is retail sale.
DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by June 13, 1994. EPA
will conduct a workshop covering this proposal, in conjunction with a
public hearing on the pretreatment standards portion of the proposal.
The workshop will be held on June 7, 1994, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The
public hearing will be conducted from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the
same day.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to: Ms. Janet Goodwin,
Engineering & Analysis Division (4303), USEPA, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
The workshop and the public hearing will be held in EPA's
Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC. Persons
wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should have a
written copy for submittal.
The complete record for this rulemaking is available for review at
the EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. For
access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30
p.m. for an appointment. The EPA public information regulation (40 CFR
part 2) provides that a reasonable fee may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
write or call Ms. Janet Goodwin at (202) 260-7152. For additional
information on the economic impact analyses contact Dr. Lynne Tudor at
the above address or by calling (202) 260-5834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
This preamble describes the scope, purpose, legal authority and
background of this rule, the technical and economic bases and the
methodology used by the Agency to develop these effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
Abbreviations, acronyms, and other terms used in the Supplementary
Information section are defined in Appendix A to the preamble of this
document.
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
(Section 304(b)(1) of the Act)
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
(Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 307(a)(2) of the Act)
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (Section
304(a)(4) of the Act)
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 306 of the
Act)
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) (Section
307(b) of the Act)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) (Section 307(b)
of the Act)
B. Section 304(m) Requirements and Litigation
C. Pollution Prevention Act
D. Prior Regulation and Litigation for the Pesticide Chemicals
Category
E. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule
III. Summary of Proposed Regulations
A. BPT
B. BCT
C. BAT
D. NSPS
E. PSES
F. PSNS
IV. Overview of the Industry
A. Industry Description
B. Source Reduction Review Project
V. Data Gathering Efforts
A. Technical Data
1. Existing Databases
2. Survey Questionnaire
3. Site Visits
4. Wastewater Sampling and Analytical Programs
5. EPA Bench-Scale Treatability Studies
6. Data Transfers From Pesticide Manufacturing Subcategories and
Other Sources
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Prior Subcategorization Scheme
B. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme
C. Proposed Subcategories
1. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
2. Repackaging Performed at Refilling Establishments
(Subcategory E)
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation
Practices
1. Shipping Container/Drum Cleaning
2. Bulk Tank Rinsate
3. Equipment Interior Cleaning
4. Department of Transportation (DOT) Aerosol Container Leak
Testing
5. Floor/Wall/Equipment Exterior Cleaning
6. Leaks and Spills
7. Air Pollution or Odor Control Scrubbers
8. Safety Equipment Cleaning
9. Laboratory Equipment Cleaning
10. Contaminated Precipitation Run-off
VIII. Wastewater Control Technology Currently Available
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory
E)
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
1. Options Selection
2. Cost Estimates
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory
E)
XIII. New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for New Sources
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
XIV. Economic Considerations
A. Introduction
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Impact Measures
2. Application of the Impact Measures
3. Methodology for Calculating Impacts
C. Projected Facility Economic Impacts
1. Baseline Analysis
2. Impacts Due to Compliance
D. Community Impacts
E. Foreign Trade Effects
1. Proportional Case
2. Worst-Case
F. Impacts on Firms Owning PFPR Facilities
1. Baseline Impacts
2. Post-Compliance Impacts
G. Impacts of NSPS and PSNS
1. Subcategory C
2. Subcategory E
H. Benefits of Pollution Prevention
1. Savings From Reduced Water Use and Water Discharge
2. Savings From Recovery and Reuse of PAIs
3. Savings From Reduced Costs of Permits and Fees
4. Savings From Reduced Insurance Premiums
5. Savings From Reduced Cost of Capital
I. Labor Requirements and Possible Employment Benefits of
Regulatory Compliance
1. Direct Labor Requirements of Complying With the PFPR Rule
2. Indirect and Induced Labor Requirements of Complying With the
PFPR Rule
J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PSES Options
K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Subcategory C Facilities
2. Subcategory E Facilities
L. Assessment of Economic Impacts Including Additional PAIs not
on the Original List of 272 PAIs Studied for Regulation
1. Facilities Using Both Original 272 PAIs and Additional PAIs
2. Facilities Using Only the Additional PAIs
3. Aggregate Impacts for All Facilities Using Both Original 272
and Additional PAIs
4. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 3/S.1
M. Executive Order 12866
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
XV. Water Quality Analyses
XVI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste
C. Energy Requirements
XVII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Upset and Bypass Provisions
B. Variances and Modifications
C. Relationship to NPDES Permits and Monitoring Requirements
D. Best Management Practice
E. Analytical Methods
XVIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviation, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in This Document
I. Legal Authority
This regulation is being proposed under the authorities of sections
301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as
amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217, and the Water
Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4), also referred to as ``the Act.''
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
established a comprehensive program to ``restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,''
(section 101(a)). To implement the Act, EPA is to issue effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source
performance standards for industrial dischargers.
These guidelines and standards are summarized briefly below:
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
(Section 304(b)(1) of the Act)
BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the
average of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes,
ages, and unit processes within the category or subcategory for control
of pollutants.
In establishing BPT effluent limitations guidelines, EPA considers
the total cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the
effluent reduction benefits, the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering
aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental
impacts (including energy requirements) and other factors as the EPA
Administrator deems appropriate (Section 304(b)(1)(B) of the Act). The
Agency considers the category or subcategory-wide cost of applying the
technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. Where
existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred
from a different subcategory or category.
2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) (Sections
304(b)(2)(B) and 307(a)(2) of the Act)
In general, BAT effluent limitations represent the best existing
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The Act establishes BAT as the principal
national means of controlling the direct discharge of priority
pollutants and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. The
factors considered in assessing BAT include the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes,
and non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy
requirements) (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). The Agency retains considerable
discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. As
with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may
be transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may
include process changes or internal controls, even when these
technologies are not common industry practice.
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (Section
304(a)(4) of the Act)
The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E) to the Act
establishing BCT for discharges of conventional pollutants from
existing industrial point sources. Section 304(a)(4) designated the
following as conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demanding
pollutants (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and
any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional.
The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional
conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the
control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors
specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT
limitations be established in light of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954
(4th Cir. 1981). EPA's current methodology for the general development
of BCT limitations was issued in 1986 (51 FR 24974; July 9, 1986).
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 306 of the Act)
NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated treatment
technology. New plants have the opportunity to install the best and
most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment
technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent
numerical values attainable through the application of the best
available control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional,
nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is
directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent
reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy
requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) (Section 307(b)
of the Act)
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The Act requires
pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through POTWs or
interfere with POTWs' treatment processes or sludge disposal methods.
The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that pretreatment
standards are to be technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. For the purpose
of determining whether to promulgate national category-wide
pretreatment standards, EPA generally determines that there is pass-
through of a pollutant and thus a need for categorical standards if the
nation-wide average percent removal of a pollutant removed by well-
operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the percent
removed by the BAT model treatment system.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR part 403. (Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and does not use the percent removal comparison test
described above. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.)
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) (Section 307(b) of the
Act)
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers, like the new direct
dischargers, have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the
best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same
factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. Section 304(m) Requirements and Litigation
Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by
the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for
(i) reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (ii) promulgating new effluent
guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines
Plan (55 FR 80), in which schedules were established for developing new
and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of
the industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the
Pesticide Chemicals category.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v. Reilly, Civ.
No. 89-2980). The plaintiffs charged that EPA's plan did not meet the
requirements of sec. 304(m). A Consent Decree in this litigation was
entered by the Court on January 31, 1992. The terms of the Consent
Decree are reflected in the Effluent Guidelines Plan published on
September 8, 1992 (57 FR 41000). This plan requires, among other
things, that EPA propose effluent guidelines for the formulating,
packaging and repackaging subcategories of the Pesticide Chemicals
category by January, 1994 and take final action on these effluent
guidelines by August, 1995. EPA filed a motion with the court in
November, 1993 requesting an extension of time until March 31, 1994,
for the EPA Administrator to sign the proposed regulation.
C. Pollution Prevention Act
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et
seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the
national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an
environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be
prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled
should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as
a last resort * * *'' (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13103). In short,
preventing pollution before it is created is preferable to trying to
manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created. According to the
PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous
substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the
source, usually within a process. The term source reduction ``include
equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure
modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of
raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training,
or inventory control. The term `source reduction' does not include any
practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral
to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a
service.'' In effect, source reduction means reducing the amount of a
pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into
the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or
disposal.
The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things, ``review
regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their proposal to
determine their effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C.
13103). This directive led the Agency to implement a pilot project
called the Source Reduction Review Project that would facilitate the
integration of source reduction in the Agency's regulations, including
the technology based effluent guidelines and standards. (See Section
IV. B. for a more complete discussion of the Source Reduction Review
Project.)
D. Prior Regulation and Litigation for the Pesticide Chemicals Category
EPA promulgated BPT regulations for the Pesticide Chemicals
Category on April 25, 1978 (43 FR 17778; 40 CFR part 455), and
September 29, 1978 (43 FR 44846; 40 CFR part 455, subpart A). The BPT
effluent limitations guidelines established a zero discharge limitation
for the pesticide formulating and packaging subcategory (subpart C).
Several industry members challenged the BPT regulation on April 26,
1978 and the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded them on two minor issues
[BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 596 F.2d 637 (1st Cir. 1979), cert.
denied, Eli Lilly v. Costle, 444 U.S. 1096 (1980)]. The Agency
subsequently addressed the two issues on remand and the Court upheld
the regulations in their entirety [BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 614
F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1980)].
On November 30, 1982, EPA proposed additional regulations to
control the discharge of wastewater pollutants from pesticide chemical
operations to navigable waters and to POTWs (47 FR 53994). The proposed
regulations included effluent limitations guidelines based upon BPT,
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The proposed effluent limitation
guidelines and standards covered the organic pesticide chemicals
manufacturing segment, the metallo-organic chemicals manufacturing
segment and the formulating and packaging segment of the pesticide
chemical industry. In addition, the Agency proposed guidelines for test
procedures to analyze the nonconventional pesticide pollutants covered
by these regulations on February 10, 1983 (48 FR 8250).
Based on the new information collected by EPA in response to the
comments on the November 30, 1982 proposal, on June 13, 1984, EPA
published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of new information (49 FR
24492). In this NOA, the Agency indicated it was considering changing
its approach to developing regulation for this industry. EPA requested
comments on the data. EPA published a second NOA of new information on
January 24, 1985, which primarily made available for public review
technical and economic data which had previously been claimed
confidential by industry.
EPA issued a final rule on October 4, 1985, that limited the
discharge of pollutants into navigable wastewaters and into POTWs (50
FR 40672). The regulation included effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels of control for new
and existing facilities that were engaged in the manufacture and/or
formulation and packaging of pesticides. The regulation also
established analytical methods for 61 pesticide active ingredients for
which the Agency had not previously promulgated approved test
procedures.
Several parties filed petitions in the Court of Appeals challenging
various aspects of the pesticide regulation [Chemical Specialties
Manufacturers Association, et al. v. EPA (86-8024)]. After a review of
the database supporting the regulation the Agency found flaws in the
basis for these effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Subsequently, the Agency and the parties filed a joint motion for a
voluntary remand of the regulation in the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Court dismissed the case on July 25, 1986, in response to
the Joint Motion.
Upon consideration of the parties' motion to modify the dismissal,
on August 29, 1986, the Court modified its order to clarify the terms
of the dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that:
(1) The effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the pesticide
chemicals industry be remanded to EPA for reconsideration and further
rulemaking; and (2) EPA publish a Federal Register notice removing the
remanded pesticide regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations.
EPA formally withdrew the regulations on December 15, 1986 (51 FR
44911). Although the Agency found no errors in the analytical methods
promulgated October 4, 1985, it withdrew these methods to allow for
further testing and possible revision. The BPT limitations that were
published on April 25, 1978, and September 29, 1978, were not affected
by the withdrawal notice and remain in effect. Those existing BPT
limitations regulations are not proposed to be changed in today's
notice.
On September 28, 1993, (58 FR 50637) EPA published additional
effluent limitations guidelines and standards under subpart A of part
455, which covers manufacturers of organic pesticide active
ingredients.
E. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule
The regulation proposed today would cover the pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging industry by establishing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the following subcategories:
Subcategory C: Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging
and Repackaging.
Subcategory E: Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides
Performed by Refilling Establishments Whose Principal Business is
Retail Sales
EPA has already issued final effluent guidelines limitations and
standards for the manufacturing of pesticide active ingredients covered
by subcategories A and B and BPT effluent limitations guidelines for
subcategory C (as previously mentioned). Subpart D contains the
analytical methods promulgated as part of the September 28, 1993,
rulemaking.
In today's notice, EPA is proposing to expand water pollution
control requirements for the pesticide formulating and packaging
subcategory. Effluent limitations for BAT, BCT and NSPS are proposed to
be equivalent to BPT limitations previously established in regulations
which are based on zero discharge. EPA is also proposing to establish
PSES and PSNS for this subcategory. All formulating packaging and
repackaging waste streams would be covered by the regulations except
for certain waste streams from a subgroup of facilities that process
products containing sanitizer chemicals, as defined in the regulations.
EPA is also proposing limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT limitations and
NSPS as well as PSES and PSNS, for the repackaging performed by
refilling establishments as a new subcategory.
III. Summary of Proposed Regulations
A. BPT
The BPT regulation promulgated in 1978 under subpart C of part 455
prohibits the discharge of process wastewater pollutants generated from
formulating and packaging pesticide products. This regulation is not
being changed. BPT regulations for subpart E, a new subcategory, are
proposed. The new subcategory applies to repackaging agricultural
pesticides when performed by refilling establishments whose principal
business is retail sale. The proposed BPT for this subcategory would
require that there be zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
B. BCT
EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations equivalent to BPT
limitations for both subcategories.
C. BAT
EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations equivalent to BPT
limitations for both subcategories.
D. NSPS
EPA is proposing to establish NSPS equivalent to BAT limitations
for both subcategories.
E. PSES
EPA is proposing to establish PSES equivalent to BAT limitations
(i.e., zero discharge) for both subcategories, except that a separate
provision is proposed for subcategory C facilities that formulate,
package or repackage sanitizer pesticides as listed in Table 8 to the
proposed regulation. This separate provision requires zero discharge of
process wastewater pollutants from only the ``interior'' wastestreams
at these facilities as discussed in Section XII of this preamble.
F. PSNS
EPA is proposing to establish PSNS equivalent to NSPS for both
subcategories.
IV. Overview of the Industry
A. Industry Description
The industry as a whole is referred to as the pesticide
formulating, packaging and repackaging industry. The subcategories are
referred to as:
PFPR or subcategory C for the pesticides chemicals
formulating, packaging and repackaging subcategory, (including
sanitizer pesticides formulating, packaging and repackaging); and
Refilling establishments, or subcategory E for the
repackaging at refilling establishments whose principal business is
retail sale.
The pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging industry is
made up of an estimated 5,200 facilities per EPA's data base generated
through the annual reports submitted by pesticide producing
establishments. These facilities are located throughout the country,
with greater concentrations of refilling establishments located in the
midwestern and southeastern states to serve the agricultural market.
Approximately 3,240 of these facilities are represented by the data
base for this rulemaking, which was developed primarily based on 272
pesticide active ingredients covered by the manufacturing rule.
Pesticide formulating is the mixing of pesticide active ingredient
with inert ingredients without a chemical reaction that changes the
active ingredient. Pesticide formulations take all forms: Water-based
liquid; organic solvent-based liquid; dry products in granular, powder,
solid forms; pressurized gases; and aerosols. The formulations can be
in a concentrated form requiring dilution before application or can be
ready to apply. The packaging of the formulated pesticide product is
dependent on the type of formulation. Liquids generally are packaged
into jugs, cans, or drums; dry formulations generally are packaged into
bags, boxes, drums, or jugs. Pressurized gases are packaged into
cylinders. Aerosols are packaged into aerosol cans.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
[cite] requires that all products making a claim of killing, mitigating
or repelling pests be registered with EPA and bear a label directing
the safe use of the product. In addition, production of all pesticide
products must be reported annually to EPA. Thus, EPA has extensive data
on the contents of pesticide products, their annual production, who
formulates, packages or repackages these products and the uses for
which these products are registered. EPA's Office of Water made
extensive use of this data in its analysis of the pesticide
formulating, packaging and repackaging industry.
Based on 1988 FIFRA establishment registration data, EPA identified
3,241 pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging facilities in
the United States for the 272 active ingredients. Subsequently, EPA
surveyed a stratified random sample of these 3,240 facilities. Based on
this survey, facilities were identified, an estimated 1,305 as
pesticide producing establishments involved in formulating, packaging
and repackaging pesticide products and the remaining 1,134 facilities
as refilling establishments whose principal business is retail sales
that only repackage pesticide products. Based on these survey results,
EPA estimates that for all of the PAIs covered by this rule, that in
1988 there were 2,000 facilities involved in formulating, packaging and
repackaging pesticide products and 1,810 refilling establishments,
using 1991 regulation data, these numbers increased to 3,200 and 2,800
facilities respectively. In addition, there were 48 pesticide
manufacturing facilities that also formulated and packaged pesticide
products. EPA estimates that there could be as many as 13 additional
manufacturing facilities that also formulate, package and repackage
pesticide products.
As described above, the formulating, packaging and repackaging
industry produces products in different forms. EPA has observed
formulating, packaging or repackaging done a number of different ways
ranging from very sophisticated and automated formulation and packaging
lines to completely manual lines. In general, for liquid products the
process involves mixing the active ingredient with liquid inert
ingredients in a tank and then transferring the product to containers.
For dry products, the active ingredient may be sprayed in liquid form
onto a dry substrate or it may be mixed in dry form. Dry products may
undergo processes for mixing, grinding, sifting and finally packaging.
Formulating aerosol products is the same as other liquid products, but
the packaging is more complex and involves filling the container,
capping it, drawing a vacuum on the container, adding propellant under
pressure, and sealing the container.
Some other types of pesticide products manufactured include collars
to repel and kill fleas and ticks, pesticides that are micro-
encapsulated, and pesticides that are formed into solid shapes.
The pesticide industry is changing and efforts are being made to
improve products to meet demands of consumers for less toxic and safer
pesticides. For example, water-based solutions are gradually replacing
organic solvents in liquid pesticide formulating. Developments in
packaging also are underway. For example, the growing use of water
soluble packages can reduce worker exposure to pesticides and minimize
problems with disposal of packaging.
The 1,130 refilling establishments represent a new population of
facilities that was identified in the Agency's Survey of Pesticide
Producing Establishments. The survey sought to identify all facilities
that reported formulating, packaging or repackaging pesticide products
in their annual report of 1988. (This survey is described more fully in
section V.A.2.) Somewhat unexpectedly, EPA discovered a significant
population of facilities that reported repackaging only. These
facilities are retail dealers of agricultural chemicals and farm
supplies. These facilities repackage pesticide chemicals, usually
herbicides, into refillable containers which are used to transport the
pesticide to the site where it is applied.
The use of refillable containers became widespread during the
1980's to reduce the numbers of empty pesticide containers needing to
be disposed of by farmers. In general, registrants distribute large
undivided quantities of pesticides to dealerships (refilling
establishments) where the products are stored in large bulk tanks. The
dealer then repackages the pesticide from the bulk storage tanks to
portable minibulk containers that generally have capacities around 100
gallons. The increased use of refillable containers led to an increased
amount of herbicide stored in bulk quantities and the need to have a
secondary containment system built around the bulk storage tanks.
Based on the results of the survey conducted to support this
rulemaking, and focussing on the 272 PAIs, EPA estimates that 1,130
refilling establishments existed in the U.S. in 1988. This number is
significantly lower than the population estimates for these types of
facilities based on all PAIs and registration data, it is also lower
than the estimates for the number of these facilities presently in
existence, made by EPA in its proposed containers and containment
standards rule (40 CFR part 165, 59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994) and by
estimates of members of this industry. EPA believes this discrepancy
between the 1988 and current numbers of facilities is due to the fact
that repackaging into refillable containers was still a growing market,
particularly in 1988. In addition, some industry representatives
indicated that because it was so early in the creation of this market,
many of the refilling establishments were unaware that their new
service of repackaging pesticide products required them to be
registered establishments and to report their annual production to the
Agency. Thus, it is possible that many refilling establishments were
not included in the population from which our sample was drawn.
B. Source Reduction Review Project
Section 6604 of the PPA directs the Administrator to set up an
office for the purpose, among other things, of reviewing for the EPA
Administrator the impact that Agency regulations would have on source
reduction. See PPA section 6604, 42 U.S.C. 13103; S. Rep. No. 526,
101st Congress, 2nd session at 2 (1990). This office is to ``consider''
the effect of Agency programs on source reduction efforts and to
``review'' EPA's regulations prior and subsequent to their proposal to
determine their effect on source reduction.
The Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP) is a pilot program of
the U.S. EPA to demonstrate the value and feasibility of taking a
source reduction approach in designing environmental regulations. The
project's goal is to ensure that source reduction measures and cross-
media implications of rules are fully considered during development of
regulations. To the extent practicable and consistent with existing
law, and considering cost-effectiveness as appropriate, the Agency will
emphasize source reduction as the basis of its rules. Where source
reduction cannot be implemented, the Agency will consider recycling,
then treatment and if necessary disposal technologies and practices as
the basis of its rules. Even in cases where EPA cannot base its rule on
source reduction practices, the Agency may encourage the regulated
community to consider using innovative source reduction measures to
comply with rules by providing information and economic incentives. To
investigate opportunities for source reduction, EPA will consider
source reduction in every phase of rule development: data collection,
site visits, bench-scale technology testing, economic and technical
analysis, multi-media impacts and agency and public reporting.
The PFPR effluent guidelines regulation was one of approximately 25
rules chosen for this pilot effort. Since initial data collection for
this rule preceded the PPA, the Agency did not directly ask questions
about source reduction in the industry survey. In every phase since the
survey, however, the Agency has considered and evaluated opportunities
for source reduction. In addition, the Agency has tried to coordinate
this rule with efforts of the Office of Solid Waste in developing a
hazardous waste listing for carbamates, a family of pesticide active
ingredients.
As will be described in greater detail in Section VII of today's
notice, Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics, wastewater is
generated by pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities
in relatively small volumes and on an intermittent basis. Furthermore,
the source of virtually all wastewater is from cleaning something that
has been in contact with the pesticide product. These characteristics
afford considerable opportunities for pollution prevention and water
conservation. As described in section VII of this preamble, EPA has
studied and observed a number of pollution-preventing and/or wastewater
conserving practices at a wide range of pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities. Because of the pollution
prevention opportunities demonstrated by this industry, the Agency has
included this rule in the SRRP. Some of the research on wastewater
treatment described in the next section focuses on wastewater treatment
that also allows for product recovery. This research was funded through
the inclusion of this rule in the SRRP.
The SRRP designation for the PFPR effluent guidelines has prompted
EPA to look more closely at what some of the likely outcomes would be
of applying the identified candidate BAT technologies. For example, the
Agency has looked beyond the usual estimation of the cost expected to
be incurred by the industry to comply with this rule and the pollutants
expected to be removed from the wastewater stream. EPA also has
estimated the savings that might be realized due to the water
conservation and product recovery practices that are part of the best
available technology (See section XIV, Economic Considerations). EPA is
also attempting to track the destinations of all wastes from the
formulating, packaging or repackaging industry. Particular focus is, of
course, placed on the wastewater, because it is the waste source for
which there is the most data. EPA has attempted to anticipate the
ultimate destination of wastewater pollutants to consider whether the
proposed regulatory approach, and the expected action taken by the
industry in response to the regulatory approach, will truly result in
net environmental benefit or will merely result in transfer of
pollutants to another medium. This will be discussed in more detail in
Section XVI, Non-Water Quality Considerations. EPA believes that both
of the SRRP-related studies (evaluating the savings and the pollutant
destinations) will help to expand EPA's knowledge of sources of waste
and opportunities for real pollution prevention and savings. This
effort also points out data gaps that EPA may be able to fill during
future data collection efforts. Such information could improve EPA's
ability to carry out its mission to identify and control the more
significant environmental problems.
EPA believes that source reduction and application of the Pollution
Prevention Act's environmental management hierarchy is achieved in
today's proposed rulemaking through the proposal's recognition of the
following:
At Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
Facilities:
--Source reduction is accomplished by rinsing raw material
containers and adding the rinsate directly into the product as it is
formulated.
--Recycle and reuse can be applied to other interior wastewater
streams that are held until they can be added to product when it is
next formulated.
--Treat and recycle can apply to other wastewater sources.
At Refilling Establishments:
--Source reduction can be accomplished by putting bulk tank storage
areas and loading pads under roof, thus avoiding the creation of
contaminated precipitation.
--Recycle and reuse can apply to minibulk and other equipment
rinsates in an application mixture.
EPA recognizes that source reduction in the context of pesticide
use generally has other important components. These include improving
efficiency in pesticide production and formulating processes, improving
application efficiencies, encouraging integrated pest management and
low input sustainable agricultural practices, and encouraging the use
of safer pesticides when pesticides are necessary. Currently, the
Agency is pursuing efforts in these other areas, such as the pesticide
containers and containment standards proposed rule, which is intended
to reduce the numbers of pesticide containers needing disposal by
setting standards and guidelines for the use of refillable containers.
V. Data Gathering Efforts
A. Technical Data
The technical data gathering efforts for this rulemaking involved
several activities which are summarized in this section and in the
technical Development Document for today's proposed rule. In general,
EPA's data gathering efforts were conducted by six principal means: (1)
Reviewing existing information from past rulemaking records and other
Agency files pertaining to the pesticide chemicals formulating and
packaging industry; (2) obtaining new information through a
questionnaire sent to a stratified random sample of the industry; (3)
conducting numerous site visits to observe pollution prevent practices;
(4) implementing a wastewater sampling and analysis program; (5)
implementing bench-scale treatability studies; and (6) transferring
data from the pesticide manufacturing subcategories and other sources.
These are described further below:
1. Existing Databases
A pesticide, as defined by the FIFRA, includes ``any substance or
mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling,
or mitigating any pest, and any substance or mixture of substances
intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant'' (40
CFR 152.3(s)). Under FIFRA, all pesticides must be registered with EPA
prior to shipment, delivery, or sale in the United States. A pesticide
product is a formulated product; that is, it is a mixture of at least
one ``active ingredient'' and ``inert'' diluents. Each formulation has
a distinct registration.
Mandatory reporting of yearly pesticide production is required by
FIFRA as part of the pesticide registration process. Pesticide
producing establishments, including formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities, are required to provide information to EPA on
registered pesticide products, such as product registration numbers,
product classification, type and use, and production rates. These data
are submitted as part of the ``Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing
Establishments'' (EPA Form 3540-16) and are stored in the FIFRA and
TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Enforcement System (FATES) data
base. (The FATES data base has been renamed the Section Seven Tracking
System (SSTS).) Accessing the FATES data base gave the population data
from which the stratified random sample of formulating, packaging and
repackaging facilities were drawn. The databases for more recent years
(1989 through 1991) were also accessed to identify any changes in the
make-up of the industry and to evaluate the applicability of this
regulation, as will be discussed in more detail later in this preamble.
For the survey of pesticide chemicals formulating, packaging or
repackaging industry, the Agency focused on the 272 active ingredients
or classes of active ingredients that were the basis of the census for
the pesticide manufacturing facilities. In 1988, EPA decided to
separate the pesticide manufacturing rulemaking, which at that time was
well underway, from the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
rulemaking. However, as the subcategories are all included in the same
point source category and were initially intended to be developed
concurrently, EPA continued to use the same list of 272 active
ingredients that formed the basis for the pesticide manufacturing data
base for the pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging
subcategories. (For the final rule covering organic pesticide chemical
manufacturing, three of the active ingredients were dropped from
coverage: biphenyl since it was no longer a registered pesticide active
ingredient and ortho- and para-dichlorobenzene whose manufacture is
covered by another effluent guidelines regulation.)
The initial basis of this list was the 284 active ingredients and
classes of active ingredients presented in Appendix 2 of the October 4,
1985 regulation (50 FR 40672). These 284 active ingredients were
originally selected in 1977 on the basis of significant production and/
or commercial use. EPA then expanded this list to 835 active
ingredients by adding the following group of active ingredients:
All salts and esters of listed organic acids (such as 2,4-
D);
All metallo-organic active ingredients (consisting of an
organic portion bonded to arsenic, cadmium, copper, or mercury);
All organo-tin active ingredients;
All active ingredients that appeared to be structurally
similar to other listed active ingredients (such as organo-phosphorus
pesticides); and
Any other active ingredients with an analytical method
previously demonstrated to be applicable to wastewater.
EPA excluded from this list of 835 active ingredients those active
ingredients already subject to regulation under other effluent
guidelines--specifically, those for which the manufacturing is
regulated by the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
(OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414), Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR
part 415), and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (40 CFR part 439) effluent
guidelines. Information provided to EPA under FIFRA indicated that 335
of those 835 active ingredients were produced in 1984-1985, and the
other 500 were not produced for domestic use in either 1984 or 1985. An
additional 15 (of the 835) were added to the 335 active ingredients
because those 15 active ingredients had been manufactured prior to 1984
and might still be manufactured for export. The list of 350 active
ingredients and derivatives, such as salts and esters of an active
ingredient, was consolidated into an active ingredient class, to arrive
at a total of 272 active ingredients and classes of active ingredients.
Because the consolidated classes include all elements of the class,
such as all salts and esters of 2,4-D (i.e., not just those in use in
1986), the 272 active ingredients and classes of active ingredients
actually include 606 of the 835 specific active ingredients. This list
of active ingredients was used as a basis for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the pesticide chemicals manufacturing
subcategories (58 FR 50367).
2. Survey Questionnaire
A major source of information and data used in developing effluent
limitations guidelines and standards is industry responses to
questionnaires distributed by EPA under the authority of section 308 of
the Clean Water Act. These questionnaires typically request information
concerning the generation of wastewater and pollutants as part of
production processes, treatment, and disposal, as well as wastewater
treatment system performance data. Questionnaires also request
financial and economic data for use in assessing economic impacts and
the economic achievability of technology options. In 1988 EPA submitted
a draft questionnaire to pesticide industry trade associations,
environmental public interest groups and a number of pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities for review and
comment. EPA subsequently revised the draft questionnaire and in 1989
distributed it to nine facilities for a pretest. Further revisions were
made to the form following the pretest, and it was then submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget for review pursuant to the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB cleared the
questionnaire on January 30, 1990 (OMB control number 2040-0139).
FATES data files were accessed to obtain information on product
registrations containing one or more of the 272 targeted PAIs. This
dataset was used to define a sampling frame of 3,241 facilities
identified in the 1988 Fates database as formulators, packagers, or
repackagers of these PAIs. The sampling frame was partitioned into 51
strata. The stratification was done according to pesticide production
amount (large, medium, small, and tiny) and pesticide type (fungicide,
herbicide, insecticide, and other and combinations of these types for
facilities that formulate and/or package more than one type). A total
of 611 facilities was selected randomly from the sampling frame to
comprise the questionnaire survey sample. The survey was also
distributed to a census of 91 pesticide manufacturers that also
formulate, package or repackage pesticides which were identified from
the ``Pesticide Manufacturing Facility Census for 1986''. Two of the
611 sampled facilities and two of the 91 manufacturers were sampled
twice and received duplicate surveys so the actual number of facilities
sent surveys was 609 sampled facilities and 89 manufacturers for a
total of 698 surveyed facilities. EPA received responses from 676 (587
randomly sampled facilities and 89 manufacturers) of the 698 facilities
that received the questionnaire (a 97 percent response rate).
Of the 676 facilities that responded to the survey, 349 indicated
that they were formulating, packaging or repackaging pesticide products
in 1988 and 203 were refilling establishments. One hundred nineteen
(119) facilities did not formulate and package pesticide products in
1988. Of the remaining 5 facilities that were sent questionnaires, 3
had gone out of business, one was released from completing a
questionnaire and one sampled facility merged with a second sampled
facility. A small number of facilities (22) did not submit
questionnaires. EPA believes most of these facilities are refilling
establishments by virtue of their stratum, the company name and their
locations. Since the survey had drawn significant numbers of refilling
establishments, EPA did not further pursue these questionnaires. Based
on the responses to the surveys from the randomly sampled facilities
and the census of manufacturers, quantitative estimates of pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging activities were computed for the
entire U.S. population of such facilities.
EPA also received questionnaires from six facilities that were not
selected in the random sample part of the census of manufacturers.
Three of these facilities had participated in a pretest of the
questionnaire but were not chosen in the sample. The remaining three
were facilities that asked if they might submit voluntary surveys. The
responses to these questionnaires were reviewed but for statistical
reasons were omitted from any further analysis for the purpose of
national population estimates.
The questionnaire was divided into four sections. An introductory
section asked for information on the facility as a whole and whether it
was involved in formulating, packaging or repackaging any of the 272
active ingredients in 1988. If the facility did not formulate, package
or repackage pesticide products containing any of the 272 active
ingredients then no further information was required. If the facility
did formulate, package or repackage pesticide products containing the
272 active ingredients in 1988, then questions were asked regarding
water use. If the facility used no water in their process and thus, the
response to all water use questions were negative, then a minimal of
additional financial information was requested and no further
information was required. Facilities were also excused from responding
to the other sections of the questionnaire if 1988 was the last year
that they formulated, packaged or repackaged pesticide products
containing the 272 active ingredients.
The remaining sections were as follows: (1) A technical section
which requested details on production and water use practices, volumes,
and disposition, and wastewater treatment and characteristics; (2) an
economic section that asked for detailed information on assets, debts,
costs and revenues on the facility level as well as firm level data;
and (3) the last section of the questionnaire that requested the names
of contacts should EPA need to follow-up on the data provided and that
requested a certification that the information was accurate.
EPA also requested that pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities submit wastewater self-monitoring data. Fifty
facilities submitted some form of self-monitoring data. Six facilities
submitted data only for conventional pollutants, while ten of the 50
facilities submitted priority pollutant and/or nonconventional
pollutant data (including the active ingredients). However, most of
these data were not useful in characterizing pesticide process
wastewaters. In many cases, only one detection was reported for a
specific pollutant, or the sampling locations represented commingled
wastewaters containing pollutant discharges from other industrial
processes, such as pesticide manufacturing, organic chemical
manufacturing or formulating, packaging or repackaging other products
including pesticide products containing active ingredients not included
in the list of 272 active ingredients. Often the data represented
sampling results only at the end-of-pipe plant discharge. Self-
monitoring data from only 10 facilities included priority pollutant
discharges in raw pesticide process wastewaters.
The questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of U.S.
pesticide formulating and packaging facilities with stratification done
according to pesticide production amount (large, medium, small, and
tiny) and pesticide type (fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, other and
combinations of these types for facilities that formulate and/or
package more than one type). The survey was also distributed to a
census of pesticide manufacturers that also formulate, package or
repackage pesticides. Based on sample results from the survey,
quantitative estimates of pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging activities were computed for the entire U.S. population of
such facilities. The results of these computations will be referred to
as national stratified estimates. The national stratified estimates
generated, include point estimates of totals, means (i.e., averages)
and medians (i.e., the point at which an equal number of responses are
above and below the value) and their associated standard errors.
In the 1988 survey, the facilities were originally classified into
strata based on each facility's projected 1989 pesticide product type
and 1989 projected production volume, and not based on actual reported
1988 product types and production volume, as intended. As such, the
sample facilities were selected at random from strata based on 1989
projected production characteristics when the ultimate goal was to
report production characteristics for strata based on 1988 production
levels and product types. In statistical terms, some of the facilities
classified using the original scheme were misclassified under the
derived scheme for stratification based on 1988 production only (e.g.,
a facility classified as ``large'' based on its estimated 1989
production level might instead be classified as ``medium'' when the
1988 production level is used). Because of instances of
misclassification the sample had to be post-stratified into correct
1988 based strata. Also, the typical formulas used to generate national
estimates of totals and standard errors of these totals are not wholly
correct. Instead alternate formulas have been used based on methods for
estimating totals on subpopulations as described in Sampling
Techniques, 3rd Edition by Cochran (1977, p. 143-144).
In general, misclassification of members in the final strata can
impact the estimated standard error. Most often, a larger variance will
be estimated than what would be obtained using the typical formulas for
stratified random samples. However, for the pesticides survey data, the
degree of misclassification is small enough that a large change in the
estimated standard errors was not expected. To test this expectation,
one would ideally rechoose sample facilities based on the actual 1988
production-levels and product type and re-estimate standard errors
using the typical formulas for a stratified random sample with no
misclassification. Since that is not feasible, a reasonable comparison
can still be made by examining the standard errors obtained by applying
the usual formulas to the original stratification scheme based on 1989
projected production levels. Because the same algorithm would be used
for selecting the number of facilities within each stratum, regardless
of the stratification scheme employed, it can be assumed that the
estimated standard errors from the original stratification will be
representative of the results that would have been computed had the
actual 1988 production characteristics been used to stratify the target
population initially.
Comparison of the estimates for selected survey questions,
including the distribution of facility revenues and the distribution of
facilities ownership and operation type, indicates that, as expected,
the estimated standard errors on the national totals are generally
larger after using Cochran's formulas to account for the
misclassification than those computed assuming no misclassification.
The magnitude of the differences was quite small (usually no more than
one or two percent) for the standard errors on the overall totals, but
was in a few cases 20 percent or more for very small strata.
Though restratification of the survey facilities often increases
the estimated standard errors, the national totals themselves will be
exactly the same mathematically, as long as the same set of facilities
is used to compute the estimates. In the PFPR project, a small number
of the facilities which were included in the sample because of
projected 1989 production figures did not have any actual production in
1988. These facilities were therefore not a part of the targeted
facility universe and so were excluded from the restratified
calculations. Even so, the overall national totals showed very minor
changes (on the order of at most four to five percent) when the
restratified estimates were compared with totals based on the original
stratification.
As noted above, a number of facilities sent questionnaires and
included in the original sample did not respond to the survey and hence
were missing from the database. If these facilities had been known to
be actual PFPR operations, it might have been possible to impute data
for the survey items of interest. However, since many facilities in the
sample indicated that they were not PFPR operations, it is possible
that at least some of the non-respondents were also not PFPR
operations, and hence not part of the target population. In this case
imputations for these facilities would have little meaning. Those
facilities that did not respond to the questionnaire were therefore
omitted from any further statistical analysis.
Because some facilities failed to answer all the survey questions,
data were imputed for missing responses. The amount of missing data was
negligible in most instances. The only case where a significant amount
of data was imputed involved wastewater volumes and production-
normalized wastewater volumes, which were reported on a line-by-line
basis for each combination of wastewater source and destination.
Approximately 10% of the volume and/or production-normalized volume
entries were missing and subsequently imputed.
The imputation strategy utilized provides an unbiased estimate of
the total for any given variable, when used in conjunction with the
formulae described above for national stratified estimates in the
context of misclassified strata.
3. Site Visits
In order to develop effluent guidelines for this industry, EPA
conducted site visits and sampling at a number of pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities, and at pesticide
manufacturing facilities which also are used as formulating and
packaging facilities. Typically, during guidelines development, EPA
depends on a wastewater sampling program to characterize the raw
wastewater and to establish which treatment systems operate at BAT and
NSPS levels. In the case of the pesticide formulating, packaging and
repackaging industry, EPA could not conduct a sampling program as
extensive as had been conducted for some of the previous effluent
guidelines rulemakings. This is because: (1) Only 12 facilities
surveyed reported operating on-site treatment systems that treated only
PFP water (out of those 12 facilities one was a voluntary participant;
not part of the sample); (2) facility operating schedules are very
unpredictable due to the batch nature of their operations and just-in-
time production philosophy; and (3) due to the batch nature of the
formulating and packaging processes, treatment is almost always
operated on a batch basis making it very difficult to characterize
long-term treatment performance (long-term even for a 3-day period).
Therefore, EPA had to implement a more widespread and in-depth site
visiting program than usual. Between 1991 and 1993, EPA visited 51
facilities (2 of these facilities are not survey or pretested
facilities and, therefore, did not fill out a questionnaire) and
collected wastewater samples from 13 facilities (one facility was
sampled during two different production periods for a total of 14
sampling episodes). The site visits were conducted to provide EPA with
an in-depth look at actual formulating, packaging or repackaging
operations and wastewater generation and wastewater handling practices.
4. Wastewater Sampling and Analytical Programs
Seven of the 14 pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
sampling episodes included sampling of wastewater treatment systems and
all 14 included sampling for raw wastewater characterization.
Raw wastewater characterization data were collected to provide EPA
with concentration data for pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging wastewaters for a number of different wastewater sources.
EPA collected 72 raw wastewater samples which contained 45 different
active ingredients at 14 different episodes. Wastewater samples were
collected for the following wastewater sources: equipment interior
cleaning, exterior equipment/floor wash, air or odor control scrubber
water, DOT aerosol test bath, drum or other raw material container
rinsate, laboratory equipment cleaning water, laundry and showers. A
number of these samples were collected to characterize wastewater that
was intended for reuse (the concentration of active ingredients in
these samples is expected to be high). Samples of commingled raw
wastewater sources were also collected. Raw wastewater samples are
typically analyzed for levels of conventional pollutants, non-
conventional pollutants (including active ingredients), metals, semi-
volatile and volatile organics.
Facilities were selected for sampling of treatment systems after an
evaluation of existing data and responses to the questionnaires and
follow-up telephone conversations. Facilities were selected for
sampling if: (1) The facilities were operating an apparently effective
wastewater treatment system (especially if the water treated was
intended for reuse); (2) the treatment system was used to treat
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging wastewater only; (3)
the treatment system was similar to a system EPA was evaluating in a
treatability study (the facility treatment system could then be used as
a benchmark); (4) the expected active ingredients could be analyzed
using developed analytical methods; and/or (5) the facility was
treating wastewater that contained active ingredients (or structural
groups) for which data was lacking.
As mentioned above, sampling of wastewater treatment systems
occurred for 7 of the 14 sampling episodes. The treatment technologies
that were sampled to test treatment performance include: Activated
carbon adsorption, membrane filtration (ultrafiltration and cross-flow
filtration), ozonation, clarification and biological oxidation. EPA
analyzed the levels of pollutants in the raw and effluent streams and
the overall performance of the treatment systems.
Whenever possible, prior to a sampling episode at a pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facility, representatives from
the Agency conducted an engineering site visit. Following the visit, a
draft sampling plan was prepared which provided the rationale for the
selection of sampling location as well as the procedures to be followed
during sampling. A copy of this draft plan was provided to the plant
for comments.
During the sampling episode, teams of EPA engineers and EPA
contractor engineers and technicians collected and preserved samples
and shipped them to EPA contract laboratories for analysis. Levels of
conventional pollutants, non-conventional pollutants (including the
pesticide active ingredients), and priority pollutants were measured in
raw wastewater and treated effluent. EPA always offered to split the
samples with the facility so that the facility could have an
independent analysis of pollutant concentrations made. When facilities
chose to split samples with EPA, either the facility accepted the split
samples provided by the EPA or plant personnel independently collected
wastewater from the EPA sampling sites. Following the sampling episode,
a draft trip report was prepared that included descriptions of the
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging operations and
treatment processes, sampling procedures, analytical results, quality
assurance/quality control evaluation, and discussion of the raw
wastewater composition and treatment system performance. The report was
provided to the sampled facility for review and comment, and any
corrections were incorporated into the report. The facilities also
identified any information in the draft report that the facility
considered confidential business information.
5. EPA Bench-Scale Treatability Studies
EPA performed several treatability tests with various treatment
technologies on various pesticide active ingredient pollutants and also
a variety of pesticide manufacturing and formulating, packaging, and
repackaging process wastewaters. The purpose of these studies was to
expand the treatability information available on various active
ingredients to verify given technologies' effectiveness on pesticide
formulating, packaging, and repackaging wastewater matrices and to
evaluate the ability of some technologies to allow for recovery of
product. In addition, EPA is relying in this rulemaking on various
treatability studies done in conjunction with the development of the
recent pesticide manufacturers rulemaking. EPA also studied the
performance of a treatment system that will be referred to as the
``Universal Treatment System'' for pesticide formulating, packaging,
and repackaging wastewater (described below), and studied the
performance of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis separately due to
their use in recovering wastes. EPA also performed a treatability study
on the pyrethrin active ingredients, testing both hydrolysis rates and
carbon isotherms.
The Universal Treatment System treatability study was done because
EPA had no performance data on this complete system of control
technologies for treating pesticide active ingredients. Although EPA
has considerable data from the pesticide manufacturing rulemaking to
demonstrate that the individual treatment technologies are effective at
removing specific active ingredients from wastewater, the pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging wastewater may have a more
complex matrix (as compared to manufacturing wastewater) because of
emulsifiers and surfactants and thus these individual treatments might
not be as effective absent pretreatment to remove the emulsifiers/
surfactants. There are some pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities that do pretreat their wastewater to remove
surfactants and emulsifiers prior to treatment by activated carbon.
However, these facilities may not be using the most effective physical/
chemical technology for removing the active ingredient in their
wastewaters.
Bench-scale test results using a wastewater generated by a facility
which formulates and packages products containing Bromacil,
Tebuthiuron, Diuron, Terbufos and Benthiocarb indicate that the
concentrations of these active ingredients can be reduced to levels
below the analytical limit of detection. The technologies tested on
this wastewater were chemical assisted separation (emulsion breaking),
ozone/ultraviolet light oxidation and activated carbon adsorption. The
emulsion breaking step removed turbidity, a major portion of the oil
and grease and some total organic carbon (TOC). The rate of oxidation
of the active ingredients appears to be a function of the concentration
of other oxidizable organics contained in the wastewater. In this case,
oxidation converted a portion of the soluble organics into insoluble
precipitates, thus requiring a second clarification step prior to
activated carbon treatment. Carbon isotherm and carbon adsorption
column tests indicate that oxidation generates short chained organic
acids and alcohols which are poorly adsorbed on carbon, resulting in a
large TOC concentration in the effluent.
The second facility generated cleaning wastewater which contained
an alkali soap and followed a cleaning with isopropyl alcohol. The
active ingredients present in the wastewater included Piperonyl
Butoxide, Propoxur, Allethrin, Tetramethrin and Permethrin. The study
indicates that emulsion breaking using ferric chloride and a
polyelectrolyte removes the majority of Allethrin, Permethrin, oil and
grease and turbidity. This would indicate that the Allethrin and
Permethrin are more soluble in the organic or oil fraction and thus are
removed in conjunction with the removal of the oil and grease or
organic fraction. Alkaline hydrolysis at pH 12 and 60 deg.C followed
by carbon adsorption decreased the concentrations of Allethrin and
Permethrin to below the analytical limit of detection. Carbon
adsorption effluent contained approximately 800 mg/L of TOC of which
nearly 60 percent was derived from isopropyl alcohol.
EPA also conducted a study of ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse
osmosis (RO) membrane separations technologies. This study tested the
effectiveness of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis to obtain a clean,
reusable water stream and to generate a concentrate that could be
recovered for its product value. Membrane separation processes utilize
a pressure driven, semi-permeable membrane to achieve selective
separations. The pore size of the membrane can be relatively large if
precipitates or suspended materials are to be removed from a
wastewater, or very small for removal of inorganic salts or organic
molecules. During operation, the feed solution flows across the surface
of the membrane. Water permeates the membrane, and the contaminants
remain in the now more concentrated feed solution.
An earlier study had shown that reverse osmosis treatment alone was
not effective for formulating and packaging wastewater. This was
attributed to the presence of emulsifiers and surfactants that are
formulation components that subsequently contaminated the wastewater.
The surfactants or emulsifiers with a somewhat higher molecular weight
than the other components were not only retained by the RO membrane,
but also caused fouling and gumming of the membrane, which reduced its
effectiveness. Therefore, the EPA studied a treatment train consisting
of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. The ultrafiltration was added
to remove larger molecular constituents such as the emulsifiers and
surfactants from the wastewater. A major advantage of the process is
that not only can a high quality product water stream (permeate) be
produced, the membrane-rejected material can potentially be recycled
back into the formulating and packaging process, substantially reducing
the amount of material requiring disposal. The concentrates from both
the UF and the RO units were evaluated for recoverability.
Bench-scale tests using wastewaters from two PFPR facilities were
tested using UF followed by RO. Also, jar tests were performed to
evaluate alternative physical/chemical methods of pretreating the
wastewater before RO treatment.
Two separate systems were used for the ultrafiltration and reverse
osmosis tests. The bench-scale systems were designed to use
commercially available ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis equipment,
while keeping the size of the systems as small as possible. This design
approach was selected to provide results representative of a full-scale
system, while minimizing the amount of wastewater which had to be
collected, shipped, and ultimately disposed.
The results of the UF/RO study show this treatment sequence was
effective in removing the nine active ingredients present in the
wastewaters taken from the two PFPR facilities. Ultrafiltration
pretreatment prevented rapid fouling of the RO membrane. For all but
one of nine active ingredients (2, 4-D, Dicamba, MCPP, Prometon,
Bromacil, Benthiocarb, Diuron, Terbufos, and Tebuthiuron) better than
99% removal was accomplished by the treatment sequence. Data for
Bromacil indicate it was reduced by 89.3%; however, this percent
removal may misrepresent the treatment performance because there is
some indication the measurement of Bromacil in the untreated wastewater
was affected by analytical interference and thus could have been
present at a higher concentration that was measured. The UF/RO
treatment sequence appears to be a very effective alternative to the
Universal Treatment System, at least for high molecular weight active
ingredients, to achieve a treated water that can be reused in the
facility. It is less clear whether the concentrated waste created by
either of these treatment steps can be recovered for its product value.
The samples taken from the concentrate fraction show high
concentrations of the active ingredients, however, there are also high
concentrations of sodium, calcium and total dissolved solids which
could prevent the recoverability of these wastes.
A third treatability study was performed to support rulemaking for
both the PFPR and pesticide manufacturing. This study examined
wastewater containing pyrethrins to determine their treatability by
hydrolysis and activated carbon. Wastewater collected from a pyrethrin
manufacturer was tested under varying hydrolysis conditions of
temperature and pH. Carbon isotherms were also developed for this
wastewater.
The combined pyrethrins concentration in the untreated wastewater
was initially 110 mg/L. Hydrolysis tests performed at 60 deg.C and pH
values of 2 and 12 were used to determine the hydrolysis rates (half-
life values) of the pyrethrins. Pyrethrins hydrolyzed rapidly at pH 12,
exhibiting a half-life of 1.2 hours. Pyrethrins hydrolyses at pH 2 were
much slower, with a calculated half-life of 77 hours.
Six carbon dosages were also tested to determine adsorption
characteristics of pyrethrins. At a 10 gallon per minute flow rate, the
carbon column would have a service life of 11.4 days for combined
pyrethrins at 110 mg/L initial concentration indicating that pyrethrins
are adsorbed.
6. Data Transfers From Pesticide Manufacturing Subcategories and Other
Sources
The Agency has developed an active ingredient treatability dataset,
based on full-scale treatment system data, treatability study
information, and data transfers, that show that all of the 272 active
ingredients included in the survey are amenable to one or more of the
treatment technologies that are included in the Universal Treatment
System, which EPA is identifying as BAT for purposes of today's
proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources (see PSES
discussion below).
EPA transferred the treatability data from the following sources,
listed in order of preference.
(1) Pesticides manufacturing active ingredient or active ingredient
group BAT limitations development data. The data are transferred from
the manufacturing data base to support BAT limitations if the treatment
is based on activated carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation,
hydrolysis, a combination of these technologies, or precipitation of
organo-metallic active ingredients or active ingredient groups.
(2) EPA bench-scale treatability study reports.
(3) EPA sampling episode reports.
(4) Industry treatability study reports, literature articles, and
other data sources.
For some active ingredients, a different treatment technology, such
as resin adsorption or solvent extraction, may have served as the basis
for manufacturers' limitation because it was in use at a given facility
and judged to represent BAT performance based on monitoring data. In
some cases, a PFPR facility may want to use these types of
technologies, rather than the Universal Treatment System, if the
facility is only handling an active ingredient that requires that
technology. The wastewater matrix at PFPR facilities, however, may be
more complex than the manufacturer's wastewater containing the same
active ingredient because of emulsifiers and surfactants, and the
treatment technology identified as Best Available Technology for the
manufacturers' limitation may not be capable of achieving the removal
levels specified in the manufacturers rule without substantial
pretreatment. In addition, for most PFPR facilities, the commingled
wastewater will contain multiple active ingredients, all of which will
be amenable to the more common treatment technologies comprising the
Universal Treatment System. Furthermore, a treatment system relying on
a technology such as solvent extraction to remove an active ingredient
would still require activated carbon polishing to adsorb other
wastewater constituents, including residual extraction solvent, before
the treated wastewater could be reused. Rather than attempting to
integrate these other technologies of resin adsorption, solvent
extraction or others into a centralized wastewater treatment scheme,
EPA believes that the Universal Treatment System offers a more
consistent, simplistic, and cost-effective design and thus constitutes
BAT treatment at PFPR facilities (together with recycle/reuse of the
treated wastewaters, as described below). The technologies included in
the Universal Treatment System, together with pretreatment for
emulsifiers/surfactants where needed, are capable of removing all toxic
pollutants that may be in PFP wastewaters to levels that will allow
recycle or reuse of the wastewaters at the facility. Thus, these BAT
technologies support the zero discharge requirements proposed in
today's notice.
As stated above, EPA developed a treatability dataset for the 272
active ingredients in order to ensure that the Universal Treatment
System technologies will be effective in providing treated effluent
suitable for reuse. EPA evaluated full-scale and bench-scale
treatability data available for the 272 active ingredients, including
those where a different technology basis was used to support the
manufacturers' limitation. The Agency also developed technical
treatability data transfer methodologies for the transfer of activated
carbon adsorption and hydrolysis treatability data between
structurally-similar active ingredients.
Transfers of treatability data are based on an analysis of
properties of active ingredients and active ingredient groups, such as
chemical structure, molecular weight, aromaticity, and solubility. If,
based on this analysis, an active ingredient is considered amenable to
hydrolysis or carbon adsorption but lacks treatability data, then
treatability data are transferred to this active ingredient from a
structurally-similar active ingredients with either hydrolysis or
carbon adsorption treatability data. If multiple treatability data
exist for structurally-similar active ingredients, then the most
conservative data are transferred. If no data exist for structurally-
similar active ingredients, and if the active ingredient is expected to
be amenable to hydrolysis or carbon adsorption based on its structure,
solubility, or molecular weight, then conservative treatability data,
determined from all active ingredients with hydrolysis or carbon
adsorption treatability data, are transferred to the active ingredient.
In determining the efficacy of the treatment technologies in the
Universal Treatment System to the active ingredients in PFPR facility
wastewater, EPA also factored in the need for pretreatment steps. PFPR
facility wastewater may contain emulsifiers, surfactants, solids,
organic constituents in addition to the active ingredients, and other
pollutants that may interfere with active ingredient removals across
the treatment technologies. The Agency examined existing PFPR facility
treatment systems and vendor-supplied treatment systems designed to be
applicable at all PFPR facilities. The Agency's identification of Best
Available Technology includes the Universal Treatment System treatment
technologies including emulsion breaking, oil layer removal and off-
site disposal as a hazardous waste, solids separation and removal, and
removal of any remaining large particles by in-line strainers prior to
activated carbon adsorption.
Final effluent from the Universal Treatment System is expected to
be suitable for reuse, e.g., as general pesticide production area
cleanup water. Based on the active ingredient treatability dataset and
information from PFPR facilities that treat and reuse pesticide process
wastewater, the Agency believes that the identified of Best Available
Technology is applicable to all PFPR Subcategory C facilities.
VI. Industry Subcategorization
A. Prior Subcategorization Scheme
EPA divided the pesticide chemicals point source category into
three subcategories in the 1978 BPT rulemaking. These three
subcategories are the organic pesticide chemicals subcategory, which
applies to the manufacture of organic pesticide active ingredients; the
metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategory, which applies to the
manufacture of metallo-organic pesticide active ingredients; and the
pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging subcategory which applies
to the formulating and packaging of all pesticide products. In
addition, the regulations include Test Methods for Pesticide Pollutants
at 40 CFR part 455, subpart D (58 FR 50637, September 28, 1993).
B. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme
In today's proposal EPA does not address the organic pesticide
chemicals and metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategories because
they were the subject of the recent rulemaking covering pesticide
manufacturing (58 FR 50637). Today's notice proposes to retain the
pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging subcategory (subpart C)
and to create a new subcategory: repackaging performed at refilling
establishments (subpart E).
EPA considered the factors that can most affect the decisions on
subcategorization:
product type;
raw materials;
type of operations performed;
nature of waste generated;
dominant product;
plant size;
plant age;
plant location;
non-water quality characteristics; and
treatment costs and energy requirements.
EPA has surveyed and visited facilities with a variety of product
types and has not seen evidence of differences in water use based on
product type. Therefore, EPA does not consider this factor to be a
basis on which to subcategorize.
The raw material of refilling establishments is the registered
pesticide product, which is simply transferred from one refillable
container (a stationary bulk tank) to another refillable container (a
minibulk tank). The raw materials for the formulating, packaging and
repackaging facilities are active ingredients and inert ingredients
which take all physical forms and require formulating and packaging to
result in the registered product. Thus, raw materials are a
contributing factor in subcategorizing this industry. In addition, the
type of operation performed at refilling establishments, repackaging
only, is considerably different from the operations performed at
formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities. Thus, the type of
operation also contributes to the subcategorization of this industry.
There are no great differences in the sources from which wastewater
is generated, virtually all wastewater is derived from cleaning
equipment and surrounding areas. However, there are differences in the
volumes of wastewater generated by facilities. The median annual volume
of PFPR wastewater generated by manufacturing/PFPR facilities is
179,330 gallons, the median annual volume generated by PFPR only
facilities is 2,223 gallons and the median annual volume generated by
refilling establishments is 736 gallons. Although these differences are
substantial, they alone might not justify subcategorization. They do,
however, affect the costs of wastewater treatment.
PFPR facilities do not necessarily have a dominant product although
most serve one predominant market. EPA considered the effect that
market differences could have within the PFPR subcategory as described
in the next section. The refilling establishments are very homogeneous
in that they serve only one market, the agricultural market, and the
products they repackage are mostly liquid bulk herbicides. Thus, the
dominant product is a factor in subcategorizing this industry to the
extent that the refillers have a dominant product and the PFPR
facilities do not.
Climatic conditions which are related to location could have an
effect on water use and water conservation practices. At the time of
the industry survey, California was experiencing a severe drought. EPA
noticed that the lack of and cost of water in this part of the country
encouraged many innovative pollution prevention and reuse techniques at
those facilities. However, many of these same techniques have been
implemented in areas of net precipitation, thus the climatic conditions
related to geographic location are not a factor in subcategorizing.
There are some distinct differences in the location of facilities.
Whereas most refilling establishments are either in rural locations or
in small towns near agricultural areas, many of the PFPR facilities are
located in urban areas. In particular the PFPR facilities that serve
the industrial and institutional/commercial markets are located in
urban areas. The Agency is unsure whether this is due to the fact that
the type of business these facilities are engaged in and the markets
that they serve result in their urban location, thus providing them
with access to POTWs, or that all facilities that were more rural in
their location and also direct discharges either discontinued
production or relocated and switched to becoming dischargers to POTW's
in response to the BPT limitations requiring the elimination of
dischargers directly to receiving waters.
Treatment costs and best available wastewater treatment technology
are a significant factor in considering whether to subcategorize PFPR
facilities and refilling establishments. As described more fully in the
discussion of the regulatory approach, wastewaters generated at
refilling establishments are expected to be recycled/reused without
treatment. EPA has estimated the cost of holding the wastewater until
it can be recycled/reused. As previously mentioned, the refilling
establishments generate a median of 736 gallons annually. These
wastewaters are expected to be collected in the containment system and
loading areas, whereafter they can be pumped into and held in a tank or
container. The few refilling facilities that are estimated to discharge
wastewater were discharging a total estimate volume of 1500 gallons
annually to POTW's. This represents an average volume of approximately
78 gallons per facility which can be held in a single minibulk
container, which costs about $200-$300. The PFPR facilities (other than
refilling establishments) are also expected to be able to recycle/reuse
wastewaters, however some wastewater sources may require treatment
before they can be recycled.
EPA has estimated the costs for storage of wastewater and treatment
through the Universal Treatment System. The average estimated cost of
compliance for PFPR facilities is approximately $32,300 annually. Based
on this higher cost between the two basic types of facilities and the
different operations, separate economic analyses were conducted. These
analyses showed that refilling establishments and most types of PFPR
facilities can achieve the zero discharge limitations economically.
However, EPA's analysis of economic impacts for PFPR facilities
indicate that a small segment, sanitizer facilities, will incur much
greater costs and economic impacts from complying with the zero
discharge limitations than the other facilities would incur. The Agency
considered creating a separate subcategory for sanitizer facilities,
but sanitizer facilities are very similar to other PFPR facilities in
other respects. Since the data indicate that the economic impacts can
be reduced and the amount of discharge is small for indirect
discharging sanitizer facilities, EPA decided not to form a separate
subcategory but simply to provide separate pretreatment standards for
sanitizer facilities.
As described above, there are clear differences between refilling
establishments and PFPR facilities. They differ in the raw materials,
water use, location, wastewater treatment requirements and costs.
Therefore, EPA proposes to establish a separate subcategory that will
apply to refilling establishments. However, following review of
comments on this proposal, the final rule may incorporate the refilling
establishments into the PFPR subcategory, provided the limitations are
the same.
C. Proposed Subcategories
The following discussions of EPA's subcategories reflects the
analysis done with the survey data representing the formulating,
packaging and repackaging practices for the 272 active ingredients that
were the subject of that survey. EPA believes that the formulating,
packaging and repackaging practices for the rest of the active
ingredients will be the same as for the 272, however, the data
presented in the following discussion does not reflect their inclusion.
1. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
This subcategory applies to the formulating, packaging and
repackaging of pesticide chemicals. BPT regulations already exist for
this subcategory. EPA proposes to add the word ``repackaging'' to the
title and applicability provision of this subcategory, but these do not
represent changes to the applicability or coverage of this subcategory.
Repackaging is proposed to be defined as ``the direct transference of a
single pesticide active ingredient or single formulation from any
marketable container to another marketable container, without
intentionally mixing in any inerts, diluents, solvents, other active
ingredients, or other materials of any sort.'' The term ``packaging''
in the applicability provision of Subpart C was always intended to
cover repackaging as well as packaging operations. Facilities engaged
in repackaging pesticide products must comply with the same reporting
requirements under FIFRA as formulating and packaging facilities. In
addition, repackaging frequently generates wastewater sources similar
in nature to formulating and packaging activities. Thus, repackaging
activities are within the scope of Subcategory C.
To assist EPA with its evaluation of the PFPR facilities, EPA
divided the industry into subgroups. This analysis of subgroups was
also performed to evaluate whether there was a need to further
subcategorize the industry based on these subgroups. These subgroups
were developed primarily from the information in the questionnaires.
The subgroups were analyzed to determine if there are trends in
water usage, water discharge or disposal methods, and production
associated with particular markets or products. EPA identified
facilities within the subgroups that are currently achieving zero
discharge through recycle or reuse of wastewater and facilities that
are not achieving zero discharge. This information was used to
coordinate additional data gathering activities.
EPA created ten subgroups defined as:
Aerosol--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities that operated a Department of Transportation
(DOT) aerosol test bath in any formulating, packaging or repackaging
operation. These facilities are not included in any other group,
regardless of other activities at the facility or the markets
reported by the facility.
Agriculture--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities with at least 90 percent of 1988 pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the agriculture
market that did not fall into any other subgroup (this does not
include refilling establishments). This subgroup also includes
facilities identified as ``agriculture'' through a review of their
products handled in 1988 and their revenue markets.
Consumer Home Products--All pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities with 1988 pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging revenues from the consumer home, lawn and
garden market that handled products specifically aimed at the home
portion of the market (including household cleaners).
Consumer Lawn and Garden--All pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities with 1988 pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging revenues from the consumer home, lawn and
garden market that handled products specifically aimed at the lawn
and garden portion of the market.
Industrial--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities with at least 90 percent of 1988 pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the industrial
market that did not fall into any other subgroup.
Institutional--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities reporting at least 90 percent of 1988
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the
disinfectant or institutional market or facilities reporting at
least 50 percent of the facility's pesticide formulating, packaging
or repackaging production from products with a product type of
``disinfectant,'' ``sanitizer'' or ``sterilizer'' that did not fall
into any other subgroup. This subgroup also includes facilities
identified as ``institutional'' through a review of their products
handled and their revenue markets; however, it does not include
those facilities placed in the consumer home products subgroup.
Manufacturers--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities that also manufactured one or more active
ingredient in 1986. These facilities are not included in any other
group, regardless of other activities at the facility.
Organo-Metallic--All pesticide formulating, packaging
or repackaging facilities reporting at least 90 percent of 1988
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from wood
preservatives market or facilities reporting at least 50 percent of
the facility's pesticide formulating, packaging, or repackaging
production from handling products containing organo-metallic active
ingredients, including organo-copper, organo-mercury, or organo-tin
active ingredients that did not fall into any other subgroup.
Organo-Metallic/Industrial--Pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities that fall into both the organo-
metallic and the industrial subgroups.
Other--All pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities that do not fall into any of the above
categories. This subgroup does not include those facilities that
were placed in a subgroup based on the products and markets that
appeared to represent the majority of operations at the facility,
even if the facility did not meet all the criteria for the subgroup.
Each facility was put into only one subgroup. If a facility's
products or markets were not predominantly in one subgroup the facility
was placed in the ``other'' subgroup. EPA chose this approach to
evaluate the factors of market type, physical properties of an active
ingredient or active ingredient group, or formulation type which, aside
from the treatment requirements for a given active ingredient, were
believed to have the greatest effect on the generation of wastewater
and therefore treatment needs. The Agency split one market type:
``home, lawn and garden'' into two subgroups because facilities
producing products to be used inside the home such as insecticides
controlling roaches would likely be formulating, packaging or
repackaging their products throughout the year, whereas the facilities
that formulate, package or repackage pesticides for the lawn or garden
would likely have a seasonal production schedule. These different
production schedules can affect wastewater treatment requirements and
the ability to recycle or reuse wastewater. Similarly, all facilities
that reported having a DOT test bath were grouped together because this
source of significant volumes of wastewater affects wastewater
treatment requirements and the ability to recycle and reuse wastewater.
Manufacturers were separated from other pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities because they are chemical
manufacturers and tend to be large facilities with existing wastewater
treatment systems. Although their formulating, packaging or repackaging
operations are not different from other facilities, the scale at which
they produce pesticide products and the volumes of wastewater generated
and current wastewater disposal practices are different.
The subgroup analysis did not reveal substantive differences in the
water usage or production processes within any subgroup, thus EPA does
not believe there is any need for further subcategorization of this
subcategory. However, the economic impact analysis indicates that
facilities which formulate, package or repackage sanitizer chemicals
would be impacted by the costs of the various technology options.
Sanitizers chemicals are proposed to be defined as products containing
one or more of the active ingredients listed on Table 8 of the
regulation. EPA has segmented the sanitizer facilities for the purposes
of establishing PSES.
Facilities in the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
industry typically conduct more than one type of operation to produce
pesticide products. The industry generally comprises facilities that
either formulate and package pesticide products (68 percent), or
facilities that formulate, package and repackage pesticide products (22
percent). A small group of facilities perform other combinations of
these operations (e.g., package and repackage only).
The largest concentration of PFPR facilities, 45 percent of the
facilities are located in EPA Regions IV and V, the southeast and
midwest portions of the country. However, PFPR facilities can be found
in every geographic region of the United States.
Facilities were requested to report the percentage breakdown of
their 1988 pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging revenues by
market type. Revenues coming from the agricultural market constituted
the largest percentage, approximately 65 percent of the pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues.
Products that are formulated, packaged or repackaged contain
various percentages of one or more of the 272 active ingredients
considered in the survey for this regulation by EPA. Some products may
contain less than one percent of active ingredient by weight, while
others may contain over 95 percent of active ingredient by weight. The
five active ingredients that had the highest estimated use in products
that were formulated, packaged or repackaged are listed below:
Atrazine is a herbicide used to control various weeds
mainly on corn and sorghum crops. An estimated 278 million pounds of
atrazine were used in products formulated, packaged or repackaged by
water-using pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
facilities in 1988.
Alachlor is used as a preemergence herbicide to control
certain grasses and weeds in a variety of crops such as corn,
cotton, soybeans, and potatoes. An estimated 141 million pounds of
alachlor was used in products formulated, packaged or repackaged by
the water-using pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
facilities in 1988.
Cyanazine is used as a preemergence or postemergence
herbicide for corn, or as weed control on fallow cropland. An
estimated 107 million pounds of cyanazine were used in products
formulated, packaged or repackaged by the water-using facilities in
1988.
Methyl Bromide is used as a space fumigant to control
insects and rodents in greenhouses, grain elevators, and other areas
used to store various commodities. It may also be used as a preplant
soil fumigant to control fungi, nematodes, and weeds. An estimated
95 million pounds of methyl bromide was used in products formulated,
packaged or repackaged by the water-using facilities in 1988.
Glyphosate is a non-selective, non-residual post-
emergence herbicide used on grasses, sedges and broad leaved weeds.
An estimated 86 million pounds of glyphosate was used in products
formulated, packaged or repackaged by the water using facilities in
1988.
Production lines range from complex configurations involving
numerous formulating and packaging steps to simpler lines that transfer
product from storage to a marketable container. Typically, facilities
that formulate and package products operate lines that include one or
more storage tanks, one or more formulating processes such as mixing,
blending, grinding, milling and filtering, and a final packaging
process. Facilities in Subcategory C that solely package products
typically transfer a product from a storage tank into a marketable
container, and facilities that solely repackage products transfer
product from one marketable container into another marketable
container. Facilities that merely relabel a product's container are not
under the scope of today's notice. The average market value of a
production line is estimated to be $216,000 and the median value is
estimated to be $10,000. The gap in magnitude between average and
median is representative of the fact that most of the facilities attach
a relatively modest market value (half estimates a value less than
$10,000) while a relatively few facilities attach very high market
value to their production lines bringing the average up to $216,000.
The number of products formulated, packaged or repackaged on each
line varies from line to line and from facility to facility. Some lines
are dedicated to one product while others may handle ten or more.
Certain lines produce a variety of pesticide products that contain the
same or a similar pesticide active ingredient, while other lines
produce pesticides that contain a variety of different active
ingredients. Some lines are also used to formulate, package or
repackage products that have different formulation types.
The questionnaire requested facilities to specify those months each
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging line was in operation
in 1988, and to estimate the total number of days and hours each line
was in operation in 1988. Most lines (66%) are operated 80 days or less
in the production of registered products that contain one of the 272
active ingredients covered by the survey. A high proportion (28%) of
lines are estimated to be in operation 10 days or less per year.
2. Repackaging Performed at Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E)
This subcategory applies to repackaging of agricultural pesticide
products done by refilling establishments whose principal business is
retail sales, for the purpose of this preamble these facilities will be
referred to as refilling establishments. The term refilling
establishment is defined by the proposed 40 CFR part 165 rule as an
establishment where the activity of repackaging pesticide product into
refillable containers occurs, and encompasses a broader universe of
facilities than the previous description and than this proposal will
apply. When it became apparent that refilling establishments are so
numerous, and among themselves very similar but very different from the
formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities, EPA decided to
segregate refilling establishments into a separate subcategory. The
distinction of refilling establishments from repackaging activities is
that refilling establishments use a refillable container as the
receptacle of the repackaged product.
Refilling establishments perform a single operation that is covered
by today's notice: repackaging agricultural pesticide product. As a
group, refilling establishments are very similar to one another. They
differ from pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities
in the following ways: (1) Locations--refilling establishments of
agricultural pesticides are mostly in rural areas or small towns while
formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities are frequently urban;
(2) SIC codes--refilling establishments are in 5191, which
characterizes establishments as ``primarily engaged in the wholesale
distribution of animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals,
pesticides, seeds and other farm supplies except grains'', whereas PFPR
facilities reported being classified in SIC code 2879; and (3)
customers--refilling establishments are retail establishments, selling
directly to the end user (i.e., the farmer), while formulating,
packaging or repackaging facilities sell to distributors or retailers.
EPA's approach to developing effluent guidelines and standards is
different between the two groups due in large part to the nature and
origin of the wastewater, as explained below.
Refilling establishments of agricultural chemicals repackage
pesticide products from bulk storage tanks into smaller portable
containers commonly referred to as minibulk or shuttle tanks. These
refillable containers are constructed of plastic and typically have
capacities ranging from 100 to 500 gallons. Minibulk containers may be
owned by the refilling establishment, the pesticide registrant, or by
the end user. Refilling establishments do not formulate a registered
pesticide product.
Refilling establishments may also offer additional pesticide
services such as custom blending and commercial application. Pesticide
products are usually blended with water or other carriers and applied
to farmers' fields using trucks equipped with application equipment. Of
the estimated 1,134 refilling establishments estimated by the 1988
data, 935 are estimated to provide application services of registered
pesticide products. Today's notice does not apply to facilities that
offer custom application services unless they are also refilling
establishments of agricultural pesticide chemicals. Refilling
establishments frequently provide fertilizer sales and application as
well as selling seeds and other farm supplies.
Refilling establishments are usually located in small towns and
serve rural agricultural areas. The largest concentration of refilling
establishments is in EPA Regions V and VII which contain most of the
midwestern agricultural states.
An estimated 97 percent of the products reported to be repackaged
and 90 percent of the total 1988 production (in pounds) are classified
as herbicides. Nine products classified as fungicides were reported to
be repackaged by refilling establishments; these amounted to less than
two percent of the total production (in pounds). These fungicides are
commonly used in grain storage areas.
Agricultural pesticide products that are repackaged at refilling
establishments contain various percentages of one or more of the 272
active ingredients that were part of the survey. An estimated 1,746
products that are repackaged contained between 40 percent and 50
percent active ingredients. An estimated 30 million pounds, (44 percent
of the total pounds) including 504 products repackaged by these
facilities contained between 80 percent and 90 percent active
ingredient.
The amount of active ingredient(s) in a product may vary somewhat
with the type of formulation of the product. The five active
ingredients that were repackaged in the greatest quantity by the water-
using refilling establishments are listed below:
EPTC is used as a herbicide to control perennial grassy
weeds in a variety of crops such as beans, legumes, potatoes, and
corn. An estimated 22 million pounds of EPTC were used in products
repackaged by the water-using refilling establishments in 1988.
Alachlor is used as a preemergence herbicide to control
certain grasses and weeds in crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans,
and potatoes. An estimated six million pounds of alachlor were used
in products repackaged by the water-using refilling establishments
in 1988.
Metolachlor is used as a preemergence and preplant
herbicide to control weeds in a variety of crops such as corn,
soybean, peanuts, potatoes, cotton and grain sorghum. An estimated
four million pounds of metolachlor were used in products repackaged
by the water-using refilling establishments in 1988.
Atrazine is a herbicide used to control various weeds
used mainly on corn and sorghum crops. An estimated 3.7 million
pounds of atrazine were used in products repackaged by the water-
using refilling establishments in 1988.
Butylate is used as a preemergence herbicide for grassy
weeds mainly on corn. An estimated 1.7 million pounds of butylate
were used in products repackaged by the water-using refilling
establishments in 1988.
The Office of Pesticide Programs also classifies products by their
type of formulation. The largest percentage of products reported to be
repackaged by water using refilling establishments were emulsifiable
concentrates, which composed an estimated 74 percent of the products
repackaged and 80 percent of the total 1988 production in pounds.
Production lines at refilling establishments typically consist of a
bulk storage tank, a minibulk into which the product is repackaged, and
any interconnecting hoses, piping and pumps. The bulk storage tanks are
usually clustered together, and the repackaging operations are
controlled by the use of either a computer- or manually-regulated
system of pumps and meters.
Some refilling establishments dedicate their bulk storage tanks,
hoses, piping and pumps to one product to prevent any cross
contamination of products that are applied to different crops. When a
repackaging line was used to repackage more than one product, the
establishment may have switched to a different product on that line
during the season to meet farmers' demands. For example, several
refilling establishments in the midwest that were contacted for the
phone survey reported switching from repackaging corn pesticides to
soybean pesticides during the middle of the season. These
establishments may or may not have utilized a single line to repackage
these different products.
Approximately half of the refilling establishments reported
operating their lines on an as-needed basis and the remainder reported
that they operated their lines during only one period. In both cases,
the facility provides the product on an as-needed basis to meet the
demands of a transitory market. The busiest period for repackaging is
March through June.
VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics
A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics
EPA estimates that 1,806 facilities (PFPR facilities and refilling
establishments combined) use water in their formulating, packaging or
repackaging process. The median annual volume of water discharged by
PFPR facilities is 3,003 gallons, except for manufacturing facilities
that formulate and package with a median annual volume of formulating
and packaging wastewater of 261,174 gallons. The average annual volume
of water discharged, as reported by refilling establishments, is
approximately 78 gallons.
Many pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities
reported no water use. EPA estimates there are 633 facilities
nationwide that do not use water in their formulating, packaging or
repackaging process. Of the estimated PFPR facilities that use water in
their formulating, packaging or repackaging process 652 discharge
wastewater to surface water or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs),
19 refilling establishments are indirect dischargers to POTWs. An
estimated 457 facilities recycle or reuse on-site some or all of their
wastewater. In some cases, facilities treat and reuse their process
wastewater before reusing it. An estimated 142 facilities use off-site
disposal of some or all of their wastewater. Reports of off-site
disposal included incineration, deepwell injection and centralized
waste treatment facilities. An estimated 93 facilities dispose of some
or all of their wastewater to septic systems or by land application.
Previously established BPT for pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Nevertheless, there are a small number of facilities identified through
EPA's survey that do discharge directly to surface waters. Most of
these facilities are also manufacturing active ingredients and they
combine the wastewater from formulating, packaging or repackaging with
the other process wastewater through their wastewater treatment
systems. These facilities seek to show compliance with their National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions, which
include no allowance for the pollutants present in the formulating or
packaging wastewater, by showing that their combined discharge
(consisting of both manufacturing and formulating, packaging or
repackaging wastewaters) meets the permit limits.
EPA's survey of the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
industry revealed that process wastewater derives primarily from
cleaning the process equipment, shipping and raw material containers,
the general processing area, laboratory equipment, and safety
equipment. Occasionally, formulating, packaging or repackaging
facilities will have an air pollution control scrubber, contaminated
stormwater (fairly common at refilling establishments), or a heated
water bath in which aerosol containers are tested for leaks. Wastewater
generated by cleaning the interior of formulating or packaging
equipment, bulk storage tanks, or the interior of raw material and
shipping containers contains the highest concentrations of active
ingredient and product constituents. Since these wastewaters are
generated from the cleaning interiors of equipment or containers, they
are referred to as ``interior'' cleaning wastewater sources for
purposes of this regulation. Wastewater from cleaning the general
facility, including floors, the exterior of equipment, and laboratory
or safety equipment, DOT aerosol test baths, and air pollution
scrubbers will also be contaminated with active ingredients and
product, but are likely to be less concentrated and may be contaminated
with other pollutants unrelated to the product's constituents. These
latter sources of wastewater are referred to as ``non-interior''
cleaning wastewater sources. EPA believes that the interior waste
streams will generally be capable of reuse directly without application
of wastewater treatment technologies. In contrast, the non-interior
waste streams may not be capable of reuse back into the product because
of non-product constituents that may be present, but may be reused
elsewhere in the facility (e.g., as floor washwater) after treatment to
remove or reduce pollutant concentrations.
The formulation type of the pesticide products will also have an
effect on the wastewater characteristics. For example, some pesticide
active ingredients are not very soluble in water, therefore the product
may use an organic solvent as a carrier for the active ingredient. Such
formulations may contain agents such as surfactants and emulsifiers to
aid in keeping the active ingredient in solution when applied. Some
pesticide products are produced as a solid. The active ingredient may
be a solid or liquid that is sprayed onto a dry substrate.
EPA collected wastewater samples from thirteen PFPR facilities.
Eight facilities were sampled over a period of two or three days and
numerous wastewater samples were collected. Six of these facilities
operated treatment systems which were the focus of the sampling
episode. One of the six facilities with treatment was sampled during
two distinct episodes. The remaining five facilities were sampled
during a one-day site visit. Usually only one sample was collected from
these five. EPA concentrated on sampling facilities that are operating
wastewater treatment technologies. EPA has also attempted to
characterize a variety of different formulation types with as many
different active ingredients as possible. Most of the eight facilities
sampled over a period of days are formulating and packaging a variety
of products containing a number of active ingredients. Therefore,
although in many cases all wastewaters may be combined and EPA may not
have been able to characterize wastewater from each production batch, a
considerable amount of data has been collected on the nature and
characteristics of wastewaters generated by formulating, packaging and
repackaging facilities.
EPA has not sampled any wastewater from refilling establishments,
however 7 facilities have been visited.
B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation
Practices
The pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities
employ many pollution prevention, recycle and reuse practices. As
described above, wastewater is mainly generated by cleaning the
production areas and associated equipment. Throughout the site visiting
program, EPA noticed that pollution prevention practices are widely
accepted and practiced by the industry. Recycle and reuse practices are
evident in addition to other practices which are widely used by
facilities in this industry for water conservation or to avoid creating
a wastewater source. EPA believes that some or all of these practices
can be implemented at all pesticide formulating, packaging, and
repackaging facilities.
Pollution prevention, recycle and reuse practices fall into three
groups: actual production practices, housekeeping practices, and
practices that involve equipment designed for pollution prevention.
Some of these practices/equipment listed below conserve water, others
reduce the amount of active ingredient or pesticide product in the
wastewater, while others may prevent the creation of a wastewater
altogether.
Production practices include:
Using the appropriate solvent (water or organic) to
rinse and placing the rinsate from triple-rinsing raw material
shipping containers directly into the formulation;
Scheduling production to minimize cleanouts;
Segregating formulating/packaging equipment by
individual product, organic solvent- versus water-based
formulations, and grouping production by product ``families''
(products that contain similar PAIs in different concentrations);
Storing interior equipment rinsewaters for use in
future formulation of the same product;
Packaging products directly out of formulation vessels;
Using inert raw material drums for packaging final
products containing same inert; and
Dedicating equipment (possibly only mix tank or
agitator) for hard to clean formulations.
Housekeeping practices include:
Performing preventative maintenance on all valves,
fittings and pumps;
Placing drip pans under leaky valves and fittings; and
Cleaning up spills or leaks in outdoor bulk containment
areas to prevent contamination of stormwater.
Equipment that promotes pollution prevention by reducing or
eliminating wastewater generation includes:
Low volume--high pressure hoses;
Spray nozzle attachments for hoses;
Squeegees and mops;
Low volume/recirculating floor scrubbing machines;
Portable steam cleaners;
Drum triple rinsing stations (described later); and
Roofs over outdoor tank farms.
The following discussion describes how pollution prevention,
recycle, reuse and water conservation practices are applied by
formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities included in EPA's
survey.
1. Shipping Container/Drum Cleaning
Facilities frequently receive pesticide raw materials in containers
such as 55-gallon steel or 30-gallon fiber drums. In some cases, the
empty drums are returned to the supplier for reconditioning and reuse,
but usually the PFPR facility is responsible for disposal of the drums.
Many PFPR facilities reported rinsing raw material containers after
emptying. This practice was also common at the facilities visited. The
simplest, and generally the best method for handling the rinsate is to
add the rinsate to the product being formulated. This practice not only
eliminates a potential highly concentrated wastewater source, but also
recovers the product value of the raw material. Some facilities employ
a high-pressure, low-volume wash system equipped with a hose and a
spray nozzle to triple rinse drums. Such wash systems are reported to
use 5 to 15 gallons of water to rinse a drum. EPA identified many
facilities that reuse the rinsates from shipping containers directly
into product formulations.
2. Bulk Tank Rinsate
Pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities
sometimes store large quantities of formulated pesticide products and
raw materials in bulk tanks. These tanks are typically rinsed only when
it becomes necessary to use the tank for storage of a different
material. These tanks are most commonly found at refilling
establishments for agricultural pesticides, where they are used to hold
formulated pesticides (rather than raw materials) and where it is also
more likely that they will need to be cleaned due to product
changeover. For example, a refilling establishment may store bulk
quantities of a pesticide product used for corn crops during the spring
and then switch in the summer to storing a pesticide product used for
soybeans. Each time the facility switches the product stored in a bulk
tank, the tank is rinsed. Bulk tanks are sometimes also rinsed at the
end of a season as part of general maintenance procedures.
The recovery of product value from bulk tank rinsates is a common
pollution prevention practice in the industry. Bulk tank rinsates have
been reused by some PFPR facilities into product formulations and by
some refilling establishments in application mixtures of pesticides
mixtures (using the rinsate as make-up water). EPA has observed that
facilities can usually store this rinsate on site until the opportunity
arises to add it to a formulation or use it for application. Facilities
can also minimize the amount of rinsate generated during bulk tank
cleaning by using high-pressure, low-volume washers. Some PFPR
facilities have also demonstrated that the use of squeegees reduces
wastewater generation during the cleaning of bulk tanks. The smaller
the volume of water needed to clean the bulk tank, the more readily the
entire volume can be recovered by addition to the product or
application mixture.
3. Equipment Interior Cleaning
Formulated and packaged products may be either liquid or solid. A
liquid formulating and packaging line often consists of mix tanks, melt
kettles (if necessary), transfer piping or hoses and pumps, filters
prior to packaging, and a packaging hopper and fillers operating over a
conveyor belt. A dry formulating and packaging line often consists of
crushing, pulverizing, grinding, and/or milling equipment; blenders;
screening equipment; and the packaging equipment. Repackaging is often
a simple process of transferring material manually from one container
into another of different size. For both liquid and dry operations, the
packaging equipment is often portable.
Facilities often do not dedicate line equipment to a specific
product because most facilities produce many products and the
production schedules for any one product are usually seasonal and can
be very infrequent. Often the equipment is used for short-term
production campaigns, and can be used for both pesticide and non-
pesticide products. To ensure product quality, the production line
equipment is normally cleaned between product changeovers. Many
facilities perform routine periodic cleaning of production lines for
maintenance and, on occasion, also perform special or non-routine
cleaning due to equipment failures or the use of materials that require
additional cleaning time or cleaning solvents. Different types of lines
(i.e., dry, liquid, emulsifiable concentrates, etc.) require different
cleaning methods, such as water or solvent rinsing, flushing with solid
material, mechanical abrasion, or a combination of these techniques.
Lines handling dry products are usually cleaned by flushing with
the solid, inert material used as the carrier for the products handled
on the line. This may be followed by rinsing with water when additional
cleaning is required. EPA has seen one facility which used the dry
diluent to clean equipment out on a routine basis. However, the
facility thoroughly cleans out the equipment interiors with water prior
to product changeover or line shut down for the season. Because the
product is dry and this water cannot be reused to recover its product
value, this particular facility treats the wastewater and recycles it
back for use in the facility.
Liquid lines are usually rinsed between changeovers with either
water or an organic solvent, depending on the production just completed
and the product to be produced next on the line. Water cleaning is also
performed for routine maintenance. Changeover cleanings can be
eliminated or greatly reduced by dedicating equipment to specific
products or groups of products. Although entire lines are not generally
dedicated, EPA is aware of many facilities that dedicate formulation
mix tanks to specific products, thereby eliminating one of the most
highly concentrated wastewater streams generated by formulating,
packaging or repackaging pesticide products. Facilities also dedicate
lines to the production of a specific product type, such as water-based
versus solvent-based products, thereby reducing the number of cleanings
required, and allowing for greater reuse of the cleaning water or
solvent.
Another effective pollution prevention technique identified by EPA
is the scheduling of production to reduce the number of product
changeovers, which reduces the number of equipment interior cleanings
required. Facilities may also reduce the number of changeover cleanings
or the quantity of water or solvent used for cleaning by scheduling
products in groups or ``families.''
An effective water conservation technique that EPA has observed for
equipment interior cleaning is to equip water hoses with hand-control
devices (for example, spray-gun nozzles) to prevent free flow of water
from unattended hoses, and employing high-pressure, low-volume washers
instead of ordinary hoses. One of the facilities visited indicated that
the use of high-pressure washers reduced typical equipment interior
rinse volumes from 20 gallons per rinse to 10 gallons per rinse. Steam
cleaning can also be used to clean equipment interiors while producing
less wastewater. Steam cleaning can be a particularly effective method
to clean viscous products that might otherwise require considerable
water and/or detergent to remove. Many facilities will have access to
steam from boilers on-site, however, if there is no existing source of
steam, steam cleaning equipment is available for purchase. Although
steam generation can increase energy consumption and add NOx and
SOx pollutants to the atmosphere, the benefits to be gained by
creating a small volume of wastewater and potentially avoiding the need
to use detergents or other cleaning agents which could prevent product
recovery, make steam very attractive for some applications. The Agency
cautions that steam could be a poor choice for cleaning applications
where volatile organic solvents or inerts are part of the product as
the steam would accelerate the volatilization of the organics.
Facilities also clean equipment interiors by using squeegees to
remove the product from the formulation vessel and by using absorbent
``pigs'' for cleaning products out of the transfer lines before
equipment rinsing. These techniques minimize the quantity of cleaning
water required. Regardless of whether or not residual product is
removed from equipment interiors before rinsing, equipment interior
rinsate can typically be reused as makeup water the next time that a
water-based product is being formulated.
4. Department of Transportation (DOT) Aerosol Container Leak Testing
The DOT leak test bath water is a source of wastewater at aerosol
packaging facilities since it must be changed periodically, due to the
buildup of contaminants in the water. Leaking (or occasionally
exploding) cans contaminate the water bath with pesticide product. Can
exteriors may also contaminate the bath water since they may have
product or solvent on them from the can filling step. According to
several facilities, pesticide products and solvents can cause
visibility problems in the bath water and leave an oily residue on the
cans exiting the bath. One of the facilities visited also indicated
that bath water must be dumped and refilled periodically to prevent
rust particles from fouling steam sparging equipment (used to heat the
bath).
No method of eliminating this source of wastewater has been
identified; however, the volume of water used may be minimized through
the use of a contained water bath as opposed to a continuous overflow
water bath. A contained water bath is completely emptied and refilled
with water when required, based upon visual inspection by the operator.
Therefore, the quantity of wastewater generated is dependent on the
volume of the bath (200 gallons is a typical volume of the contained
water baths at visited facilities) and the frequency of refilling. It
is the Agency's opinion that the best practice to reduce wastewater
generated by aerosol container (DOT) leak testing is to use a contained
water bath where the water is changed out when it is determined to be
``dirty'' by visual inspection.
5. Floor/Wall/Equipment Exterior Cleaning
Pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities clean
the equipment exteriors and floors for general housekeeping purposes
and to keep sources of product contamination to a minimum. When water
is used, these cleaning procedures become a source of wastewater.
Equipment exteriors and floor areas of dry formulating and
packaging lines are typically cleaned without the use of water.
Vacuuming, scraping, and other mechanical means are used to clean the
areas around these lines. Floors and equipment exteriors associated
with liquid lines, and occasionally dry lines when an especially
thorough cleaning is desired, are rinsed with water (or an aqueous-
based cleaning solution, or possibly an organic solvent to clean
equipment exteriors). While some facilities routinely clean equipment
exteriors and floors, or do so at all changeovers between certain
products, many facilities have indicated that equipment exterior and
floor cleanings are performed only when required through visual
inspections by the operators or facility management. Walls around
formulating and packaging lines appear to be cleaned infrequently.
Therefore, wastewater from such cleaning is rarely generated. The
quantity of water used annually for equipment exterior or floor
cleaning varies widely from facility to facility, from several gallons
to thousands of gallons.
This wastewater source can be minimized through the use of high-
pressure, low-volume washers. Facilities have noted that attaching
spray nozzles or other devices to prevent the free flow of water from
unattended hoses has reduced water use. Additionally, steam cleaning of
equipment exteriors is practiced at some facilities to reduce the
amount of wastewater generated.
The Agency has identified some facilities that wipe the exterior
using rags, or use a solvent cleaner, such as a commercially available
stainless steel cleaner. This avoids the generation of a wastewater
stream, but creates a solid waste which, depending on the ingredients
involved, could be considered a hazardous waste. Squeegees are also
used to clean equipment exteriors and floors, and are not disposed
after single uses. It may be possible to dedicate squeegees to a
certain line or piece of equipment, but the use of squeegees may still
require some water. Automated floor scrubbers are also employed at some
facilities in place of hosing down floors. Mopping with a single bucket
of water can also be employed in place of hosing. Floor mopping can
generate as little as 10 gallons of water per cleaning.
EPA has been to a number of facilities where their floor wash water
is reused with and without filtering. One facility has set up its
production equipment on a steel grated, mezzanine platform directly
above a collection sump. Following production, the equipment and the
floor of the platform, on which the operator stands when formulating
product, are rinsed down and the water is allowed to drip into the
sump. A pump and a filter have been installed in the sump area to
enable the operator to transfer this rinsate back into the formulation
tank the next time he is ready to formulate. This sump is also
connected to floor trenches in the packaging area for the same product.
When the exterior of the packaging equipment and the floors in this
area are rinsed, this water is directed to the trenches and eventually
ends up in the collection sump for reuse.
It is the Agency's opinion that wastewater generated from floor and
equipment cleaning can be best reduced by: (1) Sweeping the area before
rinsing; (2) cleaning on visual inspection rather than routine/daily
cleaning; (3) using a floor scrubbing machine or a mop and a bucket to
clean the floors; and (4) using a high pressure, low volume hose with a
spray nozzle or a steam cleaning machine to clean equipment exteriors.
6. Leaks and Spills
Leaks and spills occur during the normal course of formulating and
packaging operations. Leaks originate at hose connections or valves.
Spills of raw materials occur from failures of bulk storage tanks and/
or during transfer of raw materials between vessels. Product spills can
occur during storage in bulk storage tanks and/or during packaging,
including overfilling containers, missing the container to be filled,
or tipping of filled containers before capping.
Leaks can be reduced by preventive maintenance such as checking
equipment and connections before use or on a regular basis, while good
housekeeping procedures like keeping work areas uncluttered can help in
the prevention of spills. Simple preventative measures such as placing
drip pans under areas where leaks and spills are likely to occur can
either eliminate or minimize the quantity of water required for many
types of cleanups. Leaks and spills of dry products can be vacuumed or
swept without generating any wastewater. Liquid leaks and spills can be
collected into a trench or sump (for reuse, discharge, or disposal)
with a squeegee, leaving only a residue to be mopped or hosed down if
further water cleanup is required. Liquid leaks and spills can also be
cleaned up using absorbent material, such as absorbent pads or soda
ash. For an acidic product, the use of soda ash or a similar base
material will also serve to neutralize the spill. If a residue remains,
some water may be used for mopping or hosing the area down, but methods
to reduce floor wash should be implemented whenever possible. EPA has
observed that many facilities cleanup liquid leaks and spills from
water-based products with water and reuse the wastewater in product
formulation. On the other hand the facilities generally cleanup liquid
leaks and spills from solvent-based products with absorbent materials.
Direct reuse of materials from leaks and spills is another possible
pollution prevention technique. If drip pans or other containers are
used to catch leaks and spills, the material can be immediately reused
in the product being formulated or packaged, or stored for use in the
next product batch. Collection hoppers or tubs can be installed beneath
packaging fillers to capture spills and immediately direct the spills
back to the fillers. Leaks or spills around bulk storage tanks and
dispensing areas can be contained by dikes, which, in fact, are often
required by state regulations. (EPA recently proposed a federal
regulation for containment structures at agricultural refilling
establishments and at certain other facilities (see 59 FR 6712,
February 11, 1994).)
7. Air Pollution or Odor Control Scrubbers
Some PFPR facilities employ wet scrubbers to reduce air emissions
from PFPR operations. Facilities that also perform non-PFPR operations
may employ scrubbers that are not specific to PFPR operations, but
instead serve the general facility. Scrubbers can be operated with
continuously recycled water until replacement of the contaminated water
is necessary (as practiced by one of the facilities visited) or they
can be operated with a bleed steam (blowdown) on a continuous basis.
Many PFPR facilities employ dry air pollution control equipment,
such as carbon filters and baghouses, thus accomplishing air pollution
reduction without generating wastewater.
Some facilities may only need a wet scrubber on one particular
process (i.e., a dedicated scrubber). These facilities have been able
to use the scrubber blowdown or changed-out scrubber water as make-up
water in the formulation of that particular product. Some facilities
with non-dedicated scrubbers have been able to use the scrubber
blowdown or changed-out scrubber water for floor or equipment exterior
cleaning.
8. Safety Equipment Cleaning
Most PFPR facilities employ the use of safety equipment, including
safety showers and eye washes, gloves, respirators, and rubber boots to
protect individuals from the dangers associated with some raw materials
and the production of PFPR products. Wastewater is generated from
routine checks of safety showers, routine flushes of eye wash stations
(to ensure the station is clean and operable), and rinsing of boots,
gloves, and respirators.
Quantities of contaminated wastewater generated from safety
equipment cleaning are generally on the order of several gallons or
tens of gallons. Some facilities are successful in avoiding the
generation of this type of wastewater by using disposable safety
clothing (gloves, dust masks). This practice does result in a solid and
possibly even hazardous waste stream, thus it does not prevent
pollution.
9. Laboratory Equipment Cleaning
Many PFPR facilities operate on-site laboratories for conducting
quality control (QC) tests of raw materials and formulated products.
Wastewater is generated from these tests and from cleaning glassware
used in the tests.
One effective pollution prevention technique for laboratory
equipment cleaning is to dedicate laboratory sinks to certain products,
so wastewater generated from testing a product can be collected for
reuse in the product or for transfer back to the PAI manufacturer or
product registrant. In the cases where solvents are often used in
conjunction with the QC tests performed in the laboratory, the facility
may not be able to reuse the solvent-contaminated water. One facility
uses a small activated carbon unit to treat their lab water.
10. Contaminated Precipitation Run-off
This source of wastewater includes all precipitation that falls
directly onto or runs onto PFPR facilities that is believed to be
contaminated by product constituents. Contaminated precipitation runoff
can be prevented by bringing all PFPR operations indoors, as many PFPR
facilities have done, or roofing outdoor storage tanks and dikes, which
has also been done at many PFPR facilities. The roofs must extend low
enough to prevent crosswinds from blowing rain or other precipitation
into spill-containment dikes. To prevent rainwater contamination, the
drain spouts and gutters should conduct roof runoff to areas away from
PFPR operations, and the roofs should be kept in good repair.
VIII. Wastewater Control Technology Currently Available
EPA has sampled six facilities with wastewater treatment. Through
EPA's survey of the formulating, packaging and repackaging industry,
very few facilities were found that use water in their formulating,
packaging and repackaging process that also treat their wastewater.
Most facilities discharge their wastewater indirectly to POTW's with
little or no pretreatment. Many facilities send some of their more
concentrated streams off-site for disposal or treatment, and many
others reported recycling or reusing some or all of their wastewater.
Of the few facilities that reported treatment, most are treating their
wastewater and recycling it back to the facility. Five of the six
sampled facilities that are treating their wastewater were recycling
their treated wastewater.
One of the six sampled facilities treated wastewaters from floor
and equipment exteriors cleaning with ultrafiltration followed by
activated carbon filtration. The treated water is recycled back to be
used for this purpose again. At the same facility most of the
wastewater generated by cleaning equipment interiors is recycled back
into the product. This facility segregates wastewaters generated in the
insecticide formulation area from those generated in the herbicide
formulation area but otherwise mixes all herbicide or insecticide
wastewaters together for treatment.
A second facility treats its wastewater through a filtration system
with a portion of the wastewater stream being sent to biological
treatment. Most of the filtered wastewater is recycled to the facility
for reuse as general process area cleaning water. The wastewater
treated through biological treatment is sent for use as make-up in the
general facility air pollution control scrubber.
Two other facilities treat their wastewater through a cross-flow
filter followed by activated carbon filtration. The wastewaters are
then sent back to the processing area to be used for general clean-up.
Another facility treats its wastewater through ozonation followed by
activated carbon filtration. This wastewater is recycled back to the
facility for reuse.
The sixth facility sampled is also a manufacturer of pesticide
active ingredient. This facility treats its formulating and packaging
wastewater along with its manufacturing wastewater through an activated
carbon system prior to discharge to an industrial pretreatment
facility.
The other surveyed facilities that treat their wastewaters were
mostly the pesticide manufacturing facilities.
Through site visits or phone follow-ups, EPA discovered that some
plants have instituted several changes to wastewater handling practices
since 1988. For example, one of the sampled facilities with wastewater
treatment has since shut down. Between 1988 and shut down, the
operation converted from discharge to reuse of wastewater. Two of the
facilities that were sampled for wastewater treatment system
performance have installed treatment since 1988. Another facility that
was sampled for its wastewater treatment system had upgraded its system
by adding ozonation treatment after 1988.
IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
EPA is not proposing any substantive amendments to the existing BPT
provisions applicable to Subcategory C, established in 1978. However,
EPA proposes to add the word repackaging to the title and the
applicability provision for subpart C (Sec. 455.40) and to specifically
exclude from BPT applicability the wastewaters generated by employee
showers and laundry facilities. These changes are being proposed to
clarify the types of operations covered and would not expand or
contract the current coverage of the BPT effluent limitations
guidelines. The term ``packagers'' in the subpart C applicability
provision, 40 CFR 455.40, was always intended to cover repackaging as
well as packaging. Likewise, EPA proposes to expressly exclude from
coverage wastewaters generated by employee showers (distinct from
safety showers, which are included), fire protection test water and
laundry facilities. The current regulation does not expressly state
whether employee showers and laundry facilities are process wastewater
sources. EPA is proposing to clarify that employee showers, fire
protection test water and laundries are not within the scope of
coverage because of concerns that their inclusion could cause a
disincentive for facilities to provide shower facilities for their
employees, which in turn could pose a potential health and safety
concern. Fire protection test water is generated by facilities testing
sprinkler systems or hydrants to ensure their operation should the
facility have a fire. EPA does not wish to create a disincentive for
this testing by controlling these waters especially since it is
unlikely they would be contaminated. EPA is aware of PFPR facilities
that have permits allowing discharges from employee showers and
laundries while other PFPR wastewater sources at the facilities are
required by their permits to achieve zero discharge. EPA is soliciting
comment on this clarification of the applicability of the PFPR
regulations to wastewater from showers, fire protection test water and
laundries.
BPT limitations for this subcategory require zero discharge of
wastewater pollutants. EPA's information shows that the majority of
PFPR facilities are complying with this requirement by virtue of the
large numbers of facilities which reported no discharge (an estimated
71 percent of the survey population) and because nearly all facilities
that reported discharging are indirect dischargers (to POTW's).
The BPT technologies identified in the 1978 regulation as capable
of achieving zero discharge were water conservation, reuse and recycle
practices, with any residual water being evaporated or hauled off-site
to a landfill. Several facilities that participated in a study of the
industry for that rulemaking reported using evaporation as the
principal means for disposing of wastewater from their formulating and
packaging operations. Since that time, the practice of disposing of
liquid hazardous wastes in landfills has been banned. (Nevertheless,
one recently surveyed facility did indicate that they send wastewater
to a landfill.) Additionally, EPA finds that disposal of wastewater by
evaporation is now a less preferred practice, presumably because of
concerns about pollutant transfers among media (e.g., air, soil,
groundwater). In our recent survey, EPA has found that only a small
proportion of PFPR facilities use evaporation to achieve zero
discharge. Mostly, zero discharge is attained through recycle and
reuse, though some facilities report hauling their wastewater off-site.
Off-site destinations include incinerators, deep wells, and commercial
waste treaters (in some cases, wastes are returned to the registrant or
manufacturer). Some facilities that are achieving zero discharge have
gone to considerable expense and installed state-of-the-art wastewater
treatment to accomplish it through treatment and recycling.
Because of recent revisions to the effluent guidelines for
pesticide manufacturers (58 FR 50637, September 28, 1993), some of the
facilities that manufacture pesticide active ingredients and also
formulate and package pesticide products may have to change their
current practices to comply with the existing BPT regulations for
formulating and packaging. A number of the direct discharging pesticide
manufacturers that also formulate and package have been combining
pesticide manufacturing wastewaters with wastewaters generated from
pesticide formulating and packaging and discharging the combined
wastewaters. They are able to combine these wastewaters and still
achieve the limits in their NPDES permits, which provide numeric
discharge limits for pollutants generated in the pesticide
manufacturing process. Although they are given no allowance for the
pollutants present in their formulating and packaging wastewater they
have been able to discharge this wastewater because the treatment
systems reduce the pollutants in the combined wastewater to the level
specified in their permits. The recently issued pesticide manufacturing
regulation sets production-based BAT limits for specific active
ingredients. These limits supersede the previous concentration-based
BPT limit for ``total pesticides.'' Due to these newly issued BAT
limits, it is unlikely that pesticide manufacturing facilities will be
able to continue to discharge their formulating and packaging
wastewater and still be in compliance with their new permits.
EPA did not project any costs associated with BPT regulations for
any direct discharging pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
facilities in Subcategory C, because BPT for Subcategory C is not being
amended.
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory E)
As discussed above, refilling establishments generate wastewater
through cleaning minibulk containers and bulk storage tanks; also,
contaminated precipitation run-off often falls inside their containment
systems. BPT for these wastewaters from repackaging operations is
proposed to be zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
The existing BPT regulations do not cover refilling establishments.
As described above, the practice of refilling minibulks, etc. did not
begin until the 1980s, i.e., after the original BPT regulation was
promulgated in 1978. Further, the refillers are different from the
general packagers and repackagers because of the differences in their
volumes of wastewater generated and discharged, the homogeneity at
refilling establishments of processes, water generation and disposal
practices, and products being repackaged at refilling establishments,
and the differences between the type of business (e.g., retail sales
vs. wholesale sales) as described earlier. These types of facilities
were not part of the data base for the original BPT regulations and
were not considered in the development of those regulations.
EPA finds that secondary containment of bulk storage areas and
loading pads, plus the collection, holding and eventual reuse of
rinsates, contaminated precipitation run-off and leaks and spills
represents the best practicable technology for the refillers
subcategory. The Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs has proposed a
regulation under FIFRA that would require refilling establishments for
agricultural pesticides to build secondary containment structures and
loading pads to certain specifications (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994).
The secondary containment structures are designed to collect spills,
rinsates from containers, and contaminated precipitation run-off.
Today's proposal builds on this proposed requirement to contain
contaminated wastewater by proposing that the contained wastewater may
not be discharged. It is likely, therefore, that the wastewater will be
held until such time as it can be applied as pesticide on a site
compatible with the product label or used as make-up water in an
application of pesticide chemical to an appropriate site. Of the
estimated 1134 facilities (based on the 1988 survey) that would be
affected by today's proposal, EPA's questionnaire responses indicate
that 98 percent or an estimated 1101 already achieve zero discharge,
primarily by holding contaminated wastewater and reusing it as make-up
water. Thus, this practice not only eliminates the discharge of
wastewater but also allows the facility to recover the value of the
product in the wastewater. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this
proposal represents the average of the best performance at existing
facilities. Indeed, because the proposal is to require zero discharge,
this also represents the best performance at any existing facility, and
therefore EPA is also identifying zero discharge as the basis for BAT
and PSES regulations (See below).
Since the Office of Pesticide Programs proposed rule would already
require these facilities to contain any contaminated wastewater, the
Office of Water does not expect there to be a significant additional
cost associated with the holding of this water until such time as it
can be used as make-up in commercial application. There are no existing
direct dischargers in this subcategory that EPA is aware of. The
average volume of wastewater discharged indirectly by refilling
establishments is estimated to be 78 gallons per year per facility. EPA
assumes volumes of this magnitude can be held in a minibulk container
until such a time as it can be reused. EPA estimates the cost of a
minibulk container to be about $300 capital investment. EPA concludes
that the cost of this proposed BPT regulation would not be wholly
disproportionate to the projected effluent reduction benefits.
As mentioned above, the sources of wastewater from refilling
establishments derive primarily from rinsates generated from cleaning
minibulk containers and bulk storage tanks. Another source of
wastewater that might contribute a significant volume is contaminated
stormwater. The current practice for many refilling establishments is
to contain and hold contaminated stormwater until it can be used as
make-up in a commercial application. However, this source can be
virtually eliminated by covering the bulk storage area and loading pad
under roof. According to an industry representative, it is becoming a
widespread practice for many of the midwestern refilling establishments
to do this. In addition to potentially avoiding the generation of a
contaminated wastewater that must be controlled, enclosing the bulk
storage area also protects it from vandalism and from severe weather
such as cold winters. Enclosing containment structures is not a basis
for today's proposed regulation, nor is it a requirement of the Office
of Pesticide Programs proposed containment rule. However, the Agency
would certainly consider roofing a bulk storage area and loading pad a
prudent and pollution-preventing action by refilling establishments.
EPA does also recognize that there may be barriers in some areas to
enclosing bulk storage under roofs, such as fire code restrictions.
EPA recognizes that it is not uncommon for refilling establishments
to have more than one pesticide product on-site to be used on different
crops. For example, a refilling establishment may have bulk
Bicep (atrazine and metolachlor) that is applied to corn
early in the season, and also have Freedom (alachlor and
trifluralin), which is applied to soybeans later in the growing season.
Mixtures of rinsates of the two products (Bicep and
Freedom) cannot be used in an application mixture if there is
no crop for which the two pesticides are mutually labelled. In
estimating costs, the Agency has assumed that the containment system,
including separate holding tanks, will segregate pesticide products to
avoid spills and stormwater from becoming cross contaminated. EPA has
seen this segregation in containment systems at refilling
establishments which have been designed to comply with state or local
requirements.
X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology
The Agency is proposing to establish BCT limitations for each of
the two subcategories that are equivalent to the BPT limits and based
upon the same control technologies. Accordingly, there would be no
additional costs associated with the BCT regulations.
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations for this subcategory
that are equivalent to the limitations established for BPT. Since BPT
requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can
be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology
basis is appropriate for BCT.
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations for this subcategory
that are equivalent to the limitation established for BPT. Since BPT
requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can
be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology
basis is appropriate for BCT.
XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
The Agency is proposing to establish BAT for each of the two
subcategories on the equivalent technology basis as BPT. Accordingly,
there would be no additional costs associated with the BAT regulations.
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations for this subcategory
that are equivalent to the limitations established for BPT. Since BPT
requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can
be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology
basis is appropriate for BAT. EPA believes that there are no additional
costs associated with establishing these limits.
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations for this subcategory
that are equivalent to the limitation established for BPT. Since BPT
requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can
be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology
basis is appropriate for BAT.
XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
1. Options Selection
The Agency is proposing to establish PSES at the zero discharge
level. The best available technologies identified as a basis for these
proposed standards consist of recycle and reuse of wastewater and
treatment, where necessary, of wastewater by the Universal Treatment
System prior to recycle/reuse.
EPA's detailed evaluation of the technology-based options is
described in the following paragraphs of this section of the preamble.
This evaluation utilizes as a basis the results of the industry survey,
which focused on facilities involved in formulating, packaging and
repackaging the 272 active ingredients that were covered in the
recently promulgated (September 28, 1993, 58 FR 50637) manufacturing
effluent guidelines and standards. Based on sample results of the
survey there are an estimated 2439 facilities involved in formulating,
packaging and repackaging the 272 active ingredients. Information
obtained primarily from OPP Section 7 data bases on registered
products, and also from the survey and EPA facility visits and sampling
episodes were used to evaluate approximately 1300 of the 2400
facilities with respect to product lines that formulate, package or
repackage process both the 272 active ingredients and other active
ingredients covered by this proposed rule. As a second phase of the
evaluation, approximately 1500 facilities that process only the non-272
active ingredients were evaluated. These facilities were identified
from the FIFRA registration data for the base year of 1988. Based on
the formulating, packaging and repackaging practices and the types of
products being similar or the same at these facilities as that seen
and/or reported as part of the data base for the 272 active
ingredients, EPA has extrapolated the detailed evaluation of the 272
active ingredients to propose coverage of all PFPR facilities and
refilling establishments. EPA visited 51 PFPR facilities to conduct a
technical inspection of the facilities, their production processes,
wastewater generation, pollution prevention and wastewater treatment
practices. Of those 51 facilities 39 also formulate, package or
repackage pesticide products containing the non-272 active
ingredient(s). Based on observations and discussions with facility
personnel, EPA believes that the production practices, pollution
prevention practices and treatment practices (where they exist) are the
same for the products containing the 272 active ingredients and the
products containing the non-272 active ingredients.
The only FIFRA registered products that would not be covered by
this PSES proposal are pesticide products containing the active
ingredient sodium hypochlorite (also called bleach). EPA proposes to
exclude sodium hypochlorite from the applicability of PSES because it
is commonly classified as an inorganic chemical even though it has
registered pesticidal uses. EPA notes that it would be inappropriate to
combine wastewater generated from formulating, packaging or repackaging
sodium hypochlorite with wastewater from other active ingredients due
to the high probability that the sodium hypochlorite will react with
organic active ingredients and inerts, generating chlorinated organics.
Thus, EPA expects that wastewaters generated from the formulating,
packaging and repackaging of sodium hypochlorite are kept separate from
other PFPR wastewaters even in facilities where they co-exist (900
facilities formulate, package or repackage sodium hypochlorite only).
Because sodium hypochlorite is commonly classified as an inorganic
chemical and not as a pesticide and because sodium hypochlorite PFPR
waste streams are generally expected to be segregated and treated
separately from the remaining PFPR waste streams, EPA proposes not to
include sodium hypochlorite PFPR waste streams within the scope of
today's proposed regulations for indirect dischargers. Instead, EPA
believes that sodium hypochlorite formulating, packaging and
repackaging waste streams would be more appropriately included within
the coverage of future effluent guidelines rulemakings in other
industry categories, e.g., inorganic chemicals.
EPA recognizes that the existing BPT zero discharge requirement
would apply to the sodium hypochlorite PFPR direct dischargers. EPA is
not proposing to amend that requirement, since it has been in place
since the 1978 BPT rulemaking and there is no information that this
approach should be changed. However, EPA invites comment on whether to
exclude sodium hypochlorite PFPR waste streams from the regulations for
both indirect and direct dischargers. EPA also invites comment on
whether to expand the list of active ingredients excluded from coverage
should data become available that other specific active ingredients are
like sodium hypochlorite in that they act as strong oxidizing agents
and process wastewaters should not be combined with other pesticide
active ingredients through process wastewater treatment. Alternatively,
if EPA receives information indicating that sodium hypochlorite is not
as different from the other ingredients that are formulated, packaged
or repackaged as EPA believes, then EPA may decide to include sodium
hypochlorite discharges within the PSES coverage in the final rule, and
would make no changes to the rule's coverage with respect to direct
dischargers.
EPA's survey of the pesticide formulating and packaging subcategory
projects that out of an estimated 1300 facilities, formulating,
packaging and repackaging the 272 active ingredients that were the
focus of the survey, 669 are achieving zero discharge of process
wastewater. Virtually all of the estimated 633 discharging facilities
are indirect dischargers. Of the zero discharge facilities, half
reported that they do not use water for any of the purposes identified
as being process-related sources of wastewater. The estimated 342 other
facilities reported generating wastewater and achieving zero discharge
of that wastewater through a combination of direct recycle, treatment
and recycle, or off-site disposal. EPA assumes that many of these 342
facilities would be discharging directly, if it were allowed. EPA
examined the wastewater disposal practices of these facilities and made
a determination of what constituted the best available technologies
which serve as the basis for PSES.
Indirect dischargers in the pesticide formulating, packaging and
repackaging industry, use as raw materials many nonconventional
pollutants (such as the active ingredients) and priority pollutants.
They may be expected to discharge many of these pollutants to POTWs at
significant mass or concentration levels, or both. EPA estimates that
indirect dischargers of products containing one or more of the 272
organic pesticides annually discharge approximately 115,400 pounds of
wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
EPA determines which pollutants to regulate in PSES on the basis of
whether or not they pass through, interfere with, or are incompatible
with the operation of POTWs (including interference with sludge
practices). A pollutant is deemed pass through when the average
percentage removed nationwide by well-operated POTWs (those meeting
secondary treatment requirements) is less than the percentage removed
by directly discharging facilities applying BAT for that pollutant.
As with the pesticide manufacturing rule (58 FR 50637, September
28, 1993), EPA has very little empirical data on the active ingredient
removals actually achieved by POTWs. Therefore, the Agency is relying
on lab data to estimate the active ingredient removal performance that
would be achieved by biotreatment at well-operated POTWs applying
secondary treatment. The results of this laboratory study are reported
in the Domestic Sewage Study (DSS) (Report to Congress on the Discharge
of Hazardous Waste to Publicly Owned Treatment Works, February 1986,
EPA/530-SW-86-004). The DSS provides laboratory data under ideal
conditions to estimate biotreatment removal efficiencies at POTWs for
different organic active ingredients structural groups.
EPA has identified zero discharge of wastewater pollutants as
achievable with the best available technology, and this translates to
100 percent removal of active ingredient pollutants, which is
considerably greater than the removals achieved by biotreatment under
laboratory conditions for the active ingredients. For each of these
active ingredient structural groups, the DSS shows that average BAT
removal efficiencies are considerably greater than the average active
ingredient removals achieved by biotreatment under laboratory
conditions for each of the active ingredients (100 percent removal by
the technologies identified as BAT versus an optimistic estimate of 50
percent or less removal by the POTW as reported in the DSS).
Accordingly, all active ingredients were deemed to pass through the
treatment systems at POTWs.
The active ingredients that are formulated, packaged or repackaged
into pesticide products at a given facility are expected to always be
present in the process wastewater. Since EPA's pass through analysis
indicates that all active ingredients pass through, and the facility
would be required to achieve zero discharge of the active ingredient,
it would be inappropriate to exempt phenol or 2,4-dimethylphenol (or
any other priority pollutant) from regulation on the basis that they do
not pass through a POTW (as EPA did in the recent pesticides
manufacturers rulemaking). This is because these two priority
pollutants, which have been determined to be compatible with well-
operated secondary treatment, will never be the only pollutants present
in a wastewater stream resulting from pesticide formulating, packaging
or repackaging.
PFPR facilities often generate wastewater on multiple production
lines. Because the wastewater volumes are usually small, however, it is
not practical to operate dedicated wastewater treatment systems to
serve individual lines. Recognizing the need for operational
simplicity, EPA believes that centralized wastewater treatment is more
appropriate and has conceptualized a single BAT treatment system for
PFPR facilities that the Agency is terming the ``Universal Treatment
System.'' As envisioned by EPA, the Universal Treatment System would be
sized to handle small volumes of wastewater on a batch basis and would
combine the most commonly used treatment technologies for pesticide
active ingredients, hydrolysis, chemical precipitation, chemical
oxidation, and activated carbon, with one or more pretreatment steps,
such as emulsion breaking, solids settling, and filtration. The BAT
performance of the three active ingredient treatment technologies is
well demonstrated and they serve as the full or partial basis for most
of the manufacturers' active ingredient limitations.
The pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging wastewater is
expected to contain the constituents of the pesticide product being
formulated. It could be possible that a facility would formulate and
package, for example a product containing an active ingredient that is
best treated by hydrolysis and another product that contains an active
ingredient that is best treated by chemical oxidation. The Universal
Treatment System is expected to be flexible in that it can handle these
diverse treatment requirements. This system can treat pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging wastewater with hydrolysis,
chemical oxidation, chemical precipitation and activated carbon or a
combination of these technologies depending on the active ingredients
needing to be controlled. The Universal Treatment System also can
accomplish chemical/thermal emulsion breaking, which controls
emulsifiers and surfactants that are added to some pesticide products
as inert ingredients. Emulsion breaking may be needed as an initial
step to improve the treatability of the wastewater. As described
previously in Section V of this preamble, the Agency conducted a
treatability study using pesticide formulating, packaging and
repackaging process wastewater from two facilities to demonstrate the
performance of the Universal Treatment System.
EPA envisions the Universal Treatment System as being a flexible
treatment system that can treat for a variety of active ingredients, be
sized to handle the small volumes generated by pesticide formulating,
packaging and repackaging facilities, and be operated on a batch basis.
EPA expects that the majority of facilities needing treatment will need
less than the full array of control technologies provided in the
Universal Treatment System.
EPA believes the Universal Treatment System including pretreatment
for emulsifiers/surfactants where needed and pollution prevention
practices and water conservation that lead to the recycle/reuse of the
treated wastewaters, reflects the best available technology for this
PSES rulemaking. However these are by no means the only technologies
available to achieve the proposed standards. For example, as described
previously in Section VIII of this preamble, three of the facilities
sampled employed an ultrafiltration membrane separation technology or
cross-flow filtration that operates in a similar manner in combination
with activated carbon technology. The full Universal Treatment System
may not currently be available on a commercial basis as an off-the-
shelf system, but EPA believes that in many cases there are
commercially available systems that will be suitable for a specific
facility's needs. Many of the pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities that do have treatment have purchased off-the-
shelf treatment units such as ultrafiltration or cross-flow filtration
membranes and activated carbon systems.
Based on the BAT technology identified by EPA, EPA developed five
regulatory options that were considered for PSES. The Agency estimated
the cost and pollutant removal expected to be incurred for each option
and evaluated the economic impacts and cost effectiveness of these
options. The Agency selected the proposed regulatory approach based on
the economic and technological achievability of the options.
The options considered for PSES are as follows:
Option 1 would set numeric discharge limits for various
pollutants based on end-of-pipe treatment for the entire wastewater
volume currently generated by PFPR facilities through the Universal
Treatment System and discharge of the entire volume to POTWs.
Option 2 adds pollution prevention by requiring zero discharge
of process wastewater pollutants for wastewaters generated from
cleaning the interiors of formulating and packaging equipment and
raw material and shipping containers, which can be recycled back
into the product to recover the product value in the wastewaters.
Numeric discharge limits would be set for other wastewaters,which
would still be expected to be treated through the Universal
Treatment System and discharged to POTWs.
Option 3 would be based on the same technology and pollution
prevention practices as the Option 2. BAT for this option, however,
would include recycling of all process wastewater by recycling the
wastewater back to the facility in some cases after treatment
through the Universal Treatment System instead of allowing a
discharge after treatment.
Option 3/S is the same as Option 3 for all PFPR facilities,
except for those facilities that formulate package, or repackage
sanitizer active ingredients and whose sanitizer production is less
than 265,000 lbs/yr. Based on the level of impacts imposed on
facilities that formulate, package or repackage these small
quantities of sanitizer active ingredients (sanitizer active
ingredients are defined in Table 8 of the regulation) and the small
amounts of pollutant discharges from non-interior sources at
sanitizer facilities, EPA developed this option which requires the
achievement of zero discharge of interior wastewaters only. Other
wastewater sources generated by formulating packaging or repackaging
using sanitizer active ingredients at these facilities would not be
subject to pretreatment standards.
Option 4 incorporates the pollution prevention aspects of
Options 2 and 3, but instead of treatment, assumes that wastewaters
that cannot be recycled will be disposed of by off-site
incineration.
Option 5 is based on disposal of all wastewater through off-site
incineration.
Option 3/S proposes to exempt the non-interior streams at
facilities that formulate, package or repackage less than 265,000 lb/yr
sanitizer products for the following reasons: The sanitizers segment is
composed almost entirely of small businesses. The projected impacts of
this rulemaking on them are more significant than they are on other
PFPR facilities due primarily to the costs of having to install
treatment for their non-interior streams. The amount of pollutants
associated with their non-interior streams is small--about 22 toxic-
weighted pound equivalents per year out of a total toxic weighted
loading of 12 million toxic pounds generated by this industry.
Therefore, excluding their non-interior streams from coverage results
in basically the same overall reduction in pollutants discharged by the
PFP industry but significantly eases the burden on these small entities
(see Section XIV below). This is consistent with the objectives of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, which directs agencies to examine ``any
significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the
stated objectives of applicable statutes and which minimize any
significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities.''
(RFA Section 603). Section 603 also specifically mentions exemptions
from coverage of the rule as one type of alternative that could be
examined. EPA also notes that sanitizer products, in contrast to most
other pesticide products, are intended to be discharged to sinks and
drains with normal use and therefore large quantities of the products
themselves (apart from the PFP waste streams) end up at the POTW. EPA
is not aware that these products are causing any interferences at
POTWs. Further, discharging this small additional amount of sanitizer
chemicals--22 pound-equivalents per year--to POTWs would not materially
increase the total amount of these chemicals being discharged to POTWs.
Option 1 is more costly and estimated to cause more economic
impacts than Options 2, 3, and 3/S due to a higher volume of water that
is costed for treatment through the Universal Treatment System. Options
2 and 3 are estimated to have the same costs and level of economic
impacts since both options are based on the same technology. For
simplification and because the technology is essentially identical the
costs are assumed to be identical.
In reality Option 3 costs could be lower than Option 2, because
sampling data indicate that facilities which do treat wastewater for
recycling back to the facility do not always achieve the same degree of
pollutant removal from the wastewater that would be required to comply
with numeric standards (see Section V of the Technical Development
Document). However, Option 3 requires the treated wastewater to be
recycled rather than discharged thus achieving greater pollutant
removals than Option 2. Options 3/S is less costly than Options 2 and
3, and is expected to cause fewer economic impacts. Option 4 is more
costly than Options 1 through 3/S and Option 5 is more costly than
Option 4, though both achieve the same degree of wastewater pollution
control as Option 3.
In order to provide coverage of this proposed rule to the
facilities formulating, packaging and repackaging the additional PAIs
not included as part of the 272 PAIs identified in the survey, an
additional Option 3/S.1 was evaluated. This Option was costed to
include facility costs for control of the additional non-272 at
facilities costed for Option 3/S and approximately 1500 additional
facilities with only non-272 PAIs.
Based on the evaluation of the additional facilities Option 3/S.1
has been selected to be the basis for pretreatment standards for
existing sources. This selection provides a basis for PSES that is
consistent with requirements for direct dischargers. Option 3/S.1
represents the performance of the best available technology
economically achievable, incorporating the best existing practices of
pollution prevention, recycle/reuse, water conservation and wastewater
treatment in this subcategory. Based on the analysis comparing the
various options showing Option 3/S to be less costly the Agency
believes that Option 3/S.1 imposes lesser costs than all other options
would if their coverage was expanded, and achieves greater pollutant
removals than Options 1 and 2 with expanded coverage. Options 3, 4 and
5 which require zero discharge from all wastewater sources remove only
slightly more pollutants due to small production sanitizer chemical
facilities being required to treat and recycle their exterior
wastewater sources. Since EPA as part of its analysis in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, has determined that the costs and
impacts associated with installing treatment systems to recycle non-
interior wastewater sources at small production sanitizer facilities
can be reduced and the associated pollutant discharges are small (see
section XIV of this preamble), Option 3/S.1 was selected. Thus, EPA is
proposing to establish separate standards for the formulating,
packaging and repackaging of sanitizer chemicals when total sanitizer
product is less than 265,000 lbs/yr, which require these sanitizer
facilities to achieve zero discharge from interior wastewater sources
only. The production cut-off of 265,000 lbs/yr represents the
production level of the largest facility that is projected to benefit
by an exemption of wastewater treatment requirements for non-interior
wastewater sources. This production level applies to a facility's sum
total pounds of all sanitizer registered products containing one or
more of the sanitizer active ingredients listed on Table 8 of the
regulation and no other active ingredients.
EPA has estimated the costs associated with the survey database for
the 272 active ingredients. Option 3/S would cost $26.9 million
annually and would result in one facility closure and 147 product line
closures or conversions. The expanded coverage of all active
ingredients (except for sodium hypochlorite) is estimated to increase
the costs to a final total of $56.1 million annually and would result
in an estimated 2 plant closures, and 256 product line closures or
conversions.
EPA expects that many facilities which formulate, package or
repackage both pesticide chemicals and sanitizer chemicals will not
realize any significant relief in their regulatory requirements through
Option 3/S (and 3/S.1) as compared to Option 3. This is because the
non-interior waste streams which the Agency is proposing to exclude
from coverage (equipment exterior cleaning, floor washing, laboratory
equipment cleaning, safety equipment cleaning, air pollution scrubbers
and contaminated stormwater) for the sanitizer chemicals tend to be
related to the activities occurring throughout the facility not to
specific products or even specific production lines. Therefore, unless
a combined facility has dedicated lines that physically separate the
sanitizer and non-sanitizer wastewaters, the non-interior PFPR waste
streams will contain both sanitizer and non-sanitizer chemicals and
therefore will be controlled by the pretreatment standards for the non-
sanitizer chemicals active ingredients. EPA emphasizes that products
which contain a sanitizer active ingredient and non-sanitizer active
ingredient shall be considered not subject to the sanitizer exemption.
EPA has not provided the same exemption for small sanitizer
facilities in the BPT, BAT and BCT regulations. EPA has evaluated
whether this would be appropriate, but could find no basis for
expanding the exemption. The BPT requirements have covered all PFPR
waste streams since those requirements were issued in 1978, and EPA
believes there is no reason to relax those requirements. However, EPA
invites comments on this issue. The Agency would consider revising the
BPT, BCT and BAT regulations to be consistent with the PSES standards
with respect to the small sanitizer facilities exemption if new
information and comments indicate that extending that exemption to the
direct discharger facilities would be appropriate (i.e., based on the
ability to relieve significant impacts on small direct discharge
entities while sacrificing only a small number of toxic-weighted
pounds).
The following discussion of the Options considered reflects
estimated costs and loadings for the wastewater generated from
formulating, packaging or repackaging the 272 active ingredients only.
Option 1 is estimated to cost $33.6 million annually for the 2400
facilities analyzed, and would remove an estimated 111,653 pounds of
active ingredients per year. EPA's analysis of the impacts of these
costs projects that eleven plants would close and 189 plants would
discontinue their pesticides production (i.e. would have line
conversions). EPA's estimates are based on the cost required to install
a Universal Treatment System, including one or more of the identified
Universal Treatment System control technologies and holding tanks,
pumps, and piping as needed. For ease of analysis, EPA assumed
conservatively that this cost would be imposed on all facilities that
currently discharge to POTW's and that no existing facilities would
have any savings due to treatment already in place. EPA estimated costs
on a plant-by-plant basis for all plants surveyed that reported
discharge of process wastewater to a POTW. Although there are a small
number of surveyed facilities that reported treating their wastewater
prior to discharging it to a POTW, in most cases this treatment was not
intended to control active ingredients. For the majority of facilities,
EPA costed treatment technology (and equipment to accomplish recycle
and reuse as needed) for the total volume reported in the questionnaire
as being discharged currently. For facilities that are engaged in both
pesticide manufacturing and formulating, packaging or repackaging EPA
assumed that costs would be incurred for PFPR wastewater treatment and
recycle and reuse equipment believed to be needed beyond the equipment
these facilities already have in place.
Option 1 was rejected because it does not incorporate any recycle
or water conservation, pollution prevention techniques that are widely
demonstrated and practiced in this industry. Therefore, it does not
represent the best available technology. Also, the Agency would be
unable to control the discharge of all pollutants due to a lack of
analytical methods for some active ingredients. EPA also notes that
Option 1 would require significant additional data on a large number of
pollutants for which the Agency would have to establish standards and
for which facilities would need to monitor. EPA did consider setting
standards for one or more pollutants that could be used as surrogates
for the active ingredients and other priority pollutants. The Agency
considered, for example, using immunoassays as a less expensive
alternate method for demonstrating compliance. EPA performed tests
using these immunoassay techniques as written up in Environmental Lab;
June/July 1993, Vol. 5, Number 3, page 27. As stated in this article,
the immunoassay tests appear to work reasonably well if the monitoring
involves a relatively small number of analytes overall.
However, since there are only a few ingredient-specific immunoassay
tests available, EPA does not consider this method of determining
compliance to be feasible at present. EPA also considered the
possibility of using Total Organic Carbon (TOC) or the Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD) as measures of the performance of wastewater treatment in
removing active ingredients and other pollutants. This alternative was
also rejected because it would be very difficult to establish a
specific concentration of TOC or COD that would reflect adequate
treatment and removal of the active ingredients and other pollutants
for all of the diverse wastewater matrices found at pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities. Lastly, the Agency
gave some consideration to a measurement of the toxicity of the
wastewater. This was also rejected, because toxicity measurements are
in no way specific to any given pollutant and they are not expected to
be sensitive at the levels that represent good wastewater treatment.
To alleviate the burden associated with monitoring for each
specific regulated pollutant would have required EPA to identify a
suitable surrogate pollutant in each case for formulating, packaging or
repackaging facilities, which was not possible.
Option 2 is estimated to cost $28.7 million annually for the 2400
facilities, and would be expected to remove 111,683 pounds of active
ingredients per year. The estimated costs for Option 2 are slightly
lower than the estimated costs for Option 1, due to a lower volume of
wastewater that is expected to be treated by the Universal Treatment
System. Since EPA believes that wastewater from rinsing the interior of
shipping containers can be directly added to the product being
formulated, EPA has estimated that no cost is associated with the
recycle of this stream. EPA has estimated the cost of holding the
rinsate from cleaning equipment interiors and bulk storage tanks. This
cost is based on the greatest volume expected to be generated over a 90
day period. EPA has assumed that facilities will hold these wastewater
sources no longer than 90 days in order to avoid the possibility of
being classified a RCRA waste storage facility, and separate holding
tanks to avoid cross-contamination of wastewater were costed for each
product the facility reported making. If there is a gap in production
of greater than 90-days based on the reported production schedule for a
given product it was assumed that the volume would be combined with
other pesticide process wastewater for treatment through the Universal
Treatment System. Generally, wastewater volumes from interior cleaning
were costed for recycle only and were not part of the hydraulic load
that was costed for treatment through the Universal Treatment System.
Therefore the Universal Treatment System can be smaller than the system
costed for Option 1. EPA estimates that the economic impact of Option 2
would be one possible plant closure and 192 line conversions.
Option 2 was rejected even though it does incorporate pollution
prevention practices, because it does not represent the best available
technologies, i.e. the best performance of facilities in this
subcategory. In addition, EPA would still need to establish standards
for a long list of pollutants and there would still be some pollutants
for which the discharge would be uncontrolled. As discussed previously
an estimated 669 of the 1305 PFPR (not including refilling
establishments) facilities are achieving zero discharge. EPA generally
could find no significant difference between facilities that use but do
not discharge wastewater versus facilities that do discharge. There is
generally no significant difference in production processes, volumes
produced, type of products made, active ingredients used, geographic
location or any other factor. Therefore, Option 2 for PSES was also
rejected because it would allow a discharge and thus result in largely
inconsistent requirements for PSES compared to BPT/BAT for direct
dischargers.
Option 3 is also estimated to cost $28.7 million annually for the
2400 facilities and result in one plant closure and 188 product line
closures or conversions. However Option 3 is estimated to remove
111,996 pounds per year of active ingredient pollutants. As discussed
previously, EPA has proposed to select not Option 3 but a variation of
Option 3 in which the costs and economic impacts associated are reduced
for the small sanitizer facilities. (See Section XIV of this preamble
for more detailed discussion).
Options 4 and 5 were rejected because they rely on transferring
wastewater pollutants to other media as part of their approach. In
addition their very high cost would result in greater economic impacts
on many facilities. Option 4 is estimated to cost $290 million and
Option 5 is estimated to cost $364 million for the 2400 facilities. The
projected economic impacts include 8 plant closures for both Options
with 193 product line closures or conversions for Option 4 and 230
product line closures or conversions for Option 5. It should be noted
that there are small numbers of facilities that could find it less
expensive to practice pollution prevention on the interior cleaning
wastewaters and send the rest of their pesticide formulating, packaging
or repackaging wastewater off-site for disposal than it will be for
them to install a treatment system to handle these wastes. EPA is
providing suggestions for handling wastewaters and treating and/or
recycling them in an efficient, low-cost manner such that these
facilities can be dissuaded from opting to transfer wastewater
pollutants to other media. (See Technical Development Document for
details.)
2. Cost Estimates
EPA estimated industry-wide costs for these five options by
estimating costs on a plant-by-plant basis for the 707 facilities
involved in the survey. These costs were used to estimate costs for the
2400 facilities that are represented by the survey. Each of the
surveyed facilities that use and discharge wastewater to the POTW was
costed for each option. For the second phase of the evaluation
(facilities processing both the 272 and the non-272 active ingredients)
additional costs were determined based on the survey responses. For
facilities processing only the non-272 active ingredients, costs were
estimated based on the results of costing compliance with the proposed
rule for the 2400 facilities for which the detailed information was
developed. Based on the additional 1500 facilities processing only the
non-272 PAIs, as identified in the FIFRA data base, and taking into
account the estimated number of these facilities that would already be
at zero discharge based on the surveyed population of facilities, 311
of the 1500 PFPR facilities were estimated to incur costs. This is
proportional to the 507 PFPR facilities which were costed in the
costing evaluation for the 272 PAIs. Since the practices and types of
products are expected to be the same for facilities processing both the
272 active ingredients in the survey data base and the other active
ingredients (non-272 active ingredients) covered by the proposed rule,
the distribution of costs was estimated to be the same for both
populations of facilities. Including the additional costs for the 311
PFPR facilities to formulate, package, and/or repackage non-272 PAIs,
the additional annualized cost associated with the extended coverage of
the proposed rule for PFPR facilities is $20.5 million, with 818 PFPR
facilities incurring costs. EPA also estimated that there could be an
additional 13 manufacturing/formulating, packaging and repackaging
facilities that make products containing only non-272 active
ingredients. Using the same approach as above EPA estimates there may
be a cost of $5.8 million annualized cost associated with their
compliance, and an additional $3.7 million annualized cost for the
original 22 PFPR/manufacturers. This results in a total annualized cost
of $56.1 million for the proposed option.
With respect to the detailed costing evaluation for the 2439 out of
the 3879 facilities, EPA began by establishing a hierarchy with which
to estimate the costs for all wastewaters.
EPA assumes that any wastewater stream achieving zero
discharge to surface waters as of 1988 would not be affected by
these regulations and so no additional cost was included.
Any wastewater stream generated by rinsing drums or
shipping containers is assumed to be reused in product formulations
without storage at no additional cost to the facility.
Wastewater streams generated by rinsing bulk storage
containers are assumed to be temporarily stored and later reused on
site. Facilities would incur costs associated with this storage.
Wastewater streams generated by cleaning the interiors
of pesticide formulating and packaging equipment are assumed to be
temporarily stored and later reused in product formulation where
possible, or treated (as discussed below) and reused on site.
Facilities would incur costs associated with this storage.
Wastewater contained in waste streams that are
generated by cleaning pesticide formulating and packaging equipment
with both water and solvent streams is assumed to be kept separate
from the solvent and treated and reused on site. When switching from
a solvent to a water-based product a facility typically rinses the
equipment first with the solvent, (which can be reused in the next
formulation) followed by a water rinse. Although this water rinse
may contain small quantities of solvent, the Agency believes this
water can be treated on-site and reused. Facilities would incur
costs associated with this treatment and storage.
Under the selected regulatory approach wastewater generated from
cleaning out the interiors would be reused as diluent in the next batch
of the same product to be formulated, thus recovering the product value
of this wastewater. However, some facilities reported cleaning
equipment interiors in a way that may preclude the wastewater's reuse.
The Agency believes that these facilities can change their cleaning
practices or change their equipment configurations such that they will
be able to reuse these waste streams. Without the facility-specific
information needed to assess how each facility might do this, the
Agency has taken the following approach to costing for these interior
waste streams.
Organic based Solvents used for cleaning are not
expected to be discharged to a POTW and are not included in the
estimates of cost. EPA's survey data base indicates that companies
generally prefer for cost or other reasons to keep solvents separate
from wastewaters and not discharge them to POTWs. Often companies
can reuse solvents or burn or sell them for their fuel content.
Cleaning with inert materials (besides water) or
mechanical cleaning (e.g. scraping) are not expected to result in a
wastewater source and are not included in the estimates of cost.
Cleaning water that is currently being recycled or
reused is already complying with the regulatory approach and
therefore is not included in the estimates of cost.
Cleaning water that is disposed of off-site and not to
a POTW is already complying with the regulatory approach in that it
is not discharged directly to surface waters or indirectly through a
POTW and therefore is not included in the estimates of cost.
In the case of cleaning the interior of equipment with water only,
the following factors were also considered:
a. Lines that do not formulate. It is assumed that wastewater
generated by cleaning lines that are not used to formulate products
(i.e., those lines used exclusively for packaging or repackaging
pesticide product) is unable to be reused directly in product
formulations, since no pesticide products are formulated on these
lines. These waste streams were costed for treatment and reuse or off-
site incineration.
b. Lines that handle dry or emulsifiable concentrate products. On
lines where emulsifiable concentrates were formulated and packaged,
wastewater generated from cleaning equipment interiors was assumed not
to be reusable in the product. Since it is impossible to determine the
portion of water generated on the line which is due to only these
emulsifiable concentrate products, EPA assumed that all the water
reported for those lines could not be reused. Therefore, formulation
and packaging lines producing either emulsifiable concentrate or dry
products were costed for treatment and reuse or off-site incineration.
c. Toll or contract formulating. Facilities that generate water
during cleaning and are toll or contract formulators (i.e., the
facility provides the formulating and packaging of the pesticide
products as a service) may not have a consistent base of production.
EPA assumes that they may not make a product more than once in any
given time period and therefore may not be able to reuse cleaning water
directly into product formulations. Therefore, toll or contract
formulation and packaging facilities were costed for treatment and
reuse or off-site incineration.
d. Lines that have a break in operations greater than 90 days.
Wastewater generated from cleaning equipment interiors that will not be
used to formulate that product for more than 90 days (i.e., the
facility reported that the line was not producing pesticide products
during four or more consecutive months in 1988) could be affected by
RCRA or similar state storage rules. EPA assumed that a portion of the
water generated on the line is unable to be reused in product
formulation. This was costed for treatment and reuse or off-site
incineration.
Some lines produced pesticide during only one period in the year.
In these cases, EPA assumed that equal volumes of water would be
generated for each cleaning; therefore, the total volume was divided by
the number of occurrences to determine the volume of water generated
during each cleaning. This volume was used to estimate the cost of
treatment and reuse or off-site disposal of the last cleanout
performed. The remaining volume of water was costed for storage and
direct reuse back into the product.
Some lines may be unable to reuse untreated water. All interior
cleaning water from these lines was costed for treatment and reuse or
off-site incineration along with the facilities' non-interior process
wastewater.
e. Lines that have special cleaning operations. Some facilities
generate wastewater from special cleaning operations, as opposed to
routine or product changeover cleaning, and have more than one product
on the line. (Lines with only one product are assumed to be able to
reuse water directly in the product formulation.) In situations where
these lines handle the same active ingredients in all the products, EPA
assumed the cleaning wastewaters could be reused directly in the
product formulations.
Other facilities may have some difficulty reusing water from these
operations directly into product formulations with their current
practices. Special cleanings are presumed to be unplanned and may
result in large quantities of wastewaters that are contaminated by
multiple products. In these cases, the special cleaning water was
costed for treatment and reuse or off-site incineration.
f. Lines that generate more volume than could potentially be reused
in the product. Based on the available information, EPA believes some
facilities may generate more water from cleaning operations than could
be reused. EPA used the following approach to estimate this under the
following conditions:
(1) The pounds of active ingredient reported to be in the
product were calculated. The percent of active ingredient(s)
provided by the facility in Section 3 of the questionnaire was used
to determine this value: (Total Pounds Produced x Total % Active
Ingredient)=Total Pounds Active Ingredient.
(2) The calculated pounds of active ingredient were subtracted
from the total pounds of product to determine the pounds of inert
ingredients (especially diluent): (Total Pounds Produced - Pound of
Active Ingredient)=Pounds of Inert Ingredients.
(3) The pounds of inert ingredients remaining were converted to
gallons: (Pounds of Inert Ingredients/8.34 pounds/gallons)=Gallons
of Inert Ingredients.
(4) Assume that cleaning water could be used to make up 50
percent of this volume: (Gallons of Inert Ingredients x 50
percent)=Gallons of water that can be reused.
(5) Compare this value to the volume of interior equipment
cleaning wastewater generated on the line:
For: Gallons of water that can be reused Total
interior equipment cleaning, water is costed for reuse in the
product.
For: Gallons of water that can be reused Total
interior equipment cleaning, water is costed for treatment and reuse
or off-site incineration.
Other conditions were reported in the questionnaires and were
costed in the following ways:
Lines with multiple cleaning sequences and different
steps in each sequence, often mixing water with other steps such as
abrasives or detergents, were costed for off-site disposal or
treatment and reuse. This is because the effect of using the
abrasives or detergents along with water to clean equipment results
in adding a contaminant to the wastewater that is not a constituent
of the product and could thus render the wastewater incompatible for
direct product recovery and reuse without treatment.
Lines with detergent solutions used to clean the
interiors of equipment were costed for treatment and reuse.
Lines in which the water used to clean equipment
interiors becomes contaminated with solvents also used on the same
line were costed for treatment and reuse.
All other wastewater streams (``non-interior streams'') are assumed
to be treated and reused on-site or hauled for off-site incineration,
depending on the option costed. EPA's cost model for wastewater
treatment was initially based on the model used to estimate costs for
the pesticide manufacturers rulemaking effort. EPA refined that model
to enable costs and loadings to be estimated for all water-using
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities in the
surveyed population.
The Universal Treatment System identified as BAT/PSES technology,
and assumed in the cost model to be required, consists in part, of raw
wastewater storage tanks. Storage tank capacity was costed to hold as
much volume as is assumed to be generated during three months or the
facility's maximum wastewater volume generated at one time in 1988,
whichever volume is larger. The system also includes a jacketed process
treatment vessel in which emulsion breaking, chemical oxidation,
sulfide precipitation and hydrolysis will take place, an activated
carbon system consisting of a feed storage tank, a grit pre-filter, a
three-bed adsorber unit (and, if size required, a backwash system), and
effluent storage tanks equal in capacity to the raw wastewater storage.
A review of pesticide manufacturing treatability data reveals that
activated carbon, chemical oxidation, and hydrolysis are the most
common BAT technologies used to treat pesticide active ingredients.
These technologies are expected to be capable of treating any and all
active ingredients in PFPR waste streams to levels that will allow
recycle/reuse and thus would result in zero discharge of wastewaters.
(See previous discussion of the Universal Treatment System treatability
study.)
The model calculates costs for BAT under the assumption that
hydrolysis and chemical oxidation are carried out only when required
(based upon the treatability information for each active ingredient
available from the pesticide manufacturer rule database or data
transfers as described previously in Section V). Emulsion breaking
pretreatment and activated carbon adsorption, however, are always
assumed to be carried out on the wastewater and therefore their costs
are always included. This approach is conservative, because it is
likely that not all facilities will need to use emulsion breaking to
treat their wastewaters.
The input data required by the cost model consist of facility-
specific wastewater flow data, facility-specific influent active
ingredient concentration data, active ingredient treatability data, and
active ingredient analytical method data. These data are used to
calculate current and proposed active ingredient loadings, to size and
cost the treatment system, and to cost monitoring of the treated
wastewater. The flow data were obtained from the PFPR questionnaire
responses. The concentration data were obtained from EPA sampling at
seven PFPR facilities. Both sets of data are stored in the pesticide
formulating data base.
The cost model determines the quarterly wastewater volumes and the
maximum wastewater volume needing treatment at any one time. These
values are used to size the raw wastewater storage tanks in the
Universal Treatment System.
Active ingredient loadings were estimated on a stream-by-stream
basis by first identifying the active ingredients that could be in each
stream and then extrapolating sampling data to set an influent
concentration for each active ingredient in each stream. It was assumed
that each active ingredient contained in the pesticide product would be
contained in the wastewater streams generated by the production line
for that product. It was also assumed that all active ingredients
formulated, packaged or repackaged by each facility would be in the
facility's non-line specific wastewater streams. The concentration of
each active ingredient in the facility's commingled wastewater was then
estimated by dividing the sum of the stream-specific loadings for each
active ingredient by the total facility pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging wastewater flow.
The active ingredient concentrations for each stream were
extrapolated from the sampling data in the pesticide formulating,
packaging or repackaging analytical database (and were sorted by stream
type and active ingredient). Due to the lack of concentration data for
numerous active ingredients in the process wastewater streams,
concentration values were extrapolated from available active ingredient
stream data to other active ingredients within that particular stream
type for which no characterization data exist. The following
methodology was used:
Actual active ingredient concentration data were used
when available;
Active ingredient concentration data were transferred
to structurally similar active ingredients for the same source of
wastewater; and
Median values of all the active ingredient
concentration data points for the same stream type were transferred
to all remaining active ingredients lacking characterization data.
The median active ingredient concentrations are assumed to
reasonably reflect what is likely to be found in the wastewater. To
check this, comparison was made of the calculated load of the
commingled waste streams based on the median concentration values and
the actual loading observed in the wastewater samples at two sampled
facilities. The two values were reasonably close.
The active ingredient treatability data used in the cost model were
principally taken from the pesticide manufacturers data base or from
treatability studies as described previously under the discussion of
data transfers. The following methodology was applied:
Active ingredients with pesticide manufacturing BAT
technologies of hydrolysis, chemical oxidation, or activated carbon
adsorption (the technologies used in the ``Universal Treatment
System'') were assumed to be treated by these technologies in the
cost model, to the same effluent concentrations set under the
manufacturing rulemaking (58 FR 50637). This assumption results in
conservative cost estimates since the sampling data from the PFPR
facilities that are treating to recycle their wastewater sometimes
had higher concentrations of pollutants in their treated wastewater
than the manufacturing limits would have allowed, yet they still
reuse their treated wastewater in various non-interior process
related uses.
For pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) that have
pesticide manufacturing limitations which are based on one of the
UTS technologies (i.e., activated carbon, hydrolysis, chemical
oxidation, chemical precipitation), achievable effluent
concentrations were based on LTA concentrations from data derived
from the development of the pesticide manufacturing effluent
limitations guidelines. When pesticide manufacturing limitations
existed but were not based on one of the UTS technologies mentioned
above, treatability data for one of the UTS technologies was used to
back up the manufacturing LTA concentration. When pesticide
manufacturing limitations did not exist, EPA transferred LTA
concentration data within strutural groups (using the highest LTA in
the strutural group). When there was no LTA for any PAI within a
given strutural group, EPA transferred the 90th percentile highest
LTA, which means that 90% of the PAIs with manufacturing limits have
LTAs less than the transferred limit.
Active ingredient analytical methods and associated costs were used
to calculate effluent monitoring costs for each facility. The
analytical methods and costs were obtained by:
Using the actual methods and costs, obtained from
laboratories' rates, for those active ingredients for which EPA has
approved methods;
Using the same method(s) as for structurally similar
active ingredients for the active ingredients without approved
methods. In cases where more than one method is available for
structurally-similar active ingredients, the most expensive method
is used to calculate costs;
Using an average monitoring cost of $200 for those
active ingredients lacking analytical methods for structurally-
similar active ingredients. This cost assumes that a method would
become available, and is based on the cost analytical laboratories
have charged EPA to analyze for pesticide active ingredients in
EPA's sampling program.
EPA estimated costs for monitoring active ingredient concentrations
for Options 1,2,3 and 3/S. Option 3 and 3/S (and 3S.1) would not
require monitoring of pollutant concentrations to demonstrate
compliance. However, the Agency assumes facilities may monitor
wastewater after treatment and before recycling or reusing it to ensure
it has been adequately treated. To be conservative EPA has assumed all
facilities will incur this monitoring cost. In actuality, many
facilities do not perform analyses to determine active ingredient
concentrations. However, they usually do perform some type of quality
check. It can vary from visual inspection to measuring a parameter such
as density, COD or TSS to actually measuring the concentration of the
active ingredient as done by some large facilities.
EPA estimated the number of days each facility discharged in 1988
as well as the number of days each facility would discharge under the
proposed regulatory options. Because the number of discharge days was
not provided by pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging
facilities in the questionnaire, EPA estimated 1988 discharge days
based on the number of days that facilities operated their individual
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging lines in 1988.
Facilities reported the number of days each line was used to produce
pesticide products in 1988 and which months each line was in operation,
but did not report the total number of days that the entire pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facility was in operation. In
order to account for overlap when a facility operated multiple lines
producing pesticide products during the same days, EPA compared the
total number of days reported for all pesticide formulating, packaging
or repackaging lines at each facility with 22 days per month for each
month the facility was in operation (assumes most facilities operated
five days per week). EPA then selected the smallest of these
estimations to be the number of discharge days. For the two proposed
discharge options, facilities are assumed to discharge wastewater, at a
minimum, once per each calendar quarter that they are in operation.
See Section 8 of the Technical Development Document for a detailed
discussion of the engineering and technical analysis that is the basis
of the cost estimates.
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments Whose Principal Business Is Retail Sales (Subcategory E)
EPA is today proposing to establish pretreatment standards for
refilling establishments that repackage agricultural pesticide products
based on achieving zero discharge of wastewater pollutants to POTWs.
Using the same approach to evaluating the pass through of wastewater
pollutants as is discussed for Subcategory C, EPA expects that the
pesticide active ingredient pollutants present in process wastewaters
from refilling operations will pass through POTW's. As with pass
through analysis for Subcategory C, an optimistic estimate of 50
percent removal of active ingredients using well-operated secondary
treatment at POTWs does not come close to matching 100 percent removal
achieved by the proposed BAT level treatment. As with Subcategory C,
EPA assumes that the active ingredient will always be present in the
wastewater from refilling establishments.
The best available technology identified for this proposal is
secondary containment of bulk storage areas and loading pads, plus the
collection and holding of rinsates, contaminated stormwater and leaks
and spills. The Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs has proposed a
regulation under FIFRA that would require refilling establishments for
agricultural pesticides to build secondary containment structures and
loading pads to certain specifications (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994).
Of the estimated 1134 facilities (based on the 1988 survey) that would
be affected by today's proposal, EPA's questionnaire responses indicate
that 98 percent or an estimated 1101 already achieve zero discharge,
primarily by holding contaminated wastewater and reusing it as make-up
water. Thus, this practice not only eliminates the discharge of
wastewater but also allows the facility to recover the value of the
product in the wastewater. The average volume of wastewater discharged
by refilling establishments is estimated to be 78 gallons per year per
facility. EPA assumes volumes of this magnitude can be held in a
minibulk container until such a time as it can be reused. EPA estimates
the cost of a minibulk container to be about $300 capital investment.
EPA finds the costs are economically achievable (see Section XIV).
XIII. New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards
for New Sources
A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging
(Subcategory C)
EPA is proposing to establish NSPS as zero discharge, equivalent to
the BAT requirements for existing sources. Zero discharge represents
best available and best demonstrated technology for the pesticide
formulating, packaging and repackaging subcategory as a whole. The
economic impact analysis for existing sources shows that this
regulatory approach (termed Option 3 in the discussion above) would be
economically achievable for the industry. EPA believes that new sources
will be able to comply at costs that are similar to or less than the
costs for existing sources, because new sources can apply control
technologies (including dedicated lines and pressurized hoses for
equipment cleaning) more efficiently than sources that need to retrofit
for those technologies. EPA's analysis concludes that a zero discharge
requirement for new source direct dischargers would be economically
achievable and would not be a barrier to entry.
EPA is proposing to set pretreatment standards for new sources
(which cover indirect dischargers) equivalent to the NSPS standards
(which cover direct dischargers), i.e., at zero discharge for all PFPR
waste streams. For the reasons stated above with respect to the NSPS
standards, EPA finds that the PSNS regulations would be economically
achievable and not a barrier to entry.
Although EPA has proposed to exempt the non-interior waste streams
of the small sanitizers from this zero discharge requirement for
existing pretreatment facilities (PSES), EPA is not proposing to
include this same exemption for the new source pretreatment facilities
(PSNS). The rationale for finding that the exemption for those
sanitizer waste streams is appropriate for existing sources is based on
EPA's findings that the impacts on existing small entities would be
significantly reduced by the exemption while the associated additional
loading of toxic pollutants would be small. With respect to new source
pretreaters, EPA does not have sufficient information to conclude that
the size and economic conditions of those new sources, the impacts on
those new sources, and the associated loadings of toxic pollutants,
would justify a similar exemption for the non-interior waste streams
for sanitizer facilities. EPA solicits comments on these conclusions.
In addition, EPA has proposed to set a zero discharge requirement
for NSPS, also without any exemption for sanitizers' waste streams,
based on the proposal to set BAT at zero discharge for all waste
streams and the finding that NSPS should be set at a level at least as
stringent as BAT. EPA has stated elsewhere in today's preamble that,
based on comments and new information, it would consider varying the
final rule to exempt the sanitizers' non-interior waste streams in the
BAT regulations as well as in the PSES standards. Even if EPA were to
do so, it would be likely that NSPS would still be set at zero
discharge without any exemption for sanitizers, for the reasons
discussed above as to why EPA is not proposing to include an exemption
for sanitizers in the PSNS regulations.
B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling
Establishments (Subcategory E)
EPA is proposing to establish NSPS and PSNS as equivalent to the
zero discharge BAT requirements for existing sources. Since EPA has
determined that zero discharge requirements for existing sources are
economically achievable EPA also concludes that NSPS and PSNS
regulations would be economically achievable and would not be a barrier
to entry for new sources.
XIV. Economic Considerations
A. Introduction
EPA's economic impact assessment is set forth in the report titled
``Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging
Industry'' (hereinafter ``EIA''). This report estimates the economic
effect of compliance with the proposed regulation in terms of facility
closures, conversions of production lines to alternate activities, and
compliance costs as a percentage of facility revenues. Firm-level
impacts, local community impacts, international trade effects, effects
on new pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging (PFPR)
facilities, and estimates of the cost savings of pollution prevention
techniques are also presented. A Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
detailing the small business impacts for this industry is also included
in the EIA. In addition, EPA conducted an analysis of the cost-
effectiveness of the regulatory options. The report, ``Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards of Performance for the Pesticide Formulating/Packaging/
Repackaging Industry'' is included in the record of this rule-making.
As previously discussed, projection of economic impacts relies
heavily on the responses to the questionnaire distributed to PFPR
facilities by EPA under the authority of Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act. EPA sent the questionnaire, requesting both technical and economic
information, to 707 facilities, representing 3,241 facilities in the
population. (See Section V.A.2 for details.) Data from the
questionnaires are used to project economic impacts for PFPR facilities
using one or more of the 272 pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) or
classes of PAIs that were the focus of the survey. As previously
mentioned, based on results from the survey, quantitative estimates of
PFPR activities were computed for the entire U.S. population of PFPR
facilities using the original 272 PAIs considered for regulation. The
remainder of the discussion of economic impacts will report only these
national stratified estimates, unless otherwise indicated.
EPA also performed analyses and developed population-level
estimates encompassing the additional PAIs not on the original list of
272 PAIs studied for regulation. The results from these analyses are
reported in Preamble Section XIV.L., Assessment of Economic Impacts
Including Additional PAIs Not on the Original List of 272 PAIs Studied
for Regulation. Except in that section of the Preamble, the economic
impact estimates presented in this section pertain only to the use of
the 272 PAIs originally studied for regulation. In section XIV.L., the
discussion of impact estimates includes the additional (non-272) PAIs
to distinguish the findings that encompass the additional PAIs from
those presented elsewhere that pertain to the original list of 272 PAIs
studied for regulation.
The list of 272 PAIs on which this detailed analysis is based
matches the list of PAIs considered for regulation in the recent
effluent guidelines rulemaking for the pesticide manufacturing
industry. (See Section V.A for the derivation of the list of the 272
PAIs.) However, EPA believes that the financial characteristics of the
facilities surveyed on the basis of using one or more of the 272 PAIs
are representative of the entire PFPR industry, regardless of the
particular active ingredients that a facility formulates, packages, or
repackages. Based on the responses to the survey, an estimated 2,439
population facilities remained in the PFPR business as of 1990 (the
year the Section 308 Economic Survey was conducted). An estimated 1,806
facilities both operate in the PFPR business and use water in their
PFPR operations. Six hundred fifty-two of these facilities also
discharge PFPR wastewater either directly to bodies of water or to
POTWs. These water discharging facilities may be subject to cost
increases as a result of today's proposed effluent limitations
guidelines and standards.
Based on the questionnaire, the 598 facilities for which costs of
complying with PSES were estimated all discharge to POTWs. PSES
regulations are proposed for two subcategories based on technical and
economic differences exhibited between the subcategories: Subcategory C
applies to wastewaters containing any pesticide active ingredients
(PAIs) except for sodium hypochlorite. Within Subcategory C, a subgroup
of chemicals is defined for certain PAIs which are used as
sanitizers.1 The PAIs are listed on Table 8 of the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The term ``sanitizer'' is being defined for the purpose of
this effluent guideline regulation and is not intended to classify
sanitizers as no longer being pesticides, other than for the
purposes of distinguishing their requirements under this regulation.
Also, some PAIs other than those PAIs listed in Table 8 of the
regulation may be used as sanitizers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second subcategory, Subcategory E, applies to the wastewater
streams generated by refilling establishments that repackage
agricultural chemicals and whose principal business is retail sales.
The economic basis for creating the subcategories is discussed in the
methodology section below. Many other factors including differences in
raw materials, geographic locations, plant age, etc. are considered
when the Agency subcategorizes an industry. These other factors are
discussed in detail in Section 4 of the Technical Development Document.
B. Economic Impact Methodology
1. Impact Measures
The EIA examines three categories of economic impacts that may
result from regulation: Facility closures, conversion of PFPR product
lines to non-PFPR operations, and compliance costs in excess of five
percent of facility revenue. Facility closure is the most severe of the
three impacts evaluated. Consistent with the analysis in other effluent
guidelines rulemakings, compliance costs that are less than five
percent of facility revenue are judged to be economically achievable
(see, for example, the EIAs for effluent limitations for the OCPSF and
pesticide manufacturing industries). However, it is assumed that
compliance costs equal to five percent or more of facility revenue do
not necessarily indicate a significant impact, such as an operational
change at a facility. This ratio is counted as a moderate economic
impact as a conservative measure of the possibility of such an impact.
Projections of these economic impacts are based on economic models
that estimate pre- and post-compliance costs, revenues, and quantities
for individual facilities. The individual facility impacts are
projected using a combination of data from the 1988 Survey
Questionnaire and secondary sources (e.g., Robert Morris Associates
Annual Statement Studies, Dun and Bradstreet's Million Dollar
Directory, Standard and Poor's Price Index Record). In addition, impact
projections rely on facility-specific compliance cost estimates
developed by the Agency (see Section X of today's notice). Impact
projections are first made for surveyed facilities and then
extrapolated to the facility population.
Facility financial viability is first analyzed in the baseline
(pre-compliance) scenario by calculating the three-year after-tax cash
flow from the Survey data. If a facility has lost cash on average over
the three-year period, the facility is not expected to continue in
operation and post-compliance impacts are not evaluated, i.e., the
facility is considered to be a baseline closure.
2. Application of the Impact Measures
The particular impacts evaluated for a facility are a function of
the type of PFPR operations conducted at the facility as well as the
percentage of the facility's revenue that is derived from PFPR
operations. These characteristics are used as indicators of the likely
response of management to compliance costs. The impact measures used in
the analysis are discussed below.
a. Subcategory C Facilities. Certain PFPR facilities regulated
under Subcategory C are expected to be the most likely to consider
facility closure as a response to the regulation. In particular, PFPR
facilities that also manufacture PAIs and facilities earning a
significant percentage of their revenue from PFPR activities are
assumed to be the likeliest facilities to consider closure as the
alternative to compliance with the regulation. PFPR facilities that
also manufacture PAIs (hereafter ``PFPR/Manufacturing facilities'')
generally obtain a high percentage of their revenue from PFPR
activities. Based on responses to the 1988 Survey questionnaire, the
mean percentage of facility revenue from PFPR activities was 54 percent
for PFPR/Manufacturing facilities, with a median value of 38 percent.
In addition, the manufacturing operations are integrated with the PFPR
operations and additional costs may be incurred in manufacturing
operations (e.g., tolling costs) if PFPR operations are shut down.
Owners of PFPR facilities that do not manufacture PAIs might also
consider closing entirely rather than converting their PFPR lines if
PFPR activities constitute a substantial portion of their business. The
analysis assumes that facilities that obtain at least 25 percent of
their revenue from PFPR activities will consider closing
entirely.2 This fairly low percentage of revenue was chosen so
that evaluation of the most severe economic impact--facility closure--
includes all facilities that might consider this alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Ideally, the determination of whether management would
consider closing a facility entirely would be based on the
percentage of profit, rather than revenue, derived from PFPR
activities. However, because costs were not reported for PFPR
activities in the Survey, calculation of PFPR profits is not
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities regulated under Subcategory C that do not manufacture
PAIs and that obtain less than 25 percent of their revenue from PFPR
activities are expected to respond differently to compliance costs.
These facilities frequently engage in the formulating and packaging of
many non-pesticide products as well as pesticide products. The
facilities are typically not dependant on pesticide FPR, but may
include pesticides in the line of many chemical preparations that they
formulate, package, and repackage. The production lines are not usually
specific to pesticides, but can formulate, package, or repackage a wide
range of products. Therefore, the facilities are more likely to
consider converting their PFPR lines to produce non-pesticide products
than closing the facility or the lines if PFPR production is
discontinued. The analysis evaluates whether these facilities would, in
fact, be expected to convert their pesticide lines to other
formulating/packaging/repackaging operations as a result of the
regulation.
As an additional measure of economic effects on facilities
regulated under Subcategory C, the annualized compliance costs are
compared to facility revenue for each facility. As discussed above,
projected annualized compliance costs that are less than five percent
of facility revenue are taken to indicate that the facility will not
experience significant economic impacts.
b. Subcategory E Facilities. For refilling establishments, the only
economic measure evaluated is compliance costs as a percentage of
revenue. Refilling establishments constitute a distinct set of
facilities within the PFPR industry. An estimated 47 percent of the
facilities potentially covered by the PFPR regulation are classified as
Subcategory E facilities. These facilities do not formulate or package
pesticides, but maintain at least one bulk storage tank for pesticides
and distribute the formulated product in refillable containers to
farmers. Most refilling establishments surveyed reported a primary SIC
code of #5191, which characterizes the establishments as ``primarily
engaged in the wholesale distribution of animal feeds, fertilizers,
agricultural chemicals, pesticides, seeds, and other farm supplies,
except grains.'' In keeping with this line of business, typical
ownership of refilling establishments differs from that of other PFPR
facilities. An estimated 29 percent of refilling establishments are
owned as a cooperative, e.g., a group of farmers who purchase and
distribute pesticide among themselves. (See Table 1.) In contrast, only
an estimated two percent of other PFPR facilities have a cooperative
form of ownership.
Table 1.--Estimated National Distribution of Selected Characteristics of
Subcategory E Facilities vs. Other PFPR Facilities
[Facilities that use water]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory E
facilities Subcategory C facilities\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of facilities.. 830 942.
Most frequently 5191 2842 (manufacturing
reported SIC Code. furniture, metal, and other
polishes) (14%).
(67%) ............................
Mean percent revenue 15% 28%.
from PFPR.
Facility revenue:
Mean.............. $ 4,757,000 $ 16,280,000.
Median............ $ 1,730,000 $ 3,320,000.
Estimated market value
of production lines:
Mean.............. $ 3,800 $ 166,000.
Median............ $ 1,900 $ 6,000.
Ownership type:
Cooperative....... 242 (29%) 15 (2%).
Single facility... 227 (27%) 569 (60%).
Multi-facility.... 361 (43%) 341 (36%).
Other............. 0 (0%) 17 (2%).
Percentage of 98% 35%.
facilities with zero
water discharge of
the 272 PAI's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Includes only PFPR/manufacturing and other PFPR facilities regulated
under PSES that use water. Omits facilities that are directly
discharging PFPR wastewater. Percentages may sum to more than 100% due
to rounding.
Generally, refilling establishments have lower total revenues than
other PFPR facilities. The estimated mean annual revenue for refilling
establishments was less than $5 million, while other PFPR facilities
have an estimated mean revenue of over $16 million. Further, refilling
establishments derive only a small percentage of their revenue from
pesticide repackaging. The estimated mean percentage of revenue from
pesticide refilling activities is 15 percent, while other PFPR
facilities have a mean percentage of revenue from PFPR activities of 28
percent. Also, the other activities conducted at refilling
establishments do not depend on repackaging pesticides. Therefore, for
this subcategory, no facility closures are expected in response to
compliance costs imposed by this rulemaking and no further analysis of
facility closure has been conducted.
Refilling establishments have simple production lines, typically
consisting of one or more bulk tanks purchased specifically to hold
pesticides. The investment in the ``production line'' is minimal and
alternative uses of the tank are limited and unlikely to provide
significant profits. Therefore, most owners of refilling establishments
are not expected to discontinue their refilling practices for the
purpose of converting their tanks to an alternate use and no analysis
of production line conversion has been conducted.
The economic returns to refilling establishments may, however, be
affected by compliance with the proposed regulation. The analysis
evaluates the extent of potential impacts by comparing annualized
compliance costs to facility revenue. Costs in excess of five percent
of the facility's revenue are characterized as a possible significant
economic impact.
Table 2 summarizes the methodology for calculating impacts.
Table 2.--Economic Analyses by Facility Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory C: Subcategory C: Non-
Manufacturer/PFPR manufacturer and 25% of revenue from Subcategory E
revenue from PFPR (380 PFPR (902 estimated (1,122 population
estimated population population facilities) facilities)
facilities)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cash flow analysis to 1. Comparison of ROA for 1. Compliance costs
project facility closure. PFPR with alternative compared to
asset use. revenue.
2. Compliance costs 2. Compliance costs
compared to revenue. compared to revenue .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Methodology for Calculating Impacts
a. Baseline. The baseline economic analysis evaluates each
facility's financial operating condition prior to incurring compliance
costs for this regulation. The purpose of the baseline analysis is to
identify PFPR facilities that are currently experiencing or are
projected to experience significant financial stress following the
period for which the Survey was completed. These facilities are having
or are expected to have serious financial difficulties regardless of
the promulgation of effluent guidelines. Attribution of these financial
difficulties to the effluent guidelines rather than to facilities'
current financial problems would inaccurately represent the burden of
the effluent guidelines.
Facility financial viability is analyzed in the baseline scenario
by calculating the three-year after-tax cash flow from the Survey data,
incorporating the costs of EPA regulations effective after the Survey
was administered. If a facility has lost cash on average over the
three-year period, the facility is not expected to continue in
operation and post-compliance impacts are not evaluated.
This baseline analysis included the estimated costs associated with
three significant EPA regulations which were not in place in 1988 (the
base year) and whose costs were therefore not reflected in the annual
operating expenses provided by facilities in the 1988 Survey. These
regulations are: (1) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) land
disposal restrictions (40 CFR part 268), (2) effluent limitations for
the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) industry
(40 CFR part 414), and (3) effluent limitations for the Pesticide
Manufacturing Industry (40 CFR part 455). Also, Congress passed the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Amendments
of 1988, most of which became effective in December, 1988. The annual
product maintenance fees mandated by the amendments therefore would not
have been included in the Survey responses and are therefore added to
facility costs in the baseline.
An estimated 18 facilities are projected to incur costs due to the
RCRA land disposal restrictions in the baseline analysis. As a result
of the RCRA restrictions, these 18 facilities are expected to incur
annualized costs of $156,000, in 1988 dollars. These costs reflect
compliance with land disposal restrictions and include outlays
associated with landfills, surface impoundments, and waste piles. In
addition, an estimated 15 facilities are projected to incur costs due
to the OCPSF effluent guidelines in the baseline analysis. The OCPSF
guidelines are estimated to impose annualized costs of $5.4 million, in
1988 dollars, on these 15 facilities.
Two effects of effluent guidelines for pesticide manufacturers are
included in the analysis. First, a portion of the compliance costs
resulting from the effluent guidelines are expected to be passed on to
the PFPR facilities. Therefore, PFPR facilities are expected to incur
higher costs in purchasing PAIs that had costs under the manufacturing
rule. Of the 634 PFPR facilities that discharge water from PFPR
operations, 525 are expected to bear such increased costs, totaling
$3.4 million per year. Not all of the compliance costs associated with
the pesticide manufacturers effluent guideline, however, are expected
to be passed on to consumers. Therefore, additional annualized costs
($5.6 million) are added to the baseline for the pesticide manufacturer
facilities that also PFPR. Finally, all pesticide producing
establishments must pay annual FIFRA maintenance fees. These fees are
not expected to result in capital costs, but annual operating costs
borne by the facilities are expected to increase by $3.0 million
(1988).
b. Post-compliance. For this EIA, a PFPR facility is defined as all
operations conducted at a facility that formulates, packages, or
repackages pesticide products. The facility closure analysis is based
on an evaluation of baseline and post-compliance facility after-tax
cash flows. Following calculation of baseline after-tax cash flow,
projected regulatory costs were added to the baseline costs. Total
post-compliance costs were then used to estimate a post-compliance cash
flow. A facility closure is projected to result from the regulation if
the baseline after-tax cash flow is positive and the post-compliance
after-tax cash flow is negative (i.e., if a facility begins to lose
cash due to the regulation).
In theory, conversion of PFPR production lines would be predicted
to occur at the point that the return on the assets employed in an
alternate activity, adjusted for conversion costs, exceed the return
from PFPR. The return available from another activity, however, would
vary for each facility based on such factors as local/regional
manufacturing activity, capacity availability, and business
connections. However, in general, it is expected that alternate FPR
opportunities exist in the operations characterized by SIC codes #2899
(chemical preparations) and #2842 (manufacturing furniture, metal, and
other polishes.) These SIC codes were the most frequently reported
primary SIC codes for PFPR facilities that obtain less than 25 percent
of their revenue from PFPR.
The analysis of product line conversion is based on comparing the
return on assets (ROA) that would be obtained by continuing PFPR in the
post-compliance scenario with the ROA that could be obtained from
operating activities classified in SIC 2842. (This data is not
available for SIC 2899.) The analysis assumes that the ROA achieved by
75 percent of facilities operating in SIC 2842 could reasonably be
expected to be achieved by a converted PFPR line. From 1986 through
1988, the average lowest quartile ROA was 2.9 percent for SIC 2842
(Robert Morris Associates, Annual Statement Studies). If a facility's
ROA for PFPR falls below 2.9 percent as a result of compliance costs,
the facility would be expected to convert its PFPR production lines to
other FPR activities.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\In recognition of the uncertainty regarding the ROA
achievable by facilities from alternate formulating, packaging, and
repackaging activities, a sensitivity analysis of the ROA conversion
percentage is presented in Appendix E of the EIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA evaluated each of the impact measures assuming that the
facility is unable to pass any costs through to customers. This is an
extremely conservative assumption that yields maximum projected impacts
on PFPR facilities. In fact, this scenario is highly unlikely. For a
zero cost pass-through analysis to represent a realistic scenario,
either the supply curves for pesticide markets must be perfectly
inelastic or the demand curves must be perfectly elastic. A perfectly
inelastic supply curve is associated with goods for which there is a
fixed supply. This is not the case in the pesticide market. Based on an
analysis of the price elasticity of demand for pesticides conducted for
the pesticide manufacturer EIA, demand for pesticides is generally
somewhat inelastic.4 Because supply curves for the pesticide
markets are not known, however, and compliance costs are not estimated
in a manner that can necessarily be associated with specific pesticide
products, it is difficult to project the percentage of the compliance
costs that will be passed through to customers. If the analysis shows
the regulation to be economically achievable under an assumption of
zero cost pass-through, then it is reasonable to conclude that the
regulation would be economically achievable under a more realistic
scenario of partial cost pass-through. A sensitivity analysis based on
partial cost pass-through was also conducted and is presented in
Appendix D of the EIA. Estimated impacts under a partial cost pass-
through assumption of 50 percent are expected to be five percent lower
than those estimated under the assumption of zero cost pass-through.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See Appendix C of the EIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Projected Facility Economic Impacts
1. Baseline Analysis
The baseline impacts projected for the indirect discharge
facilities are shown in Table 3. As mentioned above, a baseline impact
is said to occur if a facility's average after-tax cash flow for the
three years of Survey data is negative.
Table 3.--Projected Population Baseline Facility Closures for Facilities
that Use Water1
[Based on 3-year Average Negative Cash Flow]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subcategory Subcategory
C E
facilities facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility closures............................. 203 169
Total facilities.............................. 943 830
Percentage of facilities impacted............. 22% 20%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Not including direct discharging facilities.
2. Impacts Due to Compliance
a. Subcategory C Facilities: Original PSES Options 1 through 5.
For Subcategory C facilities, EPA initially analyzed the impacts of
five possible regulatory options for PSES. These five options were
previously described in Section X. Of these options, EPA initially
decided to propose Option 3 because, as discussed in Section X, it
represents the performance achievable with the best available
technology. EPA's analysis shows that this option is economically
achievable and, in fact, results in the fewest impacts among the five
options. (As described below, today's notice proposes a different
option, (Option 3/S.1) based on 3/S, which is the same as Option 3 but
includes somewhat different provisions for wastewaters from the
formulating, packaging, and repackaging of a group of PAIs termed the
``sanitizer'' PAIs.)
The estimated facility-level impacts associated with each of the
regulatory options are discussed below and presented in Table 4. In
addition, estimated worst-case employment impacts are provided. For a
projected facility closure, all employment at the associated facility
is assumed to be lost. In estimating employment losses, facilities
projected to convert their pesticide product lines to formulating,
packaging, or repackaging of alternate products are treated as closing
their PFPR lines entirely. All production and non-production employment
associated with PFPR is assumed to be lost. In fact, some or all PFPR
employment at such facilities might be retained. Demand and production
might shift to non-pesticide products, unregulated pesticides, or to
pesticides for which compliance is less costly. The assumption that all
PFPR production is lost is therefore a worst-case assumption. The
examination of whether compliance costs are greater or less than five
percent has not been used to assess employment impacts. As discussed
above, this impact measure is assumed not to lead to an operational
change. Under Options 1, 2, and 3 all of the moderate impacts were
projected on the basis of a comparison of post compliance return on
assets for PFPR activities with a return assumed to be achievable in
alternative business activities using the same capital equipment (i.e.,
based on projection of line conversions). Therefore, employment losses
associated with moderate impacts at these facilities are accounted for.
For Options 4 and 5, over 85 percent of moderate impacts are projected
based on the ROA comparison. Therefore, most moderate impacts are
associated with an employment loss.
i. Impacts of Option 1. There are 578 Subcategory C facilities that
are estimated to incur costs under Option 1. One hundred twenty of
these facilities were analyzed for possible facility closure and the
remaining 458 were analyzed as candidates for a line conversion, a more
moderate impact.5 A comparison of annualized compliance cost to
facility revenue was conducted for all Subcategory C facilities. The
capital and annualized total costs (which include amortized capital,
annual operating and maintenance, and monitoring costs) of complying
with Option 1 are estimated to be $79.0 million and $32.6 million,
respectively. An estimated nine Subcategory C facilities are projected
to close due to compliance with Option 1. One hundred seventy-one
facilities are estimated to incur moderate economic impacts. Total U.S.
job losses are projected, in the worst-case, to be 437 full-time
equivalents (FTEs) as a result of the estimated impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\As described above, PFPR/Manufacturing facilities, and
facilities that obtain more than 25 percent of their revenue from
PFPR were analyzed for possible closures, and all other facilities
were analyzed for possible line closures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Impacts of Option 2. There are 558 Subcategory C facilities
that are estimated to incur costs under Option 2. One hundred thirteen
of these facilities were analyzed for possible facility closure and the
remaining 445 were analyzed for line conversions. A comparison of
annualized compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for all
Subcategory C facilities. The capital and annualized total costs (which
include amortized capital, annual operating and maintenance, and
monitoring costs) of complying with Option 2 are estimated to be $66.1
and $27.9 million, respectively. One facility is projected to close due
to compliance with Option 2. One hundred seventy facilities are
estimated to incur moderate economic impacts. Total U.S. job losses are
projected, in the worst case, to be 426 FTEs as a result of the
estimated impacts.
iii. Impacts of Option 3. There are 558 Subcategory C facilities
that are estimated to incur costs. One hundred thirteen of these
facilities were analyzed for possible facility closure and the
remaining 445 were analyzed for line conversions. A comparison of
annualized compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for all
Subcategory C facilities. The capital and annualized total costs (which
include amortized capital, annual operating and maintenance, and
monitoring costs) of complying with Option 3 are estimated to be $66.1
and $27.9 million, respectively.6 One facility is projected to
close due to compliance with Option 3. One hundred seventy facilities
are estimated to incur moderate economic impacts. Total U.S. job losses
are projected, in the worst case, to be 426 FTEs as a result of the
estimated impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Note that the compliance costs projected for Options 2 and 3
are identical because both options are based on the same technology.
For simplification and because the technology is essentially
identical the costs are presented to be identical. In reality Option
3 costs could be lower than Option 2, because sampling data indicate
that facilities which do treat wastewater for recycling back to the
facility do not need to achieve the same degree of pollutant removal
from the wastewater that would be required to comply with numeric
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Impacts of Option 4. There are 558 Subcategory C facilities
that are estimated to incur costs under Option 4. One hundred thirteen
of these facilities were analyzed for possible facility closure and the
remaining 445 were analyzed for line conversions. A comparison of
annualized compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for all
Subcategory C facilities. The capital and annualized total costs (which
include amortized capital, annual operating and maintenance, and
monitoring costs) of complying with Option 4 are estimated to be $18.4
and $286.5 million, respectively. Seven Subcategory C facilities are
estimated to close due to compliance with Option 4. One hundred ninety-
three facilities are estimated to incur moderate impacts. Total U.S.
job losses are projected, in the worst case, to be 1,113 FTEs as a
result of the estimated impacts.
v. Impacts of Option 5. There are 578 Subcategory C facilities that
are estimated to incur costs under Option 5. One hundred twenty of
these facilities were analyzed for possible facility closure and the
remaining 458 were analyzed for line conversions. A comparison of
annualized compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for all
Subcategory C facilities. The capital and annualized total costs (which
include amortized capital, annual operating and maintenance, and
monitoring costs) of complying with Option 5 are estimated to be $21.0
and $360.2 million, respectively. Seven Subcategory C facilities are
projected to close due to compliance with Option 5. Two hundred
seventeen facilities are estimated to incur moderate economic impacts.
Total U.S. job losses are projected, in the worst case, to be 1,173
FTEs as a result of the estimated impacts.
Table 4.--National Estimate of Economic Impacts on Subcategory C
Facilities
[Assuming Zero Cost Pass Through]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All subcategory C
facilities:
Facility
closures:
(Severe
Economic
Impacts).... 9 1 1 7 7
Facilities
with
Moderate
Economic
Impacts..... 171 170 170 193 217
Estimated
Worst-Case
Job Losses
(FTEs)...... 437 426 426 1,113 1,173
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Identification of differential impacts. As shown above, Option 3
is economically achievable when viewed across all Subcategory C
facilities. However, EPA was aware, through discussions with industry,
that certain segments of the industry exhibit distinctive technical and
market characteristics. In particular, industry identified the
institutional/commercial market for pesticides as having unique
technical and market characteristics. The Agency therefore analyzed
whether subgroups of facilities, defined by major pesticide market,
were disproportionately affected and considered whether technical and
market factors distinguished any subgroups in ways that would warrant
different regulatory approaches for those subgroups.
Impacts were analyzed by market, with market definitions based on
responses to Survey question #19 (page I-9 of the Survey7).
Responses to this question indicated each facility's total 1988
revenues from pesticide products containing the original 272 PAIs by
the following markets:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\See Appendix A of the EIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural.
Institutional/commercial.
Industrial.
Wood preservatives and coatings.
Pesticide intermediate products.
Products used as an additive to a non-pesticide product.
Non-agricultural professional use products.
Consumer home, lawn, and garden.
Government, for non-institutional use.
Other.
This analysis indicated that facilities obtaining greater than
fifty percent of their 272 PAI pesticide related revenue from the
institutional/commercial (I/C) market bore both a large and
disproportionately high percentage of the impacts under Option 3. Table
5 indicates the distributions by primary market of all facilities
projected to incur costs under Option 3, and of those facilities
projected to incur significant economic impacts under Option 3.8
Table 5 shows that, of the 574 facilities expected to incur costs, 267
or about 47 percent of those facilities receive 272-PAI-related revenue
primarily from the I/C market. Moreover, the distribution of
significant economic impacts is even more concentrated in the I/C
market facilities. Of the 171 facilities expected to incur significant
economic impacts, 102 or nearly 60 percent receive 272-PAI-related
revenue primarily from the I/C market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\A facility's primary market is the market from which it
receives at least fifty percent of its in-scope pesticide revenue.
If no market accounts for at least 50 percent of in-scope pesticide
revenue, the facility has no primary market.
Table 5.--Distribution by Primary Market of Facilities Incurring Costs and of Facilities Expected to Incur
Significant Economic Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of costs projected to Distribution of significant economic
be incurred under option 3\1\ impacts projected under option 3\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary market Percent of Percent of
Number of facilities Number of facilities
facilities incurring costs facilities incurring impacts
incurring costs (percent) incurring impacts (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural........................ 73 12.7 6 3.5
Institutional/commercial............ 267 46.5 102 59.6
Industrial.......................... 114 19.9 48 28.1
Wood Preservatives and Coatings..... 18 3.1 0 0.0
Pesticide Intermediate Products..... 15 2.6 1 0.6
Products used as additives to non-
pesticide products................. 1 0.2 0 0.0
Non-agricultural professional use
products........................... 15 2.6 7 4.1
Consumer home, lawn and garden...... 56 9.8 2 1.2
Government, for non-institutional
use................................ 6 1.0 5 2.9
Other............................... 1 0.2 0 0.0
No primary market................... 8 1.4 0 0.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................... 574 100.0 171 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Percentage totals may not sum to 100.0 because of rounding.
For those facilities estimated to incur significant economic
impacts under Option 3 and concentrated in the institutional/commercial
market, EPA next analyzed usage of the 272 PAIs. This analysis found
that the PAI used most frequently by impacted facilities primarily in
the I/C market is PAI 56, Hyamine 3500; over 66 percent of these 102
impacted facilities use this PAI. Although several other PAIs were also
found to be used with some frequency by the impacted facilities
primarily in the I/C market, none were used by more than 30 percent of
these facilities, or well less than half the frequency of use for PAI
56.
Taking into account both the high frequency of use of Hyamine 3500
(PAI 56) and the fact that the pounds removed are virtually unchanged
by excluding the exterior sanitizer wastestreams (19 additional lb-eq),
the Agency decided to examine less stringent requirements with respect
to PAI 56 in its efforts to moderate economic impacts of Option 3 on
facilities in the I/C market.
In the EIA for the pesticide manufacturers effluent guidelines, EPA
defined markets of competing PAIs. This market definition is more
detailed than the broad markets listed in the Survey. For example, not
all pesticides used in the agricultural market compete with each other.
Pesticides used as herbicides on corn do not compete with pesticides
used as fungicides on apples. Pesticide markets were therefore defined
as clusters of PAIs that are substitutes in a specific end-use (e.g.,
herbicides on corn). The list of 272 PAIs were mapped into 57 separate
clusters along with other non-272 PAIs with which they compete and are
presented in Appendix F of the EIA.
PAI 56 is a member of cluster R-4 which is defined as: ``Sanitizers
for use in dairies, food processing, restaurants, and air treatment''.
PAIs from the original list of 272 that are included in this cluster
are: Hyamine 2389 (PAI 162), methyl benzethonium chloride (PAI 159),
Hyamine 1622 (PAI 105), Hyamine 3500 (PAI 56), oxine-sulfate (PAI 51),
and Hydroxyethyl amino ethanol (HAE) (PAI 36).
If the Agency were to adopt a different regulatory approach for
different individual pesticides within a cluster of pesticides, a
market advantage might result for the less stringently regulated
pesticides. To avoid this, EPA created a subgroup based on the market
and technical characteristics of facilities at which the majority of
PAI use comes from Cluster R-4. Analysis of facilities with the
majority of PAI use from cluster R-4 (referred to as ``sanitizer''
facilities) revealed the following differences in market and technical
characteristics between sanitizer and other PFPR facilities:
Sanitizer facilities obtained a smaller percentage of
their revenue from PFPR than other facilities;
Sanitizer facilities had lower facility revenues than
other facilities.
Sanitizer facilities had fewer employees than other
facilities.
Sanitizer facilities are less likely to have already
achieved zero discharge than other facilities.
Sanitizer facilities recycled/reused wastewater less
frequently than other facilities (see Table 6).9
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\See Section 5 of the Technical Development Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also notes that sanitizer products, in contrast to other
pesticide products, are intended to be discharged to sinks and drains
with normal use and therefore large quantities of the products
themselves (apart from the PFPR wastestreams) end up at the POTW. EPA
is not aware that these products are causing any interferences at
POTWs. In addition, adding this small additional amount of sanitizer
chemicals--19 lbs.-eq./year--to POTWs would not materially increase the
total amount of these chemicals being discharged to POTWs.
Table 6.--Estimated National Characteristics of Sanitizer Facilities vs.
Other Subcategory C Facilities\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Sanitizer subcategory C
facilities\2\ facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of facilities......................... 245 698
Percent of revenue from PFPR:.........
mean.................................. 18% 32%
median................................ 5% 10%
Facility Revenue:
mean.................................. $7.6 MM $19.3 MM
median................................ $1.3 MM $4.7 MM
Employment associated with PFPR processing
of 272 PAIs:
mean.................................. < 1 FTE 6 FTEs
median................................ < 1 FTE < 1 FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Facilities that directly discharge are not included. Data are based
only on facilities that use water in their production of the 272 PAIs.
\2\Sanitizer facilities are defined as those facilities with the
majority of their PAI use from PAIs in cluster R-4.
In recognition of the distinct market and technical characteristics
exhibited by facilities with PFPR operations concentrated on PAIs
classified as sanitizers, the Agency proposes to treat them as a
distinct segment or subgroup. The subgroup does not apply broadly to
facilities but, instead, applies to wastewater streams generated in
conjunction with the formulating, packaging, or repackaging of the six
sanitizer chemicals that are physically separate from wastewater
streams from formulating, packaging, or repackaging of other PAIs.
c. Additional PSES Regulatory Options considered for the sanitizer
segment. In performing the regulatory flexibility analysis, EPA had to
balance the traditional concerns of the regulatory flexibility
analysis-moderation of impacts among small-business entities--with the
broader regulatory objectives of the Clean Water Act.
On the basis of the considerations outlined in the foregoing
discussion, EPA defined and analyzed an additional regulatory option
for sanitizer chemicals. This option (called Option 3/S) is the same as
Option 3 discussed above except for those facilities that formulate,
package, or repackage sanitizer active ingredients and whose sanitizer
production is less than 265,000 pounds per year. Specifically, in such
facilities, non-interior wastestreams such as those from exterior
cleaning, cleaning safety equipment, lab wastewater, floor washing and
DOT test baths and that contain only sanitizer active ingredients would
be exempted from PSES. All other PAI wastestreams at these facilities,
including interior wastestreams containing sanitizers PAIs and any non-
interior wastestreams containing both sanitizer and other PAIs, would
be subject to the zero discharge requirement. In the same way as for
Option 3, the zero discharge requirement for these other wastestreams
can be met through pollution prevention practices. The Option 3 zero
discharge requirement would apply to all PAI wastestreams at any
facilities whose wastestreams do not qualify for the sanitizer PAI
exemption. The projected impacts under Option 3/S are discussed below
for all Subcategory C facilities.
In defining this regulatory alternative, EPA set the 265,000 pounds
per year production limit based on analysis of the production volume of
facilities that would be expected to avoid adverse impacts as a result
of the Option 3/S sanitizer chemical exemption. Specifically, in its
facility impact analyses, EPA found that no facility larger than the
265,000 pounds per year production limit would avoid a significant
impact as a result of the exemption. Accordingly, in an effort to
mitigate significant impacts among PFPR facilities owned by small
businesses while retaining as large a share as possible of the
pollution reduction benefits of the originally selected Option 3, EPA
decided to limit the Option 3/S (ans the Option 3/S.1) sanitizer
chemical exemption to only those facilities with less than 265,000
pounds per year of production involving designated sanitizer PAIs.
Table 7 compares the impacts projected under Option 3 and 3/S,
providing detail for facilities with wastewater streams containing only
sanitizer PAIs.
i. Impacts of Option 3/S. Under Option 3/S, 529 population
facilities are estimated to incur costs. The incremental capital and
annualized total costs (which include amortized capital, annual
operating and maintenance, and monitoring costs) of complying with
Option 3/S are estimated to be $63.0 million and $26.1 million,
respectively. Compared to Option 3, total annualized costs are reduced
by approximately $2 million as a result of the reduced requirements on
exempted sanitizer PAI-only wastestreams. The possibility of facility
closure was analyzed for 113 of these facilities and the remaining 416
were analyzed for line conversions. A comparison of annualized
compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for all facilities.
One facility is estimated to close due to compliance with Option 3/
S. In addition, 136 facilities (20 percent fewer than under Option 3)
are estimated to incur moderate economic impacts. Under Option 3/S,
total U.S. job losses are estimated, in the worst case, to be 355 FTEs
or 17 percent fewer than the 426 job losses estimated for Option 3. All
of the reduction in impacts necessarily occurs in facilities with non-
interior wastewater streams containing only sanitizer PAIs and whose
sanitizer production volume is less than 265,000 pounds per year. The
requirements of Option 3 and Option 3/S are the same for facilities
that co-mingle their wastestreams or whose sanitizer production volume
is at least 265,000 pounds per year.
Table 7.--National Estimates of Impacts for Subcategory C Facilities
Under Option 3 and Option 3/S
[Assuming Zero Cost Pass-Through]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3 Option 3/S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities with only wastewater streams
containing pesticide PAIs:
No. of facilities projected to incur costs.. 391 391
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\................................ $24.0 $24.0
Facility closures: (Severe economic impacts) 1 1
Moderate economic impacts................... 119 119
Expected job losses (FTEs).................. 348 348
Facilities with wastewater streams containing
only sanitizer PAIs:
No. of facilities projected to incur costs.. 167 138
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\................................ $3.9 $2.1
Facility closures: (Severe economic impacts) 0 0
Moderate economic impacts................... 51 17
Expected job losses (FTEs).................. 78 7
All subcategory C facilities:
No. of facilities projected to incur costs.. 558 529
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\................................ $27.9 $26.1
Facility closures: (Severe economic impacts) 1 1
Moderate economic impacts................... 170 136
Estimated worst-case job losses (FTEs)...... 426 355
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total annualized compliance costs are 1988 dollars and therefore
differ from the costs in the cost effectiveness section of the
preamble which are in 1981 dollars for comparison with other rules.
The Agency decided to propose Option 3/S.1 based on Option 3/S
because: The impacts of Option 3 are largely on small facilities, and
are primarily due to the costs of having to install treatment for their
non-interior wastestreams; the amount of pollutants associated with
their non-interior wastestreams is insignificant; and excluding their
non-interior wastestreams from coverage results in basically the same
overall reduction in pollutants discharged by the PFPR industry but
significantly eases the burden on these small entities.
The adoption of Option 3/S.1 based on Option 3/S is consistent with
the objectives of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, which directs
agencies to examine any significant regulatory alternatives which will
accomplish the stated objectives of the applicable statute and which
minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small
entities. (RFA Section 603). Section 603 also specifically mentions
exemptions from coverage of the rule as one type of alternative that
could be examined.
d. Subcategory E Facilities. Refilling establishments generate
wastewater as a result of contaminated stormwater and leaks and spills
falling within their secondary containment areas or loading pads, as
well as the collection and holding of rinsates from refillable
containers. Secondary containment and loading pad requirements for
refilling establishments who handle agricultural pesticides were
recently proposed by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs. EPA considered
two regulatory options for refilling establishments. These two options
would both require zero discharge of pollutants but they would be based
on different control technologies. Option 1 is based on reuse of all
contaminated wastewater, and assumes that the contaminated wastewater
is used as make-up water in application of pesticide chemicals to the
field. Option 2 assumes that the wastewater is disposed of by off-site
incineration. The Agency is proposing Option 1.
i. BPT. Refilling establishments with their use of refillable
containers is a relatively new industry which developed during the mid
1980s as a response to industry and environmental concerns regarding
the packaging of pesticide products. Because they are a new
subcategory, they are not covered under the BPT zero discharge rule
promulgated in 1978. EPA is therefore establishing a new requirement
for this subcategory.
Responses to the survey indicate that there are no direct
dischargers and therefore there are no costs to the industry to comply
with a BPT regulation.
ii. PSES. Of the estimated 1,122 Subcategory E facilities that are
potentially subject to the regulation, EPA's data indicate that 98
percent, or 1,103 facilities, are already in compliance. Therefore,
they would not incur any costs to comply with the proposed regulatory
option. In addition, the remaining 19 facilities are expected to be
able to achieve compliance with the proposed regulation at zero
additional cost.
Under Option 2, the same population of facilities (i.e,
approximately 19 facilities) were evaluated for compliance costs. The
estimated incremental capital and annualized total costs for these
facilities (which include amortized capital, annual operating and
maintenance, and monitoring costs) of complying with Option 2 is
estimated to be $11,794 and $1,837, respectively. A comparison of
annualized compliance cost to facility revenue was conducted for the 19
facilities with costs under Option 2. The estimated mean compliance
cost as a percentage of facility revenue would be 0.026 percent and the
estimated median value 0.032 percent, with a range from 0.001 percent
to 0.048 percent. No facilities had a cost-to-revenue ratio greater
than five percent. (See Table 8.)
Table 8.--Estimated Population Impacts for Subcategory E Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1 Option 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. of facilities with costs...................... 0 19
Total annualized compliance costs................. 0 $1,837
Facility closures: (Severe economic impacts)...... 0 0
Moderate economic impacts......................... 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Community Impacts
As mentioned above, community impacts may result from facility-
level impacts. Community impacts are typically evaluated based on
projected decreases in employment in communities affected by the
regulation. For this analysis, community impacts were assessed on the
basis of both primary and secondary employment losses. Primary impacts
consist of the employment losses that are expected to occur as a direct
result of the regulation. Secondary economic impacts and associated
employment losses occur in other businesses than those directly
affected by regulation and result from two mechanisms. First,
reductions in output at directly affected facilities influence activity
and employment levels in linked industries (indirect effects). Second,
the losses in employment and employee earnings in both the directly and
indirectly affected facilities result in reduced personal consumption
expenditures, which may further affect employment levels in the
community (induced effects). If the aggregate impacts, including both
primary and secondary employment effects, amount to an employment
decline of greater than one percent in an affected community, then
community impacts are deemed significant.
The primary employment losses estimated under Options 1 through 5,
including Option 3/S, are presented above. (See Tables 4 and 7.) The
worst-case national estimated job losses ranged from a high of 1,173
full-time equivalents (FTEs) under Option 5 to a low of 355 FTEs under
the proposed Option 3/S. These job losses are distributed over a large
number of facilities, with the average job loss per affected facility
under any of the options being about three FTEs.
Because the sample was not designed to characterize community or
state characteristics, accurate estimates of the distribution of
estimated job losses by community or state cannot be made. Nonetheless,
the locations of the surveyed impacted facilities show that the impacts
are expected to be widely distributed nationally. (See Table 9.)
Table 9.--Distribution of Projected Sample Facility Employment Impacts
Under Option 3/S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FTE loss
State estimated to
occur in state
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO...................................................... 58
MN...................................................... 37
All others (no greater than 4 in a single state)........ 20
---------------
Total............................................... 115
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although a statistically valid analysis of population level
employment impacts on a regional or community level cannot be
performed, analyses based on assumptions regarding the locational
distribution of primary employment impacts can demonstrate that
compliance with the proposed regulation is unlikely to have a
significant impact on community employment. To assess whether Option 3/
S could be expected to result in significant community employment
impacts, EPA analyzed aggregate employment effects at the community
level under highly conservative and unlikely assumptions. Specifically,
this analysis incorporated three assumptions that will likely lead to a
substantial overestimation of community-level impacts.
First, EPA assumed that both closure and line conversion impacts
would result in full loss of PFPR-related employment at affected
facilities. Line conversions would not generally be expected to result
in employment losses.
Second, to estimate secondary employment impacts, EPA used a worst-
case regional impact multiplier from the Regional Input-Output Modeling
System developed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) within the
Department of Commerce. BEA publishes state-level employment
multipliers by industry classifications. For this analysis, EPA used
the highest state-level employment multiplier applicable to the
Chemical and Petroleum Refining Industry, the 2-digit BEA industry that
is most likely to include facilities engaged in PFPR business. The
highest total employment impact multiplier reported by BEA is for the
state of Texas and has a value of 9.20.
Third, EPA assumed that all of the direct impact employment losses
that are not directly accounted for by the affected sample observations
would occur at the known locations of the affected sample facilities in
proportion to sample facility weights. Thus, all of the facilities that
are represented by an affected sample facility, and their associated
employment losses, are assumed to occur at the same location as the
affected sample facility. This assumption regarding the locational
distribution of facility impacts is also expected to overstate
employment losses in each metropolitan statistical area (MSA), because
the non-sample facility impacts would likely be distributed among other
MSAs that are unknown.
Using these highly unrealistic conservative assumptions, EPA found
that Option 3/S is unlikely to result in significant employment impacts
at the community level. Specifically, the largest weighted aggregate
employment impact under this analysis is associated with an MSA in the
state of Minnesota. The estimated sample facility-based employment loss
in the MSA is 37.2 FTEs. The sample weight associated with this
facility is 4.9, meaning that, in the impact analysis, the facility
represents itself plus 3.9 other facilities in the underlying PFPR
facility population whose locations may not be estimated. Applying the
sample weight brings the primary employment impact to 181.0. Further,
applying the industry impact multiplier for Texas of 9.20 brings the
weighted aggregate employment impact to 1,665.2 full-time equivalent
employment positions. This unrealistically high value exceeds all the
other simulated MSA-level impacts by nearly a factor of three. Although
this value also yields the highest percentage loss in MSA employment,
at 0.1181 percent, it is still less than one-eighth of the one percent
significant impact threshold (see Table 10). The next highest
percentage employment impacts are 0.0738 percent, in Missouri, and
0.0656 percent, in Texas, or approximately 1/14th and 1/15th of the one
percent impact threshold, respectively. Even using highly unrealistic
assumptions, this analysis finds that Option 3/S would not likely cause
a significant loss of employment in any affected MSA.
Table 10.--Analysis of Community Employment Impacts Assuming Worst-Case Multiplier and Proportional Distribution
of Sample-Weighted Employment Losses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Impacts Only Primary and Secondary Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
State FTE loss Implicit Sample- Maximum Multiplier- Percent
in sample sample- weighted State adjusted loss in
facility weight FTE loss multiplier FTE loss employment
MSA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA..................................... 1.9 5.0 9.7 9.2 89.1 0.0020
CA..................................... 0.2 4.9 0.8 9.2 7.0 0.0006
CO..................................... 0.7 1.2 0.8 9.2 7.4 0.0028
CT..................................... 3.8 4.9 18.6 9.2 171.2 0.0403
FL..................................... 0.0 7.2 0.1 9.2 0.9 0.0006
GA..................................... 0.1 4.9 0.7 9.2 6.6 0.0004
IA..................................... 0.1 5.0 0.3 9.2 2.3 0.0010
LA..................................... 0.1 7.2 0.4 9.2 3.4 0.0006
MD..................................... 0.4 4.0 1.5 9.2 13.5 0.0011
MN..................................... 37.2 4.9 181.0 9.2 1,665.2 0.1181
MO..................................... 56.9 1.2 68.3 9.2 628.8 0.0738
MO..................................... 1.5 4.9 7.1 9.2 65.4 0.0051
OH..................................... 3.7 5.1 18.5 9.2 170.6 0.0217
OR..................................... 0.7 4.9 3.3 9.2 30.1 0.0044
PA..................................... 2.7 7.3 19.5 9.2 179.0 0.0180
SC..................................... 0.8 7.2 5.5 9.2 50.7 0.0148
TN..................................... 1.1 4.9 5.2 9.2 47.5 0.0100
TN..................................... 0.4 4.9 2.1 9.2 18.9 0.0035
TX..................................... 0.3 5.7 1.8 9.2 16.9 0.0023
TX..................................... 1.9 4.0 7.5 9.2 68.8 0.0656
UT..................................... 0.3 7.2 2.2 9.2 19.8 0.0039
WA..................................... 0.1 7.2 1.0 9.2 9.3 0.0008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................. 114.8 3.1 355.7 .......... 3,272.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The community-level employment impact values presented in this table provide a worst-case illustration of
possible impacts in the MSAs in which those sample facilities assessed as incurring economic impacts were
located. The employment losses are likely to overstate substantially actual impacts because of the use of a
maximum employment impact multiplier and because non-sample facility impacts (for which an impact location is
unknown) are assumed to occur in the same MSA as the sample facility is located. In fact, the non-sample
facility employment impacts are likely to be distributed among these and other unknown MSAs in a way that does
not yield as high a concentration of impacts at the sample facility locations as indicated in this analysis.
E. Foreign Trade Effects
Products of the PFPR industry are traded internationally.
Therefore, changes in domestic production resulting from effluent
regulations may affect the balance of trade. EPA evaluated the
potential foreign trade impacts of the PFPR regulation by separately
estimating the changes in both exports and imports that could occur as
a result of a PSES regulation for Subcategory C (PFPR) Facilities. EPA
analyzed foreign trade impacts under two cases: a proportional case,
which assesses trade impacts based on the relative competitiveness of
U.S. and foreign producers in international markets; and a worst case,
which makes severely conservative assumptions regarding U.S.
competitiveness. Both analyses showed relatively minor trade impacts
from the regulatory option, Option 3/S.
Trade impacts were examined for the six PSES options considered for
Subcategory C Facilities. Among these options, the estimated impacts of
proposed Option 3/S are the least severe under both the worst-case and
proportional case assumptions.
1. Proportional Case
The analysis of trade impacts focuses on the PFPR sales of
facilities that are assessed as closures or line conversions as the
result of the PFPR rule. When a facility ceases PFPR production, the
markets that it served, both domestic and export, are assumed to be
competed for by other domestic producers and foreign producers. Under
the proportional case assumptions, domestic and foreign producers share
in these markets on a proportional basis according to their average
participation in domestic and export markets before regulation. These
assumptions allow foreign producers to compete away a share of both the
sales to domestic production and sales for export that had previously
been supplied by the impacted facilities. The shares of these markets
that are won by foreign producers reflect the long-run success of
foreign and domestic producers in competing for domestic and export
markets. In effect, the proportional case assumes that foreign and
domestic producers would remain as competitive on the margin in
capturing domestic and export PFPR markets as they are currently on
average. Specifically, exports decline as domestic producers are
assumed to capture 30.2 percent of impacted facilities' former exports
while foreign producers capture 69.8 percent of this amount. And
imports increase as domestic producers are assumed to retain 82.1
percent of impacted facilities' former sales for domestic consumption,
while foreign producers capture 17.9 percent.
The estimated decrease in exports (stated as a positive value) and
increase in imports are summed to yield the estimated decline in the
U.S. PFPR trade balance. Under the proportional case assumptions, the
estimated trade impact under Option 3 amounts to a $9,872,000 decrease
in the pesticide trade balance, or a 1.04 percent decline. Option 3/S
would result in a $9,190,000 decrease in the pesticide trade balance,
or a decline of less than one percent (see Table 11 below).
2. Worst-Case
The worst-case analysis again begins with foreign and domestic
producers competing to capture the domestic and export PFPR sales of
facilities that were assessed as closures or line conversions as the
result of the PFPR regulation. Under the worst-case assumptions,
however, foreign producers are assumed to win this competition
completely. That is, the sales for domestic consumption are fully
replaced by increased imports and the sales for export are fully
replaced by foreign producers. These assumptions maximize the possible
adverse trade impact associated with reduced production and sales of
PFPR products by significantly impacted facilities. The estimated
decline in exports (stated as a positive number) and increase in
imports are summed to yield the decline in the balance of trade in the
PFPR market. This analysis makes severe and unrealistic assumptions,
but serves to illustrate the minimal impact that the regulation is
expected to have on foreign trade, even under the most conservative
assumptions.
Under the worst-case assumptions a decrease of $43,995,000 in the
net trade balance (4.6 percent) is projected under Option 3, and a
decrease of $40,184,000 (4.2 percent) is calculated for the proposed
option, Option 3/S (see Table 11).
Table 11.--Change in Foreign Trade Balance for Subcategory C PSES Options ($000, 1988)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Worst case assumptions Proportional case assumptions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease Decrease
Regulatory option Increase Decrease in net Increase Decrease in net
in in trade in in trade
imports exports balance imports exports balance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1...................................... 40,155 4,070 44,225 7,188 2,841 10,029
Option 2...................................... 40,149 3,846 43,995 7,187 2,685 9,872
Option 3...................................... 40,149 3,846 43,995 7,187 2,685 9,872
Option 3/S.................................... 36,338 3,846 40,184 6,505 2,685 9,190
Option 4...................................... 194,548 8,963 203,511 34,824 6,256 41,080
Option 5...................................... 199,219 8,963 208,182 35,660 6,256 41,916
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Impacts on Firms Owning PFPR Facilities
The assessment of economic achievability of the PFPR regulation is
based primarily on the facility-level impact analysis. However, because
the impacts at the level of the firm may exceed those assessed at the
level of the facility, particularly when a firm owns more than one
facility that will be subject to regulation, EPA also conducted a firm-
level impact analysis for the PFPR regulation. The firm-level analysis
estimates the impact of regulatory compliance on firms owning
facilities subject to PFPR effluent guidelines. A firm-level analysis
was conducted for all firms which own at least one sample facility that
uses water in its PFPR operations, and therefore for which financial
data were available. Because of sample design considerations, the
findings from the firm-level analysis, which is based on facilities in
the sample survey, cannot be extrapolated on a statistically valid
basis to the population level of PFPR industry firms.
The firm-level impact analysis involves aggregating financial and
compliance cost data for sample facilities by firm. Compliance cost
data for the sample facilities within a firm were then used to impute
compliance costs for the portion of a firm's PFPR revenue that was not
covered by the data for sample facilities. Baseline cost adjustments
from other regulatory requirements were also included in the firm-level
analysis and were apportioned to those revenues within the firm that
were not reflected by sample facilities.
The firm-level financial impact was assessed on the basis of change
in pre-tax return on assets (ROA) taking into account the expected
compliance requirements for sample facilities and the portion of a
firm's PFPR revenue that was not covered by the data for sample
facilities. ROA was calculated for the baseline and post-compliance,
and compared with a threshold value based on the lowest quartile data
for SIC codes in the 2800 group (Chemicals and Allied Products) of
2.396 percent.\10\ ROA is a measure of the profitability of a firm's
capital assets, independent of the effects of taxes and financial
structure. This financial measure provides information regarding the
competitive position of the firm within the industry, as well as
operating margin and asset management capability. If a firm cannot
sustain a competitive ROA when baseline costs and compliance costs are
considered, then the firm will likely have difficulty financing the
costs of complying with the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\The threshold value ROA (2.396 percent) was calculated by
weighting the ROA for all available SIC codes in the 2800 group by
the total value of shipments of that group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The firm-level financial data used to calculate baseline ROA and to
which adjustments were made for the post-compliance analysis were
obtained from public financial reports for the public-reporting firms
that own facilities in the PFPR Survey. For the multiple facility, non-
public-reporting firms, baseline firm-level data were imputed using
facility-level data from the Survey and aggregate ratios of sales-to-
assets and pre-tax operating income as reported in the Robert Morris
Associates publication Annual Statement Studies.11 Data for single
facility firms were taken from the PFPR industry Survey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1Robert Morris Associates, Annual Statement Studies, 1991,
Philadelphia, PA. Calculations are based on a composite weighted
average of values for chemical industry sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Baseline Impacts
The baseline ROA analysis evaluates the firm's financial operating
condition before costs of complying with the proposed regulatory option
are considered. This analysis identifies firms which are expected to be
financially weak relative to the overall industry before the regulation
is enacted. For the firm-level analysis, baseline costs for non-sample
PFPR facilities were estimated and summed with the sample facility
firms' costs. Baseline costs include the estimated costs associated
with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Organic
Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (OCPSF) (40 CFR 414),
Pesticide Manufacturing, and FIFRA regulations as previously described.
The non-sample baseline costs were estimated based upon the portion of
PFPR firm revenue which is not attributable to the sample facilities,
and on the ratio of firm baseline costs to firm revenues from PFPR.
Baseline costs for manufacturing facilities that do not perform PFPR
activities owned by the firms being analyzed were also included in the
analysis.12 Firms that have a baseline ROA of less than the
threshold value are not considered for compliance impacts because their
financial weakness results from current circumstances. Of the 308 firms
initially considered in the analysis, 66 firms (all of which are single
entities) had a baseline ROA of less than the threshold level of 2.396
and were therefore not considered in the remainder of the analysis.
Thus, 242 firms were considered for impacts from the proposed PFPR
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\2Data are from EIA for Pesticides Manufacturing Industry,
1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Post-Compliance Impacts
Post-compliance ROA was calculated by adjusting the baseline ROA
components to reflect the costs of complying with the proposed
options--Option 3/S for Subcategory C facilities and Option 1 for
Subcategory E facilities13. Again, the costs of compliance for
facilities not included in the sample were estimated based on the
portion of PFPR firm revenue not attributable to the sample facilities,
and the ratio of capital and operating costs of compliance to firm PFPR
revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\3Refilling establishments are expected to meet compliance
with the proposed option at zero cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 242 firms considered for compliance impacts, 5 firms were
found to have a post-compliance ROA of less than 2.396 percent and are
therefore assessed as incurring adverse financial impacts as a result
of regulatory compliance. Three of these five firms are private single
entities and two are private multi-facility firms. No firm impacts are
expected to occur among public-reporting firms. The Agency judges that
these firm-level impacts should not pose a significant burden to the
PFPR industry (see Table 12).
Table 12.--Estimated Sample Firm Financial Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Post-compliance
---------------------------------------------------
Firm Type Number of Number of Number of Number of
projected firms projected firms
impacts considered impacts considered
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public-reporting
firms.............. 0 36 0 36
Private multi-
facility firms..... 0 92 2 92
Private single
entity firms....... \1\66 180 3 114
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sixty-three of these firms have an ROA of less than 2.396 percent
before baseline cost adjustments were taken into account.
G. Impacts of NSPS and PSNS
1. Subcategory C
As stated above, EPA is proposing to establish NSPS as zero
discharge, equivalent to the BAT requirements for existing sources.
Zero discharge represents best available and best available
demonstrated technology for the pesticide formulating, packaging and
repackaging subcategory as a whole. The economic impact analysis for
existing sources shows that this regulatory approach (termed Option 3
in the discussion above) would be economically achievable for the
industry. EPA believes that new sources will be able to comply at costs
that are similar to or less than the costs for existing sources,
because new sources can apply control technologies (including dedicated
lines and pressurized hoses for equipment cleaning) more efficiently
than sources that need to retrofit for those technologies. EPA's
analysis concludes that a zero discharge requirement for new source
direct dischargers would be economically achievable and would not be a
barrier to entry.
EPA is proposing to set pretreatment standards for new sources
(which cover indirect dischargers) equivalent to the NSPS standards
(which cover direct dischargers), i.e., at zero discharge for all PFPR
waste streams. For the reasons stated above with respect to the NSPS
standards, EPA finds that the PSNS regulations would be economically
achievable and not a barrier to entry.
Although EPA has proposed to exempt the non-interior waste streams
of the small sanitizers from this zero discharge requirement for
existing pretreatment facilities (PSES), EPA is not proposing to
include this same exemption for the new source pretreatment facilities
(PSNS). The rationale for finding that the exemption for those
sanitizer waste streams is appropriate for existing sources is based on
EPA's findings that the impacts on existing small entities would be
significantly reduced by the exemption while the associated additional
loading of toxic pollutants would be small. With respect to new source
pretreaters, EPA does not have sufficient information to conclude that
the size and economic conditions of those new sources, the impacts on
those new sources, and the associated loadings of toxic pollutants,
would justify a similar exemption for the non-interior waste streams
for sanitizer facilities.
In addition, EPA has proposed to set a zero discharge requirement
for NSPS, also without any exemption for sanitizers' waste streams,
based on the proposal to set BAT at zero discharge for all waste
streams and the finding that NSPS should be set at a level at least as
stringent as BAT.
2. Subcategory E
EPA is proposing NSPS/PSNS for Subcategory E facilities equal to
BAT/PSES proposed limitations for existing sources. Compliance with
BAT/PSES is projected to have zero costs for existing facilities.
Likewise, new facilities are not expected to incur additional annual
costs due to the regulation. Since compliance with the proposed option
has been found to be economically achievable for existing facilities,
EPA has determined that compliance with NSPS/PSNS will also be
economically achievable and not a barrier to entry for new sources.
H. Benefits of Pollution Prevention
Typically, the economic achievability of a regulation is evaluated
by considering the impacts of projected compliance costs on an
industry, for example, the costs of installing and operating a
treatment technology. However, facilities may offset some of their
compliance costs by achieving regulatory compliance through use of
pollution prevention measures. The cost analysis of the proposed PFPR
regulation assumes that, where possible, facilities will use certain
pollution prevention measures to achieve zero discharge. These measures
include, for example, recovery and reuse of rinse waters and other
wastewaters that contain reusable PAIs. By recovering and reusing the
PAIs contained in such wastewaters, facilities may save on the purchase
cost of PAIs, water consumption costs, and sewage treatment costs. The
cost analyses described above for the proposed regulation reflect the
costs of implementing such pollution prevention measures and reflect
cost savings from reduced waste management and disposal costs (about
$4.7 million on an annualized basis). The regulatory cost analyses,
however, do not include certain additional offsetting cost savings that
may accrue to facilities through pollution prevention.
To provide a more comprehensive accounting of the costs of
achieving compliance with the proposed PFPR regulation, EPA therefore
identified and assessed additional mechanisms by which facilities might
achieve cost savings through use of pollution prevention. Specifically,
EPA identified five mechanisms by which facilities may offset some of
their regulatory compliance costs through pollution prevention. Two
mechanisms are associated with the direct costs of PFPR processing and
manufacturing PAIs: recovery of PAIs, and recovery of water (reducing
water and discharge costs). The other three mechanisms, termed indirect
cost savings, arise from reductions in facility and firm costs (or
other business-enhancing benefits) that are not directly associated
with the manufacturing or PFPR processing of PAIs. These indirect cost
savings mechanisms include: reductions in permitting costs, reductions
in business insurance premiums, and reductions in firm cost of capital.
Using Survey data for PFPR facilities subject to regulation, EPA
estimated facility-specific savings for the two direct cost mechanisms
listed above. Although EPA was not able to estimate facility-specific
savings for the three indirect cost mechanisms, EPA assessed these
opportunities on the basis of discussions with permitting authority and
insurance and finance industry personnel and a review of relevant
literature. From these discussions and reviews, EPA concluded that the
indirect cost mechanisms would also offer cost-savings opportunities to
PFPR industry firms that adopt pollution prevention measures as part of
their compliance strategy.
1. Savings From Reduced Water Use and Water Discharge
Wastewaters that contain reusable PAIs can be recovered and reused
with the same line or processes in a PFPR facility from which it was
taken. Economic benefits can accrue due to the reduced demand for new
water and as well from decreased volume of wastewater discharge and
associated sewage system costs. In its analysis, EPA assumed 100
percent reduction or reuse of water that is currently discharged. Water
and sewer rates were obtained from Ernst & Young's Water and Wastewater
1992 Survey of the monthly rates for the 100 largest metropolitan
areas. EPA supplemented this rate information with data on water rates
for facility locations not covered by the Ernst & Young data. Also, EPA
adjusted these rates to reflect the trend in expected increases in
water and sewer rates which is greater than the general rate of
inflation.
For the 529 facilities with compliance costs under Option 3/S, EPA
estimated that 519 facilities could be expected to achieve water and
sewer cost savings by use of pollution prevention. For those facilities
achieving cost savings, the mean water and sewer savings is estimated
at $213 per annum. The maximum annual savings at an individual facility
is approximately $11,000. On average, these savings represent about one
percent of the total annualized compliance costs for the facilities
expected to achieve water and sewer cost savings. However, the maximum
percentage of compliance costs estimated to be saved at a specific
facility is about 11 percent of total annual compliance costs. For some
facilities, therefore, the reuse and recovery of water and PAIs can
provide substantial savings. On the basis of the individual facility
values, EPA estimates national aggregate annual benefits from water and
sewer savings of $116,000.
2. Savings From Recovery and Reuse of PAIs
Under Option 3/S, facilities will recover PAIs from interior
wastewater streams. The value of these PAIs was estimated based on PAI-
specific prices calculated for the pesticide manufacturers effluent
guideline when necessary data were available, and from secondary
sources when not. Of the 545 facilities expected to incur compliance
costs under Option 3/S, 354 were assessed as being able to recover and
reuse PAIs by use of pollution prevention in complying with the
proposed PFPR regulation. In aggregate, facilities are estimated to
save about 77,816 pounds of active ingredient per year with a total
value of $628,065 (in 1988 dollars). The mean estimated annual PAI
savings per facility with savings was estimated at $1,777. On average,
these savings represent about 0.65 percent of these facilities' total
annual compliance cost. The facility with the highest savings is
estimated to save $427,000 per year.
3. Savings From Reduced Costs of Permits and Fees
EPA believes that facilities may also save money by reducing
indirect and direct discharge permitting costs as a result of using
pollution prevention measures in complying with Option 3/S. Permitting
costs include application fees, costs of preparing applications,
discharge monitoring reports and engineering reports, annual fees, and
monitoring costs. A review of permitting information from several
states with PFPR facilities showed that permitting costs vary
considerably from state to state. In general, reducing or eliminating
discharge volumes through pollution prevention should allow facilities
to save on permitting costs. In some cases, facilities may be able to
forego permitting costs entirely by eliminating discharges. In other
cases, facilities may incur lower permitting costs. For example,
several states vary permit application and maintenance fees based on
facility discharge volumes and complexity of discharge streams. Some
states indicated that their permit fee structures have been explicitly
designed, or are being designed, to promote pollution prevention as a
discharge reduction or elimination method.
The permitting cost amounts that may be saved vary from a few
hundred dollars a year for some POTW-related charges to tens of
thousands of dollars for direct discharge permits. As an illustration
of the possible significance of these savings, EPA developed an example
scenario in which total PFPR industry annual permitting cost savings
might amount to $2 million or more.
The Agency solicits comments from the industry and other parties on
the likelihood and possible value of such savings.
4. Savings From Reduced Insurance Premiums
Although liability and general business insurance policies do not
currently incorporate discounts for use of pollution prevention, trends
in insurance coverage show that decreasing risks in the chemical
industry will be reflected in cost savings in the insurance premiums.
Specifically, the insurance industry has begun to recognize that
pollution prevention efforts can reduce a number of business and
liability risks. Representatives from business insurance firms indicate
that compliance with the PFPR effluent limitations guideline by means
of pollution prevention could result in lower insurance premiums
through several mechanisms, for example:
Reduced volume of pesticide ingredients shipped and
handled at a facility can result in lower risk of hazardous exposures
for workers and the surrounding community;
Elimination of pollutant discharges would result in a
lower risk of leaks or accidental excess discharges of polluting
materials; and
Elimination of pollutant discharges reduces the risk that
a facility would be found in violation of discharge limits.
As pollution prevention methods become more accepted and their
efficient and effective performance is better established, insurance
firms will be more likely to account for the potential risk-reducing
benefits of pollution prevention programs in setting insurance
premiums. EPA requests that industry discuss the likelihood and
possible extent of such savings in its comments on the proposed
regulation.
5. Savings From Reduced Cost of Capital
Compliance by pollution prevention under Option 3/S can provide
financial benefits to firms by reducing the cost of capital. Decreases
in the amount of pesticides being used can reduce contingent
liabilities associated with worker safety and environmental compliance
issues, and may also provide preferential recognition and valuation in
the public capital markets.
The factors that influence the cost of capital to a firm include:
the firm's expected financial performance; the variability of the
firm's financial performance; the financial structure of the firm and
the associated variability in the performance of the instruments by
which the firm's assets are financed; and the relationship of the
variability in the firm's own financial performance to that of other
firms and competing investment opportunities. These factors determine
the overall riskiness of a firm as an investment or lending
opportunity. In general, actions that reduce the riskiness or expected
variability of a firm's financial performance will reduce its cost of
capital. Adoption of pollution prevention measures can reduce the
riskiness of the firm's financial performance through:
Avoidance of contingent liabilities. For similar reasons
to those outlined above for reduced insurance costs, use of pollution
prevention measures by PFPR facilities can reduce contingent
liabilities that pose a risk for creditors and investors. For example,
more efficient use of PAIs and the use of dedicated lines for each PAI
or product can reduce the overall level of worker exposure to PAIs due
to elimination or reduction of cleanup due to product changeover. In
addition, the reduction or reuse of PAIs can reduce or eliminate
pollutant discharges, thereby reducing risks to the surrounding
community from accidental spills or leakage and also reducing the risk
of being found in violation of discharge limits. Each of these
contingencies may pose a financial risk to the firm. Elimination or
reduction of such contingent liabilities should reduce uncertainty
about future financial performance and result in lower required returns
for creditors and investors.
Increased managerial control of the firm. Facilities that
prevent pollution associated with PAI use will be better able to
control the financial impact of environmental regulations. Firms that
limit but continue to discharge effluents are left with the risk of
achieving compliance with possibly more stringent environmental
requirements in the future. Firms that implement pollution prevention
(i.e., source reduction and recycling of wastewaters) to eliminate
discharges are proactively avoiding, and therefore controlling, the
possibility of these future compliance costs. The removal of this cost
uncertainty should make those firms that adopt pollution prevention
less risky to invest in or lend to.
Preferential recognition and valuation by investors and
lenders. Some investors preferentially search for firms that apply
effective and proactive pollution prevention programs. For example,
some mutual funds include a social/environmental responsibility
component in their charter. Firms that are perceived as environmentally
responsible may be awarded a higher valuation and lower cost of capital
in the public capital markets.
Improved firm financial performance. Finally, some
consumers may favor products of firms that are perceived as
environmentally responsible (as defined by the individual consumer). To
the extent that a mechanism exists for consumers to be aware that a
given firm has undertaken pollution prevention programs, consumers may
favor that firm's products over those of its competitors and thus
improve the firm's business prospects.
EPA requests comments on the likelihood and possible extent of such
financial benefits.
In summary, although EPA has been able to quantify only partially
the potential cost-savings benefits of pollution prevention, EPA
believes that these benefits may significantly improve the financial
circumstances of many facilities and firms that choose pollution
prevention as a means of complying with the proposed PFPR effluent
limitation guideline.
I. Labor Requirements and Possible Employment Benefits of Regulatory
Compliance
Firms will need to install and operate compliance systems to comply
with an effluent limitations guideline for the PFPR industry. The
manufacture, installation, and operation of these systems will require
use of labor resources. To the extent that these labor needs translate
into employment increases in affected firms, a PFPR rule has the
potential to generate employment benefits. If realized, these
employment benefits may partially offset the employment losses that are
expected to occur in facilities impacted by the rule. The employment
effects that would occur in the manufacture, installation, and
operation of treatment systems are termed the ``direct'' employment
benefits of the rule. Because these employment effects are directly
attributable to the PFPR rule, they are conceptually parallel to the
employment losses that were estimated for the facilities that are
expected to incur significant impacts as a result of the PFPR rule.
In addition to direct employment benefits, the PFPR rule may
generate other employment benefits through two mechanisms. First,
employment effects may occur in the industries that are linked to the
industries that manufacture and install compliance equipment; these
effects are termed ``indirect'' employment benefits. For example, a
firm that manufactures the pumps, piping and other hardware that
comprise a treatment system will purchase intermediate goods and
services from other firms and sectors of the economy. Thus, increased
economic activity in the firm that manufacturers the treatment system
components has the potential to increase activity and employment in
these linked firms and sectors. Second, the increased payments to labor
in the directly and indirectly affected industries will lead to
increased purchases from consumer-oriented service and retail
businesses, which in turn lead to additional labor demand and
employment benefits in those businesses. These effects are termed
``induced'' employment benefits.
In view of these possible employment benefits, EPA estimated the
labor requirements associated with compliance with the PFPR effluent
guidelines Option 3/S. Labor requirements--and thus the possible
employment benefits--were estimated in two steps. EPA first estimated
the direct employment effects associated with the manufacture,
installation, and operation of the PFPR compliance equipment. Second,
EPA considered the additional employment effects that might occur
through the indirect and induced effect mechanisms outlined above.
1. Direct Labor Requirements of Complying With the PFPR Rule
EPA separately analyzed each component of the direct labor
requirements: Manufacturing, installing, and operating compliance
equipment. The analysis is based on the compliance cost estimates
developed for the economic impact analysis of the PFPR regulation.
Compliance requirements and associated costs were estimated for each
facility in the Survey that was assessed as incurring costs. For the
labor requirements analysis, compliance costs and their associated
labor requirements were considered only for those facilities that were
not assessed as a baseline closure, or as a closure or line conversion
due to compliance. That is, the analysis considered the labor
requirement effects associated only with those facilities that, upon
compliance with the rule, would be likely to continue PFPR production
activities.
EPA estimated the direct labor requirements for manufacturing and
installing compliance equipment based on the cost of the equipment and
its installation, and labor's expected share of cost in manufacturing
and installing the equipment. The labor input was estimated in dollars
based on information contained in the National Input-Output Tables
assembled by the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of
Commerce. In particular, the direct requirements matrix identifies the
value of each input, including labor, that is required to produce a one
dollar value of output for a subject industry. The industries in the
input-output tables that were used as the basis for this analysis are:
the Heating, Plumbing, and Fabricated Structural Metal Products
Industry (Bureau of Economic Analysis industry classification 40) for
compliance equipment manufacturing; and the Repair and Maintenance
Construction Industry (Bureau of Economic Analysis industry
classification 12) for compliance equipment installation. The dollar
value of labor's contribution was converted to a full-time employment
equivalent based on a yearly labor cost of $35,800 (1988 dollars,
including benefits and payroll taxes). Because compliance equipment
purchase and installation are considered one-time outlays, the labor
requirements for these activities were annualized over a 10-year period
at the seven percent social discount rate.
For the analysis of the labor required to operate compliance
equipment, EPA used the estimates of annual labor hours that had been
developed as the basis for assessing the annual operating and
maintenance costs of the PFPR regulatory options.
From these analyses, EPA estimated an annual direct labor
requirement of 131 full-time equivalent positions for complying with
the Option 3/S PFPR regulation. Of this total, the annualized labor
requirements for manufacturing and installing compliance equipment are
71 and 27 full-time equivalent positions, respectively. Compliance
equipment operation is estimated to require 32 full-time equivalent
positions annually. The corresponding annual estimated payments to
labor is $4,676,685 (1988 dollars) (see Table 13).
Table 13.--Analysis of Possible Employment Generation Effects of an Effluent Guideline for the PFPR Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labor cost Labor cost component Direct labor
share of -------------------------------- requirements3
Total weighted production ---------------------
expenditures value1 One-time basis Annual basis2 One-time Annual
(percent) basis basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Labor Effects From
Compliance Equipment:
Manufacturing............ $57,846,443 31.02 $17,941,653 $2,554,488 501 71
Installation............. 16,096,368 42.23 6,797,979 967,879 190 27
Operation................ 1,154,318 32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Direct Labor
Effects............. .............. ........... .............. 4,676,685 ......... 131
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, The 1982 Benchmark Input-Output Accounts of the United States, December
1991. The labor cost share of production value for compliance equipment manufacturing is based on the input-
output composition of the Heating, Plumbing, and Fabricated Structural Metal Products Industry (Bureau of
Economic Analysis industry classification 40). The labor share of production value for compliance equipment
installation is based on information for the Repair and Maintenance Construction Industry (Bureau of Economic
Analysis industry classification 12).
2Annualized over 10 years at the social discount rate of 7 percent.
3Number of jobs calculated on the basis of an average hourly labor cost of $17.21 and 2,080 hours per labor-
year.
2. Indirect and Induced Labor Requirements of Complying With the PFPR
Rule
In addition to its direct labor effects, the PFPR effluent
guideline may also generate labor requirements through the indirect and
induced effect mechanisms described above. EPA assessed the indirect
and induced employment effects by use of multipliers that relate
aggregate economic effects, including indirect and induced effects, to
direct economic effects. Using a range of multipliers from previous
studies of the aggregate employment effects of general water treatment
and pollution control expenditures, EPA estimated that the total labor
requirement effect of the Option 3/S rule would range from 353 to 523
full-time equivalent positions. The lower end of this range reflects
the use of lower multiplier values and conservative assumptions
regarding effects on economic activity in industries linked to the PFPR
industry. The higher end of the range reflects the higher multiplier
values and assumes full incurrence of indirect economic effects in
industries linked to the PFPR industry.
J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PSES Options
In addition to the foregoing analyses, the Agency has performed a
cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost-effectiveness analysis compares the
total annualized cost incurred for a regulatory option to the
corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing the discharge of
pollutants.
Cost-effectiveness calculations are used in setting effluent
limitations guidelines to compare the efficiency of one regulatory
option is removing pollutants to another regulatory option. Cost-
effectiveness is defined as the incremental annual cost of a pollution
control option in an industry subcategory per incremental pollutant
removal. The increments are considered relative to another option or to
a benchmark, such as existing treatment. Pollutant removals are
measured in copper based ``pounds-equivalent.'' The cost-effectiveness
value, therefore, represents the unit cost of removing the next pound-
equivalent (lb eq.) of pollutant. While not required by the Clean Water
Act, cost-effectiveness analysis is a useful tool for evaluating
regulatory options for the removal of toxic pollutants. Cost-
effectiveness analysis is not intended to analyze the removal of
conventional pollutants (oil and grease, biological oxygen demand, and
total suspended solids). The removal of conventional pollutants is
therefore not addressed.
For each of the regulatory options, the estimated pounds-equivalent
removed were calculated by weighting the number of pounds of each
pollutant removed by the relative toxic weighting factor for each
pollutant. The use of pounds-equivalent gives correspondingly more
weight to more highly toxic pollutants. Thus, for a given expenditure
and pounds of pollutants removed, the cost per pound-equivalent removed
would be lower when more highly toxic pollutants are removed than if
pollutants of lesser toxicity are removed. Cost-effectiveness is
calculated as the ratio of the incremental annual costs to the
incremental pounds-equivalent removed for each option. So that
comparisons of the cost-effectiveness among other regulated industries
may be made, annual costs for all cost-effectiveness analyses are
reported in 1981 dollars.
Table 14 provides estimates of the total annualized compliance
costs, in 1981 dollars, and the total pollutant removals in pounds and
pounds-equivalent. Table 15 lists estimates of the incremental cost-
effectiveness of the regulatory options.
Table 14.--National Estimate of Annualized Costs and Removals Under PSES
[Subcategory C Facilities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized
Option cost, MM $ Pound removals Pound-equivalent
(1981) removals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1............ $25.4 111,653 12,127,075
Option 2............ 21.8 111,683 12,127,666
Option 3/S.......... 20.4 111,793 12,134,031
Option 3............ 21.8 111,996 12,134,050
Option 41........... 224.1 111,996 12,134,050
Option 51........... 281.8 111,996 12,134,050
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1These options result in additional costs with no additional removals.
Table 15.--Estimated Industry Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Under PSES
Subcategory C Facilities1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost- Cost-
Option Effectiveness, $/ Effectiveness, $/
lb. lb-eq.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incremental from baseline to
option 1......................... $227.87 $2.10
Incremental from option 1 to
option 2......................... 2121,746 26,232
Incremental from option 2 to
option 3/S....................... 212,513 2215.86
Incremental from option 3/S to
option 3......................... 6,790 71,252
Incremental from option 3 to
option 4......................... 3undefined 3undefined
Incremental from option 4 to
option 5......................... 3undefined 3undefined
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Dollar values are in constant 1981 dollars for comparison with other
rules.
2Options are ranked by increasing levels of pollutant removals. Negative
cost-effectiveness numbers mean that costs have decreased from the
previous option, while removals have increased, improving cost-
effectiveness. This increase in removals at a lower cost makes Option
1 and Option 2 inefficient in comparison to Option 3/S.
3These options result in additional costs with no additional removals.
Therefore, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental cost/
incremental removals) is infinite.
As can be seen from the above tables, the cost-effectiveness of
Option 1 is $2.10 per pound-equivalent of pollutant removed. Option 1
is relatively cost-effective when compared to the cost-effectiveness
values of other effluent limitations guidelines. Movement from Option 1
to Option 2 and from Option 2 to Option 3/S is cost-effective relative
to Option 1 because costs are reduced while removals increase. Movement
from Option 3/S to Option 3 is less efficient than movement from Option
1 to Option 2 or from Option 2 to Option 3/S. The average cost-
effectiveness of Option 3 is $1.79 per pound-equivalent and for Option
3/S is $1.68. Options 4 and 5 are not cost-effective as they result in
additional costs with no additional removals relative to Option 3.
Option 3/S is the most cost-effective option. Successive improvements
in weighted removals are achieved at progressively lower costs by
moving from Option 1 through Option 2 to Option 3/S. Further movement
from Option 3/S to Options 3, 4 or 5 provides minor additional removals
at substantially higher marginal cost.
The costs and removals resulting from the two regulatory options
considered for Subcategory E facilities are presented in Table 16
below. Option 1, the proposed option is expected to be met with no
additional compliance costs, therefore its cost-effectiveness is zero.
Option 2 requires additional costs but results in no additional
removals, so its cost-effectiveness value is undefined.
Table 16.--National Estimates of Annualized Costs and Removals
Subcategory E Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Pound-
Option cost, Pound equivalent
dollar removals removals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 1.............................. $0 1.0 1.3
Option 21............................. 1,507 1.0 1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1This Option results in additional costs with no additional removals
K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., Pub. L. 96-
354) calls for the Agency to prepare a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(RFA) for regulations that have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that,
while achieving statutory goals, government regulations do not impose
disproportionate impacts on small entities.
The implications of the Regulatory Flexibility Act are discussed
below for facilities regulated under Subcategory C. No economic impacts
on small entities are projected for Subcategory E.
1. Subcategory C Facilities
EPA defines a small entity based on the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) standards. The SBA has established standards based
on employment at firms (including all affiliates and divisions) for
each SIC group. For SIC 2879 (``establishments primarily engaged in the
formulation and preparation of ready-to-use agricultural and household
pest control chemicals'') the SBA defines a small business as one
employing less than 500 people. Employment data for firms that own
sample PFPR facilities were obtained largely from the Section 308
Survey and from Dun and Bradstreet's Million Dollar Directory. Based on
this information, 75 percent of the firms owning PFPR facilities which
use water are classified as small. Given this high percentage of small
entities, the Agency is concerned with the potential burden of this
rule on small businesses. EPA therefore focused the consideration of
alternative regulations on small entities that were the most
significantly burdened by the regulation and whose effluent was in low
quantities and had low toxicity.
a. Severity of impacts. Consistent with the other components of the
EIA, significant impacts were defined as facility closures, product
line conversions, or a cost-to-revenue ratio of greater than five
percent. EPA evaluated the impacts on small entities under Option 3--
the option that was initially considered for proposal. The option
resulted in a significant number of moderate impacts on facilities
owned by small entities. EPA has determined that Option 3 is
economically achievable. The impacts, while considered significant, are
not severe. Only one facility is expected to close. Most of the
estimated impacts are related to line conversions. Even if all the
lines close instead of converting to other formulating/packaging
activities, job losses would not exceed 451 employees nationally.
b. Differential impacts. EPA subsequently conducted a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. The Agency evaluated whether small business
impacts were concentrated in a particular market. As Table 17 shows,
impacted facilities owned by small entities usually obtain less than 25
percent of their revenue from pesticides and are most heavily
concentrated in the institutional/commercial market. Further, as shown
previously in Table 5, the frequency of impacted facilities in this
market is much heavier than for the remainder of the PFPR industry. The
Agency also evaluated the PAIs most frequently used by the impacted
facilities owned by small businesses. The PAI most frequently used by
these facilities is PAI #56, Hyamine 3500. As previously discussed, PAI
#56 is classified in cluster R-4, ``Sanitizers for use in dairies, food
processing, restaurants and air treatment''.
Table 17.--Primary Markets of All Facilities Impacted Under Option 3
Owned by Small Firms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Facilities
with less with at
than 25 least 25
Primary market percent of percent of
revenue revenue
from PFPR from PFPR
activities activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural.................................. 6 0
Institutional/commercial...................... 107 0
Industrial.................................... 46 0
Wood preservatives and coatings............... 0 0
Pesticide intermediate products............... 0 0
Products used as additives to non-pesticide
products..................................... 0 0
Non-agricultural professional use products.... 0 0
Consumer home, lawn and garden................ 1 1
Government, for non-institutional use......... 0 0
Other......................................... 0 0
No primary market............................. 0 0
-------------------------
Total..................................... 160 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Consideration of alternative options. Because there may be a
disproportionate impact on some small entities, EPA identified and
considered alternative regulatory options that would still accomplish
the objectives of the Clean Water Act (See Section 603 of the Reg. Flex
Act).
EPA then evaluated the pollution contribution associated with small
impacted facilities relative to other groups and determined that there
were two distinct groups within those facilities impacted. The two
groups are wastestreams containing only R-4 products and all other
wastestreams. Because of the differential pollution contribution of
these two groups, EPA decided to investigate alternative, less
burdensome regulatory approaches for those facilities which have
separable wastestreams containing the R-4 products listed above.
Option 3/S is proposed as an alternative to Option 3 that results
in decreased impacts on the most heavily burdened subgroup of
facilities owned by small businesses. Impacts upon facilities owned by
small businesses fell from 161 under Option 3 to 126 under Option 3/S.
The 3/S exemption results in a minimal increase (203 pounds and 19
toxic weighted pounds) in releases to the environment.
The relief provided for R-4 producing facilities (with separable
wastestreams) falls into the dual categories of exemption based
alternatives and relaxed standards for small entities. Option 3/S
provides a partial exemption from certain regulatory requirements
(treat and reuse) for certain classes and other small entity standards
(the separable R-4 wastestreams and their producers).
2. Subcategory E Facilities
EPA certifies that the proposed regulation for Subcategory E
facilities would not impose a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Therefore, the Agency did not
perform a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Subcategory E
regulation.
L. Assessment of Economic Impacts Including Additional PAIs not on
the Original List of 272 PAIs Studied for Regulation
EPA has also estimated the economic impacts of including under the
proposed option all other PAIs not on the list of 272 PAIs studied in
detail to develop these proposed regulations. The analysis was
conducted on two separate sets of facilities: (1) facilities that
formulate, package or repackage using these additional PAIs as well as
the original 272 PAIs, and (2) facilities that use only the additional
PAIs.
1. Facilities Using Both Original 272 PAIs and Additional PAIs
Compliance cost estimates were developed for the first set of
facilities under a regulatory option to include the additional PAIs.
This regulatory option, Option 3/S.1, is analogous to Option 3/S,
except that Option 3/S.1 regulates additional PAIs beyond the original
272 PAIs. The estimated costs and impacts of this regulatory option,
Option 3/S.1, are presented in the Table 18 below, in comparison with
the costs and impacts of Option 3/S.
Table 18.--National Estimates of Costs and Impacts Under PSES
Comparisons of Option 3/S.1 With Option 3/S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3/S.1
Option 3/S (original 272
(original 272 PAIs and non-
PAIs only) 272 PAIs)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities not eligible for sanitizer
PAI exemption:
Number of facilities projected to
incur costs...................... 391 391
Total annualized compliance costs
(million dollars)................ $24.0 $35.1
Facility closures (severe impacts) 1 1
Moderate impacts.................. 119 126
Expected job losses............... 348 418
Facilities eligible for sanitizer PAI
exemption:
Number of facilities projected to
incur costs.......................... 138 153
Total annualized compliance costs
(million dollars).................... $2.1 $5.0
Facility closures (severe impacts) 0 0
Moderate impacts.................. 17 41
Expected job losses............... 7 52
All subcategory C facilities (except
those using only additional non-272
PAIs):
Number of facilities projected to
incur costs...................... 529 544
Total annualized compliance costs
(million dollars)................ $26.1 $40.1
Facility closures (severe impacts) 1 1
Moderate impacts.................. 136 167
Expected job losses............... 355 470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Option 3/S.1, EPA estimates that 544 Subcategory C facilities
will incur costs. The capital and annualized total costs (which include
amortized capital, annual operating and maintenance, and monitoring
costs) of complying with Option 3/S.1 are estimated to be $102.9 and
$40.1 million, respectively. One Subcategory C facility is estimated to
close due to compliance with Option 3/S.1. One hundred sixty-seven
facilities are estimated to incur moderate impacts. Total U.S. job
losses are projected, in the worst case, to be 470 FTEs as a result of
the estimated impacts.
2. Facilities Using Only the Additional PAIs
To estimate the impact on the second set of facilities, those
facilities that formulate, package or repackage only non-272 active
ingredients, EPA assumed that they were similar to the surveyed
facilities in the following ways:
(1) They have the same proportion of water dischargers that will
incur costs, (2) they have the same average cost per facility, and (3)
they will have the same percent of closures and moderate impacts. Using
these assumptions, the Agency projects that the non-272 PFPR facilities
would incur $10.2 million in annual costs, one facility closure, and 83
moderate impacts. EPA also estimates that there could be as many as 13
additional manufacturing facilities that also formulate, package or
repackage pesticide products, not included in the study of the
facilities that formulate, package or repackage the 272 PAIs. EPA
estimates that costs for this subgroup of 13 facilities would be $5.8
million and would result in no additional impacts. This information is
summarized in Table 19. Table 19 presents only the data used to
proportion costs for facilities that only make non-272 PAI products.
Therefore, Table 19 does not include the estimated costs for the
expanded scope production at facilities which produce both 272 PAIs and
non-272 PAIs.
Table 19.--Estimated National Impacts for PFPR Facilities Using Only Additional Non-272 PAIs
[Estimates for ``non-272'' facilities based on extrapolation of results from detailed analysis of facilities
using 272 PAIs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Results from facilities in Estimates for
detailed analysis indicated facilities using
of facilities population only additional
using original 272 groups\1\ non-272 PAIs\2\
PAIs (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of facilities in business.......... 2,404 .................. 1,475
Estimated number of facilities that use water....... 1,794 74.6 1,101
Estimated number of facilities that discharge....... 656 36.6 402
Estimated number of facilities that discharge and
incur compliance costs:............................
PFPR only....................................... 507 77.4 311
PFPR and manufacture............................ 22 3.4 13
Estimated total annual compliance cost ($ million,
1988):
PFPR only....................................... $16.7 .................. $10.2
PFPR and manufacture............................ $9.4 .................. $5.8
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................... $26.1 .................. $16.0
Total annual compliance cost, average per facility
($, 1988):
PFPR only....................................... $32,871 .................. $32,871
PFPR and manufacture............................ $429,065 .................. \3\$429,065
Estimated number of facility impacts:
PFPR only:
Closures.................................... 1 0.2 1
Moderate economic impacts................... 136 26.8 83
PFPR and manufacture:
Closures.................................... 0 0.0 0
Moderate economic impacts................... 0 0.0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Percentage calculations are based on findings from detailed analyses of facilities using 272 PAIs. Each
percentage value indicates the share of the preceding population group (for facilities using 272 PAIs) that is
estimated to fall in that row's named population category. For example, of the 2,404 PFPR facilities using 272
PAIs, 1,794 or 74.6 percent are estimated to use water.
\2\Within the 1,475 facilities estimated to use only the non-272 PAIs, the estimated number of facilities
falling in each population group (e.g., water-users or facilities incurring impacts) is based on applying the
relevant percentage from the analysis of PFPR facilities using the 272 PAIs. For example, of the 1,475
facilities using only non-272 PAIs, 74.6 percent or 1,101 facilities are estimated to use water.
\3\The estimates of average facility and total annual compliance cost for non-272 PAI facilities are based on
the estimated average facility costs for facilities using only the original 272 PAIs. That is, the average
facility annual compliance costs of $32,871 and $429,065, which were calculated from analysis of only the
original 272 PAIs, are assumed to apply also for the non-272 PAI facilities. The aggregate annual compliance
cost values for facilities using only non-272 PAIs were then calculated by multiplying the average costs per
facility by the estimated number of facilities in the relevant non-272 PAI facility category (e.g., 311 PFPR-
only facilities x $32,871/per facility = $10.2 million total annual cost for PFPR-only facilities using only
non-272 PAIs).
3. Aggregate Impacts for All Facilities Using Both Original 272 and
Additional PAIs
The aggregate costs and impacts of Option 3/S.1 are the combined
impacts upon facilities using both the original 272 PAIs and additional
PAIs and facilities using only the additional PAIs. These costs and
impacts are reported in Table 20. There are 869 Subcategory C
facilities that are estimated to incur costs under Option 3/S.1. The
annualized total costs (which include amortized capital, annual
operating and maintenance, and monitoring costs) of complying with
Option 3/S.1 are estimated to be $56.1 million. Two Subcategory C
facilities are expected to close due to the compliance requirement
imposed by Option 3/S.1. Two hundred fifty facilities are estimated to
incur moderate economic impacts. Total job losses in impacted
facilities are projected, in the worst case, to be 688 as a result of
the proposed Option 3/S.1 regulation. Accordingly, the Agency finds
that the overall impacts of this proposed rule on all pesticide
formulator, packager and repackager facilities are economically
achievable.
Table 20.--National Estimates of Costs and Impacts for Under PSES Option
3/S.1 Including Subcategory C Facilities Using Both Original and
Additional PAIs, and Facilities Using Only Additional PAIs
[Assuming Zero Cost Pass-Through]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 3/S.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facilities Using Both Original 272 PAIs and Non-272
PAIs:
Number of facilities projected to incur costs.... 544
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\..................................... $40.1
Facility closures: (severe economic impacts)..... 1
Moderate economic impacts........................ 167
Expected job losses (FTEs)....................... 470
Facilities Using Only Non-272 PAIs:
Number of facilities projected to incur costs.... 325
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\..................................... $16.0
Facility closures: (severe economic impacts)..... 1
Moderate economic impacts........................ 83
Expected job losses (FTEs)....................... 218
Total--all facilities:
Number of facilities projected to incur costs.... 869
Total annualized compliance costs (million
dollars)\1\..................................... $56.1
Facility closures: (severe economic impacts)..... 2
Moderate economic impacts........................ 250
Estimated worst-case job losses (FTEs)........... 688
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total annualized compliance costs are 1988 dollars and therefore
differ from the costs in the cost-effectiveness section of the
preamble which are in 1981 dollars for comparison with other rules.
As discussed above in Subsection 9, Labor Requirements and Possible
Employment Benefits of Regulatory Compliance, EPA also recognized that
the manufacture, installation, and operation of equipment for complying
with the Option 3/S.1 regulation would require use of labor resources.
To the extent that these labor needs translate into employment
increases in complying firms, the regulation has the potential to
generate employment benefits that may partially offset the employment
losses that are expected to occur in facilities impacted by the rule.
Using the same methodology as described in Subsection 9, EPA estimated
an annual direct labor requirement of 211 full-time equivalent
positions for complying with the Option 3/S.1 regulation. This labor
requirement may offset somewhat the conservatively estimated 688
employment losses in impacted PFPR facilities (see Table 21).
Table 21.--National Estimates of Employment Losses and Possible
Offsetting Employment Gains Based on Analysis of All Subcategory C
Facilities Under PSES Option 3/S.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated values
(full-time
equivalents)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated employment losses under option 3/S.1:
Employment losses from facility closures......... 356
Employment losses from line conversions.......... 209
Total PFPR facility employment losses.......... 688
Estimated labor requirements and possible offsetting
employment gains under option:
Labor requirements for manufacturing compliance
equipment....................................... 115
Labor requirements for installing compliance
equipment....................................... 44
Labor requirements for operating compliance
equipment....................................... 52
------------------
Total labor requirements for PFPR regulatory
compliance.................................... 211
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 3/S.1
The Agency estimated the cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S.1. The
cost-effectiveness was conservatively estimated by considering the
costs of removing the non-272 PAI wastewater pollutants and the 272
PAIs, but considering the number of toxic pounds removed only for the
272 PAIs. The analysis therefore understates the cost-effectiveness of
the proposed option. To the extent that removals of non-272 PAI
wastewater pollutants are achieved, the proposed option will be far
more cost-effective than presented here.
The estimated total annualized cost of Option 3/S.1 is $43.9
million in 1981 dollars. Option 3/S achieved an estimated 12,134,045
pounds-equivalent of pollutant removals. The average cost-effectiveness
of Option 3/S.1 considering only the 272 PAIs is $3.62 per pound
equivalent. EPA estimates that the proposed option will remove an
additional 198,519 unweighted pounds of non-272 PAIs that are not
accounted for in the cost-effectiveness calculation. Thus, the actual
cost per toxic pound-equivalent removed should be significantly less
than the $3.62 presented here.
Use of toxic weighting factors provides insight into the
significance of pollutant discharges under the proposed sanitizer
exemption. As a result of the exemption under Option 3/S.1, total
removals are reduced by 1,036 pounds relative to the zero discharge
requirement of Option 3 with the additonal non 272 PAIs taken into
account. However, when evaluated on a toxic-weighted basis, the
reduction in removals is only 196 pounds-equivalent per year. This
amount is only 0.002 percent of the industry toxic-weighted loadings of
the 272 PAIs that would be removed by this regulation (about 12 million
toxic weighted pounds). If toxic-weighted removals of non-272 PAIs were
included in this comparison, the percentage of toxic-weighted pounds
exempt from this regulation would be even less.
M. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Under the terms of Executive Order 12866, this action was submitted
to OMB for review.
N. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed effluent guidelines and standards contain no new
information collection activities and, therefore, no information
collection request (ICR) will be submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
XV. Water Quality Analyses
Most of the PAIs being regulated have at least one toxic effect
(human health carcinogen and/or systemic toxicant or aquatic toxicant).
Many of these pollutants have the potential to bioaccumulate and
persist in the environment. Various studies have demonstrated the
bioaccumulation of pesticides in aquatic life and accumulation of
pesticides in sediments. Documented human health impacts at pesticide
formulating, packaging, and repackaging (PFPR) facilities include
respiratory disease and impaired liver function, primarily through
worker exposure.
Numerous incidents of groundwater and soil contamination at
refilling establishments, largely due to spills, are identified in the
Office of Pesticide Programs proposed ``Standards for Pesticide
Containers and Containment'' (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994). According
to a 1991 study, an estimated 45 to 75 percent of the refilling
establishments in Wisconsin will require soil remediation and 29 to 63
percent of the commercial agrichemical facilities potentially exceed
the State's groundwater standards for pesticides. An estimated 40 to 50
percent of refilling establishments in Iowa may require groundwater
remediation. Seventy to 80 percent of the detections of pesticides in
groundwater in Kansas can be traced back to refilling establishments.
Groundwater contamination by pesticides is documented at numerous
refilling establishments in Michigan, Illinois, and Utah.
The water quality benefits of controlling the indirect discharges
from PFPR facilities are evaluated by modelling the impact of those
discharges on receiving streams. The effects of POTW wastewater
discharges of 106 PAIs are evaluated at current and proposed treatment
levels for 81 indirect discharging PFPR facilities which discharge to
74 POTWs on 72 receiving streams. Water quality models are used to
project pollutant in-stream concentrations based on estimated releases
at current and Option 1 levels; the in-stream concentrations are then
compared to EPA published water quality criteria or to documented toxic
effect levels where EPA water quality criteria are not available for
certain PAIs. Instream pollutant concentrations are modelled for
Options 1, the highest wastewater load option; if no effects are
projected to occur for Option 1, none are projected to occur for the
proposed option.
The in-stream pollutant concentration for one pollutant is
projected to exceed human health criteria or human toxic effect levels
in one receiving stream at current discharge levels. The in-stream
pollutant concentrations for 21 pollutants are projected to exceed
chronic aquatic life criteria or aquatic toxic effect levels in 18
streams at current discharge levels. No exceedances of human health or
aquatic life criteria or toxic effect levels are projected to occur for
Option 1; consequently, no exceedances are projected to occur for the
proposed option.
The potential impacts of these indirect discharging PFPR facilities
are also evaluated in terms of inhibition of POTW operation and
contamination of sludge. Potential biological inhibition problems are
projected to occur at five POTWs for six PAIs; no sludge contamination
problems are projected to occur at current discharge conditions. No
potential biological inhibition or sludge contamination problems are
projected to occur for Option 1; consequently no exceedances are
projected to occur for the proposed option.
The POTW inhibition and sludge values used in this analysis are
not, in general, regulatory values. They are based upon engineering and
health estimates contained in guidance or guidelines published by EPA
and other sources. Thus, EPA is not basing its regulatory approach for
pretreatment discharge levels upon the finding that some pollutants
interfere with POTWs by impairing their treatment effectiveness.
However, the values used in the analysis do help indicate the potential
benefits for POTW operation that may result from the compliance with
the proposed option.
XVI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act call for EPA to consider the non-water quality
environmental impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
Accordingly, EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption.
A. Air Pollution
EPA estimates that facilities may emit 62,000 pounds of volatile
priority pollutants during the treatment process and an additional
114,000 pounds may be emitted through the reuse of the wastewaters. EPA
does not anticipate significant losses of active ingredients as most
have low volatility. This loss would occur during the emulsion
breaking, hydrolysis and/or chemical oxidation treatment steps where
the addition of heat is likely to promote the release of the priority
pollutants. The air emission estimate is based on the use of open
vessels. Because EPA has developed costs for closed vessels, our
estimate is likely to over estimate the actual losses due to
volatilization from treatment. It is possible that there may be some
emissions of priority pollutants during cleaning of equipment or
containers, particularly if high-pressure cleaning or steam cleaning is
used. EPA invites comment and data that address this possibility.
EPA estimates that without this regulation 968,000 pounds of
volatile priority pollutants are being discharged to POTW's. An
estimated 784,000 pounds will be lost in the form of emissions as the
water is treated by POTW's. Thus, today's proposal will reduce the
estimated quantity of volatile pollutants emitted by 791,000 pounds/
year. In addition, the emissions would be localized and more suitable
for capture and treatment. EPA is also inviting comment and data on the
possible mechanisms and cost associated with capturing and treating
these emissions.
B. Solid Waste
EPA estimates there will be 2,038,000 pounds of sludge generated
from emulsion breaking and sulfide precipitation treatment annually. In
addition 7,415,000 pounds annually of spent activated carbon will be
generated annually. The sludge and spent carbon are generated from
treatment through the Universal Treatment System. EPA has assumed that
the sludge generated via emulsion breaking and sulfide precipitation
will be hauled to hazardous waste incinerators. It is assumed that the
activated carbon will be sent off-site for regeneration, which means
that it would not become a waste. There is a possibility of air
emissions being generated as a result of the incineration or
regeneration of spent activated carbonated treatment sludges and
resulting in subsequent generation of wastewater from the air pollution
control scrubber usually associated with incinerators. However,
hazardous waste incinerators are required to destroy contaminants up to
99.99%, thus if there are any residuals they would be at very low
concentration. EPA believes this proposed regulation is consistent with
the goals established for EPA's Draft Strategy for Combustion of
Hazardous Waste, May 1993. This draft combustion strategy which
establishes as the first goal ``a strong preference for source
reduction over waste management, and thereby reduce the long-term
demand for combustion and other waste management facilities''.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS will
increase energy consumption by a small increment over present industry
use. The main energy requirement of the proposed technologies is the
generation of steam that is used in the treatment vessel to accomplish
emulsion breaking and hydrolysis. Steam provides the heat energy to
assist with the separation of emulsified phases and increase the rate
at which active ingredients hydrolyze. It is estimated that about 120
million pounds per year of steam would be required by the Universal
Treatment System. This would require approximately 26,000 barrels of
oil annually; the United States currently consumes about 19 million
barrels per day.
Additionally, EPA estimates that the operation of the Universal
Treatment System will consume 1,760,000 kilowatt hours per year. This
is expended by the pumps and agitators used in treatment and associated
with the storage of water until it can be reused.
XVII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A recurring issue is whether industry limitations and standards
should include provisions authorizing noncompliance with effluent
limitations during periods of ``upset'' or ``bypass''. An upset,
sometimes called an ``excursion,'' is an unintentional and temporary
noncompliance with technology based effluent limitations occurring for
reasons beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA believes
that upset provisions are necessary to recognize an affirmative defense
for an exceptional incident including ``Acts of God''. Because
technology-based limitations can require only what properly designed,
maintained and operated technology can achieve, it is claimed that
liability for such situations is improper. When confronted with this
issue, courts have been divided on the question of whether an explicit
upset or excursion exemption is necessary or whether upset or excursion
incidents may be handled through EPA's exercise of enforcement
discretion. (Compare Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253 (9th Cir.
1977) with Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (DC Cir. 1978). See
also American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 540 F.2d 1023 (10th Cir.
1976); CPC International Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976));
and FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1976).)
While an upset is an unintentional episode during which effluent
limitations are exceeded, a bypass is an act of intentional
noncompliance during which wastewater treatment facilities are
circumvented in emergency situations.
EPA has both upset and bypass provisions in NPDES permits, and has
promulgated NPDES and pretreatment regulations which include upset and
bypass permit provisions. (See 45 FR 33290, 33448 May 19, 1980; 40 CFR
122.60(g)(h), 40 CFR 403.16 and 403.17). The upset provision
establishes an upset as an affirmative defense to prosecution for
violation of technology-based effluent limitations. The bypass
provision authorizes bypassing to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage. Since the limitations and standards
are proposed to be set at zero discharge and there are already upset
and bypass provisions in NPDES permits and pretreatment regulations,
EPA will let local permit and control authorities deal with individual
upsets or requests for bypass.
B. Variances and Modifications
Upon the promulgation of these regulations, the effluent
limitations for the appropriate subcategory must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the
pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging industry. In addition,
the pretreatment standards are directly applicable to indirect
dischargers.
For the proposed BPT effluent limitations (Subcategory E only), the
only exception to the binding limitations is EPA's ``fundamentally
different factors'' (``FDF'') variance (40 CFR part 125, subpart D).
This variance recognizes factors concerning a particular discharger
which are fundamentally different from the factors considered in this
rulemaking. Although this variance clause was set forth in EPA's 1973-
1976 effluent guidelines, it is now included in the NPDES regulations
and not the specific industry regulations. (See 44 FR 32854, 32893
(June 7, 1979) for an explanation of the ``fundamentally different
factors'' variance). The procedures for application for a BPT FDF
variance are set forth at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1)(i)(A).
Dischargers subject to the BAT limitations proposed in these
regulations may also apply for an FDF variance, under the provisions of
sec. 301(n) of the Act, which regulates BAT, BCT, and pretreatment
FDFs. In addition, BAT limitations for nonconventional pollutants may
be modified under sec. 301(c) (for economic reasons) and 301(g) (for
water quality reasons) of the Act. Under sec. 301(l) of the Act, these
latter two statutory modifications are not applicable to ``toxic'' or
conventional pollutants.
Dischargers subject to pretreatment standards for existing sources
are also subject to the ``fundamentally different factors'' variance
and credits for pollutants removed by POTWs, as discussed in Section
XIII.E. Dischargers subject to pretreatment standards for new sources
are subject only to the removal credit provision (See Section XIII.E).
New sources subject to NSPS are not eligible for EPA's ``fundamentally
different factors'' variance or any statutory or regulatory
modifications. (See duPont v. Train, supra.)
C. Relationship to NPDES Permits and Monitoring Requirements
The BAT and NSPS limitations in today's proposed rule would be
applied to individual pesticide plants through NPDES permits issued by
EPA or approved State agencies under section 402 of the Act. The
preceding section of this preamble discussed the binding effect of this
regulation on NPDES permits, except when variances and modifications
are expressly authorized. This section adds more detail on the relation
between this regulation and NPDES permits.
One issue is how this regulation will affect the powers of NPDES
permit-issuing authorities. EPA has developed the limitations and
standards in the proposed rule to cover the typical facility for this
point source category. This regulation does not restrict the power of
any permitting authority to act in any manner consistent with law or
these or any other EPA regulations, guideline, or policy.
A concern of permit writers, as well as local control authorities,
may be the apparent contradiction of writing a discharge permit for a
zero discharge regulation. During development of the proposed
regulation, EPA contacted a few permit writers who wrote NPDES permits
for facilities that reported zero discharge in the survey. EPA obtained
copies of these permits, and found that because the facilities still
had wastewater discharges due to sanitary wastewater or other non-PFPR
operations, the permit writers were able to specify zero discharge of
the PFPR process wastewater streams.
Even if a facility is totally no discharge, an NPDES permit may be
requested by the facility to provide upset provisions which would not
apply to discharge in the absence of a permit.
Another topic of concern is the operation of EPA's NPDES
enforcement program, which was an important consideration in developing
today's proposal. The Agency emphasizes that although the Clean Water
Act is a strict liability statute, EPA can initiate enforcement
proceedings at its discretion. EPA has exercised and intends to
exercise that discretion in a manner that recognizes and promotes good
faith compliance.
D. Best Management Practices
Section 304(e) of the Act authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
``best management practices'' (BMPs). EPA may develop BMPs that apply
to all industrial sites or to a designated industrial category and may
offer guidance to permit authorities in establishing management
practices required by unique circumstances at a given plant. Dikes,
curbs, and other control measures are being used at some pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities to contain leaks and
spills as part of good ``housekeeping'' practices. Further, as
described previously, the Office of Pesticide Programs is proposing to
require these secondary containment systems at refilling establishments
for agricultural pesticides. Due to the variety of products,
formulation types and level of sophistication in the formulating and
packaging equipment, EPA believes that regulating this industry by BMPs
in national effluent guidelines regulations may not provide enough
flexibility to the industry. However, on a facility-by-facility basis a
permit writer may choose to incorporate BMPs into the permit.
E. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Act directs EPA to promulgate guidelines
establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants. These methods
are used to determine the presence and concentration of pollutants in
wastewater, and are used for compliance monitoring and for filing
applications for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4) and
122.21(g)(7), and for the pretreatment program under 40 CFR
403.12(g)(4) and (h). To date, EPA has promulgated methods for
conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and for some nonconventional
pollutants. The five conventional pollutants are defined at 40 CFR
401.16. Table I-B at 40 CFR part 136 lists the analytical methods
approved for these pollutants. The 65 toxic metals and organic
pollutants and classes of pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 401.15. From
the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants EPA identified a list of 126
``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants is shown, for
example, at 40 CFR part 423, Appendix A. The list includes non-
pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide, asbestos, and
pesticide pollutants. Currently approved methods for metals and cyanide
are included in the table of approved inorganic test procedures at 40
CFR 136.3, Table I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved methods
for measurement of non-pesticide organic pollutants, and Table I-D
lists approved methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants and for other
pesticide pollutants.
EPA believes that the analytical methods for pesticide active
ingredients contained in the promulgated pesticide manufacturing
effluent guidelines and standards (see Methods for the Determination of
Nonconventional Pesticides in Municipal and Industrial Wastewater,
Volumes I & II, EPA 821-R-93-010-A&B, August 1993, Revision 1) will
perform equally well on treated pesticide formulating, packaging or
repackaging wastewaters as on pesticide manufacturing wastewaters. Raw
wastewater samples may on occasion require some separation prior to
analysis, analogous to the emulsion breaking or chemically assisted
clarification treatment included in EPA's costed BAT technology. Many
of these methods have in fact been used on the PFPR sampled
wastewaters. All of the active ingredient pollutant data that supports
the proposed effluent limitations were generated using analytical
methods that employ the latest in analytical technology. EPA may decide
to promulgate these methods (which are contained in part 455) as
allowable methods under 40 CFR part 136. However, EPA expects that
monitoring of process flow will generally be the method used by
permitting and Control Authorities to assure compliance with today's
proposal. See section XIV of the Technical Development for a discussion
of compliance monitoring.
XVIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking.
The Agency asks that comments address any perceived deficiencies in the
record of this proposal and that suggested revisions or corrections be
supported by data where possible.
EPA particularly requests comments and information on the following
issues:
(1) The data collected during the study of this industry
demonstrate a great potential for reusing residual wastewater in
products. EPA is concerned that there may be some circumstances in
which some residual wastewater volume may need to be disposed primarily
through incineration. We believe these volumes will be small, however
some large production facilities may have relatively large residual
volumes. EPA solicits data on the magnitude of volumes, their sources,
their pollutant concentrations, what actions have been taken or will be
taken to reduce their volume and the amount of reduction that the
action has or will accomplish and the cost of achieving such
reductions.
(2) Early in the process of developing regulatory options, EPA gave
some consideration to the option of allowing an exemption from
regulation if a facility were able to comply with a ``deminimus''
volume. EPA was unable to develop this option beyond conceptualization
because there was no real basis on which to make the determination what
constitutes a ``deminimus'' volume. EPA solicits the same type of data
from facilities as described above and from POTWs on the volumes, and
pollutant concentrations which could be representative of a
``deminimus'' volume, and whether PFPR loadings have caused harm to
POTWs.
(3) EPA requests comment and suggestions on the best approach for
notifying the PFPR facilities affected by this rule about the best
practices, equipment and process changes observed at facilities that
lead to pollution prevention, recycle, reuse and water conservation.
EPA is presently considering publishing in conjunction with the
promulgated rule a separate report dealing with pollution prevention
practices or perhaps producing a videotape to broadcast the message.
EPA invites comments and suggestions about what would be the most
effective approach, content and format to publicize the best pollution
prevention practices that are used.
(4) EPA made a number of assumptions to calculate how much
wastewater would either be reused in product, treated and reused as
wastewater, or sent for off-site incineration. As discussed in the
``Cost Estimates'' section of this preamble and in the technical
Development Document, if volumes of interior wastewater exceeded 50% of
the total volume of inert ingredients EPA estimated the excess would
either be treated and reused or treated off-site at considerable
expense ($8.13/gallon). Given that this assumption does not in any way
account for water conservation practices which EPA believes could be
applied in many cases, (but did not attempt to apply given that site-
specific information was not available), do the assumptions in the cost
analysis tend to understate or overstate the costs of EPA's preferred
option? Could the actual costs differ enough to suggest adoption of a
non-zero discharge approach?
(5) In this proposed rule, EPA does exempt from zero discharge
requirements exterior wastestreams from sanitizer pesticides. This
exemption is based, in part, on the small amount of discharge that
occurs from these wastewaters, the toxicity of these active
ingredients, and the disproportionate impact regulating these
wastestreams would have on small business. EPA solicits comment on
whether any individual active ingredient, any other class of active
ingredient or any sector of the pesticide formulating, packaging, and
repackaging industry merits consideration of an exemption from the zero
discharge standard based on any or all of the above characteristics. An
example of a sector is a group of firms with a minimum 50 percent of
pesticide revenue from a particular market, for example agricultural,
non-agricultural professional use products, industrial, etc. as
described in Table 5 of this preamble and the cost effectiveness
report. Commenters are encouraged to provide additional information or
data that supports different approaches for different pollutants,
including information on quantity of pollutants discharged and costs to
affected parties.
EPA will conduct additional analyses of the amount of discharge
(including estimating the total number of pound-equivalents removed)
and any disproportionate impacts on businesses for individual active
ingredients, classes of active ingredients, or sectors of industry as
feasible and appropriate. Where appropriate EPA will announce the
availability of this analysis in the Federal Register.
Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviation, Acronyms, and Other Terms
Used in This Document
Act--The Clean Water Act.
Agency--U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT--The best available technology economically achievable, as
defined by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act.
BCT--The best conventional pollutant control technology, as
defined by Section 204(b)(4) of the Act.
BMP--Best management practices, as defined by section 304(e) of
the Act.
BPT--The best practicable control technology currently
available, as defined by section 304(b)(1) of the Act.
Clean Water Act--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water Quality Act of
1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
Conventional Pollutants--Constituents of wastewater as
determined by section 304(a)(4) of the Act, including, but not
limited to, pollutants classified as biochemical oxygen demand,
suspended solids, oil and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Direct Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater to a water of the United States with or without treatment
by the discharger.
Effluent Limitation--A maximum amount, per unit of time,
production or other unit, of each specific constituent of the
effluent from an existing point source that is subject to
limitation. Effluent limitations may be expressed as a mass loading
in pound per 1,000 pound of active ingredient produced or as a
concentration in milligrams per liter.
End-of-Pipe Treatment (EOP)--Refers to those processes that
treat a plant waste stream for pollutant removal prior to discharge.
EOP technologies are classified as primary (physical separation
processes), secondary (biological processes), and tertiary
(treatment following secondary) processes. Different combinations of
these treatment technologies may be used depending on the nature of
the pollutants to be removed and the degree of removal required.
Indirect Discharger--An industrial discharger that introduces
wastewater into a publicly owned treatment works.
In-Plant Control or Treatment Technologies--Controls or measures
applied within the manufacturing process to reduce or eliminate
pollutant and hydraulic loadings of loadings of raw wastewater.
Typical in-plant control measures include process modification,
instrumentation, recovery of raw materials, solvents, products or
by-products or by-products, and water recycle.
Nonconventional Pollutants--Pollutants that have not been
designated as either conventional pollutants or priority pollutants.
NPDES--National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system, a
Federal Program requiring industry dischargers, including
municipalities, to obtain permits to discharge pollutants to the
nation's water, under section 402 of the Act.
OCPSF--Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category (40 CFR part 414).
PAI--Pesticide Active Ingredient.
POTW--Publicly owned treatment works.
Priority Pollutants--The toxic pollutants listed in 40 CFR part
423, appendix A.
PSES--Pretreatment Standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under section 307(b) of the Act.
PSNS--Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges under section 307(b) and (c) of the Act.
SIC--Standards Industrial Classification, a numerical
categorization scheme used by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
denote segments of industry.
Technical Development Document--Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Gudielines and Standards for the Pesticide
Chemicals Formulators, Packagers and Repackagers Point Source
Category.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 455
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Packaging and containers,
Pesticides and pests, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution
control.
Dated: March 31, 1994.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 455 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 455--PESTICIDE CHEMICALS
1. The authority citation for part 455 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501, Pub. L. 92-500, 86
Stat. 816, Pub. L. 95-217, 91 Stat. 156, and Pub. L. 100-4, 101
Stat. 7 (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and 1361).
1a. Section 455.10 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraphs
(g) through (j) to read as follows:
Sec. 455.10 General definitions.
* * * * *
(g) Sanitizer Active Ingredients means the pesticide active
ingredients listed in Table 8 of this part.
(h) Refilling Establishment means an establishment where the
activity of repackaging pesticide product into refillable containers
occurs.
(i) Interior Cleaning Wastewater Sources means wastewater that is
generated from cleaning or rinsing the interior of pesticide
formulating, packaging or repackaging equipment, or from cleaning or
rinsing the interior of raw materials containers, shipping containers
or bulk storage tanks.
(j) Small Quantities of Sanitizer Products means the formulating,
packaging and repackaging of 265,000 pounds/year or less of all
registered products containing sanitizer active ingredients and no
other active ingredients at a single pesticide producing establishment.
2. Section 455.40 is proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 455.40 Applicability; description of the pesticide chemicals
formulating, packaging and repackaging subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges
resulting from all pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging
operations except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section.
(b) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to repackaging of
agricultural pesticides performed at refilling establishments whose
principal business is retail sales.
(c) The provisions of this subpart do not apply to wastewater
discharges from the operation of employee showers, fire protection
equipment test and laundry facilities.
3. New Secs. 455.43, 455.44, 455.45, 455.46, 455.47, are proposed
to be added to subpart C to read as follows:
Sec. 455.43 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best conventional pollutant control technology:
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants to
navigable waters.
Sec. 455.44 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree
of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available control technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this Subpart must achieve the effluent
limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best available technology: There shall be no
discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart which discharges process
wastewater pollutants must meet the following standards: There shall be
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section,
any existing source subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403
and achieve the pretreatment standards for existing sources as follows:
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
(b) Any wastewater from the formulating, packaging and repackaging
of small quantities of sanitizer products at any existing source which
introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply
with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards for
existing sources as follows: There shall be no discharge of process
wastewater pollutants from Interior Cleaning Wastewater Sources.
(c) The provisions of this section do not apply to discharges
resulting from the formulating, packaging or repackaging of the
inorganic active ingredient sodium hypochlorite (also referred to as
bleach).
Sec. 455.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, any new
source subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and
achieve the pretreatment standards for new sources as follows: There
shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
(b) The provisions of this section do not apply to discharges
resulting from the formulating, packaging or repackaging of the
inorganic active ingredient sodium hypochlorite (also referred to as
bleach).
4. A new subpart E consisting of Secs. 455.60 through 455.67 is
proposed to be added to read as follows:
Subpart E--Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by
Refilling Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales
Sec.
455.60 Applicability; description of the repackaging of
agricultural pesticides performed by refilling establishments whose
principal business is retail sales subcategory.
455.61 Special definitions.
455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable pollutant control technology (BPT).
455.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT).
455.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
455.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by
Refilling Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales
Sec. 455.60 Applicability; description of the repackaging of
agricultural pesticides performed by refilling establishments whose
principal business is retail sales subcategory.
The limitations and standards of this subpart shall apply to the
repackaging of agricultural pesticides performed by refilling
establishments whose principal business is retail sales.
Sec. 455.61 Special definitions.
Process Wastewaters for this subpart shall include refillable
container rinsate, wastewater generated by clean-up of leaks and spills
and contaminated precipitation.
Sec. 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable pollutant control technology (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best practicable pollutant control technology: There
shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.63 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best conventional pollution control technology:
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available technology economically achievable:
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart which discharges process
wastewater pollutants must meet the following standards: There shall be
no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
Sec. 455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Any existing source subject to this subpart which introduces
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40
CFR part 403 and achieve the pretreatment standards for existing
sources as follows: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater
pollutants.
Sec. 455.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Any new source subject to this subpart which introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403
and achieve the pretreatment standards for existing sources as follows:
There shall be no discharge of process wastewater pollutants.
5. Table 8 is proposed to be added to part 455 to read as follows:
Table 8 to Part 455--List of Sanitizer Active Ingredients
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS No. Shaughnessy codes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
00121-54-0 69122Benzethonium Chloride (Hyamine 1622).
34375-28-5 990012-(Hydroxymethyl) amino ethanol (HAE).
00134-31-6 59804Oxine-sulfate.
15716-02-6 69134Methyl dodecylbenzyltrimethyl ammonium chloride
(Hyamine 2389).
68424-85-1 69105Alkyl demethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (Hyamine
3500).
15716-02-6 69134Methylbenzethonium chloride.
00064-02-8 39107Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate\1\.
08008-57-9 40501Essential oils.
07647-01-0 45901Hydrogen chloride\1\.
46621Alkyl-1-benzyl-1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolinium
chloride.
08002-09-3 67002Pine oil.
53516-76-0 69104Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
08001-54-5 69106Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
08045-21-4 69111Alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride.
53516-75-9 69112Alkyl dimethyl 1-naphthylmethyl ammonium
chloride.
68391-05-9 69119Dialkyl methyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
68424-85-1 69137Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
61789-71-7 69140Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
68424-85-1 69141Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
68989-02-6 69145Alkyl dimethyl 3,4-dichlorobenzyl ammonium
chloride.
07173-51-5 69149Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.
85409-23-0 69154Alkyl dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium chloride.
69165Octyl decyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.
05538-94-3 69166Dioctyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.
68607-28-3 69173Oxydiethylenebis(alkyl dimethyl ammonium
chloride).
68607-28-3 69194Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride.
00497-19-8 73506Sodium carbonate\1\.
07664-38-2 76001Phosphoric acid\1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\These active ingredients shall only be considered sanitizer active
ingredients when they are formulated, packaged or repackaged with the
other active ingredients on this list and no other active ingredients.
[FR Doc. 94-8229 Filed 4-13-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P