[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