57518 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION implement certain pollution prevention, (BPT), §§ 455.43 and 455.63 (BCT), and AGENCY recycle and reuse practices. Facilities §§ 455.44 and 455.64 (BAT) are choosing and implementing the established in the National Pollutant 40 CFR Part 455 pollution prevention alternative will Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) receive a discharge allowance. permits. [FRL±5630±9] The final rule will benefit the ADDRESSES: For additional technical RIN 2040±AC21 environment by removing toxic information write to Ms. Shari H. pollutants (pesticide active ingredients Zuskin, Engineering & Analysis Division Pesticide Chemicals Category, and priority pollutants) from water (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Formulating, Packaging and discharges that have adverse effects on Washington, D.C. 20460 or send e-mail Repackaging Effluent Limitations human health and aquatic life. EPA has to: [email protected] or call Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, estimated the compliance costs and at (202) 260–7130. For additional and New Source Performance economic impacts expected to result economic information contact Dr. Lynne Standards from the Zero Discharge/Pollution Tudor at the address above or by calling Prevention Alternative (i.e., Zero/P2 AGENCY: Environmental Protection (202) 260–5834. Agency. Alternative). The Agency has determined that the Zero/P2 Alternative The complete record (excluding ACTION: Final rule. will result in a similar removal of toxic confidential business information) for this rulemaking is available for review SUMMARY: This final regulation limits pound equivalents per year at EPA’s Water Docket; 401 M Street, the discharge of pollutants into (approximately 7.6 million toxic pound SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access navigable waters of the United States equivalents) as the zero discharge to Docket materials, call (202) 260–3027 and into publicly owned treatment option alone. At the same time, the between 9 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. for an works (POTWs) by existing and new Zero/P2 Alternative is expected to result appointment. The EPA public facilities that formulate, package and in a reduced annualized cost ($29.9 information regulation (40 CFR part 2) repackage pesticide products. This million in 1995), no facility closures provides that a reasonable fee may be regulation covers two subcategories of and 150 moderate impacts. EPA has charged for copying. the Pesticide Chemicals Point Source determined that both Zero Discharge Category—Subcategory C: Pesticide and the Zero/P2 Alternative are The Technical Development Formulating, Packaging and economically achievable. However, Document [EPA–821–R–96–019], Repackaging (PFPR) which includes EPA’s addition of the pollution Economic Analysis [EPA–821–R–96– PFPR facilities that also manufacture prevention alternative to achieving zero 017] and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis pesticide active ingredients (PFPR/ discharge provides benefits to the [EPA–821–R–96–018] supporting Manufacturers) and Subcategory E: environment by minimizing the today’s final rule may be obtained by Agricultural Refilling Establishments. potential cross-media impacts that writing to the EPA Office of Water EPA estimates that there are would otherwise occur from hauling Resource Center (RC–4100), 401 M approximately 2,600 facilities in the and incinerating the non-reusable Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, or industry. This regulation establishes portion of PFPR wastewaters. The calling (202) 260–7786. effluent limitations guidelines and provision of an alternative compliance FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For standards under the Clean Water Act method also provides flexibility to additional technical information write including ‘‘best conventional pollutant industry in meeting the effluent or call Ms. Zuskin at (202) 260–7130. control technology (BCT), and ‘‘best limitations guidelines and standards. For additional information on the available technology economically DATES: This regulation shall become economic impact analyses contact Dr. achievable (BAT)’’ for existing direct effective January 6, 1997. The Lynne G. Tudor at the above address or dischargers, ‘‘new source performance information collection requirements by calling (202) 260–5834. standards (NSPS)’’ for new direct contained in this rule are included in EPA is preparing a PFPR Pollution dischargers and ‘‘pretreatment standards two separate Information Collection Prevention Alternative Guidance for existing and new indirect Request (ICR) documents. The NPDES/ Manual and a series of regional dischargers (PSES and PSNS)’’. This Compliance Assessment/Certification workshops to aid industry, permit regulation also amends and clarifies the ICR (No. 1427.05) and the National writers and control authorities in limitations based on ‘‘best practicable Pretreatment Program (40 CFR part 403) implementing the final rule. A public control technology (BPT)’’ for direct ICR (No. 0002.08). OMB has not yet announcement will be published in discharging facilities. approved these ICRs; therefore, the Federal Register regarding availability Under the final rule refilling information collection requirements of the guidance manual and the dates establishments (Subcategory E) will be contained in this rule are not effective and locations of the regional workshops. required to achieve zero discharge of until OMB has approved them. Once wastewater pollutants. The final OMB has approved the ICRs, EPA will SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: regulation provides Subcategory C publish another notice in the Federal Regulated Entities facilities (herein referred to as ‘‘PFPR Register to announce OMB’s approval facilities’’) a choice between zero and to amend 40 CFR Part 9 to indicate Entities potentially regulated by this discharge and the ‘‘Pollution Prevention the OMB approval number. The action are: (1) Those which generate Alternative.’’ This compliance compliance date for §§ 455.46 and process wastewater from the alternative was developed in response 455.66 (PSES) is as soon as possible, but formulation, packaging and/or to comments on the proposed rule from no later than November 6, 1999. The repackaging of pesticide products the industry and has received a large compliance dates for §§ 455.45 and (excluding those pesticide active amount of industry support in 455.65 (NSPS) and §§ 455.47 and 455.67 ingredients not covered by the rule); or comments on the supplemental notice. (PSNS) are the dates the new sources (2) those which are agricultural refilling This structure provides a compliance commence discharging. Deadlines or establishments. Regulated categories option to facilities who agree to compliance with §§ 455.42 and 455.62 and entities include: Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57519

Category Examples of regulated entities 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) 2. Removal Credits C. Best Available Technology D. Analytical Methods Industry ...... • Pesticide formulating, pack- Economically Achievable (BAT) Appendix A—List of Abbreviations, aging and repackaging 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Acronyms and Other Terms Used In This (PFPR) facilities; Repackaging (Subcategory C) Document • 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) PFPR facilities that also I. Legal Authority manufacture pesticide ac- D. New Source Performance Standards tive ingredients; (NSPS) This final regulation establishes • Agricultural refilling estab- 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and effluent guidelines and standards of lishments. Repackaging (Subcategory C) performance for the Pesticide 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) E. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources Formulating, Packaging and This table is not intended to be (PSNS) Repackaging Subcategories of the exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Pesticide Chemicals Point Source for readers regarding entities likely to be Repackaging (Subcategory C) Category under the authorities of regulated by this action. This table lists 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the types of entities that EPA is now F. Best Conventional Pollutant Control the Clean Water Act (‘‘the Act’’), 33 aware could potentially be regulated by Technology (BCT) U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and this action. Other types of entities not 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 1361. listed in the table could also be Repackaging (Subcategory C) 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) In accordance with 40 CFR part 23, regulated. To determine whether your V. Economic Considerations this regulation shall be considered facility is regulated by this action, you A. Introduction promulgated for purposes of judicial should carefully examine the B. Review of the Proposed Regulation review at 1 p.m. Eastern time on applicability criteria in § 455.40 and 1. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ November 20, 1996. Under section § 455.60 of the rule. If you have Manufacturers 509(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of questions regarding the applicability of 2. Subcategory E: Refilling Establishments this regulation can be had only by filing this action to a particular entity, consult C. Changes to the EIA Since Proposal: a petition for review in the United Issuance of the June 1995 Supplemental the person listed in the preceding FOR Notice States Court of Appeals within 120 days FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. D. Assessment of Costs and Impacts for the after the regulation is considered Preamble Outline Final PFPR Regulations promulgated for purposes of judicial 1. Summary of Economic Impact Analysis review. Under section 509 (b)(2) of the I. Legal Authority Methodology and Data Act, the requirements in this regulation II. Background 2. Estimated Facility Economic Impacts A. Clean Water Act may not be challenged later in civil or a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ criminal proceedings brought by EPA to B. Pollution Prevention Act Manufacturers C. Updated Industry Overview b. Subcategory E: Refilling Establishments enforce these requirements. D. Final Rule 4. Regulatory Effects Not Re-Estimated II. Background E. The Proposed Rule 5. Impacts of Pretreatment Standards for F. The Supplemental Notice New Sources (PSNS) and New Source A. Clean Water Act III. Summary of Most Significant Changes Performance Standards (NSPS) from Proposal The Federal Water Pollution Control a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ Act Amendments of 1972 established a A. Scope Manufacturers 1. Pesticide Active Ingredients (PAIs) (1) PSNS comprehensive program to ‘‘restore and a. Sanitizer Active Ingredients and Pool (2) NSPS maintain the chemical, physical, and Chemicals b. Subcategory E: Refilling Establishments biological integrity of the Nation’s b. Other Pesticide Active Ingredients 6. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis waters,’’ (section 101(a)). To implement c. Liquid Chemical Sterilants a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ the Act, EPA is to issue effluent 2. Wastewater Sources Manufacturers limitations guidelines, pretreatment B. Zero Discharge/Pollution Prevention b. Subcategory E: Refilling Establishments Alternative Option standards and new source performance E. Regulatory Flexibility Act standards for industrial dischargers. 1. Cross Media Impacts and Incineration 1. Analysis of Impacts on Small Business Issues Entities These guidelines and standards are 2. Cross-Contamination Policy 2. Analysis of Impacts on Other Small summarized in the proposed regulation 3. Request for De Minimis Discharge Entities at 59 FR 17850, 17851–52 (April 14, 4. Pollution Prevention Alternative VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1994). C. Applicability to On-Site and Stand- VII. Executive Order 12866 Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act alone Research & Development (R&D) VIII. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by the Water Laboratories Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to D. Clarification of Issues Concerning PFPR/ IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Manufacturers establish schedules for (1) reviewing X. Water Quality Analysis and revising existing effluent limitations 1. Stabilizing versus Formulating XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental 2. On-site Incineration as Zero Discharge Impacts guidelines and standards (‘‘effluent 3. Amending and Clarifying of BPT A. Air Pollution guidelines’’), and (2) promulgating new E. Clarification of Refilling Establishments B. Solid Waste effluent guidelines. On January 2, 1990, F. RCRA Issues C. Energy Requirements EPA published an Effluent Guidelines IV. The Final Regulation XII. Regulatory Implementation Plan (55 FR 80), in which schedules A. Pretreatment Standards for Existing A. Implementation of the Limitations and were established for developing new Sources (PSES) Standards and revised effluent guidelines for 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and several industry categories. One of the Repackaging (Subcategory C) Repackaging (Subcategory C) 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E) industries for which the Agency B. Best Practicable Control Technology B. Upset and Bypass Provisions established a schedule was the Pesticide Currently Available (BPT) C. Variances and Modifications Chemicals Point Source Category. 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 1. Fundamentally Different Factors Natural Resources Defense Council, Repackaging (Subcategory C) Variances Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc., 57520 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan out-of-process recycling, treatment, or ingredients are referred to as the ‘‘272 in a suit filed in U.S. District Court for disposal. PAIs’’ and were the focus of the survey the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v. The PPA directs the Agency to, among questionnaire for the PFPR rule 1988 Reilly, Civ. No. 89–2980). The plaintiffs other things, ‘‘review regulations of the data collection.1 EPA sent out charged that EPA’s plan did not meet Agency prior and subsequent to their approximately 700 questionnaires using the requirements of sec. 304(m). A proposal to determine their effect on a stratified random sample of these Consent Decree in this litigation was source reduction’’ (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C. facilities. Based on these survey results, entered by the Court on January 31, 13103(b)(2). This directive led the EPA estimates that for all of the PAIs 1992. The terms of the Consent Decree Agency to implement a pilot project covered by the final rule (in-scope 272 are reflected in the Effluent Guidelines called the Source Reduction Review and non-272 PAIs), that in 1988 there Plan published on September 8, 1992 Project that would facilitate the were approximately 1,497 facilities (57 FR 41000). This plan states, among integration of source reduction in the involved in formulating, packaging and other things, that EPA will propose and Agency’s regulations, including the repackaging pesticide products (of take final action on effluent guidelines technology-based effluent guidelines which 413 facilities processed non-272 for the formulating, packaging and and standards. PAIs only) and approximately 1,134 repackaging subcategories of the C. Updated Industry Overview refilling establishments.2 pesticide chemicals category by dates Included in the 1,497 PFPR facilities, certain. The pesticide formulating, packaging there were 48 pesticide manufacturing and repackaging industry is made up of facilities in the pesticide chemicals B. The Pollution Prevention Act two distinct types of activities. These manufacturing rulemaking survey activities result in subcategorization for The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 database (58 FR 50637, September 28, purposes of this rulemaking. The two (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L. 1993) that also formulated and packaged subcategories are referred to as: 101–508, November 5, 1990) ‘‘declares it pesticide products containing any of the • Subcategory C: Pesticides to be the national policy of the United 272 PAIs which were the focus of that formulating, packaging and repackaging States that pollution should be rulemaking. A detailed description of (PFPR) including pesticides prevented or reduced whenever feasible; the development of this profile is formulating, packaging and repackaging pollution that cannot be prevented contained in Section 3 of the Technical occurring at pesticides manufacturing should be recycled in an Development Document [EPA–821–R– facilities (PFPR/Manufacturer) and at environmentally safe manner, whenever 96–019] for this final rule. stand-alone PFPR facilities; and Pesticide formulating is the mixing/ feasible; pollution that cannot be • Subcategory E: Repackaging of prevented or recycled should be treated diluting of one or more PAIs with active agricultural chemicals at refilling or inert ingredients, without a chemical in an environmentally safe manner establishments (Refilling whenever feasible; and disposal or reaction, to obtain a manufacturing use Establishments). or end use product (see § 455.10 of the release into the environment should be The pesticide formulating, packaging final regulation for the definitions of employed only as a last resort* * * ’’ and repackaging industry covered by formulating, packaging, repackaging and (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13101(b). In short, this rulemaking is made up of an refilling establishment). Pesticide preventing pollution before it is created estimated 2,631 in-scope facilities. formulations take all forms: Water-based is preferable to trying to manage, treat These facilities are located throughout liquid; organic solvent-based liquid; dry or dispose of it after it is created. This the country, with greater concentrations products in granular, powder, solid effluent guideline was reviewed for its of refilling establishments located in the forms; pressurized gases; and aerosols. incorporation of pollution prevention as Midwestern and southeastern states to The formulations can be in a part of this Agency effort. serve the agricultural market. According to the PPA, source The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, concentrated form requiring dilution reduction reduces the generation and and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires before application or can be ready to release of hazardous substances, that any substance intended to prevent, apply. The packaging of the formulated pollutants, wastes, contaminants or destroy, repel or mitigate any pest must pesticide product is dependent on the residuals at the source, usually within a be registered with EPA and bear a label type of formulation. Liquids generally process. The term source reduction directing the safe use of the product. 7 are packaged into jugs, cans, or drums; ‘‘include[s] equipment or technology U.S.C. 136a. In addition, production of dry formulations generally are packaged modifications, process or procedure all pesticide products must be reported into bags, boxes, drums, or jugs. modifications, reformulation or redesign annually to EPA. 7 U.S.C. 136e. Thus, Pressurized gases are packaged into of products, substitution of raw EPA has extensive data on the contents cylinders. Some formulations are materials, and improvements in of pesticide products, their annual packaged into aerosol cans. As described above, the formulating, housekeeping, maintenance, training, or production, who formulates, packages packaging and repackaging industry inventory control.’’ The term ‘‘source or repackages these products and the produces products in different forms. reduction’’ does not include any uses for which these products are EPA has observed formulating, practice which alters the physical, registered. EPA’s Office of Water made packaging or repackaging performed a chemical, or biological characteristics or extensive use of this data in its analysis number of different ways ranging from the volume of a hazardous substance, of the pesticide formulating, packaging very sophisticated and automated pollutant, or contaminant through a and repackaging industry. process or activity which itself is not Based on 1988 FIFRA establishment 1 All remaining pesticide active ingredients are integral to or necessary for the registration data, EPA identified the referred to in today’s notice as the ‘‘non-272 PAIs.’’ production of a product or the providing pesticide formulating, packaging, and In addition, not all non-272 PAIs are in the scope of a service.’’ 42 U.S.C. 13102(5). In repackaging facilities in the United of this rulemaking. effect, source reduction means reducing States that were using one or more of 2 EPA has not re-estimated the number of refilling establishments based on both 272 PAIs and the amount of a pollutant that enters a the active ingredients that were the non-272 PAIs because EPA believes that there waste stream or that is otherwise focus of the Pesticide Manufacturing would not be any refilling establishments that use released into the environment prior to rulemaking. These pesticide active only non-272 PAIs. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57521 formulation and packaging lines to rulemaking, EPA has proposed a on a product family/process line/ completely manual lines. In general, for regulation under FIFRA that sets process unit basis rather than a facility liquid products the process involves standards for such secondary wide basis. If the zero discharge option mixing the active ingredient with liquid containment structures (59 FR 6712; is chosen, the facility owner/operator inert ingredients in a tank and then February 11, 1994). In addition, many will need to do whatever is necessary, transferring the product to containers. states (22 have/are developing e.g., wastewater reuse or recycle, either For dry products, the active ingredient secondary containment regulations) with or without treatment, incineration may be sprayed in liquid form onto a now require secondary containment for on-site or haul the wastewater for dry substrate or it may be mixed in dry bulk pesticide storage and dispensing incineration off-site or underground form. Dry products may undergo operations. injection, so that zero discharge of PAIs processes for mixing, grinding, sifting and priority pollutants in the D. Final Rule and finally packaging. The formulating wastewater is achieved. process for aerosol products is the same Today’s final rule sets forth an If the P2 Alternative portion of the as for liquid products, but the packaging innovative and flexible, yet option is chosen for a particular PAI is more complex and involves filling the environmentally protective, approach product family/process line/process container, capping it, drawing a vacuum for the establishment of effluent unit, then the owner/operator of the on the container, adding propellant limitations and pretreatment standards facility must agree to comply with the under pressure, and sealing the under the Act. For Subcategory C— P2 practices identified in Table 8 to Part container. facilities that formulate, package, or 455 of today’s rule for that PFPR family/ Some other types of pesticide repackage pesticides—EPA is line/unit. This agreement to comply products include collars to repel and establishing effluent limitations and with the P2 practices and any necessary kill fleas and ticks; pesticides that are pretreatment standards which allow treatment would be contained in the micro-encapsulated; and pesticides that each facility to choose to meet a zero NPDES permit for direct discharging are formed into solid shapes. discharge limitation or comply with a PFPR facilities or in an individual The pesticide industry is changing pollution prevention alternative that control mechanism with the control and efforts are being made to improve authorizes discharge of PAI and priority authority, i.e., the POTW, for indirect products to meet demands of consumers pollutants after various pollution discharging PFPR facilities (see for less toxic and safer pesticides. For prevention practices are followed and 403.12(a) for the definition of control example, water-based solutions are treatment is conducted as needed (now authority). In general, PFPR facilities gradually replacing organic solvents in characterized as the Zero/P2 Alternative choosing the P2 Alternative need only liquid pesticide formulations. option). This rule also establishes a zero to submit a small portion of the Developments in packaging also are discharge limitation and pretreatment paperwork to a permitting or control underway. For example, the growing standard for agricultural pesticide authority (e.g., initial and periodic use of water soluble packages can refilling establishments (Subcategory E). certification statements). The on-site reduce worker exposure to pesticides EPA had originally proposed a zero compliance paperwork is described in and minimize problems with disposal of discharge limitation and pretreatment Part XII.A.1 of today’s notice. packaging. standard for PFPR facilities. 59 FR Today’s rule changes the scope of the The refilling establishments represent 17850 (April 14, 1994). EPA received proposed rule in the following ways. a newer population of facilities that was comment which argued that the First, the rule does not cover PAIs identified in the Agency’s Survey of proposed zero discharge limitation and which are sanitizers, including pool Pesticide Producing Establishments. pretreatment standard would result in chemicals. Also certain liquid chemical EPA discovered a significant population adverse non-water quality sterilants that are used on critical or of facilities that reported repackaging environmental impacts and that the semi-critical medical devices are not only. These facilities are retail and scope of the proposed rule should be covered. Second, the rule does not wholesale dealers of agricultural refined in a variety of ways. Various apply to PAIs that are microorganisms, chemicals and farm supplies. These members of the PFPR community such as Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.). facilities repackage pesticides, usually commented that the Agency should Third, the rule does not apply to two herbicides, into refillable containers adopt a final rule which would require groups of PAIs that are mixtures—Group which are used to transport the facilities to engage in pollution 1 Mixtures include substances which pesticide to the site where it is applied. prevention practices and thereafter pose no risks and Group 2 Mixtures The use of refillable containers began discharge de minimis levels of PAI and include substances whose treatment to grow during the 1980’s (and became priority pollutants in the process technology has not been identified. widespread in the 1990’s) to reduce the wastewaters. Upon receiving these Fourth, the pretreatment standards number of empty pesticide containers comments, EPA published a portion of the rule does not apply to one needing to be disposed of by farmers. In Supplemental Notice which described PAI and three priority pollutants which general, registrants distribute large the Zero/P2 alternative option in EPA has determined will not pass undivided quantities of pesticides to addition to some potential changes in through or interfere with POTWs. dealerships (refilling establishments) the scope of the rule. 60 FR 30217 (June Today’s rule also does not cover where the products are stored in large 8, 1995). inorganic wastewater treatment bulk tanks. The dealer then repackages Today’s rule adopts the Zero/P2 chemicals. With regard to wastewater the pesticide from the bulk storage tanks alternative option for PFPR facilities sources, EPA has decided not to cover to portable minibulk containers that and changes the scope by reducing the storm water at PFPR facilities or at generally have capacities of about 110 number of PAIs and wastewater sources refilling establishments through this gallons. The increased use of refillable which are addressed. Under the Zero/P2 rule. In addition, there are a few other containers led to an increased amount of option each owner or operator of a PFPR wastewater sources such employee herbicide stored in bulk quantities and facility in Subcategory C will make an showers, on-site laundries, fire the need to have a secondary initial choice of whether the facility will equipment test water, eye washes and containment system built around the meet zero discharge or comply with the safety showers, certain Department of bulk storage tanks. Separate from this P2 Alternative. This choice can be made Transportation (DOT) aerosol leak test 57522 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations bath water and laboratory water that are disproportionate economic impacts to residuals (sludges) from the UTS for not considered process wastewater small facilities. incineration. Because of the estimates of under the final rule. Due to these impacts, EPA proposed reduced wastewater volumes based on EPA believes that this rule is an a partial exemption from these the increase in reuse/recycle practices, important example of how the Agency guidelines for the exterior wastewaters 3 the overall volume of wastewaters being is re-inventing environmental from small sanitizer facilities. Small contract hauled off-site for incineration regulation. The Zero/P2 alternative sanitizer facilities were defined as those was not expected to increase. Thus, EPA option being promulgated today is facilities which formulate, package or did not include additional costs for cheaper for the regulated community to repackage 265,000 lbs/yr or less of all contract hauling of PFPR wastewaters in comply with than the proposed zero registered products containing one or the original proposal. Based on discharge standard. The Zero/P2 more sanitizer active ingredients (listed comments, revised costs for the alternative option is smarter than the in Table 8 of the proposed regulation) proposed zero discharge option were proposed zero discharge standard on sanitizer-only production lines. The estimated for the Supplemental Notice because it incorporates flexibility in production cutoff of 265,000 lbs/yr (60 FR 30217; June 8, 1995). (See the choosing which option is best for a represents the production level (of these Final Cost and Loadings Report particular product line. The Zero/P2 sanitizer products) at the largest facility (September 1996) in the public record alternative option is cleaner than the that would experience economic for a discussion on the changes to the proposed zero discharge standard impacts if there was no exemption for costing methodology). because the P2 Alternative reduces non-interior wastewater sources. (See EPA based the zero discharge cross-media impacts to the environment Section III.A.1 of this notice for a limitation for Subcategory E on reuse of while still achieving, virtually, the same description of revisions made to this wastewater as makeup water for level of pollutant removal from exemption). application to fields, in accordance with discharges of PFPR process wastewaters In addition to the partial exemption the product label. (see Section XI for a discussion on the given to ‘‘small sanitizers,’’ EPA The subject of the comments on the non-water quality impacts associated proposed to exempt sodium proposed rule spanned a variety of with the final rule). hypochlorite from coverage under the topics, including changes to the scope of pretreatment standards for new and the regulation, EPA’s pesticide cross- E. The Proposed Rule existing sources (PSES and PSNS). (See contamination policy and its effect on On April 14, 1994 (59 FR 17850), EPA Section III.A.1 of this notice for a the industry’s ability to meet zero proposed effluent limitations guidelines description of revisions made to this discharge, increased cross-media and standards for the control of exemption). EPA also proposed to impacts due to contract hauling of wastewater pollutants from the exempt wastewater generated by on-site wastewater for incineration to meet zero Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and employee showers and laundries and discharge, perceived conflicts with the Repackaging (PFPR) Industry. The from the testing of fire protection Resource Conservation and Recovery proposed rulemaking covered two equipment from the applicability of Act (RCRA) requirements, and requests subcategories. Subcategory C included these effluent guidelines and standards. for a discharge allowance when stand-alone PFPR facilities as well as In general, these wastewater sources following specific pollution prevention formulating, packaging and repackaging were excluded from the proposed practices. See Section III of today’s at pesticide manufacturing facilities regulation because of worker health and notice for a summary of the changes that (PFPR/Manufacturers). Subcategory E, safety concerns. (See Section IX.A of the were made to the proposal in response as proposed, included repackagers of proposed rule or Section 5 of the Final to comment. agricultural pesticides at refilling Technical Development Document F. The Supplemental Notice establishments (‘‘refilling (TDD) [EPA–821–R–96–019] for a more establishments’’). These proposed detailed discussion of wastewater In response to many of the comments guidelines were not intended to apply to sources excluded from regulation). on the proposed rule, EPA published a the production of pesticide products EPA based the proposed zero supplemental notice (60 FR 30217) in through an intended chemical reaction discharge limitation for Subcategory C the Federal Register on June 8, 1995. (i.e., pesticide manufacturing). (For on pollution prevention, recycle/reuse EPA published the Supplemental Notice definitions used in the final rule, see and, when necessary, treatment through to obtain public comment on two major § 455.10 of the final regulation of this the Universal Treatment System (UTS) topics and several smaller issues. The notice.) Furthermore, as discussed in for reuse. EPA visualized the UTS as a first major topic for which EPA Section 1 of the proposal Technical flexible system consisting of a variety of requested comments was related to the Development Document [EPA–821–R– treatment technologies that have been scope and applicability of the 94–002], Subcategory E (refilling determined to be effective for treating rulemaking. Commenters on the establishments) of these guidelines was PFPR wastewaters. In calculating proposed rule had requested that EPA not intended to apply to wastewaters compliance costs, EPA included costs exempt certain pesticide active generated by custom blending or custom for various combinations of treatment ingredients (PAIs) and certain application operations when performed technologies consisting of emulsion wastewater sources from the scope of independently or at refilling breaking, hydrolysis, chemical the final rule. establishments. The proposed oxidation, metals precipitation and EPA requested comment on rulemaking would have established a carbon adsorption. EPA also included expansion of the ‘‘sanitizer exemption’’ zero discharge limitation for wastewater costs for contract hauling treatment to exempt additional sanitizer active pollutants from the formulating, ingredients, remove the exemption’s packaging and repackaging of almost all 3 At the time of proposal, exterior wastewaters production limit, and to include both pesticide active ingredients for both included: Exterior equipment cleaning water, floor interior and exterior wastewater sources subcategories covered by this regulation. wash, leak and spill cleanup water, safety in the revised exemption. EPA also equipment cleaning water, DOT (Department of Only a small number of PAIs were not Transportation) aerosol test bath water, air requested comment on the exclusion of completely covered by the proposed pollution control scrubber water, laboratory rinsate some other chemicals including pool zero discharge, as a result of and contaminated precipitation runoff. chemicals, microorganisms, mixtures Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57523 and pollutants that have been development facilities, clarification of labeled end use than from rinsing determined to not pass through a issues for PFPR/Manufacturers, formulating equipment at the PFPR POTW. (See Section III.A.1 of today’s modification of the existing BPT for facility; (3) biodegradation data received notice for a discussion of these direct dischargers, clarification of the with comments on some of these exemptions; also see Comment definition and applicability for refilling sanitizer active ingredients supports the Response Document in the public establishments, and RCRA issues. hypothesis that they do not pass record). The major comments received on the through POTWs; (4) these sanitizer In addition to the exclusion of certain supplemental notice are described in active ingredients represent a large pesticide active ingredients, EPA detail in the Comment Response portion of the low toxicity PAIs solicited comment on the partial or full Document in the public record. Those considered for regulation at the time of exclusion of certain wastewater sources. comments included: Support for the proposal; and (5) many sanitizer These wastewater sources included pollution prevention alternative, solutions containing these active aerosol leak test bath water, safety requests for self-certification as the ingredients are cleared by the Food & equipment cleaning water, laboratory method of implementation for the final Drug Administration (FDA) as indirect equipment rinse water, and storm water. rule, comments on the specific practices food additives under 21 CFR 178.1010. The second major topic for which listed in the P2 Alternative, and support The exemption now covers both EPA solicited comments was a for the use of Best Professional or interior and exterior wastewater regulatory option comprised of two Engineering Judgement (BPJ or BEJ) by sources. In addition, the proposed list of alternatives between which industry the permitting or control authority, 28 sanitizer active ingredients has been could choose: (1) Achieving zero respectively. expanded to incorporate the pool discharge or (2) incorporating specific chemicals exemption as well as to pollution prevention practices and A. Scope include home use, institutional and treatment technologies at the facility At the time of proposal, the scope of most commercial antimicrobial active and allowing a discharge of very small the rule would have included the ingredients, with the exception of liquid quantities of pollutants. This combined formulating, packaging and repackaging chemical sterilants (including regulatory approach is referred to as the of all pesticide active ingredients (with sporicidals), industrial preservatives Zero Discharge/Pollution Prevention the exception of sodium hypochlorite and water treatment micro biocides Alternative (Zero/P2 Alternative). and the partial exemption of small other than pool chemicals (as defined in In particular, the supplemental notice sanitizers) and a wide variety of § 455.10 of today’s regulation). Certain requested comments on the structure of associated wastewater sources. Since liquid chemical sterilant products are the Zero/P2 Alternative, the extent of the proposal, EPA has refined the scope exempt from today’s rule, as discussed best professional judgement (BPJ) concerning pesticide active ingredients in Section III.A.1.c. Furthermore, based allowed, the specific practices included, (PAIs) and wastewater sources in on comments, EPA has eliminated the the modifications allowed and the response to comments on both the use of a list to define the exempted details of regulatory implementation. proposed rule and the supplemental sanitizer active ingredients and is Overall, the comments received on the notice. The following discussion employing a written definition (see Supplemental Notice were summarizes these revisions. See the § 455.10 of the final regulation for the overwhelmingly supportive of the Zero/ Comment Response Document in the definition used in today’s final rule). P2 Alternative. Furthermore, EPA has rulemaking record for a more detailed As mentioned above, EPA has incorporated many of the suggestions discussion on the changes. combined the pool chemicals exemption offered in the comments into the Zero/ into the sanitizer exemption. This was P2 Alternative found in today’s notice 1. Pesticide Active Ingredients (PAIs) based on comments on the (see Section XII of today’s notice for a a. Sanitizer Active Ingredients and Pool Supplemental Notice and information discussion of regulatory Chemicals gathered in post-proposal site visits (60 implementation). FR 30219). EPA believes that a large The other issues for which EPA Several changes have been made to portion of the pool chemicals that were solicited comments in the supplemental the original ‘‘sanitizer exemption,’’ as being reviewed for exemption can and notice included: the applicability of the proposed. In the proposed rule EPA should also be classified as sanitizer rule to PFPR research and development placed small sanitizer facilities in their active ingredients. In order to avoid facilities and stand alone direct own subgroup within Subcategory C. possible confusion, EPA has decided to discharging facilities, the concentrations However, for the final rule, most combine these two groups and has found in second and third rinses of a sanitizer products have been excluded incorporated pool chemicals into the triple rinse, and the expected burden to from Subcategory C (see § 455.10 of the definition for sanitizer active the permitting authorities. final regulation of today’s rule for the ingredients. In addition to this change, definition of sanitizer products). This the pool chemicals exemption has III. Summary of Most Significant exclusion is based on a number of undergone another refinement. Under Changes from Proposal factors. The partial exemption for small the proposed rule, the only pool This section describes the most sanitizer facilities that was included in chemical that was exempt was sodium significant changes to the rule since the proposal was largely based on hypochlorite. Under the final rule, EPA proposal. Many of these changes have disproportionate economic impacts. has added several other chemicals to the resulted from the comments that are However, based on comments EPA has exemption. These chemicals include discussed in more detail in the expanded the sanitizer exemption to calcium hypochlorite, lithium Comment Response Document which is include additional chemicals for the hypochlorite, potassium hypochlorite, contained in the record for this following reasons: (1) Sanitizer products chlorinated isocyanurate compounds rulemaking. This section will are formulated for the purposes of their and halogenated hydantoins. As with summarize the changes in the rule labeled end use to ‘‘go down the drain;’’ the sanitizer chemicals, these chemicals concerning: The scope of the rule, the (2) sanitizer active ingredients are more are not exempted via a list, but are addition of the Zero/P2 Alternative, likely to be sent to POTWs in greater instead exempted by definition. See applicability of the rule to research and concentrations and volumes from their § 455.10 of the final regulation. 57524 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations b. Other Pesticide Active Ingredients molecular weights or low solubility in record for a further discussion on the EPA has excluded several other water have been found to be amenable decision to exclude these wastewater groups of active ingredients from the to activated carbon adsorption. treatment chemicals and the chemicals final regulation. As discussed in the However, when such characteristics that do not pass through. cannot be identified, EPA cannot Supplemental Notice and in the c. Liquid Chemical Sterilants Comment Response Document, transfer treatability data for carbon microorganisms that are considered adsorption. Section 221 of the Food Quality EPA previously considered reserving PAIs under FIFRA will not be covered Protection Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–170) this group of chemicals for regulation at by this regulation and will be excluded amended the definition of ‘‘pesticide’’ a later time; however, after further by definition. Based on the available in FIFRA to exclude liquid chemical research EPA has decided to exclude information on the formulation, sterilant products (including any these chemicals from the scope of the packaging and repackaging of such sterilant or subordinate disinfectant final rule. One reason, as mentioned microorganisms and the generation and claims on such products) which are above, is that the treatability data is used on a critical or semi-critical device characteristics of wastewaters from such insufficient and to obtain treatment (as defined in section 201 of the Federal operations, EPA believes these performance data on these mixtures Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act pesticides are not formulated in a would be very difficult due to the (‘‘FFDCA’’) (21 U.S.C. 321). See 7 U.S.C. similar fashion as other PAIs covered by inability to transfer data. Also, most of 136(u), as amended. Because Congress this rule. Microorganisms which have these chemicals in pesticide products has chosen to exclude such sterilant registered pesticidal uses are generally are used as inert ingredients rather than products from the definition of created through a fermentation process, active ingredients and the total volume ‘‘pesticide’’, EPA has modified the similar to those found in some food of these mixtures in use in pesticide applicability provisions of this rule so processing or pharmaceutical plants. products is very small (i.e., Group 2 that the effluent limitations and Fermentation is a biological process, Mixture PAIs only represent whereas other pesticides are approximately eight percent of all of pretreatment standards do not cover the manufactured and formulated through pesticide products). EPA was not able to wastewater discharges from the chemical and physical processes. develop a definition to cover all the formulation, packaging, and/or In addition, almost all the chemicals in this group due to the lack repackaging of liquid chemical sterilants microorganisms registered as pesticide of homogeneity between the chemicals. for use on critical devices or semi- products are exempt from the Therefore, Group 2 mixtures will be critical devices as these terms are now requirement of obtaining a (residue) excluded from the scope of the final rule defined in FFDCA section 201 and tolerance for pesticides in or on raw by list as opposed to definition (see FIFRA section 2(u). See 40 CFR agricultural commodities (40 CFR Table 9 to Part 455 of the final 455.40(f). However, facilities which 180.1001). Under Part 180 Subpart D— regulation). formulate, package, or repackage Exemptions From Tolerance—it states There are two other groups of products containing liquid chemical that ‘‘an exemption from a tolerance chemicals that are being excluded from sterilants into other types of products, shall be granted when it appears that the the final rule: Inorganic wastewater e.g., pesticide products which are not total quantity of the pesticide chemical treatment chemicals and chemicals that used on critical or semi-critical devices in or on all raw agricultural do not pass through POTWS. Based on introduced directly into the human commodities for which it is useful comments and data collected for the body, should be aware that the under conditions of use currently Treatability Database Report and its wastewaters resulting from the prevailing or proposed will involve no Addendum (see the public record for formulating, packaging, and repackaging hazard to the public health.’’ the rulemaking), EPA has decided to activities are covered by this rule. EPA has also excluded a group of exclude, from the scope of the final 2. Wastewater Sources chemicals, referred to in today’s notice regulation, inorganic chemicals that are as ‘‘Group 1 mixtures.’’ This group commonly used as wastewater treatment In the proposal, EPA excluded water includes many herbs and spices (e.g., chemicals (e.g., ferric sulfate, potassium from on-site employee showers, rosemary, thyme, peppermint, cloves...), permanganate, sulfuric acid, carbon, laundries and testing of fire protection foods/food constituents, plants/plant chlorine, etc...). See Comment Response equipment (59 FR 17903). EPA has extracts (excluding pyrethrins) and Document for a discussion on the added several other wastewater sources many chemicals that are considered to rationale behind this exclusion. Many of to the exclusion. These include: Storm be GRAS (generally recognized as safe) these chemicals are also excluded under water,4 water used for testing and by the Food and Drug Administration as the sanitizer/pool chemicals exemption. emergency operation of safety showers well as those products exempt from Again, the use of a definition will be and eye washes; DOT leak test bath FIFRA under 40 CFR 152.25 (61 FR employed to exclude these chemicals. water from non-continuous overflow 8876; March 6, 1996)(see § 455.10 of the (See § 455.10 of today’s final rule for the baths (i.e., batch baths) where no cans final regulation of today’s notice for the definition). The four chemicals which have burst from the time of the last definition of Group 1 mixtures). are excluded from the pretreatment water change out; and water used for There is a second group of mixtures, standards because EPA determined that cleaning analytical equipment and ‘‘Group 2 mixtures,’’ that are being they do not pass through POTWs are glassware and for rinsing the retain excluded from the regulation. EPA has phenol, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4- sample container in on-site laboratories. not been able to transfer treatability data dichlorophenol and 2,4- However, the initial rinse of the retain for many of these mixtures because the dimethylphenol. Phenol, as a sample container is considered a characteristics that EPA uses for constituent in sanitizer products, is process wastewater source for the final technology transfer are not easily excluded from the rule as it was regulation. (See the Comment Response identified (e.g., molecular weights, excluded under the proposed sanitizer solubilities and aromaticity). For exemption due to disproportionate 4 Storm water at PFPR facilities and Refilling example, within a given structural economic impacts. See the Comment Establishments is covered by the Storm water group, PAIs that are aromatic, have high Response Document in the rulemaking Regulations Phase I and II, respectively. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57525

Document for a discussion on the wastewater pollutants, including the standard cross-contamination policy exclusion of these wastewaters). additional contract hauling costs, are would increase wastewater volumes to still found to be economically the point that it would not be feasible B. The Zero Discharge/Pollution achievable for the industry. (See Section to reuse these volumes. The commenters Prevention Alternative Option V of today’s notice for a discussion on also believe that these factors were not Commenters submitted a variety of the economic achievability of the final taken into account when the proposed comments which prompted the Agency regulation.) zero discharge regulation was to consider the Zero/P2 Alternative Commenters also commented that a developed. According to commenters, a option. The most significant are significant decrease in incineration facility that performs a triple rinse of the summarized below. (See the Comment capacity and an increased cost would equipment interiors when changing Response Document in the public result from EPA’s combustion policy from formulating one product to record for additional summary of which may limit the permitting of new another, may have to perform additional comment responses and responses to incinerators or the expansion of rinses (e.g., a five times rinse) to ensure individual comments.) capacity of existing incinerators. EPA a level of zero cross-contamination. 1. Cross Media Impacts and Incineration has addressed this concern in two ways. Commenters stated that even in cases Issues First, through the use of the P2 where the rinsate from the ‘‘triple rinse’’ Alternative to zero discharge, this final could be stored for use in a future Commenters on the proposed rule rule will allow for the discharge of formulation, the additional rinses create believe that the zero discharge standard, much of the non-reusable PFPR more rinsewater than could be reused as proposed, would lead to a large wastewaters that might otherwise be and that these very dilute wastewaters increase in cross-media impacts because contract hauled for incineration. would have to be contract hauled for the majority of facilities would be forced Second, as mentioned above, EPA has off-site disposal to achieve zero to contract haul dilute non-reusable revised its costing methodology for the discharge. Commenters believe this wastewaters off-site for incineration (or zero discharge option to include off-site additional contract hauling of other off-site disposal). Commenters incineration of these additional non- wastewater not only makes the questioned the goal of achieving zero reusable wastewaters and has still found proposed regulation economically discharge when it leads to an increase the rule to be economically achievable unachievable, but increases the in cross-media impacts. by the industry. In addition, EPA does opportunity for cross-media impacts. At the time of the proposed rule, EPA not believe an additional burden will be At the time of the supplemental believed that the proposed approach to placed on incineration capacity. This is notice EPA was reviewing the pesticide achieving ‘‘zero discharge’’ of supported by a survey, ‘‘Hazardous cross-contamination policy. EPA has wastewater pollutants from PFPR Waste Incineration 1994,’’ published in since published a Notice of Availability facilities would result in increasing the the EI Digest, June 1994 which showed on a more risk-based draft policy in the recycling, reuse and recovery of that while there is increasing demand Federal Register for public comment (61 wastewater pollutants. In addition, EPA for incineration there is still great FR 1928; January 24, 1996) and expects based the requirements on the best untapped capacity. The surveyed publication of the final policy by the practices observed at PFPR facilities commercial incinerators believe that end of 1996. In addition, EPA has studied as part of the development of market saturation, competition with created the P2 Alternative to zero the rule. However, based on the cement kilns and successful waste discharge in this rulemaking which concerns raised by commenters about minimization efforts by industry would allow formulators, packagers and the potential cross-media impacts EPA account for the unused capacity and the repackagers to discharge these dilute decided to seek comment on the decline in the average price for non-reusable rinses following the use of pollution prevention (P2) alternative to incineration. [See the memo in the specified pollution prevention practices. zero discharge in order to reduce these record entitled Incineration Costs for 3. Request for De Minimis Discharge impacts (60 FR 30217). The P2 PFP Facilities, September 30, 1994.] Alternative to the zero discharge Due to the concerns described above, standard will allow a discharge of 2. Cross-Contamination Policy many commenters requested a discharge wastewater after waste discharge Commenters also stated that complete allowance for these excess or non- reductions are achieved using certain reuse, as proposed, is not achievable reusable wastewaters. Commenters flow conservation, recycle or reuse and, because of EPA’s existing policy on suggested that they would be willing to under certain circumstances, cross-contamination of pesticide agree to use specified pollution wastewater treatment practices. Should products. At the time of proposal EPA prevention practices and pointed to the a facility choose to comply with the was using a standard of zero for cross- pollution prevention, recycle and reuse regulation through the P2 Alternative contamination. This meant that an practices described in the preamble to the need for off-site disposal is reduced; active ingredient may not be present at the proposal (59 FR 17866) and the thus, the cross-media effects are any concentration in a FIFRA registered technical development document for the reduced. product where it is not listed on the proposal [EPA #821–R–94–002]. In some For those facilities that choose to confidential statement of formula (CSF) cases commenters provided examples of comply with the final rule by achieving of that product or reported to EPA as an possible additional practices they would zero discharge, EPA has revised the cost impurity. During the study phase for the be willing to agree to use. EPA believes model. The revisions add costs to development of the proposal, the that a discharge allowance (‘‘pollution account for increased volumes of non- industry practice was to triple rinse prevention allowable discharge’’) may reusable wastewaters being contract containers and equipment. Because of provide an added incentive to increase hauled for off-site incineration (see the recent EPA enforcement actions, the use of pollution prevention and Final Cost and Loadings Report industry commented that additional recycle practices, while ensuring that (September 1996) for a discussion on rinsing is being used to comply with the facilities are maximizing pollutant changes to the costing methodology). cross-contamination policy. reductions in the wastewater while The revised cost estimates for the Commenters believe that more minimizing cross-media effects. industry to achieve zero discharge of aggressive enforcement of a zero- Therefore, in response to the request for 57526 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations a ‘‘de minimis’’ discharge alternative, example, EPA will allow facilities to pretreat the portion of their allowable EPA has incorporated the P2 Alternative modify the practice of reusing and/or P2 discharge that includes interior into the zero discharge standard for the storing and reusing rinsates generated equipment rinsates (including drum final regulation. by rinsing of drums containing only rinsates), leak and spill cleanup water inerts when a facility can demonstrate and floor wash prior to discharge to the 4. Pollution Prevention Alternative that the large concentration of the inert POTW. However, EPA will allow the Several changes have been made to in the formulation creates more volume, control authority to waive the the P2 Alternative since it was first after using water conservation practices, pretreatment requirements for floor presented in the Supplemental Notice. than could feasibly be reused or when wash and the final interior rinse of a The most significant revision is that a the concentration of the inert is so small triple rinse that has been demonstrated facility will be able to choose between (i.e., perfumes) that the reuse would to be non-reusable when the facility achieving zero discharge or an allowable cause a formulation to exceed the ranges demonstrates that the level of PAIs and discharge (using the P2 Alternative) on allowed in the Confidential Statement of priority pollutants in such wastewaters a product family/process line/process Formula (CSF). are at a level that is too low to be unit basis. Based on comment, EPA has also effectively pretreated at the facility and In the supplemental notice, this combined, added and removed other have been shown to neither pass choice was to be made on a facility wide practices. For example, EPA has added through or interfere with the operations basis. However, based on comments, a practice concerning dry formulation of the POTW. The control authority EPA believes that the zero/P2 interior equipment cleaning that should also take into account whether alternative option will be most practical specifies that facilities must cleanout or not the facility has employed water if facilities can choose zero discharge for such interiors with dry carrier prior to conservation when generating such a those processes/process units at their any water rinse and that this carrier non-reusable wastewater. facility that are most amenable to zero material should preferably be stored and discharge, while choosing the P2 reused in future formulation of the same C. Applicability to On-Site and Stand- Alternative for other portions of the or compatible product (or, as a last alone Research & Development (R&D) facility for which the pollution resort, properly disposed of as solid Laboratories prevention practices are most suited. waste). EPA has combined many of the EPA has clarified the applicability of EPA believes that this change will also water conservation practices, such as the final PFPR regulations to on-site and reduce burden. use of flow reduction on hoses, use of In addition, EPA has made some low volume/high pressure rinsing stand-alone R&D laboratories (i.e., no changes to the listed pollution equipment and floor scrubbing PFPR on-site). The final PFPR effluent prevention practices. First, the two machines, into one listed practice. guidelines and standards do not apply tables of listed practices, as found in Finally, EPA has removed the provision to wastewater generated from the Appendix B of the Supplemental for dedicated equipment that was development of new formulations of Notice, have been combined into one contingent on the inability to reuse pesticide products and the associated table. In addition, based on comments, interior rinsates. Instead, this practice efficacy and field testing (where revisions have been made to the will be discussed in the P2 Guidance resulting product is not manufactured language used on the table of listed Manual for the PFPR Industry. (See for sale). This includes such practices. Under the final rule, any Table 8 to Part 455 of the final wastewaters generated at stand-alone practice may be modified with an regulation, for the listed practices and R&D laboratories as well as at R&D adequate justification. When no listed justifications). laboratories located on-site at PFPR justification is listed for the specific Furthermore, EPA has refined the facilities. EPA received many comments practice it can be modified via best definition of P2 allowable discharge. In describing the operations at both on-site professional or engineering judgement response to comment, this definition and stand-alone R&D facilities. (BPJ or BEJ, respectively). EPA believes states that ‘‘appropriate pollution Commenters believe that wastewaters this is appropriate due to the unique control technologies’’ include not only generated at these R&D laboratories have and individual situations that may arise those technologies listed on Table 10 of extremely limited reuse potential due to at a particular facility (see the Comment the regulation, but also include a their experimental nature, as such Response Document in the rulemaking pesticide manufacturer’s treatment formulations may only be produced record or the P2 Guidance Manual for system or an equivalent system, used once or, at most, for one set of trials. the PFPR Industry for examples of such individually or in any combination to Therefore, commenters believe that the situations). However, for listed practices achieve the level of pollutant reduction pollution prevention practices listed in where no justification is listed on the determined by the permitting authority the Supplemental Notice (for example, table, a facility will initially have to or control authority. An equivalent reuse of interior rinsates in future submit a request for a modification to system is a wastewater treatment system formulation) are not amenable to these the permitting/control authority for that is demonstrated in literature, one-time wastewaters. In addition, review and approval. The permitting/ treatability tests or self-monitoring data experiments require the use of control authority is expected to use BPJ to remove a similar level of pesticide experimental controls. According to or BEJ to decide if the justification active ingredient (PAI) or priority commenters, the addition of rinsates provided is adequate. In addition, the pollutants as the applicable treatment into the ‘‘experimental design could permitting/control authority will be able technology listed in Table 10 to part 455 alter the results of the experiment and to add or replace practices specified by of the final regulation. render the data obtained useless.’’ EPA the rule with new or innovative Finally, EPA has decided to allow the has taken the above information into practices that are more effective at control authority to use best engineering account, in addition to the typically low reducing the pollutant loadings from a judgement to waive pretreatment at the quantities discharged from these specific facility to the environment. PFPR facility prior to discharge to the operations and believes that the EPA has also added some additional POTW under certain circumstances. wastewaters generated by experimental justifications to the table of listed Under the final P2 Alternative to zero formulation, efficacy and field testing practices based on comments. For discharge, an indirect discharger must can be adequately addressed in permits Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57527 and pretreatment agreements through 2. On-site Incineration as Zero facilities as well as stand-alone PFPR BPJ and BEJ, respectively. Discharge facilities.6 The basis for the 1978 zero Although EPA proposed zero discharge BPT limitation was water D. Clarification of Issues Concerning conservation, reuse and recycle PFPR/Manufacturers discharge limitations based on pollution prevention, recycle/reuse and treatment practices, with any residual water being Pesticide Manufacturing is covered by for reuse, facilities may meet this zero evaporated or hauled off-site to a 40 CFR part 455 subparts A and B. discharge requirement through a landfill. However, many facilities that were direct dischargers in 1978 However, close to 50 pesticide number of other practices. These switched to indirect discharge of manufacturers also perform pesticide practices include hauling wastewater to off-site destinations, such as sites which wastewaters through POTWs instead of formulating, packaging and repackaging achieving zero discharge via recycle and at their facility (called ‘‘PFPR/ have incineration, deep well injection disposal and centralized (commercial) land filling or evaporation. Due to the Manufacturers’’). EPA has included a 1978 BPT regulation, presently, there discussion, below, to aid in clarifying wastewater treatment and subsequent discharge. In some cases, wastewaters should be no direct discharging PFPR how the final rule applies to the PFPR/ facilities. However, the zero discharge Manufacturers in regard to three specific are returned to the registrant or manufacturer. In a few instances, on-site limitation was not interpreted or issues. First, EPA will clarify the incineration of PFPR wastewaters is implemented in the same way for PFPR/ difference between adding a solvent to being conducted. Manufacturers as it was for stand-alone stabilize an active ingredient and adding EPA received comment requesting PFPR facilities. a solvent (or other inert ingredients) to clarification of whether on-site It is EPA’s understanding that formulate a pesticide product, and incineration is an acceptable means of permitting authorities incorporated the which practice constitutes achieving zero discharge. For purposes BPT zero discharge standard for PFPR manufacturing and which constitutes of this rule, EPA considers on-site wastewaters into the pesticide formulation. Second, EPA will discuss incineration a valid option for achieving manufacturers’ NPDES permits as a whether on-site incineration can be zero discharge of PFPR process ‘‘zero allowance.’’ A zero allowance considered as achieving zero discharge wastewaters. Wet scrubbing devices would let a PFPR/Manufacturer discharge PFPR wastewaters along with under the PFPR final rule. Finally, EPA used for air pollution control on existing their pesticide manufacturing will amend and clarify the on-site incinerators at PFPR facilities are wastewaters as long as they did not interpretation of the 1978 zero discharge not subject to the PFPR effluent exceed the pesticide limitations in the BPT rule for direct discharging PFPR/ guidelines. The only existing on-site Pesticide Manufacturing rule. The 1978 Manufacturers and PFPR stand-alone incinerators at facilities covered by the pesticide manufacturing BPT limitations facilities. PFPR regulation are at facilities which were presented as a total pesticides also manufacture pesticide active limit for 49 specific PAIs. However, the 1. Stabilizing versus Formulating ingredients (PFPR/Manufacturers). more recent BAT and NSPS limitations Scrubber wastewater discharges from Pesticide manufacturers may (58 FR 50638; September 28, 1993) do these incineration activities are sometimes add a solvent (organic or not set a total pesticides limit but, currently regulated under the pesticide aqueous) to a manufactured PAI or instead set individual production-based manufacturing effluent guidelines (40 intermediate for the purpose of limitations. Since the pesticide CFR part 455, subparts A and B; see 58 stabilizing the product (e.g., for manufacturing limits are based solely on FR 50638, September 28, 1993) for the transport or storage). The Pesticide the manufacturing production and do PAIs manufactured at these facilities. Manufacturing Final Technical On-site incineration at new sources not include the PFPR production, Development Document [EPA–821–R– (i.e., NSPS and PSNS), would also permits could still use a zero allowance 93–016; page 1–9] states that dilution of qualify as meeting zero discharge under approach to allow discharges of PFPR the manufactured active ingredient is the PFPR regulation and scrubber water wastewater from these combined only covered by the Pesticide discharges from these on-site facilities. At the time of proposal, EPA did not Manufacturing rule when it is ‘‘a incinerators would be covered by the believe it was necessary to amend the necessary step following a chemical pesticide manufacturing new source 1978 BPT because the zero discharge reaction to stabilize the product.’’ Thus, standards. However, scrubber limitation was comparable to the EPA would like to clarify that wastewater discharges from the on-site proposed standard of zero discharge.7 manufacturers can perform such incineration of PAIs not regulated by the EPA recognized that the bases for the operations without being subject to the pesticide manufacturing rule would 1978 BPT and proposed rule were not PFPR effluent guidelines as long as it is have to be controlled using a BPJ or BEJ identical and that land filling and a necessary step to stabilize the product basis. following a chemical reaction. evaporation were no longer the best Typically, such operations are 3. Amending and Clarifying of BPT options for achieving zero discharge (59 performed without placing the pesticide The 1978 BPT regulation (43 FR FR 17870). However, EPA believed that in a marketable container (i.e., they are 44846; September 29, 1978) established a zero discharge limitation for direct 6 A stand-alone PFPR facility is a PFPR facility shipped in bulk via tank truck, rail car where either: (1) No pesticide manufacturing or tote tank). However, PFPR facilities discharges from pesticide formulating occurs; or (2) where pesticide manufacturing should not conclude that they can and packaging 5 facilities. This included process wastewaters are not commingled with PFPR receive PAIs (that they do not pesticide formulating, packaging and process wastewaters. Such facilities may formulate, repackaging that occurred at direct package or repackage or manufacture other non- manufacture), even in bulk quantities, pesticide chemical products and be considered a and dilute it with solvent or other discharge pesticide manufacturing ‘‘stand-alone’’ PFPR facility. carrier without being subject to the 7 EPA proposed a zero discharge standard for PFPR effluent guidelines, as this would 5 In 1978 repackaging was not included in the PSES based on pollution prevention, recycle/reuse title of Subcategory C, but was covered by the BPT and, when necessary, treatment and reuse and be considered formulating under regulation and, therefore, will be included in the expected it to be implemented via ‘‘no flow’’ of § 455.10. title for the final rule. process wastewater. 57528 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations since both the 1978 BPT and the PFPR facilities to allow them to choose manufactured on-site (i.e., those PAIs proposed rule were largely based on between zero discharge and the P2 for which individual pesticide water conservation, recycle and reuse Alternative. EPA believes that although manufacturing production-based practices, facilities could meet BPT in a the stand-alone PFPR facilities are limitations are not contained in the manner similar to the proposed rule. already achieving zero discharge, in NPDES permit). Treatment is deemed Following proposal, EPA received compliance with the 1978 BPT, the appropriate through the use of: many comments on and requests for methods they are employing may treatability studies found in literature or revision of the BPT regulation from the potentially result in cross-media performed by the facility; long-term PFPR/Manufacturing facilities and trade impacts that the use of the P2 monitoring data; or Table 10 of the final associations. Commenters raised issues Alternative would potentially reduce. rule. related to the technical feasibility of Also, these changes will make BPT As discussed above, EPA is also zero discharge for both the proposed consistent with BAT (and PSES) while amending BPT for stand-alone PFPR rule and the 1978 BPT rule. essentially achieving the same pollutant facilities. Stand-alone facilities that do Commenters believed that, because removals and potentially decreasing not send their wastewaters to POTWs not all wastewaters were reusable as cross-media impacts associated with can choose to comply with the P2 EPA had assumed, the potential various off-site disposal methods. In Alternative or can remain as zero increase in cross-media impacts addition, the change to the BPT discharge. Facilities choosing the P2 associated with a zero discharge limitation that is being promulgated Alternative may have to apply for an regulation in addition to the large costs today for PFPR/Manufacturers will NPDES permit if they do not already associated with contract hauling for clarify that the method by which the have a permit. incineration made any zero discharge zero discharge limitation has been E. Clarification of Refilling regulation infeasible. The commenters implemented (i.e., use of a zero Establishments requested numeric discharge limitations allowance) is appropriate. and/or a ‘‘de minimis’’ discharge The final PFPR rule will allow EPA has decided to use the same allowance (associated with pollution discharge of PFPR wastewaters from general definition for ‘‘refilling prevention practices) for their PFPR PFPR/Manufacturing facilities in two establishment’’ as in the proposed wastewaters and that BPT be revised specific ways. For those facilities effluent guideline and the proposed accordingly. Based on these and other choosing to comply with zero discharge FIFRA Standards for Pesticide comments on the proposed rule, EPA (as opposed to the P2 Alternative), their Containers and Containment rule (i.e., developed the Zero/P2 Alternative for permits should incorporate the ‘‘zero an establishment where the activity of PSES and BAT (for Subcategory C allowance’’ approach for the PFPR repackaging pesticide product into facilities) which was discussed in the portion of their operations for the PAIs refillable containers occurs). However, Supplemental Notice and revised based that they manufacture. For those PAIs EPA will use different applicability on additional comment for today’s final formulated and not manufactured at the statements in each of the regulations to rule. facility, the permit should apply a strict further define the term as appropriate Commenters also specifically zero discharge. In part, this is because for the particular regulation. (See the commented on the need for revision of their pesticide manufacturing Comment Response Document for the 1978 BPT due to: (1) Certain wastewater treatment system may not additional discussion). The limitations practices on which the 1978 BPT was consist of the appropriate treatment and standards of Subpart E of the PFPR based (for example, land filling and technologies for such PAIs or the final rule apply to the repackaging of evaporation) are no longer desirable treatment system may not be designed pesticide products performed by because they may cause cross-media to treat the additional volumes and/or refilling establishments: (a) That impacts or may no longer be available; concentrations of the ‘‘non- repackage agricultural pesticides; (b) and (2) the changes in PAIs and manufactured’’ PAIs. whose primary business is wholesale or pesticide formulation chemistries since However, PFPR/Manufacturers can retail sales; and (c) where no pesticide 1978. For example, many pesticide choose the P2 Alternative to zero manufacturing, formulating or products have been reformulated from discharge. Such facilities would not packaging occurs. Subpart E (Refilling an organic solvent-based product to a have to achieve zero discharge or zero Establishments) is not applicable to water-based product to avoid the allowance of their PFPR wastewaters. wastewater generated from custom generation of volatile organic Instead, these facilities would comply application or custom blending. compounds (VOCs). This has, in many with the practices specified in the P2 cases, caused an increase in the volume Alternative and would receive a ‘‘P2 F. RCRA Issues of wastewater generated by this discharge allowance’’ following A number of commenters requested industry. In addition, many facilities are treatment (see § 455.41 of the final clarification concerning the potential for switching to safer, more regulation for the definition of P2 conflict between the proposed zero ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ pesticide allowable discharge). The P2 discharge discharge effluent guidelines limitations active ingredients which would change allowance can be applied to both and standards and certain requirements the characteristics of the wastewaters pesticides that are formulated/ under the Resource Conservation and from those determined in 1978. packaged/repackaged and manufactured Recovery Act (RCRA). Specifically, Commenters believe that EPA must as well as those that are not commenters requested that EPA explain, revise BPT or account for the additional manufactured on-site. [Note: Facilities in the final rule, its interpretation of the costs associated with the current can choose between zero discharge and wastewater treatment unit exemption practices that would be utilized to meet the P2 Alternative on a product family/ under RCRA (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), the zero discharge limitation (i.e., off- process line/process unit basis.] 265.1(c)(10)) with respect to facilities site incineration). The treatment system used to treat the regulated by a national effluent Based on the comments discussed combined PFPR and pesticide guideline requirement of zero discharge above, EPA has decided to amend BPT manufacturing wastewaters must and how such an exemption would for both the existing direct discharging incorporate treatment that is appropriate apply to the Universal Treatment PFPR/Manufacturers and stand-alone for those PAIs which are not also System (UTS). They also requested Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57529 clarification on the 90-day RCRA on storage for large quantity generators, alternative (P2 Alternative) is based on hazardous waste storage limitation. are satisfied (these criteria are outlined performing specific pollution In general, owners and operators of in 40 CFR 262.34). As mentioned earlier prevention, recycle, reuse and water hazardous waste treatment, storage, and in this section, most PFPR wastewaters conservation practices (as listed in disposal (TSD) facilities must meet the would not be defined as RCRA Table 8 to part 455 of the final rule) standards outlined in 40 CFR part 264 hazardous waste, either because the followed by a P2 allowable discharge (and part 265 for interim status). wastewater does not meet a RCRA which requires treatment of interior However, the wastewater treatment unit listing, or does not exhibit any wastewater sources (including drum exemption (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), 40 CFR hazardous characteristic; of course, rinsates), leak/spill cleanup water and 265.1(c)(10)) is intended to exempt, generators are still required to make this floor wash prior to discharge to a from certain RCRA requirements, determination with respect to their own POTW. 9 wastewater treatment units at facilities wastes (40 CFR 262.11). If a material is EPA visualized the Universal that are subject to the NPDES or not a hazardous waste, the RCRA Treatment System (UTS) as a flexible pretreatment requirements under the regulations, including storage system consisting of a variety of Clean Water Act 8 (for example, PFPR requirements, do not apply. treatment technologies that have been facilities). The specific definition of For any rinsewaters that potentially determined to be effective for treating wastewater treatment units that are meet a RCRA listing or exhibit a RCRA PFPR wastewaters. The UTS can exempt from certain RCRA requirements characteristic, such rinsewaters being include various combinations of is found in 40 CFR 260.10. The RCRA stored for direct reuse as outlined under treatment technologies consisting of wastewater treatment unit exemption today’s final PFPR effluent guidelines emulsion breaking, hydrolysis, chemical does not exempt hazardous wastewaters and standards would not be considered oxidation, metals precipitation and at these facilities from RCRA wastes by the Agency (see 40 CFR carbon adsorption. See Section 7 of the requirements, but does exempt the 261.2(e)(1)). As described elsewhere in Final Technical Development Document facilities from obtaining a TSD permit today’s rulemaking, these rinsewaters [EPA–821–R–96–019] for the PFPR for wastewater treatment systems do not require treatment prior to reuse effluent guideline and the proposal (59 treating, storing, or generating listed (40 and, due to stringent product FR 17873) for a detail description of the CFR 261.30–33) or characteristic (40 specifications, do not contain UTS. CFR 261.20–24) hazardous wastes. EPA constituents that are not needed in the EPA determines which pollutants to points out that many pesticide active product being formulated. In these regulate in PSES on the basis of whether ingredients are not RCRA listed situations where the rinsewaters are not or not they pass through, interfere with, hazardous wastes and most PFPR classified as a waste, the RCRA or are incompatible with the operation wastewaters do not exhibit hazardous regulations (including the generator of POTWs (including interference with waste characteristics; therefore, such requirements and storage requirements) sludge practices). A pollutant is deemed non-hazardous wastewaters would not do not apply. However, the RCRA to pass through when the average be covered by the RCRA Subtitle C regulations do require that materials percentage removed nationwide by requirements. being stored for reuse not be well-operated POTWs (those meeting As mentioned above, many accumulated speculatively secondary treatment requirements) is commenters requested that EPA clarify (speculatively accumulated materials less than the percentage removed by whether or not the wastewater treatment are classified as wastes). A material is directly discharging facilities applying unit exemption can be applied to not accumulated speculatively if the BAT for that pollutant. In the pesticide facilities that are not discharging their person accumulating it shows that the chemical manufacturing final rule, treated wastewater effluent due to a zero material is recyclable, has a feasible phenol, 2-chlorophenol, 2,4- discharge limitation in a national means of being recycled, and that dichlorophenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol effluent guideline. Facilities subject to during the calendar year, the amount of were found to not pass through POTWs an effluent guideline which sets a zero material recycled equals at least 75 (58 FR 50649; September 28 1993). discharge or other limitations or percent by weight or volume of the Phenol is a PAI that is exempted from standards (such as the P2 Alternative) amount of that material accumulated at this final rule under the sanitizer can, in fact, be eligible for the RCRA the beginning of the period. See 40 CFR exemption while the remaining three wastewater treatment unit exemption, 261.1(c)(8) and 261.2(e)(2)(iii). chemicals are priority pollutants. As discussed in Section III.A.1, based assuming that they also satisfy the IV. The Final Regulation exemption’s other criteria. on comments and the addition of the Commenters also requested A. Pretreatment Standards for Existing pollution prevention alternative to the clarification on how the RCRA 90-day Sources (PSES) zero discharge standard for the final limit on the storage of hazardous wastes rule, EPA believes it is appropriate to 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and exempt phenol from the final PFPR (40 CFR 262.34) applies to rinsates Repackaging (Subcategory C) being stored for subsequent reuse in effluent guidelines and standards, and Under the final rule, EPA is accordance with the PFPR effluent to exclude 2-chlorophenol, 2,4- establishing a zero discharge guidelines. Generally, RCRA TSD dichlorophenol and 2,4-dimethylphenol pretreatment standard with a P2 permits (or interim status) are required from regulation in the final categorical Alternative which allows a discharge to for facilities that store hazardous waste pretreatment standards (PSES and POTWs. The zero discharge standard is on site. However, the RCRA regulations based on pollution prevention, recycle 9 In individual cases the requirement of allow facilities that generate hazardous and reuse practices and, when wastewater pretreatment prior to discharge to the waste to store the waste without a necessary, treatment (through the POTW may be removed for floor wash or the final permit or interim status provided that rinse of a non-reusable triple rinse by the control Universal Treatment System) for reuse. certain criteria, including a 90-day limit authority when the facility has demonstrated that The basis also includes some amount of the levels of PAIs and priority pollutants in such contract hauling for off-site incineration wastewaters are at a level that is too low to be 8 Section 402 of the Clean Water Act addresses effectively pretreated at the facility and have been the NPDES requirements, while Section 307(b) which may be necessary to achieve zero shown to neither pass through or interfere with the addresses the pretreatment standards. discharge. Compliance with the operations of the POTW. 57530 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

PSNS) because these three pollutants B. Best Practicable Control Technology EPA has estimated that there are no have been determined not to pass Currently Available (BPT) additional costs or pollutant removals associated with the BPT limitation for through POTWs. 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and the PFPR/Manufacturers, as these costs EPA has estimated the compliance Repackaging (Subcategory C) have already been absorbed by the cost for the industry to achieve the As discussed in Section III.D.3. of industry over the past 18 years as a pretreatment standards (PSES) today’s notice, EPA has amended and result of the 1978 BPT regulation. (See contained in the final rule at $29.9 clarified the BPT limitations for the Section IV.C.1. for a discussion on BAT million annually ($1995). The current PFPR/Manufacturers and established and the associated costs of compliance). PAI pollutant loading to POTWs is BPT limitations for the stand-alone EPA has not assigned any additional estimated at 192,789 pounds with PAI PFPR facilities (ie., PFPR facilities costs to the stand-alone PFPR facilities removals achieved by the final where no pesticide manufacturing as they are also currently achieving zero regulation estimated at 189,908 pounds occurs or where pesticide discharge. However, facilities may (assuming zero removals by POTWs manufacturing process wastewaters are choose to take advantage of the P2 currently—see Cost-Effectiveness not commingled with PFPR process Alternative in order to achieve a Analysis in Section V.D.6). This means wastewaters). In addition to clarifying decrease in cross-media impacts. that compliance with the final rule the use of ‘‘zero allowance’’ for zero Depending on the current means of would remove almost 99% of the discharge for PFPR/Manufacturers, EPA achieving zero discharge, a facility’s current pollutant loading. Due to the is providing both the PFPR/ costs may increase or decrease when toxic nature of the majority of PAIs, the Manufacturers and the stand-alone switching to the P2 Alternative. The equivalent toxic weighted pollutant PFPRs with the opportunity to use the costs may increase initially due to the P2 Alternative. removals are 7.6 million pound cost of installing a wastewater treatment Under the final rule, EPA is amending equivalents 10. system due to the associated capitol the 1978 BPT standard by establishing costs; however, EPA believes that over 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory a zero discharge limitation with a the long term, the annual costs for those E) compliance alternative which provides facilities which select the P2 Alternative for P2 allowable discharge to surface would be lower. EPA assumes that EPA is establishing pretreatment waters. EPA is also establishing a zero facilities will make the choice, to standards for existing refilling discharge limitation (without the use of continue to comply with zero discharge establishments at zero discharge of a ‘‘zero allowance’’ permitting or to move to the P2 Alternative based, pollutants in process wastewaters to mechanism) with a compliance in significant part, on economic POTWs. This standard is based on alternative for a P2 allowable discharge considerations. Therefore, EPA believes collection and storage of process for the stand-alone PFPR facilities. (See that if the costs associated with the P2 wastewaters followed by reuse of the Section III.D.3. for additional Alternative were significantly higher, wastewaters as make-up water for discussion.) the facility would not alter their current application to fields in accordance with The zero discharge limitation is based means of compliance. Accordingly, EPA on pollution prevention, recycle and the product label. Based on the PFPR has assumed no incremental costs as a reuse practices and, when necessary, 1988 questionnaire survey, 98 percent of result of the addition of the P2 treatment and reuse for those PAIs that the existing refilling establishments Alternative to BPT for stand-alone PFPR are formulated, packaged and/or facilities. achieve zero discharge. repackaged but are not also Only a small number of refilling manufactured at the facility. The basis 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory establishments are indirect dischargers also includes some amount of contract E) and EPA has estimated that they can hauling for off-site incineration. The existing BPT regulations did not comply with the final pretreatment Zero allowance is established for cover refilling establishments. As standards at nearly zero cost. EPA has PFPR/Manufacturers for those discussed in the proposal (59 FR 17870), estimated that only 19 facilities (of the pesticides that are formulated, packaged the practice of refilling minibulks did 1134) do not achieve zero discharge and and/or repackaged and manufactured at not begin until the late 1980’s, i.e., after they currently discharge to POTWs. EPA the facility. Zero allowance is based on the original BPT regulation was estimates a capital cost of only $500 pollution prevention, recycle and reuse promulgated in 1978. Based on the (i.e., the approximate cost of a minibulk practices and treatment and discharge PFPR survey, 98 percent of the existing tank to store water for reuse) for each through the manufacturer’s wastewater refilling establishments achieve zero the 19 facilities to meet the zero treatment system within the pesticide discharge. EPA proposed zero discharge manufacturing production-based of process wastewater pollutants as the discharge PSES standard. numeric limitations (i.e., giving no BPT limitations for refilling allowance for the PFPR wastewater or establishments. In the final regulation EPA is 10 its production). This is consistent with The toxic weighted pollutant removals (in establishing a BPT limitation for pound-equivalents) for the final rule are not directly how the existing 1978 BPT zero comparable to the toxic weighted pollutant discharge requirements have been existing refilling establishments at zero removals presented in the proposal or supplemental implemented by permit writers. discharge of pollutants in process notice. This is because: (1) The method used to The compliance alternative (P2 wastewaters to waters of the U.S. This convert acute toxicity values to chronic value was Alternative) is based on performing limitation is based on collection and revised from a 1:100 ratio to a 1:10 ratio and specific pollution prevention, recycle, storage of process wastewaters, reduces the toxic weighting factor for many PAIs; reuse and water conservation practices including rinsates from cleaning (2) the toxic weighting factor for the pyrethrins was (as listed in Table 8 to part 455 of the minibulk containers and their ancillary revised; and (3) EPA is using an average non-272 PAI toxic weighting factor based on values for 91 final rule) followed by a P2 allowable equipment; and wastewaters from non-272 PAIs instead of using the current loading- discharge which requires treatment of secondary containment and loading weighted average of the toxic weighting factors for all process wastewaters prior to direct pads. The collected process wastewater the 272 PAIs. discharge to surface waters. would be reused as make-up water for Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57531 application to fields in accordance with treatment in place is not accounted for, E. Pretreatment Standards for New the product label. Since greater the 98% the estimated compliance cost for the Sources (PSNS) of these facilities already achieve zero PFPR/Manufacturers to comply with 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and discharge and the remaining facilities BAT is $2.8 million ($1995) and is Repackaging (Subcategory C) discharge to POTWs, the costs estimated to remove greater than 99% of associated for BPT have been estimated the pollutants. This equals 50,248 lbs EPA is establishing PSNS standards to be nearly zero. (or 71.6 million lb-eq.11) of PAIs. Again, for this subcategory that are equivalent to the standards established for PSES C. Best Available Technology EPA believes this cost is economically achievable. (i.e., zero discharge with a compliance Economically Achievable (BAT) alternative for a P2 allowable discharge). 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory EPA believes that the standards Repackaging (Subcategory C) E) established for PSNS will not create a barrier to entry as they are equivalent to EPA has established BAT limitations EPA is establishing BAT limitations PSES which were found to be that are equivalent to the limitations for this subcategory that are equivalent economically achievable. established for BPT for PFPR/ to the limitations established for BPT. EPA did not propose to set PSNS (or Manufacturers and stand-alone PFPR Since BPT requires zero discharge of NSPS) equal to PSES (or BAT). facilities (see Section IV.B.1 for process wastewater pollutants and 98 Although the PSNS Zero/P2 Alternative discussion of BPT limitations). percent of the existing refilling standard discussed above is a change Under the proposal, existing direct establishments already achieve zero from the proposed PSNS, it is consistent discharge PFPR/Manufacturers were discharge, EPA believes the same with the Supplemental Notice and expected to treat (for reuse) their PFPR technology basis and discharge comments submitted. At proposal, PSES wastewaters in a separate treatment prohibition is appropriate and included a partial exemption for system from their pesticide economically achievable for BAT. manufacturing wastewater treatment exterior wastewater sources from small systems. EPA estimated the compliance D. New Source Performance Standards sanitizer facilities (see Section II.E of costs for these facilities by costing them (NSPS) today’s notice for a discussion of the for separate PFPR universal treatment proposed partial sanitizer exemption); 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and however, the proposed PSNS did not systems. Repackaging (Subcategory C) Under the final rule, existing direct include such an exemption and was discharging Subcategory C facilities will EPA has set the new source found not to create a barrier to entry for have a choice of either complying with performance standards for PFPR/ new facilities. The partial sanitizer a zero discharge limitation or the P2 Manufacturers and stand-alone PFPRs exemption no longer effects the Alternative (see Section III.D.3. for a the same as BPT and BAT. The new economic achievability of the standards discussion on amending and clarifying source standards are established as because in response to comments, BPT). However, the rule clarifies that in follows: sanitizer products are no longer included in the scope of the PFPR meeting the zero discharge limitation, EPA has established NSPS limitations permitting authorities may authorize the effluent guidelines. Based on the equivalent to the limitations that are addition of the P2 Alternative option to commingling of pesticide manufacturing established for BPT and BAT. Since and PFPR process wastewaters to meet these effluent guidelines and standards EPA found the Zero/P2 alternative to be and the associated estimated reductions the pertinent BAT limitations for economically achievable for existing pesticide manufacturers with a zero in cross-media impacts, EPA believes facilities under BPT and BAT on a that it is appropriate to give new allowance for PAIs in PFPR facility basis and since new facilities wastewaters. EPA has revised the cost facilities the opportunity to use the P2 will be able to choose between zero Alternative to meet PSNS. model to account for changes in the discharge and the P2 Alternative on a final rule due to updated analytical product family/process line/process 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory data, changes in scope and the addition unit basis, EPA believes that this NSPS E) of the P2 Alternative. However, EPA standard does not create a barrier to EPA is establishing PSNS standards believes that an overestimate of the entry. for this subcategory that are equivalent costs would result if EPA included costs to the limitations established for PSES for separate UTS systems when the 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory (i.e., zero discharge). In addition, BPT, facilities’ current controls, used for E) BAT and NSPS also require zero treating PFPR wastewaters (i.e., prior to discharge of process wastewater commingling with pesticide EPA is establishing NSPS standards pollutants, and 98 percent of the manufacturing wastewater) and/or for this subcategory that are equivalent existing refilling establishments already treating commingled wastewater (i.e., to the limitation established for BPT and achieve zero discharge; thus, EPA their pesticide manufacturing treatment BAT. Since BPT requires zero discharge believes an equivalent technology basis systems), already achieve the BAT of process wastewater pollutants and 98 is appropriate for PSNS and will not limitation of zero discharge or ‘‘zero percent of the existing refilling create a barrier to entry. allowance.’’ establishments already achieve zero Thus, EPA is not including these costs discharge, EPA believes an equivalent F. Best Conventional Pollutant Control and removals in the total industry technology basis is appropriate for Technology (BCT) estimate. However, EPA has made a NSPS and will not create a barrier to determination of economic achievability entry. 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and even if these costs would be incurred, Repackaging (Subcategory C) and is presenting the costs and pollutant 11 The large number of toxic weighted pound EPA has established BCT limitations equivalents is driven by a large PFPR production removals associated with the (17) direct value reported from a single PFPR/Manufacturer that are equivalent to the limitations discharging PFPR/Manufacturers for using coumaphos with a toxic weighting factor = established for BPT. This is because informational purposes. When current 5.6 x 103. BPT and BAT establish zero discharge 57532 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations with a compliance alternative for a P2 changes in the regulation since proposal additional non-272 PAIs. EPA estimates allowable discharge and BCT can be no that were the basis of a supplemental that 1,142 of these facilities would incur less stringent than BPT and no more notice issued in June 1995; and Section total annualized compliance costs of stringent that BAT. EPA believes there V.D. presents the economic analysis of $71.9 million in 1995 dollars 14 under are no additional costs associated with the final regulation, as delineated in the the proposed rule of zero discharge. these limitations. preceding sections of this preamble. The EIA for the proposed regulation used three primary impact measures: 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory B. Review of the Proposed Regulation • Severe impacts, which were defined E) The April 14, 1994 notice of proposed as facility closures; EPA is establishing BCT limitations rulemaking (59 FR 17850) included a • Moderate impacts or facility for this subcategory that are equivalent description of the anticipated economic impacts short of closure, which were to the limitations established for BPT. impacts of proposed effluent limitations defined as line conversions or Since BPT requires zero discharge of guidelines and standards for the PFPR incurrence of annualized compliance process wastewater pollutants and 98 industry. These economic impacts are costs exceeding five percent of facility percent of the existing refilling briefly reviewed below. (See Section revenue; and • establishments already achieve zero II.E. for a review of the proposed Employment losses, which, for the discharge, EPA believes an equivalent regulation.) impact analysis, were assumed to technology basis is appropriate for BCT. At proposal, BCT and BAT accompany facility closures and line requirements were proposed to be conversions (but not incurrence of V. Economic Considerations equivalent to the 1978 BPT annualized compliance costs exceeding A. Introduction requirements; therefore, no additional 5 percent of facility revenue). costs were expected for compliance Under the proposed PSES Promulgation of the final PFPR rule with the BCT and BAT limitations. requirements and using the updated requires that the discharge limitations Accordingly, the EIA focused on estimate for the number of non-272 PAI- be both technically and economically analyzing alternative PSES options for using facilities, EPA estimates that three achievable. This section of today’s the two industry subcategories. facilities would close as a result of notice reviews EPA’s analysis of the proposed regulation, while 327 facilities economic impacts of the regulation and 1. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ would incur moderate impacts. In presents EPA’s finding that the Manufacturers addition, under the proposed zero limitations are economically achievable. Since completion of the proposal EIA, discharge rule, EPA conservatively EPA’s detailed economic impact EPA has continued to review its estimates total job losses at facilities assessment can be found in the report information regarding the structure of incurring impacts at 890 full-time titled ‘‘Economic Analysis of Final the PFPR industry and has increased its employment positions. EPA judges the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and estimates of the numbers of facilities proposed regulation as economically Standards for the Pesticide Formulating, using only non-272 PAIs that would achievable using these updated impact Packaging, and Repackaging Industry’’ potentially be subject to the Subcategory values that are based on the higher (hereafter ‘‘final EA’’) [EPA–821–R–96– C regulation. As a result, EPA’s number of non-272 PAI-using facilities. 017]. The report estimates the economic estimates of the number of affected In addition to the facility impact effect on the industry of compliance facilities and the impacts and costs of analysis, EPA analyzed the cost- with the regulation in terms of facility the proposed regulation are higher than effectiveness of the proposed regulation closures (severe impacts), and those presented at proposal. For for Subcategory C facilities. Cost- conversions of production lines to example, at proposal, EPA estimated effectiveness is calculated as the ratio of alternate activities and/or compliance that Subcategory C included 1,479 the incremental annual costs in 1981 costs exceeding five percent of facility water-using facilities that were dollars to the incremental pounds- revenues (moderate impacts). The report potentially subject to regulation. Using equivalent of pollutants removed for also includes: Analysis of the effects of the newer population estimates, EPA each option. Using the updated the regulation on new pesticide now estimates that under the proposal estimates of costs and removals for the formulating, packaging, and repackaging a total of 2,018 water-using facilities proposed regulation, EPA estimates total facilities and a Regulatory Flexibility would have been potentially subject to pollutant removals of 505,235 pounds, Analysis detailing impacts on small regulation. The increase in this estimate or 38.9 million pounds-equivalent on a businesses and small entities. A comes entirely from the increased toxic weighted basis, and an average separate report, ‘‘Cost-Effectiveness estimate of the number of facilities cost-effectiveness value of $1.65 per Analysis of Final Effluent Limitations using only non-272 PAIs.12 The pound-equivalent.15 16 EPA considers Guidelines and Standards for the following discussion of the proposed the proposed option to be cost-effective. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Subcategory C regulation reflects these Repackaging Industry,’’ presents an updated estimates of the numbers of 14 The costs of regulatory compliance are all analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the facilities, costs, and impacts. reported in 1995 dollars. In the EIA and the Federal final regulation. All of these analyses For the re-estimated proposed rule, Register Notice for the regulation at proposal and EPA estimates that 2,018 Subcategory C, in the Supplemental Notice, regulatory compliance support the conclusion that the effluent were reported in 1988 dollars, the base year of the limitations guidelines and standards water-using facilities were potentially PFPR industry survey. All cost estimates, including contained in the final PFPR regulation subject to regulation. Of these 2,018 the proposal and the supplemental notice have been are economically achievable by the facilities, 943 used the 272 PAIs that brought forward to 1995. 15 The toxicity of the non-272 PAIs used in PFPR industry. EPA originally considered for 13 generating this cost-effectiveness value was The discussion of economic regulation and 1,075 used only the estimated as the average pre-compliance loading- achievability is organized in three weighted average toxicity of the 272 PAIs. sections, as follows. Section V.B. 12 Due to changes in scope for the final regulation, 16 At proposal, EPA reported an average cost- 1,411 water using facilities will be potentially effectiveness, or the cost-effectiveness value summarizes the economic findings for subject to the final regulation. calculated relative to the baseline of no regulation, the regulation as proposed in April 13 Many of these facilities also used non-272 PAIs and an incremental cost-effectiveness, or the cost- 1994. Section V.C. reviews certain in addition to the 272 PAIs. effectiveness relative to the next less stringent Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57533

For analysis of the final regulation, on which alternative would impose the for facilities that do not manufacture EPA revised the toxic weighting factors lower annualized costs on the facility. PAIs, but receive at least 25 percent of to reflect additional information on the For the Supplemental Notice, EPA their revenue from PFPR activities. toxicity of the PAIs. In general, the estimated total annualized compliance Facilities with relatively low reliance on revisions reduced the estimated toxicity costs for facilities covered under PSES PFPR activities as a source of revenue of the PAIs subject to regulation (see at $43.4 million, in 1995 dollars, or 40 (i.e., less than 25 percent of revenue) Section V.D.6, below, which contains percent less than the costs for the were excluded from this analysis the discussion of the cost-effectiveness proposed regulation. Under the Zero/P2 because EPA does not anticipate that analysis for the final regulation). Using Alternative option, no facilities were such facilities would close in entirety these revised toxic weighting factors assessed as closures as the result of the because of costs of regulatory and also taking into account the compliance requirements, while 208 compliance associated with PFPR updated estimates of costs and pollutant facilities were assessed as incurring activities. EPA also did not include removals for non-272 PAI-using moderate impacts.18 The comparable PFPR facilities from Subcategory E facilities, EPA estimates that the values for the regulation for the (refilling establishments) in this analysis proposed regulation would remove an proposal (re-estimated using the revised largely because of their relatively low estimated 23.2 million pounds- cost previously discussed) are 3 facility reliance on PFPR activities as a source equivalent, yielding a cost-effectiveness closures and 327 facilities with of revenue (an average of 15 percent). • value of $2.77 per pound-equivalent moderate impacts. Moderate Impacts. Moderate ($1981). impacts were defined as a financial D. Assessment of Costs and Impacts for impact short of entire facility closure 2. Subcategory E: Refilling the Final PFPR Regulations and were analyzed in two ways. First, Establishments This section describes the impact PFPR facilities subject to the At proposal, an estimated 1,134 measures used in the Economic Subcategory C regulation and with less refilling establishments (Subcategory E Analysis, the estimated impacts than 25 percent of revenue from PFPR PFPR facilities) were potentially subject associated with the final rule, impacts activities were assessed for line to regulation. EPA estimates that 98 on new sources, and the cost- conversions by comparing the after-tax percent of these facilities, were already effectiveness analysis. As discussed return on assets (ROA) from PFPR in compliance with the proposed below, EPA is promulgating the activities after regulation with the ROA Subcategory E limitations and regulation for Subcategory E facilities as estimated to be achievable in an pretreatment standards. All but 19 of the presented at proposal with storm water alternative line of business. Facilities for 1,134 existing facilities were expected to now exempted, but the analysis of costs which the post-compliance ROA for incur no costs to comply with the and impacts for the Subcategory E PFPR activities was found to be less proposed option. The remaining 19 regulation remain the same as presented than the return achievable in an facilities were expected to achieve at proposal. Accordingly, the following alternative line of business were compliance with no significant discussion focuses on the Pretreatment assumed to switch out of PFPR additional cost17 (See Section VI.B.2). Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) operations. Second, all Subcategory C No economic impacts were estimated to regulation for Subcategory C facilities. and E facilities, regardless of PFPR occur due to compliance with the revenue reliance, were assessed for the 1. Summary of Economic Analysis proposed rule. incurrence of total annualized Methodology and Data compliance costs exceeding five percent C. Changes to the EIA Since Proposal: The data sources and methodology for of facility revenue. • Issuance of the June 1995 Supplemental analyzing economic impacts remain the Employment losses. Possible Notice same as used at proposal and for the employment losses were assessed for In response to public comments on Supplemental Notice. For a more facilities estimated to close as a result of the regulation, EPA issued a detailed discussion of the methodology regulation and for facilities estimated to Supplemental Notice (60 FR 30217) on used in the economic impact analysis, convert PFPR lines to an alternative June 8, 1995 that solicited comment on see the preamble for the PFPR business activity. EPA believes that the proposed changes in the scope of the regulation at proposal (59 FR 17850), estimates of employment loss resulting PFPR regulation for Subcategory C the proposal EIA report and final EA from this analysis are highly facilities and on the Zero/P2 report. conservative because of the assumption Alternative. In addition, EPA revised The economic impact analysis that line conversions would result in loss of employment for a facility’s PFPR- the cost estimating methodology and measures three types of primary related employment. More realistically, economic impact estimates. impacts: severe impacts (facility EPA expects that line conversions will As discussed in Section III.B.4. of closures), moderate impacts (facility not generally lead to full loss of PFPR- today’s notice, EPA estimated impacts short of closure), and job losses. Each impact analysis measure is related employment. compliance costs for each facility to As in the economic impact analysis reviewed briefly below. comply with the Zero/P2 Alternative for the proposed PFPR regulation, these option. Each facility was assumed to • Severe Impacts. Severe impacts, defined as facility closures, were analyses for the final regulation assume choose either zero discharge or the P2 that PFPR facilities would not be able to assessed on the finding that the Alternative for compliance, depending pass the costs of compliance on to their regulation would be expected to cause customers through price increases. regulatory option considered. However, the a facility to incur, on average, negative Analysis of pesticide product markets incremental calculation and the comparison are no after-tax cash flow over the three-year and the likely response of pesticide longer relevant as the alternative options at period of analysis. This analysis was proposal are no longer under consideration. For this product customers to price increases (as performed for PFPR/Manufacturers and reason, in the current discussion, EPA is reporting discussed in the proposal EIA), only the cost-effectiveness value calculated relative to the baseline of no regulation. 18 The cost and impact values for the indicates that a substantial number of 17 A capital investment of approximately $500 Supplemental Notice regulation reflect updating of facilities should recover some part of was estimated for each of these facilities. the estimates of non-272 PAI-using facilities. their compliance costs through price 57534 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations increases. Thus, the analyses of EPA believes this methodology provides proposed regulation. The following compliance cost and impacts overstate a realistic appraisal of the costs and discussion will show that the costs and the severity of the regulation’s financial impacts of the final regulation as it impacts for the final regulation are burden on the PFPR industry. embodies the compliance decision that substantially less than the updated EPA extrapolated information on facility management is expected to face estimates for the proposed regulation. compliance costs, pollutant loadings, in deciding whether to comply by zero Although this discussion will not and the frequency of facility-level discharge or by pollution prevention in include comparisons with the values for compliance impacts from data on combination with treatment followed by the proposed regulation as originally facilities in the original PFPR industry discharge. In addition, because EPA’s published, EPA points out that the costs survey to analyze the technical and analysis considers both capital and and impacts for the final regulation are economic impacts of regulating the operating costs, EPA believes that the also markedly less than the original additional non-272 PAIs.19 In the findings from the compliance decision estimates of costs and impacts for the following discussion, EPA has not analysis will reasonably approximate proposed regulation. separated the estimated costs or impacts facility managements’ findings Of the 2,018 water-using Subcategory according to which set of PAIs facilities regarding choice of the less financially C facilities re-estimated to be subject to are estimated to use. Additional details burdensome compliance approach. In the regulation at proposal, EPA of the analysis of costs and impacts for addition, under the final rule, facilities estimates that 506 facilities, or 25 the facilities using the different sets of will be able to make the choice between percent, including baseline failures, will PAIs may be found in the final EA. zero discharge and the P2 Alternative on incur costs in complying with the final Although the impact analysis a product family/process line/process Subcategory C PSES regulation. Total methodology for the final regulation is unit basis, which will give them even annualized compliance costs for these unchanged from proposal (see the more flexibility in their compliance facilities are estimated at $29.9 million, Proposal EIA), its application has been choice. in 1995 dollars (see Table 1, below). changed for analyzing the Zero/P2 2. Estimated Facility Economic Impacts Excluding baseline closures from the Alternative. This regulatory option was cost analysis reduces the number of analyzed for each sample facility as part a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ facilities expected to incur costs to 421 of two separate compliance approaches: Manufacturers facilities and total annual costs to $24.2 (1) Zero discharge and (2) pollution The costs and impacts for the final million, in 1995 dollars. In estimating prevention in combination with the costs of the final regulation, treatment followed by discharge (see regulation applicable to PSES Subcategory C facilities are discussed in facilities were assigned to the Section IV.A.1). Facilities were assumed compliance option—zero discharge or to adopt the compliance approach with this section and are compared with the values estimated for the proposed and the pollution prevention alternative— the lower total annualized compliance with the lower total annualized cost including both annual operating supplemental notice regulations. In addition, the cost and impacts for the compliance cost. From this analysis, 69 and maintenance costs and an annual percent of the cost-incurring facilities allowance for capital outlays. Although final regulation are compared with those that EPA estimates would occur if (including baseline failures) were most facilities were estimated to achieve expected to select the P2 Alternative compliance by pollution prevention and facilities were not provided the flexibility to choose the preferred with the remaining 31 percent selecting treatment, some were estimated to zero discharge. comply by zero discharge. Thus, the compliance approach from the zero No facilities are projected to close combination of the analyses for the two discharge and pollution prevention under the final regulation. A total of 150 separate compliance approaches yields allowable discharge alternatives. These possible line conversions (a moderate the aggregate analysis for the final comparisons show that the final impact) are estimated. EPA does not regulation for Subcategory C facilities. regulation provides a more economical and less financially burdensome generally expect that line conversions 19 Although the PFPR industry survey focused on approach to achieving desired discharge will result in employment losses. facilities using the original 272 PAIs, some of these reductions than the proposed, and However, to be conservative in its facilities were also found to use one or more of the otherwise previously noticed, analysis, EPA estimated the maximum additional non-272 PAIs in their PFPR activities. requirements considered. potential employment loss associated During site visits, EPA also observed PFPR operations at several facilities that process both The following comparisons with the with the regulation by assuming that all original 272 and non-272 PAIs. Thus, the set of proposed regulation are relative to the PFPR employment would be lost in facilities used for extrapolating financial and cost and impact values based on the facilities with line conversions. From technical information to facilities using the non-272 new estimates of the number of facilities this assumption, the upper bound PAI chemicals and the impacts of bringing these additional PAIs under regulation also includes using only non-272 PAIs. As noted employment loss for the final regulation information on facilities that use these non-272 previously, these revisions increased the is estimated at 458 full-time PAIs. costs and impacts estimated for the employment positions (FTEs). Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57535

TABLE 1.ÐESTIMATED COSTS AND IMPACTS OF THE FINAL, PROPOSED AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE PSES REGULATION FOR SUBCATEGORY C FACILITIES

Total Number of fa- annualized Severe Moderate Maximum po- cilities incur- compliance impacts impacts * tential employ- ring costs cost ($1995, ² ment loss ²² millions)

Proposed Regulation ...... 1,142 $71.9 3 327 890 Supplemental Notice ...... 709 43.4 0 208 634 Final RegulationÐCosts Including Baseline Closures ...... 506 29.9 0 150 458 Final RegulationÐCosts Excluding Baseline Closures ...... 421 24.2 ² Severe impacts are defined as facility closures. All facility employment is assumed to be lost as the result of a facility closure. * Moderate impacts are defined as line conversions and/or total annual compliance costs exceeding 5 percent of total facility revenue. EPA does not expect that employment losses would generally accompany line conversions; however, for this analysis, EPA assessed the maximum potential loss based on the assumption that all employment associated with PFPR activities would be lost as a result of a line conversion. ²² Employment loss for the proposed regulation includes the estimated employment loss in facility closures and the worst case estimate of em- ployment loss in facilities with line conversions. The reported employment loss for the Supplemental Notice and Final Regulation reflects no facil- ity closures and includes only the worst case employment loss in facilities with line conversions.

In addition to presenting the regulation achieves substantial facility revenue), and a worst-case estimated costs and impacts for the final pollution reductions but at substantially employment loss of 458 FTEs. In regulation, Table 1 also presents the lower costs and economic impacts than addition, the final regulation provides comparable values for the proposal (re- would occur if the regulation allowed industry with considerable latitude in estimated) and the supplemental notice. compliance by only one of the possible deciding how to comply with the As shown in the table, the expected approaches.21 Moreover, EPA notes that, regulation—that is, by zero discharge or burden of the regulation has fallen by encouraging consideration and use of pollution prevention and treatment. In considerably from proposal through pollution prevention as a compliance this regard, EPA’s analyses of the supplemental notice to the final approach, the final regulation will selected compliance approach may regulation. From proposal (re-estimated) reduce the potential for cross-media overstate compliance costs because the to final, the number of Subcategory C impacts that would occur under a strict analyses assume application of one facilities expected to incur costs has zero discharge requirement. The approach throughout the facility instead fallen from 1,142 to 506 facilities, or 56 regulation achieves these benefits with of a more customized choice of percent 20. This can be attributed to the only a very modest reduction in the compliance approach by PFPR line. reduction in scope of certain PAIs and expected pollutant removals that would Also, EPA estimates that a relatively wastewater sources as well as to the be achieved under a zero discharge small fraction—25 percent—of the addition of the P2 Alternative as a regulation. Specifically, EPA estimates facilities potentially subject to the compliance option to zero discharge. that the final regulation will remove proposed regulation are likely to incur The estimated drop in total annual 189,908 pounds or 98.5 percent, of the costs in complying with the final compliance cost, from $71.9 million to estimated 192,789 pounds of pollutant regulation. That such a small fraction of $29.9 million ($1995), represents an discharges subject to control by the final the industry is expected to incur costs even greater reduction from proposal, at regulation (assuming zero removals by reflects in large part EPA’s decision to 58 percent. As noted above, no severe POTWs currently—see Cost- exclude additional PAIs and impacts are assessed for the final Effectiveness Analysis in Section V.D.6). wastestreams from coverage under the regulation while 3 facility closures were EPA estimates that only 2,881 pounds, final regulation. Finally, EPA notes that estimated for the proposed regulation. or about 1.5 percent of the pollutant the aggregate costs and impacts Finally, the number of moderate loadings subject to the final regulation estimated for the final regulation are impacts and potential employment will continue to be discharged to substantially less than those estimated losses are also substantially reduced POTWs. for the proposed regulation, both as analyzed for the original proposal and from proposal, falling by 54 percent and Finding of Economic Achievability 49 percent, respectively. In summary, as analyzed on the basis of the higher The final regulation achieves under the final regulation, the number estimate of non-272 PAI-using facilities. substantial reductions in harmful of facilities estimated to incur costs, the In light of these very modest impacts pollutant discharges at very modest expected cost, and the facility impacts estimated for the final regulation, EPA economic burden to the PFPR industry. are considerably less than estimated for finds that the final PSES regulation for Under a conservative assumption that the proposed regulation. Subcategory C facilities is economically EPA also believes that the final facilities will recover none of their achievable. regulation is superior to the other compliance costs through price increases, the regulation is estimated to b. Subcategory E: Refilling options considered because of the Establishments flexibility it provides to facilities in impose no severe impacts (i.e., facility deciding how to achieve compliance. In closures), 150 moderate impacts (i.e., The regulatory approach and costing particular, by allowing facilities to line conversion or annualized methodology for Subcategory E facilities choose the less expensive compliance compliance cost exceeding 5 percent of is unchanged from that presented at approach—the pollution prevention proposal with the exception that storm 21 alternative or zero discharge—the EPA has worded the final regulation to allow water is no longer considered a process facilities to make the choice between zero discharge wastewater subject to this regulation. and the pollution prevention alternative on a 20 All comparisons with the proposed regulation product family/process unit/process line basis (as The analysis of costs, loadings, and and supplemental notice are based on the analyses opposed to a full facility basis). However, EPA economic methodology at proposal including baseline closures. could not estimate costs on this basis. stands as previously presented. 57536 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

EPA is establishing BPT and BAT will be able to comply at costs that are removal. The increments are considered regulations for Subcategory E facilities similar to or less than the costs for relative to another option or to a set to zero discharge (equivalent to existing sources, because new sources benchmark, such as existing treatment. PSES). EPA’s survey of the PFPR can apply control technologies and P2 In cost-effectiveness analysis, pollutant industry indicated that no Subcategory practices (including dedicated lines and removals are measured in toxicity E facilities are direct dischargers. pressurized hoses for equipment normalized units called ‘‘pounds- Accordingly, EPA estimates that the cleaning) more efficiently than sources equivalent.’’ The cost-effectiveness Subcategory E portion of the PFPR that need to retrofit for those value, therefore, represents the unit cost industry will incur no costs for technologies and P2 practices. As a of removing an additional pound- complying with the BPT or BAT result, given EPA’s finding of economic equivalent (lb eq.) of pollutants. In requirements. achievability for the final PSES general, the lower the cost-effectiveness regulation for Subcategory C facilities, value, the more cost-efficient the 4. Regulatory Effects Not Re-Estimated EPA also finds that the PSNS regulation regulation will be in removing Because the aggregate compliance will be economically achievable and pollutants, taking into account their costs and facility impacts estimated will not constitute a barrier to entry for toxicity. While not required by the under the final regulation are new sources. Clean Water Act, cost-effectiveness substantially less than those estimated analysis is a useful tool for evaluating (2) NSPS for the regulation as presented at regulatory options for the removal of proposal, EPA did not re-evaluate the EPA has established NSPS limitations toxic pollutants. Cost-effectiveness following economic measures for the equivalent to the limitations that are analysis does not analyze the removal of final regulation: community impacts, established for BPT and BAT. BPT and conventional pollutants (e.g., oil and foreign trade effects, impacts on firms BAT limitations allow facilities to use grease, bio-chemical oxygen demand, owning PFPR facilities, the direct the Zero/P2 Alternative and were found and total suspended solids). economic benefits to facilities of to be economically achievable; For the cost-effectiveness analysis, the pollution prevention practices, and the therefore, NSPS limitations will not estimated pounds-equivalent of labor requirements. The analysis of present a barrier to entry for new pollutants removed were calculated by these additional impact categories facilities. multiplying the number of pounds of depends on the estimated aggregate each pollutant removed by the toxic b. Subcategory E: Refilling costs for the regulation and on the weighting factor for each pollutant. The Establishments results of the facility impact analysis. more toxic the pollutant, the higher will With the final regulation estimated to EPA is setting NSPS/PSNS for be the pollutant’s toxic weighting factor; impose aggregate compliance costs that Subcategory E facilities equal to BAT/ accordingly, the use of pounds- are 56 percent less than originally PSES limitations for existing sources. equivalent gives correspondingly more estimated for the proposed regulation EPA estimates that compliance with weight to pollutants with higher and to cause no facility closures BAT/PSES will impose no costs on toxicity. Thus, for a given expenditure (compared to the 2 closures originally existing facilities. Likewise, new and pounds of pollutants removed, the estimated at proposal), EPA concluded facilities are not expected to incur cost per pound-equivalent removed that the analysis for these additional additional annual costs due to the would be lower when more highly toxic impact categories under the final regulation. Because EPA found pollutants are removed than if regulation would find less compliance with the final regulation to pollutants of lesser toxicity are consequential effects than had been be economically achievable for existing removed. Annual costs for all cost- originally estimated at proposal. facilities, EPA determined that effectiveness analyses are reported in Because EPA had judged the slight compliance with NSPS/PSNS will also 1981 dollars so that comparisons of impacts estimated at proposal for the be economically achievable and not a cost-effectiveness may be made with additional impact categories to be barrier to entry for new sources. regulations for other industries that were issued at different times. consistent with an economically 6. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis achievable regulation, EPA, therefore, EPA also performed a cost- a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ concluded that the impacts under the Manufacturers final regulation for these additional effectiveness analysis of the final PSES impact categories would also be found regulation for Subcategory C facilities. Table 2 provides estimates of the total consistent with an economically (A more detailed discussion can be annualized compliance costs, in 1981 achievable regulation. As a result, EPA found in the final Cost-Effectiveness dollars, the total pollutant removals in decided not to expend the resources that Analysis (September 1996) [EPA–821– pounds and pounds-equivalent, and the would be necessary to re-estimate and R–96–018]. The cost-effectiveness cost-effectiveness of the final PSES re-document the lower impact levels for analysis compares the total annualized regulation for Subcategory C facilities these additional impact categories. cost incurred for a regulatory option to with estimates of various POTW the corresponding effectiveness of that removals. EPA has estimated the 5. Impacts of Pretreatment Standards for option in reducing the discharge of pollutant removals and the cost- New Sources (PSNS) and New Source pollutants. effectiveness value for the final rule Performance Standards (NSPS) Cost-effectiveness calculations are using the same methodology as used in a. Subcategory C: PFPR and PFPR/ used during the development of effluent the proposed rule and supplemental Manufacturers limitations guidelines and standards to notice (and the Pesticide Manufacturing compare the efficiency of one regulatory effluent guideline). This methodology (1) PSNS option in removing pollutants to assumes that all PAIs pass through the EPA is setting PSNS (Pretreatment another regulatory option. Cost- POTW (i.e., no removal by the POTW), Standards for New Sources) for effectiveness is defined as the as there is little field data on the Subcategory C facilities equal to PSES incremental annual cost of a pollution effectiveness of POTWs removing PAIs. limitations for existing sources. In control option in an industry However, EPA has developed general, EPA believes that new sources subcategory per incremental pollutant laboratory estimates for the percent Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57537 removals of a large number of pollutants pollutants indicates that POTWs may to be between 18,991 and 189,908 (including some PAIs) which were achieve or even exceed the acclimated pounds of pollutants, or 760,000 to 7.6 published in the Domestic Sewage removal estimates in practice. Thus it is million toxic pounds-equivalent with Study (DSS), February 1986 [EPA/530– not clear whether the acclimated or cost-effectiveness ranging from $2.74 to SW–86–004]. For each pollutant unacclimated estimates more accurately $27.35 per pound-equivalent when studied, two estimates were developed, represent the removal percentages compliance costs are held constant at an ‘‘acclimated’’ removal percentage, achieved in practice for PAIs. EPA has $20.9 million 22 in 1981 dollars. EPA which might be achieved by a well-run thus developed a range of cost- considers even the high end of this treatment facility with a constant flow effectiveness and total removals using range to be cost effective. In order to be rate of the pollutant in question, and an three different assumptions about the consistent with the proposed rule and removal efficiency of POTWs: zero ‘‘unacclimated’’ removal percentage, supplemental notice (and because of the removals (this most conservative adjusted to account for the slug loadings estimate is included because of the lack lack of actual POTW removal data for and batch discharges which POTWs of actual data), unacclimated removals PAIs), EPA is presenting the cost- experience in everyday operation. While (which range from 30% to 90% and effectiveness and total removals for the the unacclimated removals were average 48%), and acclimated removals final rule as $2.74 per pound-equivalent intended to more accurately reflect real (which range from 80% to 95%). and 189,908 pounds or 7.6 million world operating conditions, a limited Using this range of POTW removals, pounds-equivalent, respectively. amount of test data on non-PAI EPA has estimated the range of removal

TABLE 2.ÐNATIONAL ESTIMATES OF TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS, REMOVALS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES FOR SUBCATEGORY C PSES FACILITIES UNDER THE FINAL REGULATION

Total annualized Pollutant Pollutant removals, Cost-effective- POTW removal assumption used compliance removals, (pounds-equiva- ness costs (millions pounds lent) ($/lb.-eq.) of $, 1981)

No POTW Removals ...... $20.9 189,908 7.6 million ...... $2.74 POTW Removals per DSS ...... 20.9 165,460 5.8 million ...... 3.60 90 Percent Removal Efficiency ...... 20.9 18,991 760,000 ...... 27.35 Notes: 1. Includes estimated baseline failures. 2. Toxic weighting factors used in the analyses reflect more recent toxicological information and are generally lower than the factors used at proposal and supplemental.

EPA has also estimated the removals, comparable to the values presented in reflect more recent toxicological data annual compliance cost, and cost- the previous Federal Register notices and, in general, are lower than the effectiveness excluding baseline for the proposed regulation and the values used for the proposal and closures (when zero removal at POTWs supplemental notice for two reasons. supplemental notice analyses. To is assumed). Excluding estimated First, the scope of the regulation has provide a consistent comparison of the baseline failures lowers the costs and changed with fewer PAIs and waste proposed, supplemental, and final removals to $17.1 million ($1981) and streams covered under the final regulations, EPA re-calculated the toxic- 156,592 pounds (5.8 million pounds- regulation. As a result, the baseline weighted baseline discharges, pollutant equivalent). The cost-effectiveness value pollutant discharges and pollutant removals, and cost-effectiveness values excluding baseline failures is $2.93 per removals estimated for the final for the proposed and supplemental pound-equivalent, which EPA considers regulation are lower than the values notice regulations using the more recent to be cost-effective. estimated for the proposed regulation. toxic weighting factors (see Table 3).23 The cost-effectiveness value Second, the toxic weighting factors The calculations for the final regulation (assuming no POTW removal) for the (TWFs) used by EPA for calculating the also embody the changes in regulatory final regulation is not directly cost-effectiveness of the final regulation scope.

TABLE 3.ÐESTIMATED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FINAL PSES REGULATION FOR SUBCATEGORY C FACILITIES COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REGULATIONS [All toxic-weighted values based on toxic weighting factors developed for the Final Regulation]

Proposed regulation: Supplemental notice: Zero discharge with Zero discharge/pollu- Final regulation: Zero sanitizer exemption tion prevention alter- discharge/pollution (Option 3/S.1) native prevention alternative

Total Annualized Cost, $1981 ...... $64.1 million ...... $32.7 million ...... $20.9 million. Pollutant Discharges Subject to Regulation, pounds ...... 505,235 ...... 337,995 ...... 192,789. Pollutant Loadings Subject to Regulation, pounds-equivalent ...... 23.2 million ...... 15.4 million ...... 7.7 million. Pollutant Removals, pounds ...... 503,114 ...... 333,731 ...... 189,908.

22 EPA believes that if POTWs are removing PAIs, associated with the treatment system used to 23 The re-calculated cost-effectiveness values for the cost of compliance of the industry would be pretreat PFPR wastewaters prior to discharge to the the proposed regulation also reflect the updated lower than $20.9 million ($1981) due to the POTW. estimates of the number of facilities using non-272 reduction in operating and maintenance costs PAIs. 57538 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 3.ÐESTIMATED COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FINAL PSES REGULATION FOR SUBCATEGORY C FACILITIES COMPARED WITH THE PROPOSED AND SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE REGULATIONSÐContinued [All toxic-weighted values based on toxic weighting factors developed for the Final Regulation]

Proposed regulation: Supplemental notice: Zero discharge with Zero discharge/pollu- Final regulation: Zero sanitizer exemption tion prevention alter- discharge/pollution (Option 3/S.1) native prevention alternative

Pollutant Removals, pounds-equivalent ...... 23.2 million ...... 15.3 million ...... 7.6 million. Cost-Effectiveness³ ...... $2.77/lb-eq ...... $2.14/lb-eq ...... $2.74/lb-eq. AAA³Cost-effectiveness analysis is conventionally calculated on an incremental basis: that is, the costs and removals of a given option are calculated as the differences from the values for the next less stringent option. At proposal, the cost-effectiveness of Option 3/S.1 was calculated on an incremental basis relative to the next less stringent option, Option 3/S. However, the cost-effectiveness values for the supplemental notice and final regulations are relative to a next less stringent option of no regulation. To permit consistent comparison of the three regulations, the cost-effectiveness of the proposed regulation has been restated relative to a no-regulation baseline.

The effect of the regulation’s reduced small businesses and small local regulation. Because of the high toxicity scope is seen by the reductions in governments. of many of the PAIs, the processing of pollutant loadings subject to regulation Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, even very small quantities of such PAIs in pounds and pounds-equivalent (see an agency is not required to prepare a can result in pollutant discharges of Table 3, lines 2 and 3). These results regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule substantial toxicity. In addition, small show the pollutant loadings subject to that the agency head certifies will not business size does not necessarily the rule at proposal to be 505,235 have a significant economic impact on equate with small pesticide production pounds, and on a toxic-weighted basis, a substantial number of small entities. volume, particularly in terms of toxicity. 23.2 million pounds-equivalent; under While the Administrator has so certified Some small-business PFPR facilities the final regulation, the pollutant today’s rule, the Agency nonetheless process a substantial volume of PAIs loadings within the scope of the prepared a regulatory flexibility and have the potential to discharge regulation fall to 192,789 pounds and assessment equivalent to that required substantial volumes of toxic pollutants 7.7 million pounds-equivalent on a by the Regulatory Flexibility Act as unless discharges are limited by the toxic-weighted basis. The cost- modified by the Small Business PFPR regulation. (see the Comment effectiveness values of the regulations Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of Response Documents in the rulemaking using the current set of weighting 1996. The assessment for this rule is record for more information on these factors are: $2.77 per pound-equivalent detailed in the ‘‘Economic Analysis of comments and EPA’s response to them.) for the proposed regulation, $2.14 per Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines Taking into account commenters’’ pound-equivalent for the supplemental and Standards for the Pesticide concerns regarding possible impacts on notice, and $2.74 per pound-equivalent Formulating, Packaging, and small entities, EPA introduced the Zero/ for the final regulation. The cost- Repackaging Industry’’ [EPA–821–R– P2 Alternative Option and made effectiveness value for the final 96–017]. numerous changes to the rule designed regulation is low in relation to the EPA received many comments to reduce the burden upon all PFPR values calculated for other effluent regarding the rule (see Section 15.6 of facilities, particularly small business limitations guidelines and standards the technical record and Section IV in entities. As previously discussed, the recently promulgated by EPA. the economic record for the final rule expands the sanitizer rulemaking). A number of commenters exemption to exempt additional lower b. Subcategory E: Refilling raised issues concerning small business toxicity PAIs from regulatory coverage Establishments impacts and the need to reduce the and gives facilities a Zero/P2 regulation’s burden on small businesses. compliance choice on a line by line or Estimates of compliance costs and Specifically, as a way of reducing process by process basis. pollutant removals associated with possible adverse impacts on smaller The factual analysis and basis for the Subcategory E facilities have not businesses, some commenters requested ‘‘no significant impact’’ certification is changed since the proposed regulation. that EPA broaden its exemption from contained in Chapter 4 of the final EA EPA believes that the final regulation the regulation to include all small report referenced previously and is can be implemented at a minimal cost businesses. In addition, some summarized below. (i.e., a capital investment of commenters argued that EPA did not approximately $500 for a mini-bulk tank need to regulate the discharges of small 1. Analysis of Impacts on Small to store water for reuse) at the 19 PFPR businesses because the pollutant Business Entities facilities not currently in compliance. discharges of such facilities were not To gauge the impact of the final Therefore, EPA determines the final likely to have a consequential regulation on small business, EPA regulation to be cost-effective for environmental impact. analyzed the impact of the final Subcategory E facilities. EPA disagrees with this claim and regulation on Subcategory C facilities E. Regulatory Flexibility Act believes it is inappropriate to set small- according to the business size of the business and/or small-production owning firms and compared the Pursuant to section 605(b) of the exemptions for all small businesses and/ findings for the final regulation with Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. or production volumes because of the those for the proposed regulation. Given 605(b), the Administrator certifies that substantial toxicity of many of the PAIs. the large presence of small business- this rule will not have a significant The size of the business and/or the owned entities in the PFPR industry, economic impact on a substantial volume of PAIs processed annually are EPA exercised substantial care at number of small entities. EPA analyzed not a sufficient basis for determining proposal and throughout development the potential impact of the rule on both that a facility should be exempted from of the final regulation, to ensure that the Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57539 final regulation would not impose a 2. Analysis of Impacts on Other Small substantial number of small entity significant impact on a substantial Entities POTWs. number of small business-owned In addition to considering the impact In addition to the analysis required by facilities. This effort results in the of the final regulation on small the Regulatory Flexibility Act, EPA also modest incurrence of both costs and business-owned facilities, EPA also considered the regulation’s effect on impacts by small business entities under considered the regulation’s likely effects small communities in which PFPR the final regulation. on two other categories of small entities facilities might be located. Specifically, that will be affected by the regulation: in the community impact analysis EPA estimates that 1,513 (75.0 performed for the proposed PFPR percent) of the 2,018 PFPR facilities (1) Publicly Owned Treatment Works operated by small governments, which regulation, EPA examined the impact of potentially subject to a Subcategory C possible employment losses, including may be responsible for implementing PSES regulation are owned by small multiplier effects, in communities in the regulation at the local level; and (2) entities. Of the 506 facilities estimated which PFPR facilities with moderate or small communities, which may contain to potentially incur compliance costs severe impacts were located. Using the businesses that are adversely affected by under the final rule (including baseline criterion that an estimated aggregate the regulation. EPA concluded that the employment loss exceeding one percent failures), 357 (70.6 percent) are final regulation would not impose of community employment is estimated to be owned by small entities. significant impacts on either of these significant, EPA found no significant Excluding projected baseline failures, additional small entity categories. community employment impacts for the 421 facilities are expected to incur costs, In the course of developing the final proposed regulation as originally of which 274, or 65.1 percent are small regulation, EPA solicited comments on analyzed. At the same time, the final business-owned facilities. regulatory implementation issues from regulation is estimated to have over 76 POTWs that had been identified No small business-owned facilities are substantially fewer facility and as receiving PFPR facility discharges. estimated to close as a result of employment impacts than those Fifteen of these are POTWs are regulation. Less than 10 percent of small estimated for the original proposed considered small—that is, POTWs that business-owned facilities (137 facilities) regulation. Given that no significant are located in smaller jurisdictions (less are estimated to incur a moderate community impacts were found among than 50,000 population) or that are impact ‘‘ that is, a line conversion or any communities for the original annualized compliance cost exceeding 5 small POTWs on the basis of daily proposed regulation—regardless of percent of facility revenue. The average treatment volume (less than or equal to community size—5and that the final 1 million gallons per day). Comments compliance cost burden among small regulation’s impacts are expected to be were requested on such matters as the business-owned facilities is also small substantially less than those of the burden of implementing the pollution proposed regulation, the final regulation in relation to facility revenue: on prevention/treatment alternative average, annualized compliance costs will not impose a significant burden on element of the regulation. Although small communities. amount to 2.7 percent of facility revenue small entity POTWs were afforded the for small business-owned facilities. opportunity to comment on the VI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Finally, the number of small business- implementation requirements of the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates facilities incurring costs, and the proposed regulation, none chose to do Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L. numbers of small business-facilities so. However, in response to the request 104–4 establishes requirements for incurring severe or moderate impacts for comment on the supplemental Federal agencies to assess the effects of are substantially less than estimated for notice, EPA received responses from their regulatory actions on State, local, the proposed regulation. For the eight POTWs. Several of these and tribal governments and the private proposed regulation (re-estimated), 859 comments indicated that POTWs might sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, small business-facilities were estimated face modestly higher burdens from EPA generally must prepare a written to incur costs, 3 facilities were assessed administering a regulation with the statement, including a cost-benefit as potential closures (severe impacts), compliance flexibility offered by the P2 analysis, for proposed and final rules and 275 facilities were assessed as Alternative than from administering a with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may moderate impacts; the comparable regulation strictly based on zero result in expenditures to State, local, discharge. However, none indicated that values for the final regulation are 357 and tribal governments, in the aggregate, such a regulation would be expected to small-business facilities incurring costs, or to the private sector, of $100 million impose a significant additional burden or more in any one year. Before zero severe impacts, and 137 moderate beyond the requirements that POTWs promulgating an EPA rule for which a impacts. The substantial reduction in already face in administering permits written statement is needed, Section 205 impacts among small business-owned and compliance programs for industrial of the UMRA generally requires EPA to facilities from proposed to final facilities. In addition, POTWs also identify and consider a reasonable regulation reflects EPA’s efforts to indicated that the modest additional number of regulatory alternatives and moderate the burden of the regulation burden seemed reasonable given the adopt the least costly, most cost- by introducing a new option which regulation’s expected discharge effective or least burdensome alternative gives facilities the two compliance reductions and its innovative structure, that achieves the objectives of the rule. alternatives, by reducing the PAIs and which gives facilities greater flexibility The provisions of Section 205 do not wastestreams subject to the regulation, in designing a compliance approach and apply when they are inconsistent with and by providing facilities with greater which encourages use of pollution applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 flexibility in deciding how to achieve prevention as a compliance method. In allows EPA to adopt an alternative other regulatory compliance. In light of these view of these responses and given the than the least costly, most cost-effective findings, EPA certifies that the final fact that no small entity POTWs or least burdensome alternative if the regulation does not impose significant responded to the request for comments, Administrator publishes with the final impacts on a substantial number of EPA certifies that the regulation will not rule an explanation why that alternative small business-owned facilities. impose a significant impact on a was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 57540 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations any regulatory requirements that may discharge. POTWs stated that inspection Pursuant to the terms of Executive significantly or uniquely affect small requirements for verification of Order 12866, it has been determined governments, including tribal compliance will be more difficult and that this rule is a ‘‘significant regulatory governments, it must have developed time-consuming because inspectors will action.’’ As such, this action was under Section 203 of the UMRA a small have to review technical plans, submitted to OMB for review. Changes government agency plan. The plan must equipment, and processes to verify that made in response to OMB suggestions or provide for notifying potentially the specified pollution prevention and recommendations will be documented affected small governments, enabling treatment measures have been properly in the public record for this rulemaking. officials of affected small governments implemented, maintained, and operated VIII. Small Business Regulatory to have meaningful and timely input in by PFPR facilities. In contrast, Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 the development of EPA regulatory verification of compliance with a zero (SBREFA) proposals with significant Federal discharge regulation would be more intergovernmental mandates, and straightforward. POTWs also stated that Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added informing, educating, and advising the option of relying on Best by the Small Business Regulatory small governments on compliance with Engineering Judgment to alter Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA the regulatory requirements. requirements on facilities would submitted a report containing this rule EPA has determined that this rule increase, rather than reduce, and other required information to the does not contain a Federal mandate that implementation burdens. However, at U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of may result in expenditures of $100 the same time, POTWs also noted that Representatives and the Comptroller million or more for State, local, and the burden of administering the PFPR General of the General Accounting tribal governments, in the aggregate, or regulation did not seem unreasonable in Office prior to publication of the rule in the private sector in any one year. Thus, comparison to requirements for other today’s Federal Register. This rule is today’s rule is not subject to the regulations and that the regulation’s not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of implementation requirements are U.S.C. 804(2). the UMRA. necessary if the regulation is to be IX. Paperwork Reduction Act Although not subject to the UMRA effective. because the cost of the rule to all parties In keeping with the provisions to The information collection that would be effected is well below inform, educate, and advise small requirements in this rule have been $100 million, EPA has complied with governments, EPA will publish a submitted for approval to the Office of numerous provisions of the UMRA. Guidance Manual prior to the Management and Budget (OMB) under Today’s rule is the least costly, least compliance deadline of the rule to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44, U.S.C. burdensome alternative that was inform, educate, and advise interested 3501 et seq. Two separate Information considered. facilities, permit writers, and POTWs on Collection Request (ICR) documents Consistent with the intergovernmental pollution prevention processes and have been prepared by EPA. Burden consultation provisions, EPA has procedures applicable to the PFPR estimates for PFPR direct dischargers to already initiated consultations with the industry. It will also serve as guidance comply with their NPDES permits and Publicly Owned Treatment Works for the implementation of and the P2 Alternative are contained in the (POTWs) that will be affected by the compliance with the P2 Alternative ‘‘National Pollutant Discharge rule and sought their input as part of the requirements. Elimination System (NPDES)/ regulation development process. Compliance Assessment/Certification Specifically, after publication of the VII. Executive Order 12866 Information’’ ICR (No.1427.05). Burden Supplemental Notice (60 FR 30217), Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR estimates for indirect discharging PFPR EPA solicited comments from over 70 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the Agency facilities to comply with 40 CFR part POTWs that had been identified as must determine whether the regulatory 403 and the P2 Alternative are included receiving discharges from PFPR action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore in the ‘‘National Pretreatment Program facilities. This request sought input on subject to OMB review and the (40 CFR part 403)’’ ICR (No. 0002.08). several aspects of the PSES regulation, requirements of the Executive Order. The approval of these ICRs is still including allowance of self-certification The Order defines ‘‘significant pending; therefore, the information of compliance by PFPR facilities, use of regulatory action’’ as one that is likely requirements contained in this rule are Best Professional Judgment to revise or to result in a regulation that may: not effective until OMB approves them. modify the pollution prevention (1) Have an annual effect on the A copy of these ICRs may be obtained practices listed in the Supplemental economy of $100 million or more or from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Notice, and the burden on POTWs from adversely affect in a material way the Information Division; U.S. administering the pollution prevention economy, a sector of the economy, Environmental Protection Agency compliance alternative as part of the productivity, competition, jobs, the (2136), 401 M St., NW., Washington, DC regulation proposed in the environment, public health or safety, or 20460, by calling (202) 260–2740, or Supplemental Notice. State, local, or tribal governments or electronically by sending an e-mail In response to this request, EPA communities; message to received comments from eight POTWs. (2) Create a serious inconsistency or ‘‘[email protected]’’. Four of these included comment on the otherwise interfere with an action taken Burden means the total time, effort, or expected burden to POTWs from or planned by another agency; financial resources expended by persons administering the pollution prevention (3) Materially alter the budgetary to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose and treatment compliance alternative. impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or provide information to or for a The general thrust of these comments is or loan programs or the rights and Federal agency. This includes the time that administering the pollution obligations of recipients thereof; or needed to review instructions; develop, prevention/treatment alternative will (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues acquire, install, and utilize technology impose somewhat higher burdens on arising out of legal mandates, the and systems for the purposes of POTWs than administering a regulation President’s priorities, or the principles collecting, validating, and verifying requiring compliance strictly by zero set forth in the Executive Order. information, processing and Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57541 maintaining information, and disclosing statement. EPA assumes that ten percent Numerous incidents of groundwater and providing information; adjust the of facilities will have to prepare such a and soil contamination at refilling existing ways to comply with any description each year and that the establishments, largely due to spills, are previously applicable instructions and associated burden/facility is four hours identified in the Office of Pesticide requirements; train personnel to be able for direct dischargers and 10 hours for Programs proposed ‘‘Standards for to respond to a collection of indirect dischargers. EPA has also Pesticide Containers and Containment’’ information; search data sources; included four hours per facility for (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994). Several complete and review the collection of direct dischargers and 10 hours for examples cited in the Standards for information; and transmit or otherwise indirect dischargers for the burden Pesticide Containers and Containment disclose the information. associated with a request for approval of proposed rule are summarized below. EPA estimates that each water using modifications where the justification is Based on the 1991 study, ‘‘Report on facility is expected to spend an average not listed on Table 8 to part 455 of the Wisconsin Pesticide Mixing and of 20 to 60 hours preparing the initial final regulation. Again, EPA has used Loading Site Study,’’ an estimated 45 to certification statement (including brief the assumption that ten percent of 75 percent of the commercial descriptions) for submittal to the facilities per year will have to prepare agrichemical facilities in Wisconsin will permitting/control authority as well as such a request for modification. require soil remediation and 29 to 63 preparing the paperwork to be kept on- An Agency may not conduct or percent of these sites potentially exceed site (i.e., treatment information, sponsor, and a person is not required to the State’s groundwater standards for supporting documentation for respond to, a collection of information pesticides. In the ‘‘Environmental modifications, etc. . .). EPA has unless it displays a currently valid OMB Cleanup of Fertilizer and Agricultural estimated less hours for direct control number. The OMB control Chemical Dealer Sites’’ report, the Iowa dischargers than for the indirect numbers for EPA’s regulations are listed Fertilizer and Chemical Association dischargers (i.e., 20 hours versus 60 in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter estimates that 40 to 50 percent of hours) because the direct dischargers are 15. refilling establishments in Iowa may typically also pesticide manufacturers Send comments on the burden require groundwater remediation. A with treatment systems in place that are estimates and any suggested methods 1992 letter from the National well documented while most indirect for minimizing respondent burden, Agricultural Retailers Association dischargers do not have treatment in including through the use of automated (formerly NARA, now ARA) stated that place and have less technical expertise collection techniques to EPA at the 70 to 80 percent of the detections of in the area of wastewater treatment. address provided above, with a copy to pesticides in groundwater in Kansas However, some indirect dischargers will the Office of Information and Regulatory could be traced back to refilling use less than the 60 hours because they Affairs, Office of Management and establishments. Groundwater are also pesticide manufacturers or they Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, contamination by pesticides is also may be able to reuse all of their DC 20503, marked ‘‘Attention: Desk documented at numerous refilling wastewater that would otherwise have Officer for EPA.’’ Please remember to establishments in Michigan, Minnesota, to be pretreated prior to discharge to the include the ICR number in any Illinois, and Utah. POTW (i.e., interior wastewater sources, correspondence. The water quality benefits of controlling the indirect discharges from floor wash and/or leak and spill cleanup X. Water Quality Analysis water). PFPR facilities are evaluated by Most of the PAIs being regulated have Note: Although most indirect dischargers modeling the impact of those discharges will not implement the P2 Alternative prior at least one toxic effect (e.g., human on receiving streams. This model to the compliance deadline (3 years following health carcinogen and/or systemic assumes that no additional removal promulgation) and; therefore would not be toxicant or aquatic toxicant). Many of occurs at the POTW. EPA believes this covered by the Pretreatment ICR (No. these pollutants have the potential to to be a valid assumption because the 0002.08) which expires in three years, EPA bioaccumulate and persist in the PAIs that are still covered by the scope has estimated that approximately ten percent environment. Various studies have of the final pretreatment standards of the 1500 water-using PFPR facilities/new demonstrated the bioaccumulation of (PSES) are expected to pass-through facilities (i.e., 150 facilities) would pesticides in aquatic life and implement the P2 Alternative prior to the POTWs. The effects of POTW compliance deadline. Therefore, the burden accumulation of pesticides in wastewater discharges of 139 PAIs are presented in the Pretreatment ICR concerning sediments. Documented human health evaluated at current and post- the P2 Alternative is estimated for 150 impacts at pesticide formulating, compliance (e.g., zero/P2 Alternative) facilities over the 3 years of the ICR. EPA will packaging, and repackaging (PFPR) levels for 85 indirect discharging PFPR include burden for the remainder of the facilities include respiratory disease and facilities which discharge to 79 POTWs water using PFPR facilities in the subsequent impaired liver function, primarily on 77 receiving streams. Water quality Pretreatment ICR in 1999. through worker exposure. models are used to project pollutant Beyond the initial submittal, a PFPR For example, 137 of the original 272 instream concentrations based on facility is expected to spend 15 minutes PAIs are known to be highly or estimated releases at current and zero/ to prepare and sign the periodic moderately toxic to aquatic life, 25 have P2 Alternative levels; the instream certification statement to be submitted carcinogenic effects, 149 are known to concentrations are then compared to to the permitting authority once per year have systemic or other health effects, 24 EPA published water quality criteria or and to the control authority twice per have an established concentration limit to documented toxic effect levels. year. If a facility has made changes in under the Safe Drinking Water Act and The instream pollutant concentration the P2 practices they are using or in the 134 have a high or moderate potential for one PAI is projected to exceed choice of zero discharge or P2 to bioaccumulate in the environment. human health criteria in two receiving Alternative for a process line/product (See the ‘‘Potential Fate and Toxicity streams at current discharge levels. Both family that was initially specified in the Categorization of Pollutants Associated excursions are projected to be initial certification (or previous period), with PFPR Wastewater’’ Report; eliminated under the zero/P2 they must provide a brief description September 1996 in the rulemaking Alternative. The number of pollutants with their periodic certification record). with receiving streams projected to 57542 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations exceed aquatic life criteria or aquatic PAIs. The zero/P2 Alternative option is treatment system that are not associated toxic effect levels would be reduced projected to result in aquatic life with a zero discharge option since from 21 PAIs in 23 streams at current exceedances of three PAIs in two treatment is not utilized under the zero discharge levels to four PAIs in six receiving streams. No exceedances of discharge option. These cross-media streams at zero/P2 Alternative levels. human health criteria are projected to impacts include sludge generation and The potential impacts of these occur for the zero/P2 Alternative option. energy consumption and air emissions indirect discharging PFPR facilities are of criteria air pollutants 24 from the XI. Non-Water Quality Environmental also evaluated in terms of inhibition of trucks that transport spent activated Impacts POTW operation and contamination of carbon for regeneration. However, the sludge. Potential biological inhibition The elimination or reduction of one zero discharge option relies heavily on problems are projected to occur for form of pollution may create or the contract hauling of wastewater for current discharges at four POTWs for aggravate other environmental incineration which significantly three PAIs; sludge criteria are problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) increases the cross-media impacts due unavailable for PAIs. No potential and 306 of the Act call for EPA to to air emissions of criteria air pollutants biological inhibition problems are consider the non-water quality from the trucks that transport the projected to occur for the Zero/P2 environmental impacts of effluent wastewater to incineration and from the Alternative option. The POTW limitations guidelines and standards. incineration of the wastewater itself. inhibition values used in this analysis Accordingly, EPA has considered the EPA believes that selecting the Zero/ are not, in general, regulatory values. effect of these regulations on air P2 Alternative option will minimize They are based upon engineering and pollution, solid waste generation, and these cross-media impacts, overall, as health estimates contained in guidance energy consumption. As discussed compared to the zero discharge option. or guidelines published by EPA and throughout today’s notice, EPA selected In particular, the Zero/P2 Alternative other sources. Thus, EPA is not basing to promulgate the Zero/P2 Alternative has a significantly lower cross-media its regulatory approach for pretreatment option due to the cross-media impacts impact on air emissions of criteria air discharge levels upon the finding that that could occur under a zero discharge pollutants than the zero discharge some pollutants interfere with POTWs regulation due to contract hauling to off- option while still preventing the by impairing their treatment site incineration of potentially large discharge of 98.5 percent of the effectiveness. However, the values used volumes of non-reusable wastewaters. pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) from in the analysis do help indicate the EPA has estimated the non-water being discharged to the water. The potential benefits for POTW operation quality impacts associated with the following sections present the estimates that may result from the compliance selected option, i.e., the Zero/P2 for air emissions, solid waste generation with the final regulation. Alternative, as well as a zero discharge and energy consumption for the final In addition, the water quality benefits option. As discussed previously in this rule. of controlling the direct discharges from notice, under the Zero/P2 Alternative, PFPR facilities were evaluated by facilities will be able to choose between A. Air Pollution modeling the impact of direct complying with zero discharge or the P2 For the purpose of preparing a cross- wastewater discharges on receiving Alternative on a line-by-line basis. media impact analysis, the air pollution stream water quality. However, as However, for the purposes of estimating effects are divided into two separate described in Section IV.C.1 of today’s compliance costs and non-water quality types of air emissions generated as a notice, EPA’s estimates of costs and impacts, EPA has assumed that a facility result of the final rule. First, there are current pollutant loadings for direct will choose between these compliance air emissions estimated for the Zero/P2 discharges did not include pollutant options on a whole-facility basis. Alternative based on the treatment of removals for treatment already in place Therefore, the non-water quality wastewater through a treatment system, (i.e., pesticide manufacturing treatment estimates for the Zero/P2 Alternative such as the Universal Treatment systems). Therefore, an estimate of the represent those cross-media impacts System, discussed in Section II.E. of water quality impacts resulting from associated with a percentage of the today’s preamble. These emissions current direct discharges would result facilities choosing to comply with the consist mainly of volatile priority in an overestimation of the current P2 Alternative and others choosing to pollutants. EPA does not anticipate that water quality impacts because these comply with zero discharge. there will be any significant losses of facilities do have treatment in place and EPA has used the assumption that, PAIs into the atmosphere under the are already meeting zero discharge or under the zero discharge option, Zero/P2 alternative, because most PAIs zero allowance (i.e., no additional facilities would recycle and reuse some have low volatility. The second type of discharge allowance in the pesticide wastewaters while hauling the air emissions are those generated from manufacturers’ limitations for PFPR remaining wastewaters off-site for the transport (i.e., air emissions from the wastewaters). Thus, EPA is presenting incineration. Under the P2 Alternative trucks’ exhaust and gasoline) of both only those water quality impacts portion of the Zero/P2 Alternative, some wastewater and spent activated carbon associated with the final rule. facilities may be able to avoid the need as well as emissions from the Seventeen (17) direct discharging for wastewater treatment by incineration of wastewater that is PFPR facilities, which discharge 61 PAIs comprehensively applying source hauled off-site for disposal. Estimates of to 16 receiving streams, were evaluated. reduction practices to all their both types of air emissions are Water quality models are used to project wastewater sources; however, it is more presented on Table 4 of today’s pollutant instream concentrations based likely that, following the use of recycle preamble for the Zero/P2 Alternative on estimated releases at post- and reuse practices, facilities will need and for zero discharge. As seen on Table compliance (e.g., zero/P2 Alternative) to employ some pollution control levels; the instream concentrations are treatment technologies prior to 24 Criteria air pollutants include: Volatile organic then compared to EPA published water discharging their wastewaters. compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM) and carbon quality criteria or to documented toxic There are some cross-media impacts monoxide (CO). Criteria air pollutants can injure effect levels where EPA water quality that are associated with the Zero/P2 health, harm the environment and cause property criteria are not available for certain Alternative and its use of a wastewater damage. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57543

4, the emissions for criteria air and from the incineration of the non- significant cross-media impact as pollutants from the transport of reusable wastewaters under the zero compared to the Zero/P2 Alternative. wastewaters and spent activated carbon discharge option would create a

TABLE 4: CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (LB/YR)

Emission source VOCs NOx PM CO SO2

Wastewater Transportation: Zero/P2 Alternative ...... 14,720 121,200 6,800 175,400 ...... Zero Discharge ...... 87,600 720,000 40,400 1,044,000 ...... Wastewater Incineration: Zero/P2 Alternative ...... 5 1,838 10 133 2 Zero Discharge ...... 264 94,600 530 6,880 106 Spent Activated Carbon Transportation: Zero/P2 Alternative ...... 1,692 13,920 780 20,200 ...... Zero Discharge² ...... NA NA NA NA ...... Wastewater Treatment: ³ Zero/P2 Alternative ...... 84,700 NA NA NA NA Zero Discharge ...... 52,500 NA NA NA NA NA=not applicable a: EPA estimates that under the Zero/P2 Alternative 69% of facilities incurring costs will choose the P2 Alternative and 31% will choose to comply with zero discharge. ² There is no wastewater treatment system used under the zero discharge option and, therefore, no spent activated carbon to transport for re- generation. ³ Air emissions estimates from wastewater treatment include only volatile priority pollutants.

EPA also estimates the reduction of possible that some emissions of priority combustion strategy establishes the goal volatile priority pollutants emissions pollutants could occur during the of a strong preference for source that would occur under the Zero/P2 cleaning of equipment or containers, reduction over waste management, Alternative and under zero discharge. particularly if high-pressure cleaning or thereby reducing the long-term demand EPA estimates that in addition to the steam cleaning is used. Under the zero for combustion and other waste 192,789 lbs of PAIs that are currently discharge option, 52,500 pounds of management facilities. In addition, the (i.e., prior to today’s regulation) being volatile priority pollutants are expected strategy states that combustion does discharged to water, 381,000 pounds of to be emitted during the recycle and have an appropriate role and that EPA volatile priority pollutant are currently reuse of wastewaters. wants to ensure that combustion facilities (such as incinerators and emitted when wastewater is discharged B. Solid Waste to POTWs or are emitted to the air from boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs)) the wastewater treatment process at the EPA estimates that under the Zero/P2 are designed in a manner to protect POTWs. EPA estimates that under the Alternative there will be 856,000 public health. pounds of sludge generated from Zero/P2 Alternative, the air emissions C. Energy Requirements from wastewater reuse, treatment and emulsion breaking and sulfide discharge to POTWs will be reduced to precipitation treatment annually. EPA EPA estimates that compliance with 84,700 pounds of volatile priority has assumed that the sludge generated the final regulation will increase energy pollutants. This means that via emulsion breaking and sulfide consumption by a small increment over precipitation will be hauled to implementing the Zero/P2 Alternative present industry use. The main energy hazardous waste incinerators. In will reduce air emissions of volatile requirement is the generation of steam addition to the sludge generated, priority pollutants from wastewater that is used in the wastewater treatment treatment of wastewater through the reuse, treatment and discharge by system to accomplish emulsion breaking Universal Treatment System will 296,300 pounds annually. In addition, and hydrolysis. Steam provides the heat generate 3,830,000 pounds annually of energy to assist with the separation of the remaining emissions are localized spent activated carbon. It is assumed and in many cases may be more likely emulsified phases and increases the rate that the activated carbon will be sent at which active ingredients hydrolyze. It to be captured and treated by the UTS. off-site for regeneration, which means The loss of priority pollutants to the is estimated that about 6.28 x 107 that it is reused and would not become pounds per year of steam would be atmosphere is likely to occur during a waste. See Section XI.A. for the reuse of wastewater and particularly required by the Universal Treatment estimate of air emissions from System. This would require from the emulsion breaking, hydrolysis, transporting the spent activated carbon and/or chemical oxidation treatment approximately 13,581 barrels of oil for regeneration and from the hauling of annually. This is, relatively, very small steps where the addition of heat is likely wastewater/sludge to incineration as to promote their release 25. It is also compared to the 18 million barrels per well as the air emissions associated with day that the United States currently incineration. 25 EPA believes that use of closed vessels in the consumes. treatment system will additionally control the EPA believes the Zero/P2 Alternative release of volatile priority pollutants to the air and, is consistent with the goals established Additionally, EPA estimates that the therefore; has used the costs associated with closed for EPA’s Hazardous Waste operation of the Universal Treatment vessels when estimating costs for the regulation. Minimization and Combustion Strategy System will consume 811,000 kilowatt However, for the analysis of the air pollution hours per year. This is expended by the emissions estimates for this rule, estimates on (November, 1994). This draft volatile priority pollutant emissions from closed pumps and agitators used in treatment vessels were not available. Therefore, the volatile use of open vessels during treatment which may and associated with the storage of water priority pollutant emissions estimate assumes the overestimate the emissions. until it can be reused. 57544 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

XII. Regulatory Implementation that the treatment system: (1) Is meeting a numerical standard be set The purpose of this section is to appropriate for the PAIs in their process equal to the detection limit of the provide assistance and direction to wastewaters (that are not also being analytical method for the PAIs expected permit writers and control authorities to manufactured); and (2) is properly in the wastewater. aid in their implementation of this operated and maintained; or the permit If the indirect discharging PFPR regulation and its unique compliance writer can set numerical limitations facility chooses the P2 Alternative for alternative. This section also discusses based on BPJ for any additional PAIs, as any or all processes/lines/product the relationship of upset and bypass necessary. families, the facility would need to provisions, variances and modifications, Today’s final regulations do not notify the Control Authority of its and analytical methods to the final require facilities to submit all of the intention by submitting an initial limitations and standards. necessary compliance paperwork to the certification statement as described in NPDES permit writer, but instead § 455.41(a) of the final regulation. A. Implementation of the Limitations require the facility choosing the P2 Facilities that do not choose the P2 and Standards Alternative to keep the paperwork on- Alternative for the facility in its entirety 1. Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and site and available for the permitting will be required to include a brief Repackaging (Subcategory C) authority and enforcement officials. description of each product family, However, EPA is requiring the submittal process unit or process line and the Each PFPR facility subject to this of an initial certification statement at option selected for each with the initial regulation will need to make an initial the time of issuance, renewal, or certification statement. In addition, the choice on either a facility-wide basis or modification of an NPDES permit for facility must include all of the P2 on a process basis (i.e., product family/ direct dischargers. In addition, as practices (or modifications) and any process line/process unit). They will suggested by a commenter, EPA is also specified treatment technologies that need to choose to either comply with requiring the submittal of a periodic will be implemented to meet the the zero discharge effluent limitation/ certification statement to be submitted requirements of the practices listed in pretreatment standard or choose to agree every year to the NPDES permit writer. Table 8 to part 455 for those processes to conduct the listed pollution The pollution prevention practices and which the P2 Alternative was chosen. prevention practices (or a variation of treatment technologies included in such For indirect dischargers appropriate the listed practices based on self- a NPDES permit would be enforceable pretreatment is required for any interior implemented modifications or those under CWA sections 309 and 505. equipment cleaning wastewater agreed to by the permit/control For those processes where a new or (including drums), floor wash 26 or leak/ authority) and also agree to make the existing direct discharge PFPR/ spill cleanup water that is part of the P2 practices and the pollution prevention Manufacturer has chosen to comply allowable discharge. Other wastewater discharge allowance enforceable (see with zero discharge, the permit would sources can be discharged to the POTW § 455.41 of the final rule for the include: (1) The pesticide without pretreatment. The initial definition of P2 allowable discharge). manufacturing limitations (40 CFR part certification statement to be submitted However, beyond this initial choice, 455, subparts A and B) with no requires a signature by the appropriate much of the continued implementation additional allowance for the PFPR manager in charge of overall operations of the Zero/P2 Alternative will differ for wastewaters for those PAIs that are also of the facility to assure that information direct and indirect dischargers. manufactured; and (2) limitations set provided is true, accurate, and complete Direct Dischargers equal to the detection limit of the PAIs to the best of his or her knowledge. expected to be in the wastewater (or no Other required paperwork can be kept For direct dischargers, the Zero/P2 PFPR process wastewater flow) for PAIs on-site (e.g., supporting documentation Alternative will be implemented that are not also manufactured at the for any modifications, treatment through the NPDES permitting process. facility. The NPDES permits for new or technologies used that are not listed on For each new or existing direct existing stand-alone direct discharging Table 10 to part 455 of the regulation, discharging facility, the facility would facilities that choose to achieve zero the method chosen and supporting need to make the initial choice at the discharge from specified processes will documentation for demonstrating that permitting stage or at the time for permit include either limitations set equal to appropriate treatment is well operated modification or renewal, respectively. the detection limit of the analytical and maintained and the rationale for Facilities that do not choose the P2 method for the PAIs expected to be in choosing the method of demonstration). Alternative (or zero discharge) for the the wastewater or will allow no process Any modifications for a reason not facility in its entirety will be required to wastewater flow. listed on Table 8 to part 455 of the clearly state in their NPDES permit each regulation must be submitted to the product family, process unit or process Indirect Dischargers control authority for approval. Existing and new PFPR facilities line and the option selected for each. Once an individual control (including PFPR/Manufacturers) which For those processes for which a direct mechanism (or pretreatment agreement) are indirect dischargers would also need discharge facility chooses the P2 is in place, facilities need to submit a Alternative over the zero discharge to make an initial choice on a process limitation, the permitting authority basis of meeting the zero discharge 26 In individual cases the requirement of would include all of the P2 practices pretreatment standard or adopting and wastewater pretreatment prior to discharge to the and any specified treatment implementing the P2 practices and the POTW may be removed by the control authority for technologies in the facility’s NPDES treatment technologies (if so specified). floor wash or the final rinse of a non-reusable triple rinse when the facility has demonstrated that the permit. The definition of P2 allowable Facilities that choose the zero discharge levels of PAIs and priority pollutants in such discharge for direct dischargers requires option for specified processes (or for the wastewaters are at a level that is too low to be the appropriate treatment of all process entire facility) would agree in their effectively pretreated at the facility and have been wastewater prior to discharge. control mechanism or pretreatment shown to neither pass through or interfere with the operations of the POTW. The control authority Therefore, permit writers may want to agreement to demonstrate zero should also take into account whether or not the include in the permit the method discharge through no process facility has employed water conservation when chosen by the facility to demonstrate wastewater flow or compliance by generating such a non-reusable wastewater. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57545 periodic certification statement to the per year for direct discharging facilities facility must make a request for the control authority indicating that the P2 and should indicate whether the P2 modification from the NPDES Alternative is being implemented as in Alternative is being implemented as set permitting authority or the control the previous period or that a forth in the NPDES permit/control authority. The permit writer/control modification to the individual control mechanism or that a justification authority is expected to use BPJ/BEJ to mechanism is needed. The certification allowing modification of the listed approve the modification. statement is to be submitted to the practices has been implemented Note: EPA is preparing a guidance manual control authority on the same time table, resulting in a change in the P2 practices to aid permit writers/control authorities as i.e., twice per year (June and December), conducted at the facility. If the well as PFPR facilities. as the reporting required by 40 CFR modification needed is not listed on 403.12(e). The control authority, as part Table 8 of part 455, the facility should Compliance Dates of its approved pretreatment program, request a modification from their EPA has established a three-year must have the authority to ensure permitting/control authority if it has not deadline for compliance with the PFPR compliance with a pretreatment already done so. pretreatment standards for existing standard (40 CFR 403.8(f)(1)(ii)) and to The on-site compliance paperwork sources (PSES). Under the zero/P2 carry out inspections of the indirect should include the information from the alternative facilities will need time to dischargers’ self-certifications and of the initial and periodic certifications but assess which process lines are amenable paperwork described below. 40 CFR must also include: (1) The supporting to the P2 alternative and which lines 403.8(f)(1)(v). documentation for any modifications will have to comply with zero that have been made to the listed P2 discharge. This decision will most likely Necessary Paperwork for the P2 practices (including records that Alternative be based on economics as well as the indicate/demonstrate, for example, characteristics of the individual process As briefly mentioned above, both microbial growth, specific directions for line. In addition, facilities will have to direct and indirect discharging facilities other disposal from the manufacturer, determine the treatment necessary for are required to keep certain paperwork use of a solvent recovery system, etc.); the PAIs expected to be found in the on-site and available for permitting/ (2) a written discussion demonstrating wastewater at their facility and they will control authorities and enforcement that the treatment system being used need time to design and install these officials. contains the appropriate treatment systems. Finally, facilities will need Note: Although EPA is not requiring technologies (i.e., listed by PAI in the time to prepare the on-site compliance submittal of all the paperwork for approval Table 10 to Part 455 of the final paperwork necessary to support the P2 in these national regulations, NPDES regulation, equivalent system as defined alternative. Thus, EPA believes that a programs and control authorities may choose in § 455.10(h), or pesticide to require submittal of any of the paperwork full three-year compliance period is manufacturing system) for removing appropriate. for approval. PAIs that are used in production at their Existing direct dischargers must The paperwork which is required to facility and could be in their comply by the date of issue, reissue or be submitted includes the one-time wastewater; (3) a method for modification of the NPDES permit. New initial certification statement (see demonstrating that the treatment system source standards and limitations (PSNS § 455.41(a) of the final rule) and the is well operated and maintained; and (4) and NSPS) must be complied with when periodic certification statements (see a discussion of the rationale for § 455.41(b) of the final rule). The choosing the method of demonstration. a facility commences the discharging of paperwork which can be kept on-site is For example, a facility may utilize a wastewater. referred to in this final rule as the ‘‘On- surrogate method for determining Note: For this rule, a direct discharge site Compliance Paperwork’’ (see breakthrough of their carbon adsorption facility is considered a new source if its § 455.41(c)). Each of these is described unit. This method could be used instead construction commenced following below. of performing analytical testing for all or promulgation of the final rule (40 CFR 122.2); while an indirect discharge facility is For each PFPR facility, the initial any of the PAIs that may have been in certification statement would include, at considered a new source if construction production at the facility over a specific commenced after proposal (April 1994) of the a minimum, a listing of and descriptions period of time. The facility could pretreatment standards (40 CFR 403.3). of the processes (i.e., product families/ possibly use records of carbon change process lines/process units) for which it out/purchase to demonstrate that the Direct dischargers may be subject to chooses the P2 Alternative and those for system is properly operated and the establishment, by the permitting which it chooses to achieve zero maintained and could describe the authority, of more stringent effluent discharge; descriptions of the P2 initial testing and/or vendor information limitations based on applicable water practices (from Table 8 to part 455 of the used to determine the useful life of the quality standards. See 40 CFR 122.44. In regulation) that are being employed and activated carbon. addition, those PFPR facilities that are how they are being implemented; Control authorities, at or any time indirect dischargers remain subject to description of any justifications after entering into an individual control the Pass-Through and Interference allowing modification to the practices mechanism, or permitting authorities, at prohibitions contained in the general listed on Table 8 to part 455; and a or any time after issuing, reissuing, or pretreatment regulations. 40 CFR description of the treatment system modifying the NPDES permit, could 403.5(a)(1). Indirect dischargers could being used to obtain a P2 allowable inspect the PFPR facility to see that the also be subject to local limits discharge (as defined in § 455.41). The listed practices are being employed, that established by the control authority initial certification statement must be the treatment system is well operated receiving the facility’s wastewater. 40 signed by the responsible corporate and maintained and that the necessary CFR 403.5(c). officer as defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l) or paperwork provides sufficient The Agency emphasizes that although 40 CFR 122.22. justification for any modifications. the Clean Water Act is a strict liability The periodic certification statement is When facilities need to modify a listed statute, EPA can initiate enforcement to be submitted twice per year for P2 practice for which a justification is proceedings at its discretion. EPA has indirect discharging facilities and once not listed in the final regulation, the exercised and intends to exercise that 57546 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations discretion in a manner that recognizes act of intentional noncompliance during Dischargers subject to pretreatment and promotes good faith compliance. which wastewater treatment facilities standards for existing sources (PSES) are are circumvented in emergency also subject to the ‘‘fundamentally 2. Refilling Establishments (Subcategory situations. different factors’’ variance provision (40 E) EPA has both upset and bypass CFR 403.13) and credits for pollutants The limitations and standards for provisions in NPDES permits, and has removed by POTWs, as discussed in existing and new refilling promulgated NPDES and pretreatment Section XII.C.2. Dischargers subject to establishments are set as zero discharge. regulations which include upset and pretreatment standards for new sources In addition, many states (with national bypass permit provisions. (40 CFR (PSNS) are subject only to the removal regulations soon to follow) require these 122.41(m), 122.41(n) and 40 CFR 403.16 credit provision (see Section XII.C.2). facilities to have secondary containment and 403.17.) The upset provision New sources subject to NSPS are not systems and loading pads for their bulk establishes an upset as an affirmative eligible for EPA’s ‘‘fundamentally pesticide and pesticide dispensing defense to prosecution for violation of different factors’’ variance or any operations. Under these state and technology-based effluent limitations. statutory or regulatory variances. See eventual national secondary The bypass provision authorizes E.I. Du Pont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 containment regulations under FIFRA, bypassing to prevent loss of life, (1977). facilities are collecting process personal injury, or severe property 2. Removal Credits wastewaters that were formerly damage. Since there are already upset contaminating soil and groundwater. and bypass provisions in NPDES Congress, in enacting Section 307(b) Since the majority of these facilities permits and pretreatment regulations, of the CWA, recognized that, in certain are not located in an area where direct EPA will let local permit and control instances, POTWs could provide some or indirect discharge is feasible, EPA authorities deal with individual upsets or all of the treatment of an industrial believes that the zero discharge can be or requests for bypass. user’s wastestream that would be implemented as seen on site visits. required pursuant to the pretreatment Typically, these facilities collect their C. Variances and Modifications standard. Consequently, Congress process wastewaters (including interior Upon the promulgation of these established a discretionary program for equipment cleaning of minibulks, bulk regulations, the effluent limitations for POTWs to grant ‘‘removal credits’’ to tanks and related ancillary equipment the appropriate subcategory must be their indirect dischargers. The credit, in and leak/spill cleanup water) and store applied in all Federal and State NPDES the form of a less stringent pretreatment these collected rinsates for reuse. The permits issued to direct dischargers in standard, allows an increased amount of stored rinsates are then used as product the pesticide formulating, packaging or pollutants to flow from the indirect make-up water in future custom repackaging industry. In addition, the discharger’s facility to the POTW. application activities. Facilities that do pretreatment standards are directly Section 307(b) of the CWA establishes not operate their own custom applicable to indirect dischargers. a three-part test for obtaining removal application services or that are located credit authority for a given pollutant. 1. Fundamentally Different Factors in states where the purchase of make-up Removal credits may be authorized only Variances water for reuse in applications is if (1) the POTW ‘‘removes 27 all or any prohibited have been known to give For the BPT effluent limitations, the part of such toxic pollutant,’’ (2) the away these rinsates to custom only exception to the binding POTW’s ultimate discharge would ‘‘not applicators or directly to farmers. A limitations is EPA’s ‘‘fundamentally violate that effluent limitation, or small number of facilities in such a different factors’’ (‘‘FDF’’) variance (40 standard which would be applicable to situation may choose some means of off- CFR part 125, subpart D). This variance that toxic pollutant if it were site disposal, such as contract hauling to recognizes factors concerning a discharged’’ directly rather than through incineration. particular discharger which are a POTW and (3) the POTW’s discharge fundamentally different from the factors would ‘‘not prevent sludge use and B. Upset and Bypass Provisions considered in this rulemaking. Although disposal by such [POTW] in accordance A recurring issue is whether industry this variance clause was set forth in with section [405] . . . .’’ Section limitations and standards should EPA’s 1973–1976 effluent guidelines, it 307(b). include provisions authorizing is now included in the NPDES EPA has promulgated removal credit noncompliance with effluent limitations regulations and not the specific industry regulations in 40 CFR 403.7. The United during periods of ‘‘upset’’ or ‘‘bypass’’. regulations. (See 44 FR 32854, 32893 States Court of Appeals for the Third An upset, sometimes called an [June 7, 1979] for an explanation of the Circuit has interpreted the statute to ‘‘excursion,’’ is an unintentional and ‘‘fundamentally different factors’’ require EPA to promulgate temporary noncompliance with variance). The procedures for comprehensive sewage sludge technology-based effluent limitations application for a BPT FDF variance are regulations before any removal credits occurring for reasons beyond the set forth at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1)(I)(A). could be authorized. NRDC v. EPA, 790 reasonable control of the permittee. EPA Dischargers subject to the BAT F.2d 289, 292 (3rd Cir. 1986) cert. believes that upset provisions are limitations in these final regulations denied. 479 U.S. 1084 (1987). Congress necessary to recognize an affirmative may also apply for an FDF variance, made this explicit in the Water Quality defense for an exceptional incident under the provisions of section 301(n) of Act of 1987 which provided that EPA including ‘‘Acts of God’’. Because the Act, which regulates BAT, BCT, and technology-based limitations can pretreatment FDFs. In addition, BAT 27 In 40 CFR 403.7, removal is defined to mean ‘‘a reduction in the amount of a pollutant in the require only what properly designed, limitations for nonconventional POTW’s effluent or alteration of the nature of a maintained and operated technology pollutants may be modified under pollutant during treatment at the POTW. The can achieve, it is claimed that liability section 301(c) (for economic reasons) reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, for such situations is improper. and 301(g) (for water quality reasons) of chemical or biological means and may be the result of specifically designed POTW capabilities or may While an upset is an unintentional the Act. These latter two statutory be incidental to the operation of the treatment episode during which effluent modifications are not applicable to system. Removal as used (in § 403.7) shall not mean limitations are exceeded, a bypass is an ‘‘toxic’’ or conventional pollutants. dilution of a pollutant in the POTW.’’ Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57547 could not authorize any removal credits additional metals and 14 organic nitrosodimethylamine, n-nitrosodi-n- until it issued the sewage sludge use pollutants. When the sewage sludge is propylamine, pentachlorophenol, and disposal regulations required by disposed of on a surface disposal site, phenol, polychlorinated biphenyls, section 405(d)(2)(a)(ii). removal credits may be available for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, Section 405 of the CWA requires EPA seven additional metals and 13 organic 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, to promulgate regulations which pollutants. When the sewage sludge is tetrachloroethylene, toluene, toxaphene, establish standards for sewage sludge incinerated, removal credits may be trichloroethylene, 1,2,4- when used or disposed for various available for three other metals. See 40 trichlorobenzene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, purposes. These standards must include CFR 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(B). 1,1,2-trichloroethane and 2,4,6- sewage sludge management standards as (3) When a POTW disposes of its trichlorophenol. well as numerical limits for pollutants sewage sludge in a municipal solid With regard to the use of removal which may be present in sewage sludge waste land fill that meets the criteria of credit authority for any pollutant subject in concentrations which may adversely 40 CFR part 258 (MSWLF), removal to these pretreatment standards, a affect public health and the credits may be available for any POTW (once compliance with 40 CFR environment. Section 405 requires EPA pollutant in sewage sludge. See 40 CFR 403.7 is shown and removal credit to develop these standards in two 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(C). authority is granted) may be able to phases. On November 25, 1992, EPA Thus, given compliance with the effectively authorize the waiving of promulgated the Round One sewage requirements of EPA’s removal credit what otherwise would be required sludge regulations establishing regulations,28 following promulgation of treatment of the PFPR wastewaters by standards, including numerical the pretreatment standards being authorizing a removal credit to the PFPR pollutant limits, for the use and disposal proposed here, removal credits may be industrial user to the extent of any of sewage sludge. 58 FR 9248. EPA authorized for any pollutant subject to pollutants remaining in its discharge established pollutant limits for ten pretreatment standards if the applying after all applicable pollution prevention metals when sewage sludge is applied to POTW disposes of its sewage sludge in practices have been complied with. land, for three metals when it is a MSWLF that meets the requirements However, removal credits could only be disposed of at surface disposal sites and of 40 CFR part 258. If the POTW uses granted to the extent that granting of for seven metals and total hydrocarbons, or disposes of its sewage sludge by land such credits would not result in pass a surrogate for organic pollutant application, surface disposal or through or interference at the POTW as emissions, when sewage sludge is incineration, removal credits may be defined in 40 CFR 403.3 and in incinerated. These requirements are available for the following metal accordance with the provisions of codified at 40 CFR part 503. pollutants (depending on the method of § 403.5, and EPA would expect that the At the same time EPA promulgated use or disposal): Arsenic, cadmium, PFPR industrial user would have to the Round One regulations, EPA also chromium, copper, lead, mercury, continue to comply with the pollution amended its pretreatment regulations to molybdenum, nickel, selenium and prevention practices as specified in the provide that removal credits would be zinc. Given compliance with § 403.7, P2 Alternative even if a removal credit available for certain pollutants regulated removal credits may be available for the had been provided. in the sewage sludge regulations. See 58 following organic pollutants (depending D. Analytical Methods FR at 9386. The amendments to Part 403 on the method of use or disposal): provide that removal credits may be acrylonitrile, aldrin/dieldrin (total), Section 304(h) of the Act directs EPA made potentially available for the benzene, benzidine, benzo(a)pyrene, to promulgate guidelines establishing following pollutants: bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, bis(2- test methods for the analysis of (1) If a POTW applies its sewage ethylhexyl)phthalate, pollutants. These methods are used to sludge to the land for beneficial uses, bromodichloromethane, bromoethane, determine the presence and disposes of it on surface disposal sites bromoform, carbon tetrachloride, concentration of pollutants in or incinerates it, removal credits may be chlordane, chloroform, chloromethane, wastewater, and are used for available, depending on which use or DDD, DDE, DDT, compliance monitoring and for filing disposal method is selected (so long as dibromochloromethane, dibutyl applications for the NPDES program the POTW complies with the phthalate, 1,2-dichloroethane, 1,1- under 40 CFR 122.21, 122.41, 122.44 requirements in part 503). When sewage dichloroethylene, 2,4-dichlorophenol, and 123.25, and for the implementation sludge is applied to land, removal 1,3-dichloropropene, diethyl phthalate, of the pretreatment standards under 40 credits may be available for ten metals. 2,4-dinitrophenol, 1,2- CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA When sewage sludge is disposed of on diphenylhydrazine, di-n-butyl has promulgated methods for a surface disposal site, removal credits phthalate, endosulfan, endrin, conventional pollutants, toxic may be available for three metals. When ehtylbenzene, heptachlor, heptachlor pollutants, and for some non- the sewage sludge is incinerated, epoxide, hexachlorobutadiene, conventional pollutants. The five removal credits may be available for alphahexachlorocyclohexane, conventional pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 401.16. Table I–B at 40 CFR part seven metals and for 57 organic betahexachlorocyclohexane, 136 lists the analytical methods pollutants. See 40 CFR hexachlorocyclopentadiene, approved for these pollutants. The 65 403.7(a)(3)(iv)(A). hexachloroethane, hydrogen cyanide, toxic metals and organic pollutants and (2) In addition, when sewage sludge is isophorone, lindane, methylene classes of pollutants are defined at 40 used on land or disposed of on a surface chloride, nitrobenzene, n- disposal site or incinerated, removal CFR 401.15. From the list of 65 classes credits may also be available for 28 Under § 403.7, a POTW is authorized to give of toxic pollutants EPA identified a list additional pollutants so long as the removal credits only under certain conditions. of 126 ‘‘Priority Pollutants.’’ This list of concentration of the pollutant in sludge These include applying for, and obtaining, approval Priority Pollutants is shown, for does not exceed a concentration level from the Regional Administrator (or Director of a example, at 40 CFR part 423, appendix State NPDES program with an approved established in part 403. When sewage pretreatment program), a showing of consistent A. The list includes non-pesticide sludge is applied to land, removal pollutant removal and an approved pretreatment organic pollutants, metal pollutants, credits may be available for two program. See 40 CFR 403.7(a)(3)(I), (ii), and (iii). cyanide, asbestos, and pesticide 57548 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations pollutants. Currently approved methods required, may use analytical methods to TSS—Total Suspended Solids for metals and cyanide are included in demonstrate that their treatment system UMRA—Unfunded Mandate Reform Act the table of approved inorganic test are ‘‘well operated and maintained,’’ as UTS—Universal Treatment System VOCs—Volatile Organic Compounds procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I–B. explained in the P2 Alternative. In Zero/P2 Alternative—Zero Discharge/ Table I–C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists approved addition, permitting/control authorities Pollution Prevention Alternative Option methods for measurement of non- can set numerical limitations using BPJ/ pesticide organic pollutants, and Table BEJ which may rely on the use of For the reasons set out in the I–D lists approved methods for the toxic analytical methods for demonstrating preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code pesticide pollutants and for other compliance. of Federal Regulations is amended as pesticide pollutants. follows: List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 455 EPA believes that the analytical PART 455ÐPESTICIDE CHEMICALS methods for pesticide active ingredients Environmental protection, Chemicals, contained in the promulgated pesticide Packaging and containers, Pesticides 1. The authority citation for part 455 manufacturing effluent guidelines and and pests, Pollution prevention, Waste continues to read as follows: standards (see Methods for the treatment and disposal, Water pollution Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, and Determination of Nonconventional control. 501, Pub. L. 92–500, 86 Stat, 816, Pub. L. 95– Pesticides in Municipal and Industrial Dated: September 30, 1996. 217, 91 Stat. 156, and Pub. L. 100–4, 101 Stat. 7 (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, and Wastewater, Volumes I & II, EPA 821– Carol M. Browner, 1361). R–93–010–A&B, August 1993, Revision Administrator. 1) will perform equally well on treated 1a. Section 455.10 is amended by pesticide formulating, packaging or Appendix A to the Preamble— adding paragraphs (g) through (u) to repackaging wastewaters as on pesticide Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Other read as follows: Terms Used in This Document manufacturing wastewaters. Raw § 455.10 General definitions. wastewater samples may on occasion B.t.—Bacillus thuringiensis * * * * * require some separation prior to BAT—Best Available Control Technology Economically Achievable (g) Appropriate pollution control analysis, analogous to the emulsion technology means the wastewater breaking pretreatment included in BCT—Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology treatment technology listed in Table 10 EPA’s costed BAT technology. Many of BEJ—Best Engineering Judgement to this part 455 for a particular PAI(s) these methods have in fact been used on BIF—Boilers and Industrial Furnaces including an emulsion breaking step the PFPR sampled wastewaters. All of BOD—Biochemical Oxygen Demand prior to the listed technology when the active ingredient pollutant data that BPJ—Best Professional Judgement emulsions are present in the wastewater supports the proposed effluent BPT—Best Practicable Control Technology to be treated. limitations were generated using Currently Available (h) Equivalent system means a analytical methods that employ the CAA—Clean Air Act CO—Carbon Monoxide wastewater treatment system that is approved methods or are based upon demonstrated in literature, treatability the approved methods at 40 CFR part CSF—Confidential Statement of Formula CWA—Clean Water Act tests or self-monitoring data to remove 136 or contained in Methods for the DOT—Department of Transportation a similar level of pesticide active Determination of Nonconventional FATES—FIFRA and TSCA Enforcement ingredient (PAI) or priority pollutants as Pesticides in Municipal and Industrial System the applicable appropriate pollution Wastewater. For PAI’s that have no FDA—Food and Drug Administration control technology listed in Table 10 to EPA-approved analytical methods, FDF—Fundamentally Different Factors this Part 455. PFPR facilities may utilize alternative FIFRA—Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, (i) Formulation of pesticide products sampling and analysis methods as Rodenticide Act means the process of mixing, blending GMPs—Good Manufacturing Practices specified in 40 CFR 136.4 and or diluting one or more pesticide active 403.12(g)(4). At some future date, EPA GRAS—Generally Recognized As Safe ICR—Information Collection Request ingredients (PAIs) with one or more may transfer the analytical methods NOx—Nitrogen oxides active or inert ingredients, without an promulgated at part 455 to part 136 as NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge intended chemical reaction to obtain a a part of EPA’s effort to consolidate Elimination System manufacturing use product or an end analytical methods and streamline NSPS—New Source Performance Standards use product. promulgation of new methods. As P2—Pollution Prevention (j) Group 1 mixtures means any discussed in Section XII.A.1, EPA PAI—Pesticide Active Ingredient product whose only pesticidal active believes that those facilities choosing PFPR—Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and ingredient(s) is: a common food/food zero discharge will either demonstrate Repackaging constituent or non-toxic household zero discharge through no process PM—Particulate Matter POTW—Publicly Owned Treatment Works item; or is a substance that is generally wastewater flow or will demonstrate PPA—Pollution Prevention Act recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food compliance using the analytical PSES—Pretreatment Standards for Existing and Drug Administration (21 CFR methods to show PAIs levels are at or Sources 170.30, 182, 184, and 186) in below detection (or meeting pesticide PSNS—Pretreatment Standards for New accordance with good manufacturing manufacturing limitations with no Sources practices, as defined by 21 CFR part allowance given to PFPR wastewater). RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 182; or is exempt from FIFRA under 40 Facilities choosing to demonstrate that Act CFR 152.25. they are in compliance with the P2 R & D—Research and Development (k) Group 2 mixtures means those Alternative will use submittal of SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act chemicals listed in Table 9 to this part certification statements, inspections, 455. SO2—Sulfur dioxide and demonstrated implementation of SRRP—Source Reduction Review Project (l) Inorganic wastewater treatment the listed P2 practices to assure TDD—Technical Development Document chemicals means inorganic chemicals compliance with the final rule. TSCA—Toxic Substances Control Act that are commonly used in wastewater However, some facilities, although not TSD—Treatment, Storage and Disposal treatment systems to aid in the removal Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57549 of pollutants through physical/chemical defined in this section (455.10(q)). This the formulation, packaging and/or technologies such as chemical definition does not include liquid repackaging of sanitizer products precipitation, flocculation, chemical sterilants (including (including pool chemicals); neutralization, chemical oxidation, sporicidals) exempted by § 455.40(f) or microorganisms; inorganic wastewater hydrolysis and/or adsorption. otherwise, industrial preservatives, and treatment chemicals; group 1 mixtures (m) Interior wastewater sources means water treatment microbiocides other and group 2 mixtures, as defined under wastewater that is generated from than pool chemicals. § 455.10. cleaning or rinsing the interior of (u) Stand-alone PFPR facility means a (e) The provisions of this subpart do pesticide formulating, packaging or PFPR facility where either: No pesticide not apply to wastewater discharges from repackaging equipment; or from rinsing manufacturing occurs; or where the development of new formulations of the interior of raw material drums, pesticide manufacturing process pesticide products and the associated shipping containers or bulk storage wastewaters are not commingled with efficacy and field testing at on-site or tanks; or cooling water that comes in PFPR process wastewaters. Such stand-alone research and development direct contact with pesticide active facilities may formulate, package or laboratories where the resulting ingredients (PAIs) during the repackage or manufacture other non- pesticide product is not produced for formulating, packaging or repackaging pesticide chemical products and be sale. process. considered a ‘‘stand-alone’’ PFPR (f) The provisions of this subpart do (n) Microorganisms means registered facility. not apply to wastewater discharges from pesticide active ingredients that are 1b. Section 455.11 is revised to read the formulation, packaging and/or biological control agents listed in 40 as follows: repackaging of liquid chemical sterilant CFR 152.20(a)(3) including Eucaryotes products (including any sterilant or (protozoa, algae, fungi), Procaryotes § 455.11 Compliance date for pretreatment subordinate disinfectant claims on such standards for existing sources (PSES). (bacteria), and Viruses. products) for use on a critical or semi- (o) Packaging of pesticide products All discharges subject to pretreatment critical device, as defined in Section 201 means enclosing or placing a formulated standards for existing sources (PSES) in of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic pesticide product into a marketable subparts A and B of this part must Act and in Section 2(u) of the Federal container. comply with the standards no later than Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide (p) PFPR/Manufacturer means a September 28, 1993. Act. pesticide formulating, packaging and 3. Section 455.41 is added to Subpart Subpart CÐPesticide Formulating, repackaging facility that also performs C to read as follows: pesticide manufacturing on-site and Packaging and Repackaging (PFPR) commingles their PFPR process Subcategory § 455.41 Special definitions. wastewaters and pesticide 2. Section 455.40 is revised as to read (a) Initial Certification Statement for manufacturing process wastewaters. as follows: this subpart means a written submission (q) Pool chemicals means pesticide to the appropriate permitting authority, products that are intended to disinfect § 455.40 Applicability; description of the e.g., the local Control Authority (the or sanitize, reducing or mitigating pesticide formulating, packaging and POTW) or NPDES permit writer which growth or development of repackaging subcategory. must be signed by the responsible microbiological organisms including (a) The provisions of this subpart are corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR bacteria, algae, fungi or viruses in the applicable to discharges resulting from 403.12(l) or 40 CFR 122.22 and which: water of swimming pools, hot tubs, spas all pesticide formulating, packaging and (1) Lists and describes those product or other such areas, in the household repackaging operations except as families, process lines and/or process and/or institutional environment, as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e) units for which the PFPR facility is provided in the directions for use on the and (f) of this section. implementing the Pollution Prevention product label. (b) The provisions of this subpart do Alternative (‘‘P2 Alternative’’); (r) Refilling establishment means an not apply to repackaging of agricultural (2) Describes the PFPR facility establishment where the activity of pesticides performed at refilling specific practices for each product repackaging pesticide product into establishments, as described in § 455.60. family/process line/process unit which refillable containers occurs. (c) The provisions of this subpart do are to be practiced as part of the P2 (s) Repackaging of pesticide products not apply to wastewater discharges Alternative; means the transfer of a pesticide from: the operation of employee (3) Describes any justification formulation (or PAI) from one container showers and laundry facilities; the allowing modification to the practices to another without a change in testing of fire protection equipment; the listed in Table 8 to this part 455; and composition of the formulation or the testing and emergency operation of (4) Lists the treatment system being labeling content, for sale or distribution. safety showers and eye washes; storm used to obtain a P2 allowable discharge (t) Sanitizer products means pesticide water; Department of Transportation (as defined in 455.41). products that are intended to disinfect (DOT) aerosol leak test bath water from (b) Periodic Certification Statement or sanitize, reducing or mitigating non-continuous overflow baths (batch for this subpart means a written growth or development of baths) where no cans have burst from submission to the appropriate microbiological organisms including the time of the last water change-out; permitting authority, e.g., the local bacteria, fungi or viruses on inanimate and on-site laboratories from cleaning Control Authority (the POTW) or surfaces in the household, institutional, analytical equipment and glassware and NPDES permit writer, which states that and/or commercial environment and rinsing the retain sample container the P2 Alternative is being implemented whose labeled directions for use result (except for the initial rinse of the retain in the manner set forth in the control in the product being discharged to sample container which is considered a mechanism (for indirect dischargers) or Publicly Owned Treatment Works process wastewater source for this NPDES permit (for direct dischargers) or (POTWs). This definition shall also subpart). that a justification allowing include sanitizer solutions as defined by (d) The provisions of this subpart do modification of the practices listed in 21 CFR 178.1010 and pool chemicals as not apply to wastewater discharges from Table 8 to this part 455 has been 57550 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations implemented resulting in a change in sufficient level of pollutant reduction. also subject to the provisions of § 455.22 or the pollution prevention practices Pretreatment requirements may be § 455.32, ‘‘zero discharge’’ means that conducted at the facility. The Periodic modified or waived by the Control permitting authorities shall provide no Certification Statement must be signed Authority (POTW) to the extent that additional discharge allowance for those removal credits have been granted by pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) in the by the responsible corporate officer as pesticide formulating, packaging and defined in 40 CFR 403.12(l) or 40 CFR the POTW in accordance with 40 CFR repackaging wastewaters when those PAIs 122.22. 403.7, provided the granting of such are also manufactured at the same facility. (c) On-site Compliance Paperwork for credits does not result in pass through this subpart means data or information or interference as defined in 40 CFR (b) Any existing facility subject to maintained in the offices of the PFPR 403.3 and complies with the provisions paragraph (a) of this section may have facility which supports the initial and of 40 CFR 403.5. The facility must a pollution prevention allowable periodic certification statements as demonstrate that the appropriate discharge, as defined in § 455.41(e), of follows: pollution control technology is properly wastewater pollutants to navigable (1) Lists and describes those product maintained and operated. waters if the discharger agrees to NPDES families, process lines and/or process (e) For Direct Dischargers: permit conditions as follows: units for which the facility is Pollution prevention (P2) allowable (1) The discharger will meet the implementing the P2 Alternative; discharge for this subpart means the requirements of the Pollution (2) Describes the facility specific quantity of/concentrations of pollutants Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 practices for each product family/ in PFPR process wastewaters that to this part 455 (or received a process line/process unit which are to remain after a facility has demonstrated modification by Best Professional be practiced as part of the P2 that it is using the specified practices of Judgement for modifications not listed Alternative; the Pollution Prevention Alternative as in Table 8 of this Part 455); (3) Describes any justification listed in Table 8 to this part 455 and (2) The discharger will notify its allowing modification to the practices that have been treated using appropriate NPDES permit writer at the time of listed in Table 8 to this part 455; pollution control technologies, as renewal or modification of its permit, of (4) Includes a written discussion defined in § 455.10(g), or a pesticide its intent to utilize the Pollution demonstrating that the treatment system manufacturer’s treatment system, or an Prevention Alternative by submitting to being used contains the appropriate equivalent system, used individually, or the NPDES permit writer an initial pollution control technologies (or in any combination to achieve a certification statement as described in equivalent systems/pesticide sufficient level of pollutant reduction. § 455.41(a); manufacturing systems) for removing The facility must demonstrate that the (3) The discharger will submit to its the PAIs which may be found in the appropriate pollution control NPDES permitting authority a periodic wastewater; technology is properly maintained and certification statements as described in (5) Establishes a method for operated. § 455.41(b) once each year of operation; demonstrating to the permitting/control (f) Process wastewater, for this and authority that the treatment system is subpart, means all wastewater (4) The discharger will maintain at the well operated and maintained; and associated with pesticide formulating, office of the facility and make available (6) Includes a discussion of the packaging and repackaging except for for inspection the on-site compliance rationale for choosing the method of sanitary water, non-contact cooling paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). demonstration. water and those wastewaters excluded 5. New §§ 455.43 through 455.47 are (d) For Indirect Dischargers: from the applicability of the rule in added to subpart C to read as follows: Pollution prevention (P2) allowable § 455.40. discharge (excluding interior wastewater 4. Section 455.42 is revised to read as § 455.43 Effluent limitations guidelines sources, leak and spill clean-up water, follows: representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of and floor wash) for this subpart means § 455.42 Effluent limitations guidelines the quantity of/concentrations of the best conventional pollutant control representing the degree of effluent technology (BCT). pollutants in PFPR process wastewaters reduction attainable by the application of that remain after a facility has the best practicable control technology Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 demonstrated that it is using the currently available, (BPT). through 125.32, any existing point specified practices of the Pollution Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 source subject to this subpart must Prevention Alternative as listed in Table through 125.32, any existing point achieve the effluent limitations 8 to this part 455. source subject to this subpart shall representing the degree of effluent Pollution prevention (P2) allowable achieve the following effluent reduction attainable by the application discharge for interior wastewater limitations representing the degree of of the best conventional pollutant sources, leak and spill cleanup water, effluent reduction attainable by the control technology. and floor wash for this subpart means application of the best practicable (a) Except as provided in paragraph the quantity of/concentrations of control technology currently available. (b) of this section, the BCT limitations pollutants in PFPR process wastewaters (a) Except as provided in paragraph are established as follows: There shall that remain after a facility has (b) of this section, the following be no discharge of process wastewater demonstrated that it is using the limitations establish the quantity or pollutants to navigable waters. specified practices of the Pollution quality of pollutants or pollutant Note: For existing PFPR/Manufacturer Prevention Alternative as listed in Table properties controlled by this paragraph facilities, as defined in § 455.10(p), which are 8 to this part 455 and that have been which may be discharged from the also subject to the provisions of §§ 455.23, pretreated using appropriate pollution formulation, packaging or repackaging zero discharge means that permitting authorities shall provide no discharge control technologies, as defined in of pesticides: There shall be no discharge of process wastewater additional discharge allowance for those § 455.10(g), or a pesticide pesticide active ingredients (PAIs) in the manufacturer’s treatment system, or an pollutants to navigable waters. pesticide formulating, packaging and equivalent system, used individually, or Note: For existing PFPR/Manufacturer repackaging wastewaters when those PAIs in any combination to achieve a facilities, as defined in § 455.10(p), which are are also manufactured at the same facility. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57551

(b) Any existing facility subject to modification by Best Professional for inspection the on-site compliance paragraph (a) of this section may have Judgement for modifications not listed paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). a pollution prevention allowable on Table 8 of this Part 455); § 455.46 Pretreatment standards for discharge, as defined in § 455.41(e), of (2) The discharger will notify its existing sources (PSES). wastewater pollutants to navigable NPDES permitting authority at the time (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR waters if the discharger agrees to NPDES of renewal or modification of its permit, 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of permit conditions as follows: of its intent to utilize the Pollution (1) The discharger will meet the Prevention Alternative by submitting to this section, no later than November 6, requirements of the Pollution the NPDES permit writer an initial 1999, any existing source subject to this Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 certification statement as described in subpart which introduces pollutants to this Part 455 (or received a § 455.41(a); into a publicly owned treatment works modification by Best Professional (3) The discharger will submit to its must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and Judgement for modifications not listed NPDES permit writer a periodic achieve PSES as follows: There shall be in Table 8 of this Part 455); certification statement as described in no discharge of process wastewater (2) The discharger will notify its § 455.41(b) once each year of operation; pollutants. NPDES permit writer at the time of and (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR renewal or modification of its permit, of (4) The discharger will maintain at the 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source its intent to utilize the Pollution office of the facility and make available subject to paragraph (a) of this section Prevention Alternative by submitting to for inspection the on-site compliance which introduces pollutants into a the NPDES permit writer an initial paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and may certification statement as described in § 455.45 New Source Performance § 455.41(a); Standards (NSPS). have a pollution prevention allowable discharge of wastewater pollutants, as (3) The discharger will submit to its (a) Any new source, except as defined in § 455.41(d), if the discharger NPDES permitting authority a periodic provided in paragraph (b) of this agrees to control mechanism or certification statement as described in section, subject to this subpart which pretreatment agreement conditions as § 455.41(b) once each year of operation; discharges process wastewater must follows: and meet the following standards: There (4) The discharger will maintain at the shall be no discharge of process (1) The discharger will meet the office of the facility and make available wastewater pollutants to navigable requirements of the Pollution for inspection the on-site compliance waters. Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 to this Part 455 (or received a paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). Note: For new PFPR/Manufacturer modification by Best Engineering § 455.44 Effluent limitations guidelines facilities, as defined in § 455.10(p), which are representing the degree of effluent also subject to the provisions of §§ 455.25, Judgement for modifications not listed reduction attainable by the application of zero discharge means that permitting in Table 8 to this Part 455); the best available control technology authorities shall provide no additional (2) The discharger will notify its local economically achievable (BAT). discharge allowance for those pesticide Control Authority at the time of Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 active ingredients (PAIs) in the pesticide renewing or modifying its individual through 125.32, any existing point formulating, packaging and repackaging control mechanism or pretreatment wastewaters when those PAIs are also agreement of its intent to utilize the source subject to this subpart must manufactured at the same facility. achieve the effluent limitations Pollution Prevention Alternative by representing the degree of effluent (b) Any new source subject to submitting to the local Control reduction attainable by the application paragraph (a) of this section may have Authority an initial certification of the best available technology (BAT). a pollution prevention allowable statement as described in § 455.41(a); discharge, as defined in § 455.41(e), of (a) Except as provided in paragraph (3) The discharger will submit to its wastewater pollutants to navigable (b) of this section, the BAT limitations local Control Authority a periodic waters if the discharger agrees to NPDES are established as follows: There shall certification statement as described in be no discharge of process wastewater permit conditions as follows: (1) The discharger will meet the § 455.41(b) during the months of June pollutants to navigable waters. requirements of the Pollution and December of each year of operation; Note: For existing PFPR/Manufacturer Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 and facilities, as defined in § 455.10(p), which are (4) The discharger will maintain at the also subject to the provisions of §§ 455.24, to this Part 455 (or received a modification by Best Professional offices of the facility and make available zero discharge means that permitting for inspection the on-site compliance authorities shall provide no additional Judgement for modifications not listed discharge allowance for those pesticide in Table 8 of this Part 455); paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). active ingredients (PAIs) in the pesticide (2) The discharger will notify its (c) Except as provided in 40 CFR formulating, packaging and repackaging NPDES permit writer at the time of 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source wastewaters when those PAIs are also submitting its application for a permit, subject to § 455.46(b) which introduces manufactured at the same facility. of its intent to utilize the Pollution pollutants into a publicly owned (b) Any existing facility subject to Prevention Alternative by submitting to treatment works must comply with 40 paragraph (a) of this section may have the NPDES permit writer an initial CFR part 403 and may submit a request a pollution prevention allowable certification statement as described in to its Control Authority to waive discharge, as defined in § 455.41(e), of § 455.41(a); pretreatment of: floor wash; and/or a wastewater pollutants to navigable (3) The discharger will submit to its non-reusable final rinse of a triple rinse, waters if the discharger agrees to NPDES NPDES permitting authority a periodic if the concentrations of pesticide active permit conditions as follows: certification statement as described in ingredients and priority pollutants in (1) The discharger will meet the § 455.41(b) once each year of operation; those wastewater sources have been requirements of the Pollution and demonstrated to be too low to be Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 (4) The discharger will maintain at the effectively pretreated at the facility. The to this Part 455 (or received a office of the facility and make available Control Authority may waive 57552 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations pretreatment for these two wastewaters waive pretreatment for these two § 455.10, or non-agricultural pesticide only if the existing source makes the wastewaters only if the new source products. demonstrations and is in compliance makes the demonstrations and is in with 40 CFR 403.5. compliance with 40 CFR 403.5. § 455.61 Special definitions. 6. A new subpart E consisting of Process wastewater, for this subpart, § 455.47 Pretreatment Standards for New §§ 455.60 through 455.67 is added to means all wastewater except for sanitary Sources (PSNS). read as follows: water and those wastewaters excluded (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR from the applicability of the rule in 403.7 and 403.13 or in paragraph (b) of Subpart EÐRepackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed at Refilling § 455.60. this section, any new source subject to Establishments this subpart which introduces § 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines pollutants into a publicly owned Sec. representing the degree of effluent 455.60 Applicability; description of the reduction attainable by the application of treatment works must comply with 40 repackaging of agricultural pesticides the best practicable pollutant control CFR part 403 and achieve PSNS as performed by refilling establishments technology (BPT). follows: There shall be no discharge of subcategory. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 process wastewater pollutants. 455.61 Special Definitions. through 125.32, any existing point (b) Except as provided in 40 CFR 455.62 Effluent limitations guidelines 403.7 and 403.13, any new source representing the degree of effluent source subject to this subpart must subject to paragraph (a) of this section reduction attainable by the application of achieve effluent limitations representing which introduces pollutants into a the best practicable pollutant control the degree of effluent reduction publicly owned treatment works must technology (BPT). attainable by the application of the best 455.63 Effluent limitations guidelines practicable pollutant control comply with 40 CFR part 403 and may representing the degree of effluent have a pollution prevention allowable technology: There shall be no discharge reduction attainable by the application of of process wastewater pollutants. discharge of wastewater pollutants, as the best conventional pollutant control defined in § 455.41(d), if the discharger technology (BCT). § 455.63 Effluent limitations guidelines agrees to control mechanism or 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of effluent pretreatment agreement conditions as representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of follows: reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant control (1) The discharger will meet the the best available technology technology (BCT). requirements of the Pollution economically achievable (BAT). Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 455.65 New source performance standards Prevention Alternative listed in Table 8 (NSPS). through 125.32, any existing point to this Part 455 (or received a 455.66 Pretreatment standards for existing source subject to this subpart must modification by Best Engineering sources (PSES). achieve effluent limitations representing Judgement for modifications not listed 455.67 Pretreatment standards for new the degree of effluent reduction in Table 8 to this Part 455); sources (PSNS). attainable by the application of the best (2) The discharger will notify its local conventional pollution control Control Authority at the time of Subpart EÐRepackaging of technology: There shall be no discharge submitting its application for an Agricultural Pesticides Performed at of process wastewater pollutants. individual control mechanism or Refilling Establishments § 455.64 Effluent limitations guidelines pretreatment agreement of its intent to § 455.60 Applicability; description of utilize the Pollution Prevention representing the degree of effluent repackaging of agricultural pesticides reduction attainable by the application of Alternative by submitting to the local performed by refilling establishments the best available technology economically Control Authority an initial certification subcategory. achievable (BAT). statement as described in § 455.41(a); (a) The provisions of this subpart are Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 (3) The discharger will submit to its applicable to discharges resulting from through 125.32, any existing point local Control Authority a periodic all repackaging of agricultural pesticides source subject to this subpart must certification statement as described in performed by refilling establishments, achieve effluent limitations representing § 455.41(b) during the months of June as defined in § 455.10; whose primary the degree of effluent reduction and December of each year of operation; business is wholesale or retail sales; and attainable by the application of the best and where no pesticide manufacturing, available technology economically (4) The discharger will maintain at the formulating or packaging occurs, except offices of the facility and make available achievable: There shall be no discharge as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and of process wastewater pollutants. for inspection the on-site compliance (d) of this section. paperwork as described in § 455.41(c). (b) The provisions of this subpart do § 455.65 New source performance (c) Except as provided in 40 CFR not apply to wastewater discharges from standards (NSPS). 403.7 and 403.13, any new source custom application or custom blending, Any new source subject to this subject to paragraph (b) of this section as defined in 40 CFR 167.3. subpart which discharges process which introduces pollutants into a (c) The provisions of this subpart do wastewater pollutants must meet the publicly owned treatment works must not apply to wastewater discharges following standards: There shall be no comply with 40 CFR part 403 and may from: the operation of employee discharge of process wastewater submit a request to its Control Authority showers and laundry facilities; the pollutants. to waive pretreatment of: floor wash; testing of fire protection equipment; the and/or a non-reusable final rinse of a testing and emergency operation of § 455.66 Pretreatment standards for triple rinse, if the concentrations of safety showers and eye washes; or storm existing sources (PSES). pesticide active ingredients and priority water. Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 pollutants in those wastewater sources (d) The provisions of this subpart do and 403.13, no later than November 6, have been demonstrated to be too low not apply to wastewater discharges from 1999 subpart which introduces to be effectively pretreated at the the repackaging of microorganisms or pollutants into a publicly owned facility. The Control Authority may Group 1 Mixtures, as defined under treatment works must comply with 40 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57553

CFR part 403 and achieve the 3. Must sweep or vacuum dry using water conservation practices, the pretreatment standards for existing production areas prior to rinsing with large concentration of inert ingredient in sources as follows: There shall be no water. the formulation creates more volume discharge of process wastewater 4. Must clean interiors of dry than could feasibly be reused; or (2) the pollutants. formulation equipment with dry carrier facility can demonstrate that the prior to any water rinse. The carrier concentration of the inert in the § 455.67 Pretreatment standards for new material must be stored and reused in formulation is so small that the reuse sources (PSNS). future formulation of the same or would cause a formulation to exceed the Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 compatible product or properly ranges allowed in the Confidential and 403.13, any new source subject to disposed of as solid waste. Statement of Formula (CSF) (40 CFR this subpart which introduces 5. If operating continuous overflow 158.155); or pollutants into a publicly owned Department of Transportation (DOT) (b) Drums/shipping containers are treatment works must comply with 40 aerosol leak test baths—> going to a drum refurbisher/recycler CFR part 403 and achieve the Must operate with some recirculation. who will only accept drums rinsed with pretreatment standards for existing 6. If operating air pollution control water.] sources as follows: There shall be no wet scrubbers—> 9. Must dedicate PFPR production discharge of process wastewater Must operate as recirculating equipment by water-based versus pollutants. scrubbers (periodic blowdown is solvent-based products. Dedicated 7. Tables 8, 9, and 10 are added to allowed as needed). solvent-based or water-based equipment part 455 to read as follows: [Modification allowed when: Facility may be used on a non-routine basis for Table 8 to Part 455—List of Pollution demonstrates that they would not be non-dedicated operations; however the Prevention Alternative Practices able to meet Resource Conservation facility may not discharge the solvent/ aqueous changeover rinsate as part of A modification to the list of practices Recovery Act or Clean Air Act (CAA) their P2 allowable discharge (i.e., the on this table that an individual facility requirements.] facility must achieve zero discharge of must comply with to be eligible for the 7. When performing rinsing of raw those process wastewater pollutants). pollution prevention alternative is material drums, storage drums, and/or allowed with acceptable justification as shipping containers that contained [Modification allowed when: Facility listed on this table as approved by the liquid PAI(s) and/or inert ingredients for has installed and is using a solvent permit writer or control authority (using the formulation of water-based recovery system for the changeover BPJ/BEJ) after submittal by the facility of products—> rinsate (can also be used for other a request for modification. A Must reuse the drum/shipping solvent recovery).] modification, for purposes of this table, container rinsate DIRECTLY into the 10. Must store the rinsate from means that a facility would no longer formulation at the time of formulation; interior rinsing (does not include drum/ have to perform a listed practice or or store for use in future formulation of shipping container rinsate) for reuse in would need to comply with a modified same or compatible product; or use a future formulation of same or practice. However, the modification staged drum rinsing station (counter compatible product. only applies to the specific practice for current rinsing). [Modification allowed when: which the modification has been [Modification allowed when: the drum/ (a) Facility has evidence of biological justified and to no other listed practices. shipping container holds inert growth or other product deterioration Facilities are required to thoroughly ingredient(s) only and (1) the facility over a typical storage period; discuss all modifications in the on-site can demonstrate that, after using water (b) Facility has space limitations, BUT compliance paperwork as described conservation practices, the large must still store rinsates for most above in the limitations and standards concentration of inert ingredient in the frequently produced products; (§ 455.41(c)). formulation creates more volume than (c) Manufacturer (or formulator 1. Must use water conservation could feasibly be reused; or (2) the contracting for toll formulating) has practices. These practices may include, facility can demonstrate that the directed otherwise (i.e., send back to but are not limited to using: spray concentration of the inert in the them or send for off-site disposal); nozzles or flow reduction devices on formulation is so small that the reuse (d) Facility is dropping registration or hoses, low volume/high pressure rinsing would cause a formulation to exceed the production of the formulation and there equipment, floor scrubbing machines, ranges allowed in the Confidential is no compatible formulation for reuse mop(s) and bucket(s), and counter Statement of Formula (CSF) (40 CFR of the rinsates or facility can provide current staged drum rinsing stations. 158.155).] reasonable explanation of why it does not anticipate formulation of same or [Modification allowed when: Rinsing 8. When performing rinsing of raw narrow transfer lines or piping where compatible formulation within the next material drums, storage drums, and/or 12 months; sufficient rinsing is better achieved by shipping containers that contained flushing with water.] (e) Facility only performs packaging liquid PAI(s) and/or inert ingredients for of the pesticide product from which 2. Must practice good housekeeping: the formulation of solvent-based (a) Perform preventative maintenance interior rinsate is generated; or products—> on all valves and fittings and repair (f) Facility has demonstrated that it Must reuse the drum/shipping leaky valves and fittings in a timely must use a detergent to clean the container rinsate DIRECTLY into the manner; equipment.] formulation at the time of formulation (b) Use drip pans under any valves or or store for use in future formulation of Notes fittings where hoses or lines are same or compatible product. For indirect dischargers: After following routinely connected and disconnected, [Modification allowed when: the practices above, some wastewaters may collect for reuse when possible; and require pretreatment prior to discharge to (c) Perform quick cleanup of leaks and (a) The drum/shipping container POTWs. See definition of pollution spills in outdoor bulk storage or process holds inert ingredient(s) only and: (1) prevention allowable discharge for indirect areas. The facility can demonstrate that, after dischargers (§ 455.41(d)). 57554 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

For direct dischargers: After following the TABLE 9 TO PART 455.ÐGROUP 2 2 EPA does not believe this PAI will persist in sanitary streams long enough to reach a practices above, all wastewaters require MIXTURESÐContinued treatment prior to discharge directly to the POTW. nation’s waters. See definition of pollution Shaughnessey 1 Table 10 to Part 455—List of prevention allowable discharge for direct code Chemical name dischargers (§ 455.41(e)). Appropriate Pollution Control Additional information and guidance on 071004 ...... Cube Resins other than rote- Technologies implementing these P2 practices as well as none. This table contains those pollutant evaluating compliance with these practices 071501 ...... Ryania speciosa, powdered will be available in a P2 Guidance Manual for stems of. control technologies, such as hydrolysis, the PFPR Industry. 072602 2 ...... Silica gel. chemical oxidation, precipitation and 072605 2 ...... Silicon dioxide. activated carbon adsorption, which have TABLE 9 TO PART 455.ÐGROUP 2 079014 ...... Turkey red oil. been used for estimating compliance MIXTURES 079021 ...... Potassium salts of fatty costs on a PAI specific basis. In general, acids. these treatment technologies have been 079029 ...... Fatty alcohols (52±61% C10, Shaughnessey 1 code Chemical name 39±46% C8, 0±3% C6, 0± determined to be effective in treating 3% C12). pesticide containing wastewaters in 002201 ...... Sabadilla alkaloids. 079034 ...... Methyl esters of fatty acids literature, in bench or pilot scale 006501 ...... Aromatic petroleum deriva- (100% C8±C12) treatability studies or in the Pesticide tive solvent. 079059 ...... Fatty alcohols (54.5% C10, Manufacturing effluent guidelines. 006602 ...... Heavy aromatic naphtha. 45.1% C8, 0.4% C6) These are the same technologies that are 0166012 ...... Dry ice. 086803 ...... Xylene range aromatic sol- 022003 ...... Coal tar. vent presented as part of the Universal 025001 ...... Coal tar neutral oils. 107302 ...... Polyhedral inclusion bodies Treatment System. However, these 025003 ...... Creosote oil (Note: Derived of Douglas fir tussock technologies are PAI specific and may from any source). moth nucl. need to be used in conjunction with one 025004 ...... Coal tar creosote. 107303 ...... Polyhedral inclusion bodies another to provide treatment for all PAIs 031801 ...... Ammonium salts of C8±18 of gypsy moth used at a facility over a period of time. and C18' fatty acids. nucleopolyhedrosis. 055601 ...... BNOA. 107304 ...... Polyhedral inclusion bodies In addition, facilities may experience 063501 ...... Kerosene. of n. sertifer difficulties treating wastewaters that 063502 ...... Mineral oilÐincludes paraffin 116902 ...... Gibberellin A4 mixt. with contain emulsions, therefore, oil from 063503. Gibberellin A7. ‘‘appropriate’’ treatment for emulsified 063503 ...... Petroleum distillate, oils, sol- 117001 ...... Nosema locustae. wastewaters must include an emulsion vent, or hydrocarbons; also 128888 ...... Lactofen (ANSI). breaking step. For PAIs whose p. 1289342 ...... Nitrogen, liquid. 063506 ...... Mineral spirits. 129029 ...... Bergamot Oil. technology is listed as ‘‘Pollution 067003 ...... Terpineols (unspec.). 224600 ...... Diethanolamides of the fatty Prevention’’, the permitting authority/ 067205 ...... Pine tar oil. acids of coconut oil (coded control authority can determine if 067207 ...... Ester gum. 079). additional treatment is necessary 067302 ...... Amines, N-coco 505200 ...... Isoparaffinic hydrocarbons. through best professional judgement/ alkyltrimethylenedi-, ace- 1 Shaughnessey codes and chemical names best engineering judgement, tates. are taken directly from the FATES database. respectively. 069152 ...... Amines, coco alkyl, Several chemical names are truncated be- hydrochlorides. cause the chemical names listed in the 070801 ...... Red Squill glycoside. FATES database are limited to 60 characters.

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Dicofol ...... 001 10501 DDT ...... Hydrolysis. Maleic Hydrazide ...... 002 51501 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. EDB ...... 003 42002 EDB ...... Activated Carbon. Vancide TH ...... 004 82901 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. 1,3-Dichloropropene ...... 005 29001 EDB ...... Hydrolysis. Thenarsazine Oxide ...... 006 12601 Organoarsenic ...... Precipitation. Dowicil 75 ...... 007 17901 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Triadimefon ...... 008 109901 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Hexachlorophene ...... 009 44901 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Tetrachlorophene ...... 010 ...... Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Dichlorophene ...... 011 55001 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Dichlorvos ...... 012 84001 Phosphate ...... Hydrolysis. Landrin-2 ...... 013 ...... Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. 2,3,6-T, S&E or Fenac ...... 014 82605 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. 2,4,5-T and 2,4,5-T, S&E ...... 015 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. 2,4-D (2,4-D, S&E) ...... 016 (*) 2,4-D ...... Chemical Oxidation. 2,4-DB, S&E ...... 017 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Dyrene or Anilazine ...... 018 80811 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Dinocap ...... 019 36001 Phenylcrotonate ...... Activated Carbon. Dichloran or DCNA ...... 020 31301 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Busan 90 ...... 021 8707 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Mevinphos ...... 022 15801 Phosphate ...... Hydrolysis. Sulfallate ...... 023 ...... Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57555

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Chlorfenvinphos ...... 024 84101 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Cyanazine or Bladex ...... 025 100101 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Propachlor ...... 026 19101 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. MCPA, S&E ...... 027 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Octhilinone ...... 028 99901 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Pindone ...... 029 67703 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Dichlorprop, S&E ...... 030 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. MCPP, S&E or Mecoprop ...... 031 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Thiabendazole ...... 032 60101 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Belclene 310 ...... 033 80815 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Chlorprop, S&E ...... 034 21202 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Busan 72 or TCMTB ...... 035 35603 Heterocyclic ...... Hydrolysis. Chlorophacinone ...... 037 67707 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Landrin-1 ...... 038 ...... Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Pronamide ...... 039 101701 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Methiocarb or Mesurol ...... 040 100501 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Propanil ...... 041 28201 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Polyphase 6 ...... 042 107801 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Coumafuryl or Fumarin ...... 043 86001 Coumarin ...... Activated Carbon. DNOC ...... 044 ...... Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Metribuzin ...... 045 101101 Triazathione ...... Activated Carbon. CPA, S&E ...... 046 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. MCPB, S&E ...... 047 19202 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Aminocarb ...... 048 ...... Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Etridiazole ...... 049 84701 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Ethoxyquin ...... 050 55501 Quinolin ...... Activated Carbon. Acephate or Orthene ...... 052 103301 Phosphoroamidothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Acifluorfen ...... 053 114402 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Alachlor ...... 054 90501 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Aldicarb ...... 055 98301 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Allethrin ...... 057 (*) Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Ametryn ...... 058 80801 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Amitraz ...... 059 106201 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. Atrazine ...... 060 80803 s-Triazine ...... Hydrolysis. Bendiocarb ...... 061 105201 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Benomyl ...... 062 99101 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. BHC ...... 063 ...... Lindane ...... Hydrolysis. Benzyl Benzoate ...... 064 9501 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Lethane 60 ...... 065 ...... Thiocyanate ...... Activated Carbon. Bifenox ...... 066 104301 Nitrobenzoate ...... Activated Carbon. Biphenyl ...... 067 17002 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. Bromacil (Lithium Salt) ...... 068 (*) Uracil ...... Activated Carbon. Bromoxynil ...... 069 (*) Benzonitrile ...... Activated Carbon. Butachlor ...... 070 ...... Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Giv-gard ...... 071 101401 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Cacodylic Acid ...... 072 (*) Organoarsenic ...... Precipitation. Captafol ...... 073 ...... Phthalimide ...... Hydrolysis. Captan ...... 074 81301 Phthalimide ...... Hydrolysis. Carbaryl ...... 075 56801 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Carbofuran ...... 076 90601 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Carbosulfan ...... 077 ...... Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Chloramben ...... 078 (*) Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Chlordane ...... 079 58201 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Chloroneb ...... 080 27301 Aryl Halide ...... Chemical Oxidation. Chloropicrin ...... 081 81501 Alkyl Halide ...... Chemical Oxidation. Chlorothalonil ...... 082 81901 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Chloroxuron ...... 083 ...... Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Stirofos ...... 084 83701 Phosphate ...... Hydrolysis. Chlorpyrifos Methyl ...... 085 59102 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Chlorpyrifos ...... 086 59101 Phosphorothioate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Mancozeb ...... 087 14504 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Bioquin (Copper) ...... 088 24002 Organocopper ...... Precipitation. Copper EDTA ...... 089 39105 Organocopper ...... Precipitation. Pydrin or Fenvalerate ...... 090 109301 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Cycloheximide ...... 091 ...... Cyclic Ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Dalapon ...... 092 (*) Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Dienochlor ...... 093 27501 HCp ...... Activated Carbon. Demeton ...... 094 ...... Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Desmedipham ...... 095 104801 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Amobam ...... 096 ...... Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. DBCP ...... 097 ...... EDB ...... Activated Carbon. 57556 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Dicamba ...... 098 (*) Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Dichlone ...... 099 29601 Quinone ...... Activated Carbon. Thiophanate Ethyl ...... 100 103401 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Perthane ...... 101 ...... DDT ...... Activated Carbon. EXD ...... 102 ...... Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Diazinon ...... 103 57801 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Diflubenzuron ...... 104 108201 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Dimethoate ...... 106 35001 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Parathion Methyl ...... 107 53501 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Dicrotophos ...... 108 35201 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Crotoxyphos ...... 109 58801 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. DCPA ...... 110 78701 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Trichlorofon ...... 111 57901 Phosphonate ...... Activated Carbon. Dinoseb ...... 112 37505 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Dioxathion ...... 113 37801 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Diphacinone ...... 114 67701 Indandione ...... Activated Carbon. Diphenamide ...... 115 36601 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Diphenylamine ...... 116 38501 Aryl Amine ...... Activated Carbon. MGK 326 ...... 117 47201 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Nabonate ...... 118 63301 Isocyanate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Diuron ...... 119 35505 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Metasol DGH ...... 120 44303 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Dodine ...... 121 44301 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Endosulfan ...... 122 79401 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Endothall (Endothall S&E) ...... 123 (*) Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Endrin ...... 124 41601 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Ethalfluralin ...... 125 113101 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Ethion ...... 126 58401 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Ethoprop ...... 127 41101 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Fenamiphos ...... 128 100601 Phosphoroamidate ...... Activated Carbon. Chlorobenzilate ...... 129 28801 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Butylate ...... 130 41405 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Famphur ...... 131 ...... Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Fenarimol ...... 132 206600 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Fenthion or Baytex ...... 133 53301 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Ferbam ...... 134 34801 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Fluometuron ...... 135 35503 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Fluoroacetamide ...... 136 ...... Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Folpet ...... 137 81601 Phthalimide ...... Hydrolysis. Glyphosate (Glyphosate S&E) ...... 138 (*) Phosphoroamidate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Glyphosine ...... 139 ...... Phosphoroamidate ...... Activated Carbon. Heptachlor ...... 140 44801 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Cycloprate ...... 141 ...... Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Hexazinone ...... 142 107201 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Isofenphos ...... 143 109401 Phosphoroamidothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Isopropalin ...... 144 100201 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Propham ...... 145 ...... Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Karabutilate ...... 146 97401 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Lindane ...... 147 9001 Lindane ...... Activated Carbon. Linuron ...... 148 35506 Urea ...... Chemical Oxidation. Malachite Green ...... 149 39504 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Malathion ...... 150 57701 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Maneb ...... 151 14505 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Manam ...... 152 ...... Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Mefluidide ...... 153 114002 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Methamidophos ...... 154 101201 Phosphoroamidothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Methidathion ...... 155 100301 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Methomyl ...... 156 90301 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Methoprene ...... 157 (*) Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Methoxychlor ...... 158 34001 DDT ...... Hydrolysis. Methyl Bromide ...... 160 53201 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Monosodium Methyl Arsenate ...... 161 (*) Organoarsenic ...... Precipitation. Nalco D-2303 ...... 163 68102 Thiocyanate ...... Activated Carbon. Quinomethionate ...... 164 54101 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Metolachlor ...... 165 108801 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Mexacarbate ...... 166 ...... Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Metiram ...... 167 14601 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Monuron TCA ...... 168 35502 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Monuron ...... 169 35501 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Napropamide ...... 170 103001 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Deet ...... 171 80301 Toluamide ...... Activated Carbon. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57557

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Nabam ...... 172 14503 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Naled ...... 173 34401 Phosphate ...... Hydrolysis. Norea ...... 174 ...... Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Norflurazon ...... 175 105801 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Naptalam or Neptalam ...... 176 30703 Phthalamide ...... Activated Carbon. MGK 264 ...... 177 57001 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Benfluralin ...... 178 84301 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfotepp ...... 179 79501 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Aspon ...... 180 ...... Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Coumaphos ...... 181 36501 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Fensulfothion ...... 182 32701 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Disulfoton ...... 183 32501 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Fenitrothion ...... 184 105901 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Phosmet ...... 185 59201 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Azinphos Methyl (Guthion) ...... 186 58001 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Oxydemeton Methyl ...... 187 58702 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Organo-Arsenic Pesticides ...... 188 ...... Organoarsenic ...... Precipitation. Organo-Cadmium Pesticides ...... 189 ...... Organocadmium ...... Precipitation Organo-Copper Pesticides ...... 190 (*) Organocopper ...... Precipitation. Organo-Mercury Pesticides ...... 191 (*) Organomercury ...... Precipitation. Organo-Tin Pesticides ...... 192 (*) Organotin ...... Precipitation. o-Dichlorobenzene ...... 193 59401 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Oryzalin ...... 194 104201 Sulfanilamide ...... Activated Carbon. Oxamyl ...... 195 103801 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Oxyfluorfen ...... 196 111601 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Bolstar ...... 197 111501 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Sulprofos Oxon ...... 198 ...... Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Santox (EPN) ...... 199 41801 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Fonofos ...... 200 41701 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Propoxur ...... 201 47802 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. p-Dichlorobenzene ...... 202 61501 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Parathion Ethyl ...... 203 57501 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Pendimethalin ...... 204 108501 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. PCNB ...... 205 56502 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. PCP or Penta ...... 206 (*) Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Perfluidone ...... 207 ...... Sulfonamide ...... Activated Carbon. Permethrin ...... 208 109701 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Phenmedipham ...... 209 98701 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Nemazine ...... 210 64501 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Phorate ...... 212 57201 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Phosalone ...... 213 97701 Phosphorodithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Phosphamidon ...... 214 18201 Phosphate ...... Hydrolysis. Picloram ...... 215 (*) Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Piperonyl Butoxide ...... 216 67501 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. PBED or WSCP (Busan 77) ...... 217 69183 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Busan 85 or Arylane ...... 218 34803 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Busan 40 ...... 219 102901 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. KN Methyl ...... 220 39002 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Metasol J26 ...... 221 101301 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Profenofos ...... 222 111401 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Prometon or Caparol ...... 223 80804 s-Triazine ...... Chemical Oxidation. Prometryn ...... 224 80805 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Propargite ...... 225 97601 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Propazine ...... 226 80808 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Propionic Acid ...... 227 77702 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Previcur N ...... 228 119301 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Pyrethrin Coils ...... 229 69004 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Pyrethrum I ...... 230 69001 Pyrethrin ...... Hydrolysis. Pyrethrum II ...... 231 69002 Pyrethrin ...... Hydrolysis. Pyrethrins ...... 232 (*) Pyrethrin ...... Hydrolysis. Resmethrin ...... 233 (*) Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Fenchlorphos or Ronnel ...... 234 58301 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Mexide or Rotenone ...... 235 71003 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. DEF ...... 236 74801 Phosphorotrithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Siduron or Tupersan ...... 237 35509 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Silvex ...... 238 (*) 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Simazine ...... 239 80807 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium Bentazon ...... 240 103901 Heterocyclic ...... Chemical Oxidation. Carbam-S or Sodam ...... 241 34804 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. Sodium Fluoroacetate ...... 242 75003 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Vapam or Metham Sodium ...... 243 39003 Dithiocarbamate ...... Chemical Oxidation. 57558 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Sulfoxide ...... 244 57101 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Cycloate or Ro-Neet ...... 245 41301 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. EPrecipitationC or Eptam ...... 246 41401 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Molinate ...... 247 41402 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Pebulate or Tillman ...... 248 41403 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Vernolate or Vernam ...... 249 41404 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. HPrecipitationMS ...... 250 35604 Thiosulphonate ...... Activated Carbon. Bensulide or Betesan ...... 251 9801 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Tebuthiuron ...... 252 105501 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Temephos ...... 253 59001 Phosphorothioate ...... Hydrolysis. Terbacil ...... 254 12701 Uracil ...... Activated Carbon. Terbufos or Counter ...... 255 105001 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Terbuthylazine ...... 256 80814 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Terbutryn ...... 257 80813 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Tetrachlorophenol ...... 258 63004 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Dazomet ...... 259 35602 Heterocyclic ...... Chemical Oxidation. Thiophanate Methyl ...... 260 102001 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Thiram ...... 261 79801 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Toxaphene ...... 262 80501 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Merphos ...... 263 74901 Phosphorotrithioate ...... Hydrolysis. Trifluralin or Treflan ...... 264 36101 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Warfarin ...... 265 (*) Coumarin ...... Activated Carbon. Zinc MBT ...... 266 51705 Organozinc ...... Precipitation. Zineb ...... 267 14506 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Ziram ...... 268 34805 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Triallate ...... 269 78802 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Phenothrin ...... 270 69005 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Tetramethrin ...... 271 69003 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Chloropropham ...... 272 18301 Carbamate ...... Hydrolysis. Non-272 PAIs CFC 11 ...... 13 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. CFC 12 ...... 14 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Polyethylene ...... 152 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Acrolein ...... 701 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Dimethyl-m-dioxan-4-ol acetate ...... 1001 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Dodecyl alcohol ...... 1509 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Tetradecyl alcohol ...... 1510 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Rosin amine D acetate ...... 4201 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Dihydroabietylamine acetate ...... 4213 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Amitrole ...... 4401 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Allyl isothiocyanate ...... 4901 Thiocyanate ...... Activated Carbon. AMS ...... 5501 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Calcium sulfate ...... 5602 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Tartar emetic ...... 6201 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Diphenylstibene 2-ethylhexanoate ...... 6202 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. Streptomycin ...... 6306 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Oxytetracycline hydrochloride ...... 6308 Phthalamide ...... Activated Carbon. Streptomycin sesquisulfate ...... 6310 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Neomycin sulfate ...... 6313 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Antimycin A ...... 6314 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Calcium oxytetracycline ...... 6321 Phthalamide ...... Activated Carbon. Espesol 3A ...... 6601 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Arsenic acid ...... 6801 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Arsenic acid anhydride ...... 6802 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Arsenous acid anhydride ...... 7001 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper oxychloride ...... 8001 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Basic cupric sulfate ...... 8101 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Basic copper IIIÐzinc sulfate complex (De- ...... 8102 Metallic ...... Precipitation. clare copper and. Bromophos ...... 8706 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Benzyl bromoacetate ...... 8710 Benzoic acid ...... Activated Carbon. Benzoic acid ...... 9101 Benzoic acid ...... Activated Carbon. Benzyl diethyl ((2,6-xylylcarbamoyl)methyl) ...... 9106 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. ammonium benzoate. Benzyl alcohol ...... 9502 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. 3±Chloro-p-toluidine hydrochloride ...... 9901 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Butoxyethoxy)ethyl thiocyanate ...... 10002 Thiocyanate ...... Activated Carbon. 2-Naphthol ...... 10301 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Boric acid ...... 11001 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Barium metaborate ...... 11101 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57559

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Boron sodium oxide (B8Na2O13), tetra- ...... 11103 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. hydrate (12280±03±4). Sodium metaborate (NaBO2) ...... 11104 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Boron sodium oxide (B8Na2O13) (12008± ...... 11107 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. 41±2). Boron sodium oxide (B4Na2O7), ...... 11110 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. pentahydrate (12179±04±3). Boron sodium oxide (B4Na2O7) (1330±43± ...... 11112 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. 4). Polybutene ...... 11402 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Polyisobutylene ...... 11403 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Butyl cellosolve ...... 11501 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Butoxypolypropylene glycol ...... 11901 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Neburon (ANSI) ...... 12001 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Methyltrimethylenedioxy)bis(4-methyl-1,3,2- ...... 12401 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. dioxaborinane). Oxybis(4,4,6-trimethyl-1,3,2-dioxaborinane) ...... 12402 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Cadmium chloride ...... 12902 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Lead arsenate, basic ...... 13502 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Lead arsenate ...... 13503 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Sodium arsenate ...... 13505 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Sodium arsenite ...... 13603 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Potassium bromide ...... 13903 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Camphor ...... 15602 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Carbon disulfide ...... 16401 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Carbon tetrachloride ...... 16501 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Barban (ANSI) ...... 17601 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-propenyl)-3,5,7,triaza-1-azo ...... 17902 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. niatricyclo(3.3.1.1)sup. Chlormequat chloride ...... 18101 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Chloromethoxypropylmercuric acetate ...... 18401 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Allidochlor ...... 19301 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Chromic acid ...... 21101 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Chromic oxide ...... 21103 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Cresol (unspec) (Cresylic acid) ...... 22101 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Cresol ...... 22102 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Copper (metallic) ...... 22501 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper ammonium carbonate ...... 22703 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper carbonate ...... 22901 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper hydroxide ...... 23401 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper chloride hydroxide (Cu2Cl(OH)3) ...... 23501 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper oxychloride sulfate ...... 23503 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper sulfate ...... 24401 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper (from triethanolamine complex) ...... 24403 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper as metallic (in the form of chelates ...... 24405 Metallic ...... Precipitation. of copper citrat). Copper as elemental from copperÐethyl- ...... 24407 Metallic ...... Precipitation. enediamine complex. Copper sulfate (anhydrous) ...... 24408 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Copper(I) oxide ...... 25601 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Cuprous thiocyanate ...... 25602 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Cyclohexane ...... 25901 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. Cyclohexanone ...... 25902 Cyclic Ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Dichlobenil ...... 27401 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Diquat dibromide ...... 32201 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Dimethrin (ANSI) ...... 34101 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Dicapthon ...... 34502 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Ziram, cyclohexylamine complex ...... 34806 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Butyl dimethyltrithioperoxycarbamate ...... 34807 Dithiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Daminozide ...... 35101 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Bis(trichloromethyl) sulfone ...... 35601 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon Bis(bromoacetoxy)-2-butene ...... 35605 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Dazomet, sodium salt ...... 35607 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Butonate ...... 35701 Phosphonate ...... Activated Carbon. Trifluoro-4-nitro-m-cre- ...... 6201 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. sol(**)=alpha,alpha,alpha-. Triethanolamine dinoseb (2-sec-Butyl-4,6- ...... 37506 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. dinitrophenol). Sodium 4,6-dinitro-o-cresylate ...... 37508 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Dinitrophenol ...... 37509 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. 57560 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Alkanol* amine dinoseb (2-sec-butyl-4,6- ...... 37511 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. dinitrophenol) *(s. Sodium dinoseb (2-sec-Butyl-4,6- ...... 37512 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. dinitrophenol). Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt ...... 39106 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Trisodium(2-hydroxyethyl)ethylene ...... 39109 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. diaminetriacetate. Ammonium ethylenediaminetetraacetate ...... 39117 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Pentasodium ...... 39120 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. diethylenetriaminepentaacetate. Ethyl-1,3-hexanediol ...... 41001 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Ethylene ...... 41901 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Pollution Prevention. EDC ...... 42003 EDB ...... Activated Carbon. Methylene chloride ...... 42004 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Methoxyethanol ...... 42202 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Ethylene glycol ...... 42203 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Butylene glycol ...... 42205 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Ethylene oxide ...... 42301 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Pollution Prevention. Copper(II) oxide ...... 42401 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Cuprous and cupric oxide, mixed ...... 42403 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Propylene oxide ...... 42501 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Pollution Prevention. Formaldehyde ...... 43001 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Pollution Prevention. Paraformaldehyde ...... 43002 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Bis(2-butylene) tetrahydro-2-furaldehyde ...... 43302 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Giberellic acid ...... 43801 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Potassium gibberellate ...... 43802 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Glutaral ...... 43901 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Copper citrate ...... 44005 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Methyl nonyl ketone ...... 44102 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Methyl-2-pentanone ...... 44105 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Monosodium 2,2'-methylenebis (3,4,6-tri- ...... 44902 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. chlorophenate). Potassium 2,2'-methylenebis (3,4,6-tri- ...... 44904 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. chlorophenate). Hexachloroepoxyoctahydro-endo, exo- ...... 45001 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. dimethanoaphthalene 85%. Chlorhexidine diacetate ...... 45502 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Hydrocyanic acid ...... 45801 Inorganic ...... Activated Carbon. Hydroxyethyl octyl sulfide ...... 46301 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Heptadecenyl-2-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-i ...... 46608 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. midazolinium chloride. Hydroxyethyl)-2-alkyl-2-imidazoline (as in ...... 46609 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. fatty acids of t. IBA ...... 46701 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Dihydropyrone ...... 46801 Cyclic ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Butoxypolypropoxypolyethoxyethanol-iodine ...... 46901 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. complex. Polyethoxypolypropoxyethanol-iodine com- ...... 46904 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. plex. Use code no. 046904 ...... 46909 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. (polyethoxypolypropoxy ethanol-iodine complex). Iodine-potassium iodide complex ...... 46917 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Alkyl-omega-hydroxypoly(oxyethylen e)-io- ...... 46921 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. dine complex *(100%. Lead acetate ...... 48001 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Nickel sulfate hexahydrate ...... 50505 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Maleic hydrazide, diethanolamine salt ...... 51502 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Maleic hydrazide, potassium salt ...... 51503 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 2-mercaptobenzothiolate ...... 51704 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Mercuric chloride ...... 52001 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Mercurous chloride ...... 52201 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Metaldehyde ...... 53001 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Methylated naphthalenes ...... 54002 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 2,2'-methylenebis(4-chlorophenate) ...... 55005 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Naphthalene ...... 55801 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. NAD ...... 56001 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. NAA (1±Naphthaleneacetic Acid) ...... 56002 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Potassium 1-naphthaleneacetate ...... 56003 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Ammonium 1-naphthaleneacetate ...... 56004 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 1-naphthaleneacetate ...... 56007 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57561

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Ethyl 1-naphthaleneacetate ...... 56008 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Nitrophenol ...... 56301 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Nicotine ...... 56702 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Carbophenothion (ANSI) ...... 58102 Phosphorodithioate ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 5-chloro-2-(4-chloro-2-(3-(3,4- ...... 58802 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. dichlorophenyl)ureido). Monocrotophos ...... 58901 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Chlordimeform ...... 59701 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Chlordimeform hydrochloride ...... 59702 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Thiabendazole hypophosphite ...... 60102 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Hexachlorobenzene ...... 61001 Lindane ...... Activated Carbon. Butyl paraben ...... 61205 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Paraquat dichloride ...... 61601 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-4-phenylphenol ...... 62206 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-phenylphenol ...... 62208 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-biphenylol, potassium salt ...... 62209 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-phenylphenol ...... 62210 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-phenylphenol, potassium salt ...... 62211 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium phenate ...... 64002 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Butylphenol, sodium salt ...... 64115 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Ammonium 2-phenylphenate ...... 64116 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-2-cyclopentylphenol ...... 64202 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Bithionolate sodium ...... 64203 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-3-cresol ...... 64206 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 2,4,5-trichlorophenate ...... 64217 Chlorophene ...... Activated Carbon. Aluminum phosphide ...... 66501 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Phosphorus ...... 66502 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Magnesium phosphide ...... 66504 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. 1-(Alkyl*amino)-3-aminopropane* (Fatty ...... 67301 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. acids of coconut oil). Alkyl* amino)-3-aminopropane *(53%C12, ...... 67305 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. 19%C14, 8.5%C16, 7%C8. Alkyl*amino)-3-aminopropane ...... 67307 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. benzoate*(fatty acids of coconut. Alkyl* dipropoxyamine *(47% C12, 18% ...... 67308 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. C14, 10% C18, 9% C10, 8. Alkyl*amino)-3-aminopropane ...... 67309 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. hydroxyacetate* (acids of coconut. Alkyl* amino)-3-aminopropane *(42%C12, ...... 67310 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. 26%C18, 15%C14, 8%C16. Alkyl*amino)-3-aminopropane diacetate* ...... 67313 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. (fatty acids of coconut. Octadecenyl-1,3-propanediamine ...... 67316 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. monogluconate. Alkyl* amine acetate *(5%C8, 7%C10, ...... 67329 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. 54%C12, 19%C14, 8%C16,. Pindone sodium salt ...... 67704 Indandione ...... Activated Carbon. Diphacinone, sodium salt ...... 67705 Indandione ...... Activated Carbon. Isovaleryl-1,3-indandione, calcium salt ...... 67706 Indandione ...... Activated Carbon. Methyl isothiocyanate ...... 68103 Thiocyanate ...... Pollution Prevention. Potassium dichromate ...... 68302 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium chromate ...... 68303 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium dichromate ...... 68304 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Alkenyl* dimethyl ethyl ammonium bromide ...... 69102 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. *(90%C18', 10%C16'). Alkyl*-N-ethyl morpholinium ethyl sulfate ...... 69113 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. *(92%C18, 8%C16). Alkyl* isoquinolinium bromide *(50% C12, ...... 69115 Quinolin ...... Activated Carbon. 30% C14, 17% C16, 3). Alkyl* methyl isoquinolinium chloride ...... 69116 Quinolin ...... Activated Carbon. *(55%C14, 12%C12, 17%C). Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide ...... 69117 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Cetyl pyridinium bromide ...... 69118 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium ...... 69127 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. naphthenate. Alkyl* dimethyl ethylbenzyl ammonium ...... 69135 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. cyclohexylsulfamate *(5). Alkyl*-N-ethyl morpholinium ethyl sulfate ...... 69147 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. *(66%C18, 25%C16). Alkyl* trimethyl ammonium bromide ...... 69153 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. *(95%C14, 5%C16). 57562 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Benzyl((dodecylcarbamoyl) methyl)di methyl ...... 69159 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. ammonium chloride. Cetyl pyridinium chloride ...... 69160 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Alkyl* dimethyl ethyl ammonium bromide ...... 69186 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. *(85%C16, 15%C18). Cetyl-N-ethylmorpholinium ethyl sulfate ...... 69187 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Use code no. 069102 (Alkenyl* Dimethyl ...... 69198 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Ethyl Ammonium bromide). p-Aminopyridine ...... 69201 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Nitrapyrin (ANSI) ...... 69203 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Alkyl pyridines ...... 69205 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Pyrazon (ANSI) ...... 69601 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Capsaicin (in oleoresin of capsicum) ...... 70701 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Ryanodine ...... 71502 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Silver ...... 72501 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Silver chloride ...... 72506 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Silver thiuronium acrylate co-polymer ...... 72701 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium chlorate ...... 73301 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Calcium cyanide ...... 74001 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium cyanide ...... 74002 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Cryolite ...... 75101 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium fluoride ...... 75202 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Ammonium fluosilicate ...... 75301 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium fluosilicate ...... 75306 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Potassium iodide ...... 75701 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Potassium tetrathionate ...... 75903 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Potassium nitrate ...... 76103 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium nitrate ...... 76104 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium nitrite ...... 76204 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Benzenesulfonamide, N-chloro-, sodium salt ...... 76501 Sulfonamide ...... Activated Carbon. Salicyclic acid ...... 76202 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Ethoxyethyl p-methoxycinnamate ...... 76604 Aryl ...... Activated Carbon. Calcium polysulfide ...... 76702 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Strychnine ...... 76901 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Strychnine sulfate ...... 76902 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Niclosamide ...... 77401 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Dibromosalicylamilide ...... 77402 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Tribromsalan ...... 77404 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Dibromosalicylanilide ...... 77405 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Chlorosalicylanilide ...... 77406 Chlorobenzamide ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfur ...... 77501 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sulfaquinoxaline ...... 77901 Sulfanilamide ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfacetamide ...... 77904 Sulfanilamide ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfuryl fluoride ...... 78003 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Sodium bisulfite ...... 78201 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Tetrachloroethylene ...... 78501 EDB ...... Activated Carbon. Ethoxylated isooctylphenol ...... 79004 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Lauric diethanolamide ...... 79018 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Triethanolamine oleate ...... 79025 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate ...... 79027 Thiosulfonate ...... Activated Carbon. Use code no. 069179 (alkyl*mono- ...... 79036 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. ethanolamide). Alkyl* diethanolamide *(70%C12, 30%C14) ...... 79045 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Tetradecyl formate ...... 79069 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Polyoxyethylene sorbitol oleate-laurate ...... 79075 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Polyethoxylated stearylamine ...... 79094 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Capric diethanolamide ...... 79099 Acetanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Calcium thiosulfate ...... 80101 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Ammonium thiosulfate ...... 80103 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Thymoxydichloroacetic acid ...... 80401 Benzoic Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Thymol ...... 80402 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium trichloroacetate ...... 81001 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Trichloroacetic acid ...... 81002 Alkyl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-tri- ...... 83301 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. azine. 2-(Hydroxymethyl)-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol ...... 83902 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Bomyl ...... 84201 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Turpentine ...... 84501 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-1-(2,5-dichlorophenyl)vinyl) O,O- ...... 84901 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. diethyl phosphorothi. Zinc chloride ...... 87801 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57563

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Zinc 2-pyridinethiol-1-oxide ...... 88002 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Hydroxy-2-(1H)-pyridinethione, sodium salt ...... 88004 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Omadine TBAO ...... 88005 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Zinc naphthenate ...... 88301 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Zinc oxide ...... 88502 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Zinc phosphide (Zn3P2) ...... 88601 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Zinc phenol sulfonate ...... 89002 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Zinc sulfate, basic ...... 89101 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Dimetilan ...... 90101 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Carboxin ...... 90201 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Oxycarboxin ...... 90202 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Benzocaine ...... 97001 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Piperalin ...... 97003 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. Tetracaine hydrochloride ...... 97005 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Formetanate hydrochloride ...... 97301 Toluamide ...... Activated Carbon. Azacosterol HCl ...... 98101 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Use code no. 039502 (gentian violet) ...... 98401 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Ammonium alum ...... 98501 Inorganic ...... Pollution Prevention. Bismuth subgallate ...... 98601 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Chlorflurenol, methyl ester ...... 98801 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Benzisothiazolin-3-one ...... 98901 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Methyl 2-benzimidazolecarbamate phos- ...... 99102 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. phate. Ethephon ...... 99801 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Pentanethiol ...... 100701 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Nitrobutyl)morpholine ...... 100801 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Ethyl-2-nitrotrimethylene)dimorpholine ...... 100802 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Tolyl diiodomethyl sulfone ...... 101002 Thiosulfonate ...... Activated Carbon. Isobutyric acid ...... 101502 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide ...... 101801 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Polyethoxylated oleylamine ...... 101901 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Dinitramine (ANSI) ...... 102301 Nitrobenzoate ...... Activated Carbon. Phenylethyl propionate ...... 102601 Phenylcrotonate ...... Activated Carbon. Eugenol ...... 102701 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Tricosene ...... 103201 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Tricosene ...... 103202 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium 1,4′,5′-trichloro-2′-(2,4,5- ...... 104101 2,4-D ...... Activated Carbon. trichlorophenoxy)methanes. Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxypropyl)-s-tri- ...... 105601 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. azine. Methazole ...... 106001 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Difenzoquat methyl sulfate ...... 106401 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Butralin ...... 106501 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Fosamine ammonium ...... 106701 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Asulam ...... 106901 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium asulam ...... 106902 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Hydroxymethoxymethyl-1-aza-3,7-dioxabicy- ...... 107001 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. clo(3.3.0)octane. Hydroxymethyl-1-aza-3,7-dioxabicy- ...... 107002 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. clo(3.3.0)octane. Hydroxypoly(methyleneoxy)* methyl-1-aza- ...... 107003 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. 3,7-dioxabicyclo(3.3). Chloro-2-methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone ...... 107103 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolone ...... 107104 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Trimethoxysilyl)propyl dimethyl octadecyl ...... 107401 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. ammonium chloride. Kinoprene ...... 107502 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Triforine (ANSI) ...... 107901 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Pirimiphos-methyl (ANSI) ...... 108102 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Thiobencarb ...... 108401 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Ancymidol (ANSI) ...... 108601 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Oxadiazon (ANSI) ...... 109001 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Mepiquat chloride ...... 109101 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. Fluvalinate ...... 109302 Toluamide ...... Activated Carbon. Chloro-N-(hydroxymethyl)acetamide ...... 109501 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. Dikegulac sodium ...... 109601 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Iprodione (ANSI) ...... 109801 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Phenylmethyl)-9-(tetrahydro-2H-pyran-2-yl)- ...... 110001 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. 9H-purin-6-amine. Prodiamine ...... 110201 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Erioglaucine ...... 110301 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. 57564 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Tartrazine ...... 110302 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Dodemorph acetate ...... 110401 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Ethofumesate (ANSI) ...... 110601 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Aldoxycarb (ANSI) ...... 110801 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Diclofop-methyl ...... 110902 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Bromo-1-(bromomethyl)-1,3- ...... 111001 Isocyanate ...... Activated Carbon. propanediCarbon.itrile. Poly (imino imidocar- ...... 111801 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. bonyliminoimidocar- bonyliminohexamethylene). Imazalil ...... 111901 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Bromadiolone ...... 112001 Coumarin ...... Activated Carbon. Brodifacoum ...... 112701 Coumarin ...... Activated Carbon. Bromethalin (ANSI) ...... 112802 Aryl Amine ...... Activated Carbon. Fluridone (ANSI) ...... 112900 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Vinclozolin ...... 113201 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Metalaxyl ...... 113501 Benzeneamine ...... Activated Carbon. Propetamphos (ANSI) ...... 113601 Phosphoroamidothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Methyl-1-naphthyl)maleimide ...... 113701 Phthalamide ...... Activated Carbon. Hexadecadien-1-yl acetate ...... 114101 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Hexadecadien-1-yl acetate ...... 114102 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Epoxy-2-methyloctadecane ...... 114301 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Thiodicarb (ANSI) ...... 114501 Thiocarbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Dimethyloxazolidine (8CA & 9CA) ...... 114801 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Trimethyloxazolidine ...... 114802 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Hydroxyphenyl)oxoacetohydroximic chloride ...... 114901 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. EEEBC ...... 115001 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. MDM Hydantoin ...... 115501 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. DMDM Hydantoin ...... 115502 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Triclopyr (ANSI) ...... 116001 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Triethylamine triclopyr ...... 116002 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Butoxyethyl triclopyr ...... 116004 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Decenyl)dihydro-2(3H)-furanone ...... 116501 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Cytokinins ...... 116801 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Benzyladenine ...... 116901 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Clopyralid, monoethanolamine salt ...... 117401 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Clopyralid (ANSI) ...... 117403 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Flucythrinate (ANSI) ...... 118301 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Hydramethylnon (ANSI) ...... 118401 Iminimide ...... Activated Carbon. Chlorsulfuron ...... 118601 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Dimethipin ...... 118901 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Hexadecenal ...... 120001 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Tetradecenal ...... 120002 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Thidiazuron ...... 120301 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Metronidazole ...... 120401 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Erythrosine B ...... 120901 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Sethoxydim ...... 121001 Cyclic Ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Clethodim ...... 121011 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Cyromazine ...... 121301 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Tralomethrin ...... 121501 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Azadirachtin ...... 121701 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Tridecen-1-yl acetate ...... 121901 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Tridecen-1-yl acetate ...... 121902 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfometuron methyl ...... 122001 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Metsulfuron-methyl ...... 122010 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Propiconazole ...... 122101 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Furanone, dihydro-5-pentyl ...... 122301 Cyclic Ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Furanone, 5-heptyldihydro- ...... 122302 Cyclic Ketone ...... Activated Carbon. Abamectin (ANSI) ...... 122804 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Fluazifop-butyl ...... 122805 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Fluazifop-R-butyl ...... 122809 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Flumetralin ...... 123001 Nitrobenzoate ...... Activated Carbon. Fosetyl-Al ...... 123301 Phosphate ...... Activated Carbon. Methanol, (((2-(dihydro-5-methyl-3(2H)- ...... 123702 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. oxazolyl)-1-methyl)et. Fomesafen ...... 123802 Nitrobenzoate ...... Activated Carbon. Tridiphane ...... 123901 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. POE isooctadecanol ...... 124601 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Periplanone B ...... 124801 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Fenoxycarb ...... 125301 Carbamate ...... Activated Carbon. Clomazone ...... 125401 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 57565

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Clofentezine ...... 125501 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Paclobutrazol ...... 125601 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Flurprimidol ...... 125701 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Isoxaben ...... 125851 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Isazofos ...... 126901 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Triadimenol ...... 127201 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Fenpropathrin ...... 127901 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfosate ...... 128501 Phosphorothioate ...... Activated Carbon. Fenoxaprop-ethyl ...... 128701 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Quizalofop-ethyl ...... 128711 Phthalimide ...... Activated Carbon. Bensulfuron-methyl ...... 128820 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Imazapyr ...... 128821 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Bifenthrin ...... 128825 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Imazapyr, isopropylamine salt ...... 128829 Hydrazide ...... Activated Carbon. Sodium salt of 1-carboxymethyl-3,5,7-triaza- ...... 128832 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. 1-azoniatricyclo. Linalool ...... 128838 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Imazaquin, monoammonium salt ...... 128840 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Imazethabenz ...... 128842 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Thifensulfuron methyl ...... 128845 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Imazaquin ...... 128848 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Myclobutanil (ANSI) ...... 128857 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Zinc borate (3ZnO, 2B03, 3.5H2O; mw ...... 128859 Metallic ...... Precipitation. 434.66). Cyhalothrin ...... 128867 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Potassium cresylate ...... 128870 Phenol ...... Activated Carbon. Triflumizole ...... 128879 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Tribenuron methyl ...... 128887 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Cyhalothrin ...... 128897 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Chlorimuron-ethyl ...... 128901 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Dodecen-1-yl acetate ...... 128906 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. Dodecen-1-yl acetate ...... 128907 Ester ...... Activated Carbon. DDOL ...... 128908 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Farnesol ...... 128910 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Nerolidol ...... 128911 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Tefluthrin ...... 128912 Pyrethrin ...... Activated Carbon. Bromoxynil heptanoate ...... 128920 Chloropropionanilide ...... Activated Carbon. Imazethapyr ...... 128922 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Imazethapyr, ammonium salt ...... 128923 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Chitosan ...... 128930 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfuric acid, monourea adduct ...... 128961 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Hydroprene ...... 128966 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Triasulfuron ...... 128969 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Primisulfuron-methyl ...... 128973 Urea ...... Activated Carbon. Uniconazole (ANSI) ...... 128976 s-Triazine ...... Activated Carbon. Tetradecenyl acetate ...... 128980 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Chitin ...... 128991 Polymer ...... Activated Carbon. Sulfluramid ...... 128992 Sulfonamide ...... Activated Carbon. Dithiopyr (ANSI) ...... 128994 Pyridine ...... Activated Carbon. Nicosulfuron ...... 129008 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Zinc ...... 129015 Metallic ...... Precipitation. Tetradecen-1-ol, acetate, (E)- ...... 129019 Alkyl Acid ...... Activated Carbon. Imazaquin, sodium salt ...... 129023 Pyrimidine ...... Activated Carbon. Dodecadien-1-ol ...... 129028 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Ionone ...... 129030 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Dicamba, aluminum salt ...... 129042 Aryl Halide ...... Activated Carbon. Benzenemethanaminium, N-(2-((2,6- ...... 129045 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. dimethylphenyl)amino)-2-oxo. Fenoxaprop-p-Ethyl ...... 129092 Tricyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Alkyl* bis(2-hydroxyethyl) ammonium ace- ...... 169103 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. tate *(as in fatty ac. Alkenyl* dimethyl ammonium acetate *(75% ...... 169104 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. C18', 25% C16'). Amines, N-coco alkyltrimethylenedi-, ...... 169109 Iminamide ...... Activated Carbon. adipates. Dialkyl* dimethyl ammonium bentonite *(as ...... 169111 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. in fatty acids of. Alkyl* bis(2-hydroxyethyl) amine acetate ...... 169125 Acetamide ...... Activated Carbon. *(65% C18, 30% C16,. Dodecyl bis(hydroxy ethyl) dioctyl ammo- ...... 169154 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. nium phosphate. 57566 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 216 / Wednesday, November 6, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 10 TO PART 455.ÐLIST OF APPROPRIATE POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 1ÐContinued

PAI Shaughnessy PAI name 2 Structural group 5 Treatment technology code 3 code 4

Dodecyl bis(2-hydroxyethyl) octyl hydrogen ...... 169155 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. ammonium phosphat. Didecyl-N-methyl-3- ...... 169160 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. (trimethoxysilyl)propanaminium chloride. Cholecalciferol ...... 202901 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Use code no. 202901 (Vitamin D3) ...... 208700 Bicyclic ...... Activated Carbon. Alkyl* N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)amine *(100% ...... 210900 NR4 ...... Activated Carbon. C8±C18). Bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol ...... 216400 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. Use code no. 114601 (cyclohexyl-4, 5- ...... 229300 Heterocyclic ...... Activated Carbon. dichloro- 4-isothioazolin-3-one). Diethatyl ethyl ...... 279500 Toluidine ...... Activated Carbon. Hydroprene (ANSI) ...... 486300 Miscellaneous Organic ...... Activated Carbon. Zinc sulfate monohydrate ...... 527200 Metallic ...... Precipitation Geraniol ...... 597501 Alcohol ...... Activated Carbon. 1 The 272 Pesticide Active Ingredients (PAIs) are listed first, by PAI code, followed by the non-272 PAIs from the 1988 FIFRA and TSCA En- forcement System (FATES) Database, which are listed in Shaughnessy code order. PAIs that were exempted or reserved from the PFPR efflu- ent guidelines are not listed in the table. 2 The non-272 PAI names are taken directly from the 1988 FATES database. Several of the PAI names are truncated because the PAI names listed in the FATES database are limited to 60 characters. 3 The non-272 PAIs do not have PAI codes. 4 All Shaughnessy codes are taken from the 1988 FATES database. Some of the 272 PAIs are not listed in the 1988 FATES database; there- fore, no Shaughnessy codes are listed for these PAIs. 5 Structural groups are based on an analysis of the chemical structures of each PAI. 6 EPA has also received data indicating that acid hydrolysis may also be effective in treating this PAI. * This PAI code represents a category or group of PAIs; therefore, it has multiple Shaughnessy codes.

[FR Doc. 96–25771 Filed 11–5–96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560±50±P