Pesticide Chemicals Category, Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards; Proposed Rule ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SUMMARY: This is a proposed regulation under the Clean Water Act to

limit the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United

States and into publicly owned treatment works by existing and new

facilities that formulate, package or repackage products containing

pesticide active ingredients. This regulation proposes effluent

limitations guidelines based on ``best practicable control technology

(BPT)'', ``best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT)'',

``best available technology (BAT)'', new source performance standards

(NSPS), and pretreatment standards for new and existing indirect

dischargers (PSNS and PSES, respectively). The existing effluent

limitations guidelines based on the achievement of BPT are not being

changed by this proposed regulation. EPA is also proposing to establish

a new subcategory which applies to refilling establishments whose

principal business is retail sale.

DATES: Comments on the proposal must be received by June 13, 1994. EPA

will conduct a workshop covering this proposal, in conjunction with a

public hearing on the pretreatment standards portion of the proposal.

The workshop will be held on June 7, 1994, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon. The

public hearing will be conducted from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on the

same day.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in writing to: Ms. Janet Goodwin,

Engineering & Analysis Division (4303), USEPA, 401 M Street SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

The workshop and the public hearing will be held in EPA's

Auditorium, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC. Persons

wishing to present formal comments at the public hearing should have a

written copy for submittal.

The complete record for this rulemaking is available for review at

the EPA's Water Docket; 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. For

access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30

p.m. for an appointment. The EPA public information regulation (40 CFR

part 2) provides that a reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information

write or call Ms. Janet Goodwin at (202) 260-7152. For additional

information on the economic impact analyses contact Dr. Lynne Tudor at

the above address or by calling (202) 260-5834.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

This preamble describes the scope, purpose, legal authority and

background of this rule, the technical and economic bases and the

methodology used by the Agency to develop these effluent limitations

guidelines and standards.

Abbreviations, acronyms, and other terms used in the Supplementary

Information section are defined in Appendix A to the preamble of this

document.

I. Legal Authority

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

(Section 304(b)(1) of the Act)

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)

(Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 307(a)(2) of the Act)

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (Section

304(a)(4) of the Act)

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 306 of the

Act)

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) (Section

307(b) of the Act)

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) (Section 307(b)

of the Act)

B. Section 304(m) Requirements and Litigation

C. Pollution Prevention Act

D. Prior Regulation and Litigation for the Pesticide Chemicals

Category

E. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule

III. Summary of Proposed Regulations

A. BPT

B. BCT

C. BAT

D. NSPS

E. PSES

F. PSNS

IV. Overview of the Industry

A. Industry Description

B. Source Reduction Review Project

V. Data Gathering Efforts

A. Technical Data

1. Existing Databases

2. Survey Questionnaire

3. Site Visits

4. Wastewater Sampling and Analytical Programs

5. EPA Bench-Scale Treatability Studies

6. Data Transfers From Pesticide Manufacturing Subcategories and

Other Sources

VI. Industry Subcategorization

A. Prior Subcategorization Scheme

B. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme

C. Proposed Subcategories

1. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

2. Repackaging Performed at Refilling Establishments

(Subcategory E)

VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics

A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics

B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation

Practices

1. Shipping Container/Drum Cleaning

2. Bulk Tank Rinsate

3. Equipment Interior Cleaning

4. Department of Transportation (DOT) Aerosol Container Leak

Testing

5. Floor/Wall/Equipment Exterior Cleaning

6. Leaks and Spills

7. Air Pollution or Odor Control Scrubbers

8. Safety Equipment Cleaning

9. Laboratory Equipment Cleaning

10. Contaminated Precipitation Run-off

VIII. Wastewater Control Technology Currently Available

IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory

E)

X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments (Subcategory E)

XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments (Subcategory E)

XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

1. Options Selection

2. Cost Estimates

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory

E)

XIII. New Source Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards

for New Sources

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments (Subcategory E)

XIV. Economic Considerations

A. Introduction

B. Economic Impact Methodology

1. Impact Measures

2. Application of the Impact Measures

3. Methodology for Calculating Impacts

C. Projected Facility Economic Impacts

1. Baseline Analysis

2. Impacts Due to Compliance

D. Community Impacts

E. Foreign Trade Effects

1. Proportional Case

2. Worst-Case

F. Impacts on Firms Owning PFPR Facilities

1. Baseline Impacts

2. Post-Compliance Impacts

G. Impacts of NSPS and PSNS

1. Subcategory C

2. Subcategory E

H. Benefits of Pollution Prevention

1. Savings From Reduced Water Use and Water Discharge

2. Savings From Recovery and Reuse of PAIs

3. Savings From Reduced Costs of Permits and Fees

4. Savings From Reduced Insurance Premiums

5. Savings From Reduced Cost of Capital

I. Labor Requirements and Possible Employment Benefits of

Regulatory Compliance

1. Direct Labor Requirements of Complying With the PFPR Rule

2. Indirect and Induced Labor Requirements of Complying With the

PFPR Rule

J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of PSES Options

K. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1. Subcategory C Facilities

2. Subcategory E Facilities

L. Assessment of Economic Impacts Including Additional PAIs not

on the Original List of 272 PAIs Studied for Regulation

1. Facilities Using Both Original 272 PAIs and Additional PAIs

2. Facilities Using Only the Additional PAIs

3. Aggregate Impacts for All Facilities Using Both Original 272

and Additional PAIs

4. Cost-Effectiveness of Option 3/S.1

M. Executive Order 12866

N. Paperwork Reduction Act

XV. Water Quality Analyses

XVI. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts

A. Air Pollution

B. Solid Waste

C. Energy Requirements

XVII. Regulatory Implementation

A. Upset and Bypass Provisions

B. Variances and Modifications

C. Relationship to NPDES Permits and Monitoring Requirements

D. Best Management Practice

E. Analytical Methods

XVIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments

Appendix A to the Preamble--Abbreviation, Acronyms, and Other Terms

Used in This Document

I. Legal Authority

This regulation is being proposed under the authorities of sections

301, 304, 306, 307, and 501 of the Clean Water Act (the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as

amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, Pub. L. 95-217, and the Water

Quality Act of 1987, Pub. L. 100-4), also referred to as ``the Act.''

II. Background

A. Clean Water Act

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

established a comprehensive program to ``restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters,''

(section 101(a)). To implement the Act, EPA is to issue effluent

limitations guidelines, pretreatment standards and new source

performance standards for industrial dischargers.

These guidelines and standards are summarized briefly below:

1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

(Section 304(b)(1) of the Act)

BPT effluent limitations guidelines are generally based on the

average of the best existing performance by plants of various sizes,

ages, and unit processes within the category or subcategory for control

of pollutants.

In establishing BPT effluent limitations guidelines, EPA considers

the total cost of achieving effluent reductions in relation to the

effluent reduction benefits, the age of equipment and facilities

involved, the processes employed, process changes required, engineering

aspects of the control technologies, non-water quality environmental

impacts (including energy requirements) and other factors as the EPA

Administrator deems appropriate (Section 304(b)(1)(B) of the Act). The

Agency considers the category or subcategory-wide cost of applying the

technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. Where

existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BPT may be transferred

from a different subcategory or category.

2. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) (Sections

304(b)(2)(B) and 307(a)(2) of the Act)

In general, BAT effluent limitations represent the best existing

economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial

subcategory or category. The Act establishes BAT as the principal

national means of controlling the direct discharge of priority

pollutants and nonconventional pollutants to navigable waters. The

factors considered in assessing BAT include the age of equipment and

facilities involved, the process employed, potential process changes,

and non-water quality environmental impacts (including energy

requirements) (Section 304(b)(2)(B)). The Agency retains considerable

discretion in assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. As

with BPT, where existing performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may

be transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may

include process changes or internal controls, even when these

technologies are not common industry practice.

3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) (Section

304(a)(4) of the Act)

The 1977 Amendments added Section 301(b)(2)(E) to the Act

establishing BCT for discharges of conventional pollutants from

existing industrial point sources. Section 304(a)(4) designated the

following as conventional pollutants: Biochemical oxygen demanding

pollutants (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and

any additional pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional.

The Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional

conventional pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).

BCT is not an additional limitation, but replaces BAT for the

control of conventional pollutants. In addition to other factors

specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the Act requires that BCT

limitations be established in light of a two part ``cost-

reasonableness'' test. American Paper Institute v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954

(4th Cir. 1981). EPA's current methodology for the general development

of BCT limitations was issued in 1986 (51 FR 24974; July 9, 1986).

4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (Section 306 of the Act)

NSPS are based on the best available demonstrated treatment

technology. New plants have the opportunity to install the best and

most efficient production processes and wastewater treatment

technologies. As a result, NSPS should represent the most stringent

numerical values attainable through the application of the best

available control technology for all pollutants (i.e., conventional,

nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In establishing NSPS, EPA is

directed to take into consideration the cost of achieving the effluent

reduction and any non-water quality environmental impacts and energy

requirements.

5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) (Section 307(b)

of the Act)

PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass

through, interfere with, or are otherwise incompatible with the

operation of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The Act requires

pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through POTWs or

interfere with POTWs' treatment processes or sludge disposal methods.

The legislative history of the 1977 Act indicates that pretreatment

standards are to be technology-based and analogous to the BAT effluent

limitations guidelines for removal of toxic pollutants. For the purpose

of determining whether to promulgate national category-wide

pretreatment standards, EPA generally determines that there is pass-

through of a pollutant and thus a need for categorical standards if the

nation-wide average percent removal of a pollutant removed by well-

operated POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the percent

removed by the BAT model treatment system.

The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework

for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found

at 40 CFR part 403. (Those regulations contain a definition of pass-

through that addresses localized rather than national instances of

pass-through and does not use the percent removal comparison test

described above. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.)

6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) (Section 307(b) of the

Act)

Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of

pollutants that pass through, interfere with, or are otherwise

incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the

same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers, like the new direct

dischargers, have the opportunity to incorporate into their plants the

best available demonstrated technologies. The Agency considers the same

factors in promulgating PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.

B. Section 304(m) Requirements and Litigation

Section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1314(m)), added by

the Water Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to establish schedules for

(i) reviewing and revising existing effluent limitations guidelines and

standards (``effluent guidelines''), and (ii) promulgating new effluent

guidelines. On January 2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines

Plan (55 FR 80), in which schedules were established for developing new

and revised effluent guidelines for several industry categories. One of

the industries for which the Agency established a schedule was the

Pesticide Chemicals category.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen,

Inc., challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan in a suit filed in U.S.

District Court for the District of Columbia (NRDC et al v. Reilly, Civ.

No. 89-2980). The plaintiffs charged that EPA's plan did not meet the

requirements of sec. 304(m). A Consent Decree in this litigation was

entered by the Court on January 31, 1992. The terms of the Consent

Decree are reflected in the Effluent Guidelines Plan published on

September 8, 1992 (57 FR 41000). This plan requires, among other

things, that EPA propose effluent guidelines for the formulating,

packaging and repackaging subcategories of the Pesticide Chemicals

category by January, 1994 and take final action on these effluent

guidelines by August, 1995. EPA filed a motion with the court in

November, 1993 requesting an extension of time until March 31, 1994,

for the EPA Administrator to sign the proposed regulation.

C. Pollution Prevention Act

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 13101 et

seq., Pub. L. 101-508, November 5, 1990) makes pollution prevention the

national policy of the United States. The PPA identifies an

environmental management hierarchy in which pollution ``should be

prevented or reduced whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be

prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner,

whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled

should be treated in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;

and disposal or release into the environment should be employed only as

a last resort * * *'' (Sec. 6602; 42 U.S.C. 13103). In short,

preventing pollution before it is created is preferable to trying to

manage, treat or dispose of it after it is created. According to the

PPA, source reduction reduces the generation and release of hazardous

substances, pollutants, wastes, contaminants or residuals at the

source, usually within a process. The term source reduction ``include

equipment or technology modifications, process or procedure

modifications, reformulation or redesign of products, substitution of

raw materials, and improvements in housekeeping, maintenance, training,

or inventory control. The term `source reduction' does not include any

practice which alters the physical, chemical, or biological

characteristics or the volume of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or

contaminant through a process or activity which itself is not integral

to or necessary for the production of a product or the providing of a

service.'' In effect, source reduction means reducing the amount of a

pollutant that enters a waste stream or that is otherwise released into

the environment prior to out-of-process recycling, treatment, or

disposal.

The PPA directs the Agency to, among other things, ``review

regulations of the Agency prior and subsequent to their proposal to

determine their effect on source reduction'' (Sec. 6604; 42 U.S.C.

13103). This directive led the Agency to implement a pilot project

called the Source Reduction Review Project that would facilitate the

integration of source reduction in the Agency's regulations, including

the technology based effluent guidelines and standards. (See Section

IV. B. for a more complete discussion of the Source Reduction Review

Project.)

D. Prior Regulation and Litigation for the Pesticide Chemicals Category

EPA promulgated BPT regulations for the Pesticide Chemicals

Category on April 25, 1978 (43 FR 17778; 40 CFR part 455), and

September 29, 1978 (43 FR 44846; 40 CFR part 455, subpart A). The BPT

effluent limitations guidelines established a zero discharge limitation

for the pesticide formulating and packaging subcategory (subpart C).

Several industry members challenged the BPT regulation on April 26,

1978 and the U.S. Court of Appeals remanded them on two minor issues

[BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 596 F.2d 637 (1st Cir. 1979), cert.

denied, Eli Lilly v. Costle, 444 U.S. 1096 (1980)]. The Agency

subsequently addressed the two issues on remand and the Court upheld

the regulations in their entirety [BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 614

F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1980)].

On November 30, 1982, EPA proposed additional regulations to

control the discharge of wastewater pollutants from pesticide chemical

operations to navigable waters and to POTWs (47 FR 53994). The proposed

regulations included effluent limitations guidelines based upon BPT,

BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. The proposed effluent limitation

guidelines and standards covered the organic pesticide chemicals

manufacturing segment, the metallo-organic chemicals manufacturing

segment and the formulating and packaging segment of the pesticide

chemical industry. In addition, the Agency proposed guidelines for test

procedures to analyze the nonconventional pesticide pollutants covered

by these regulations on February 10, 1983 (48 FR 8250).

Based on the new information collected by EPA in response to the

comments on the November 30, 1982 proposal, on June 13, 1984, EPA

published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of new information (49 FR

24492). In this NOA, the Agency indicated it was considering changing

its approach to developing regulation for this industry. EPA requested

comments on the data. EPA published a second NOA of new information on

January 24, 1985, which primarily made available for public review

technical and economic data which had previously been claimed

confidential by industry.

EPA issued a final rule on October 4, 1985, that limited the

discharge of pollutants into navigable wastewaters and into POTWs (50

FR 40672). The regulation included effluent limitations guidelines and

standards for the BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS levels of control for new

and existing facilities that were engaged in the manufacture and/or

formulation and packaging of pesticides. The regulation also

established analytical methods for 61 pesticide active ingredients for

which the Agency had not previously promulgated approved test

procedures.

Several parties filed petitions in the Court of Appeals challenging

various aspects of the pesticide regulation [Chemical Specialties

Manufacturers Association, et al. v. EPA (86-8024)]. After a review of

the database supporting the regulation the Agency found flaws in the

basis for these effluent limitations guidelines and standards.

Subsequently, the Agency and the parties filed a joint motion for a

voluntary remand of the regulation in the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals. The Court dismissed the case on July 25, 1986, in response to

the Joint Motion.

Upon consideration of the parties' motion to modify the dismissal,

on August 29, 1986, the Court modified its order to clarify the terms

of the dismissal. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered that:

(1) The effluent limitation guidelines and standards for the pesticide

chemicals industry be remanded to EPA for reconsideration and further

rulemaking; and (2) EPA publish a Federal Register notice removing the

remanded pesticide regulation from the Code of Federal Regulations.

EPA formally withdrew the regulations on December 15, 1986 (51 FR

44911). Although the Agency found no errors in the analytical methods

promulgated October 4, 1985, it withdrew these methods to allow for

further testing and possible revision. The BPT limitations that were

published on April 25, 1978, and September 29, 1978, were not affected

by the withdrawal notice and remain in effect. Those existing BPT

limitations regulations are not proposed to be changed in today's

notice.

On September 28, 1993, (58 FR 50637) EPA published additional

effluent limitations guidelines and standards under subpart A of part

455, which covers manufacturers of organic pesticide active

ingredients.

E. Scope of Today's Proposed Rule

The regulation proposed today would cover the pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging industry by establishing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards for the following subcategories:

Subcategory C: Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging

and Repackaging.

Subcategory E: Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides

Performed by Refilling Establishments Whose Principal Business is

Retail Sales

EPA has already issued final effluent guidelines limitations and

standards for the manufacturing of pesticide active ingredients covered

by subcategories A and B and BPT effluent limitations guidelines for

subcategory C (as previously mentioned). Subpart D contains the

analytical methods promulgated as part of the September 28, 1993,

rulemaking.

In today's notice, EPA is proposing to expand water pollution

control requirements for the pesticide formulating and packaging

subcategory. Effluent limitations for BAT, BCT and NSPS are proposed to

be equivalent to BPT limitations previously established in regulations

which are based on zero discharge. EPA is also proposing to establish

PSES and PSNS for this subcategory. All formulating packaging and

repackaging waste streams would be covered by the regulations except

for certain waste streams from a subgroup of facilities that process

products containing sanitizer chemicals, as defined in the regulations.

EPA is also proposing limitations for BPT, BCT, BAT limitations and

NSPS as well as PSES and PSNS, for the repackaging performed by

refilling establishments as a new subcategory.

III. Summary of Proposed Regulations

A. BPT

The BPT regulation promulgated in 1978 under subpart C of part 455

prohibits the discharge of process wastewater pollutants generated from

formulating and packaging pesticide products. This regulation is not

being changed. BPT regulations for subpart E, a new subcategory, are

proposed. The new subcategory applies to repackaging agricultural

pesticides when performed by refilling establishments whose principal

business is retail sale. The proposed BPT for this subcategory would

require that there be zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

B. BCT

EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations equivalent to BPT

limitations for both subcategories.

C. BAT

EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations equivalent to BPT

limitations for both subcategories.

D. NSPS

EPA is proposing to establish NSPS equivalent to BAT limitations

for both subcategories.

E. PSES

EPA is proposing to establish PSES equivalent to BAT limitations

(i.e., zero discharge) for both subcategories, except that a separate

provision is proposed for subcategory C facilities that formulate,

package or repackage sanitizer pesticides as listed in Table 8 to the

proposed regulation. This separate provision requires zero discharge of

process wastewater pollutants from only the ``interior'' wastestreams

at these facilities as discussed in Section XII of this preamble.

F. PSNS

EPA is proposing to establish PSNS equivalent to NSPS for both

subcategories.

IV. Overview of the Industry

A. Industry Description

The industry as a whole is referred to as the pesticide

formulating, packaging and repackaging industry. The subcategories are

referred to as:

PFPR or subcategory C for the pesticides chemicals

formulating, packaging and repackaging subcategory, (including

sanitizer pesticides formulating, packaging and repackaging); and

Refilling establishments, or subcategory E for the

repackaging at refilling establishments whose principal business is

retail sale.

The pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging industry is

made up of an estimated 5,200 facilities per EPA's data base generated

through the annual reports submitted by pesticide producing

establishments. These facilities are located throughout the country,

with greater concentrations of refilling establishments located in the

midwestern and southeastern states to serve the agricultural market.

Approximately 3,240 of these facilities are represented by the data

base for this rulemaking, which was developed primarily based on 272

pesticide active ingredients covered by the manufacturing rule.

Pesticide formulating is the mixing of pesticide active ingredient

with inert ingredients without a chemical reaction that changes the

active ingredient. Pesticide formulations take all forms: Water-based

liquid; organic solvent-based liquid; dry products in granular, powder,

solid forms; pressurized gases; and aerosols. The formulations can be

in a concentrated form requiring dilution before application or can be

ready to apply. The packaging of the formulated pesticide product is

dependent on the type of formulation. Liquids generally are packaged

into jugs, cans, or drums; dry formulations generally are packaged into

bags, boxes, drums, or jugs. Pressurized gases are packaged into

cylinders. Aerosols are packaged into aerosol cans.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

[cite] requires that all products making a claim of killing, mitigating

or repelling pests be registered with EPA and bear a label directing

the safe use of the product. In addition, production of all pesticide

products must be reported annually to EPA. Thus, EPA has extensive data

on the contents of pesticide products, their annual production, who

formulates, packages or repackages these products and the uses for

which these products are registered. EPA's Office of Water made

extensive use of this data in its analysis of the pesticide

formulating, packaging and repackaging industry.

Based on 1988 FIFRA establishment registration data, EPA identified

3,241 pesticide formulating, packaging, and repackaging facilities in

the United States for the 272 active ingredients. Subsequently, EPA

surveyed a stratified random sample of these 3,240 facilities. Based on

this survey, facilities were identified, an estimated 1,305 as

pesticide producing establishments involved in formulating, packaging

and repackaging pesticide products and the remaining 1,134 facilities

as refilling establishments whose principal business is retail sales

that only repackage pesticide products. Based on these survey results,

EPA estimates that for all of the PAIs covered by this rule, that in

1988 there were 2,000 facilities involved in formulating, packaging and

repackaging pesticide products and 1,810 refilling establishments,

using 1991 regulation data, these numbers increased to 3,200 and 2,800

facilities respectively. In addition, there were 48 pesticide

manufacturing facilities that also formulated and packaged pesticide

products. EPA estimates that there could be as many as 13 additional

manufacturing facilities that also formulate, package and repackage

pesticide products.

As described above, the formulating, packaging and repackaging

industry produces products in different forms. EPA has observed

formulating, packaging or repackaging done a number of different ways

ranging from very sophisticated and automated formulation and packaging

lines to completely manual lines. In general, for liquid products the

process involves mixing the active ingredient with liquid inert

ingredients in a tank and then transferring the product to containers.

For dry products, the active ingredient may be sprayed in liquid form

onto a dry substrate or it may be mixed in dry form. Dry products may

undergo processes for mixing, grinding, sifting and finally packaging.

Formulating aerosol products is the same as other liquid products, but

the packaging is more complex and involves filling the container,

capping it, drawing a vacuum on the container, adding propellant under

pressure, and sealing the container.

Some other types of pesticide products manufactured include collars

to repel and kill fleas and ticks, pesticides that are micro-

encapsulated, and pesticides that are formed into solid shapes.

The pesticide industry is changing and efforts are being made to

improve products to meet demands of consumers for less toxic and safer

pesticides. For example, water-based solutions are gradually replacing

organic solvents in liquid pesticide formulating. Developments in

packaging also are underway. For example, the growing use of water

soluble packages can reduce worker exposure to pesticides and minimize

problems with disposal of packaging.

The 1,130 refilling establishments represent a new population of

facilities that was identified in the Agency's Survey of Pesticide

Producing Establishments. The survey sought to identify all facilities

that reported formulating, packaging or repackaging pesticide products

in their annual report of 1988. (This survey is described more fully in

section V.A.2.) Somewhat unexpectedly, EPA discovered a significant

population of facilities that reported repackaging only. These

facilities are retail dealers of agricultural chemicals and farm

supplies. These facilities repackage pesticide chemicals, usually

herbicides, into refillable containers which are used to transport the

pesticide to the site where it is applied.

The use of refillable containers became widespread during the

1980's to reduce the numbers of empty pesticide containers needing to

be disposed of by farmers. In general, registrants distribute large

undivided quantities of pesticides to dealerships (refilling

establishments) where the products are stored in large bulk tanks. The

dealer then repackages the pesticide from the bulk storage tanks to

portable minibulk containers that generally have capacities around 100

gallons. The increased use of refillable containers led to an increased

amount of herbicide stored in bulk quantities and the need to have a

secondary containment system built around the bulk storage tanks.

Based on the results of the survey conducted to support this

rulemaking, and focussing on the 272 PAIs, EPA estimates that 1,130

refilling establishments existed in the U.S. in 1988. This number is

significantly lower than the population estimates for these types of

facilities based on all PAIs and registration data, it is also lower

than the estimates for the number of these facilities presently in

existence, made by EPA in its proposed containers and containment

standards rule (40 CFR part 165, 59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994) and by

estimates of members of this industry. EPA believes this discrepancy

between the 1988 and current numbers of facilities is due to the fact

that repackaging into refillable containers was still a growing market,

particularly in 1988. In addition, some industry representatives

indicated that because it was so early in the creation of this market,

many of the refilling establishments were unaware that their new

service of repackaging pesticide products required them to be

registered establishments and to report their annual production to the

Agency. Thus, it is possible that many refilling establishments were

not included in the population from which our sample was drawn.

B. Source Reduction Review Project

Section 6604 of the PPA directs the Administrator to set up an

office for the purpose, among other things, of reviewing for the EPA

Administrator the impact that Agency regulations would have on source

reduction. See PPA section 6604, 42 U.S.C. 13103; S. Rep. No. 526,

101st Congress, 2nd session at 2 (1990). This office is to ``consider''

the effect of Agency programs on source reduction efforts and to

``review'' EPA's regulations prior and subsequent to their proposal to

determine their effect on source reduction.

The Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP) is a pilot program of

the U.S. EPA to demonstrate the value and feasibility of taking a

source reduction approach in designing environmental regulations. The

project's goal is to ensure that source reduction measures and cross-

media implications of rules are fully considered during development of

regulations. To the extent practicable and consistent with existing

law, and considering cost-effectiveness as appropriate, the Agency will

emphasize source reduction as the basis of its rules. Where source

reduction cannot be implemented, the Agency will consider recycling,

then treatment and if necessary disposal technologies and practices as

the basis of its rules. Even in cases where EPA cannot base its rule on

source reduction practices, the Agency may encourage the regulated

community to consider using innovative source reduction measures to

comply with rules by providing information and economic incentives. To

investigate opportunities for source reduction, EPA will consider

source reduction in every phase of rule development: data collection,

site visits, bench-scale technology testing, economic and technical

analysis, multi-media impacts and agency and public reporting.

The PFPR effluent guidelines regulation was one of approximately 25

rules chosen for this pilot effort. Since initial data collection for

this rule preceded the PPA, the Agency did not directly ask questions

about source reduction in the industry survey. In every phase since the

survey, however, the Agency has considered and evaluated opportunities

for source reduction. In addition, the Agency has tried to coordinate

this rule with efforts of the Office of Solid Waste in developing a

hazardous waste listing for carbamates, a family of pesticide active

ingredients.

As will be described in greater detail in Section VII of today's

notice, Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics, wastewater is

generated by pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities

in relatively small volumes and on an intermittent basis. Furthermore,

the source of virtually all wastewater is from cleaning something that

has been in contact with the pesticide product. These characteristics

afford considerable opportunities for pollution prevention and water

conservation. As described in section VII of this preamble, EPA has

studied and observed a number of pollution-preventing and/or wastewater

conserving practices at a wide range of pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities. Because of the pollution

prevention opportunities demonstrated by this industry, the Agency has

included this rule in the SRRP. Some of the research on wastewater

treatment described in the next section focuses on wastewater treatment

that also allows for product recovery. This research was funded through

the inclusion of this rule in the SRRP.

The SRRP designation for the PFPR effluent guidelines has prompted

EPA to look more closely at what some of the likely outcomes would be

of applying the identified candidate BAT technologies. For example, the

Agency has looked beyond the usual estimation of the cost expected to

be incurred by the industry to comply with this rule and the pollutants

expected to be removed from the wastewater stream. EPA also has

estimated the savings that might be realized due to the water

conservation and product recovery practices that are part of the best

available technology (See section XIV, Economic Considerations). EPA is

also attempting to track the destinations of all wastes from the

formulating, packaging or repackaging industry. Particular focus is, of

course, placed on the wastewater, because it is the waste source for

which there is the most data. EPA has attempted to anticipate the

ultimate destination of wastewater pollutants to consider whether the

proposed regulatory approach, and the expected action taken by the

industry in response to the regulatory approach, will truly result in

net environmental benefit or will merely result in transfer of

pollutants to another medium. This will be discussed in more detail in

Section XVI, Non-Water Quality Considerations. EPA believes that both

of the SRRP-related studies (evaluating the savings and the pollutant

destinations) will help to expand EPA's knowledge of sources of waste

and opportunities for real pollution prevention and savings. This

effort also points out data gaps that EPA may be able to fill during

future data collection efforts. Such information could improve EPA's

ability to carry out its mission to identify and control the more

significant environmental problems.

EPA believes that source reduction and application of the Pollution

Prevention Act's environmental management hierarchy is achieved in

today's proposed rulemaking through the proposal's recognition of the

following:

At Pesticide Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

Facilities:

--Source reduction is accomplished by rinsing raw material

containers and adding the rinsate directly into the product as it is

formulated.

--Recycle and reuse can be applied to other interior wastewater

streams that are held until they can be added to product when it is

next formulated.

--Treat and recycle can apply to other wastewater sources.

At Refilling Establishments:

--Source reduction can be accomplished by putting bulk tank storage

areas and loading pads under roof, thus avoiding the creation of

contaminated precipitation.

--Recycle and reuse can apply to minibulk and other equipment

rinsates in an application mixture.

EPA recognizes that source reduction in the context of pesticide

use generally has other important components. These include improving

efficiency in pesticide production and formulating processes, improving

application efficiencies, encouraging integrated pest management and

low input sustainable agricultural practices, and encouraging the use

of safer pesticides when pesticides are necessary. Currently, the

Agency is pursuing efforts in these other areas, such as the pesticide

containers and containment standards proposed rule, which is intended

to reduce the numbers of pesticide containers needing disposal by

setting standards and guidelines for the use of refillable containers.

V. Data Gathering Efforts

A. Technical Data

The technical data gathering efforts for this rulemaking involved

several activities which are summarized in this section and in the

technical Development Document for today's proposed rule. In general,

EPA's data gathering efforts were conducted by six principal means: (1)

Reviewing existing information from past rulemaking records and other

Agency files pertaining to the pesticide chemicals formulating and

packaging industry; (2) obtaining new information through a

questionnaire sent to a stratified random sample of the industry; (3)

conducting numerous site visits to observe pollution prevent practices;

(4) implementing a wastewater sampling and analysis program; (5)

implementing bench-scale treatability studies; and (6) transferring

data from the pesticide manufacturing subcategories and other sources.

These are described further below:

1. Existing Databases

A pesticide, as defined by the FIFRA, includes ``any substance or

mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling,

or mitigating any pest, and any substance or mixture of substances

intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant'' (40

CFR 152.3(s)). Under FIFRA, all pesticides must be registered with EPA

prior to shipment, delivery, or sale in the United States. A pesticide

product is a formulated product; that is, it is a mixture of at least

one ``active ingredient'' and ``inert'' diluents. Each formulation has

a distinct registration.

Mandatory reporting of yearly pesticide production is required by

FIFRA as part of the pesticide registration process. Pesticide

producing establishments, including formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities, are required to provide information to EPA on

registered pesticide products, such as product registration numbers,

product classification, type and use, and production rates. These data

are submitted as part of the ``Pesticide Report for Pesticide-Producing

Establishments'' (EPA Form 3540-16) and are stored in the FIFRA and

TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) Enforcement System (FATES) data

base. (The FATES data base has been renamed the Section Seven Tracking

System (SSTS).) Accessing the FATES data base gave the population data

from which the stratified random sample of formulating, packaging and

repackaging facilities were drawn. The databases for more recent years

(1989 through 1991) were also accessed to identify any changes in the

make-up of the industry and to evaluate the applicability of this

regulation, as will be discussed in more detail later in this preamble.

For the survey of pesticide chemicals formulating, packaging or

repackaging industry, the Agency focused on the 272 active ingredients

or classes of active ingredients that were the basis of the census for

the pesticide manufacturing facilities. In 1988, EPA decided to

separate the pesticide manufacturing rulemaking, which at that time was

well underway, from the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

rulemaking. However, as the subcategories are all included in the same

point source category and were initially intended to be developed

concurrently, EPA continued to use the same list of 272 active

ingredients that formed the basis for the pesticide manufacturing data

base for the pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging

subcategories. (For the final rule covering organic pesticide chemical

manufacturing, three of the active ingredients were dropped from

coverage: biphenyl since it was no longer a registered pesticide active

ingredient and ortho- and para-dichlorobenzene whose manufacture is

covered by another effluent guidelines regulation.)

The initial basis of this list was the 284 active ingredients and

classes of active ingredients presented in Appendix 2 of the October 4,

1985 regulation (50 FR 40672). These 284 active ingredients were

originally selected in 1977 on the basis of significant production and/

or commercial use. EPA then expanded this list to 835 active

ingredients by adding the following group of active ingredients:

All salts and esters of listed organic acids (such as 2,4-

D);

All metallo-organic active ingredients (consisting of an

organic portion bonded to arsenic, cadmium, copper, or mercury);

All organo-tin active ingredients;

All active ingredients that appeared to be structurally

similar to other listed active ingredients (such as organo-phosphorus

pesticides); and

Any other active ingredients with an analytical method

previously demonstrated to be applicable to wastewater.

EPA excluded from this list of 835 active ingredients those active

ingredients already subject to regulation under other effluent

guidelines--specifically, those for which the manufacturing is

regulated by the Organic Chemicals, Plastics and Synthetic Fibers

(OCPSF) (40 CFR part 414), Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing (40 CFR

part 415), and Pharmaceutical Manufacturing (40 CFR part 439) effluent

guidelines. Information provided to EPA under FIFRA indicated that 335

of those 835 active ingredients were produced in 1984-1985, and the

other 500 were not produced for domestic use in either 1984 or 1985. An

additional 15 (of the 835) were added to the 335 active ingredients

because those 15 active ingredients had been manufactured prior to 1984

and might still be manufactured for export. The list of 350 active

ingredients and derivatives, such as salts and esters of an active

ingredient, was consolidated into an active ingredient class, to arrive

at a total of 272 active ingredients and classes of active ingredients.

Because the consolidated classes include all elements of the class,

such as all salts and esters of 2,4-D (i.e., not just those in use in

1986), the 272 active ingredients and classes of active ingredients

actually include 606 of the 835 specific active ingredients. This list

of active ingredients was used as a basis for the effluent limitations

guidelines and standards for the pesticide chemicals manufacturing

subcategories (58 FR 50367).

2. Survey Questionnaire

A major source of information and data used in developing effluent

limitations guidelines and standards is industry responses to

questionnaires distributed by EPA under the authority of section 308 of

the Clean Water Act. These questionnaires typically request information

concerning the generation of wastewater and pollutants as part of

production processes, treatment, and disposal, as well as wastewater

treatment system performance data. Questionnaires also request

financial and economic data for use in assessing economic impacts and

the economic achievability of technology options. In 1988 EPA submitted

a draft questionnaire to pesticide industry trade associations,

environmental public interest groups and a number of pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities for review and

comment. EPA subsequently revised the draft questionnaire and in 1989

distributed it to nine facilities for a pretest. Further revisions were

made to the form following the pretest, and it was then submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget for review pursuant to the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. OMB cleared the

questionnaire on January 30, 1990 (OMB control number 2040-0139).

FATES data files were accessed to obtain information on product

registrations containing one or more of the 272 targeted PAIs. This

dataset was used to define a sampling frame of 3,241 facilities

identified in the 1988 Fates database as formulators, packagers, or

repackagers of these PAIs. The sampling frame was partitioned into 51

strata. The stratification was done according to pesticide production

amount (large, medium, small, and tiny) and pesticide type (fungicide,

herbicide, insecticide, and other and combinations of these types for

facilities that formulate and/or package more than one type). A total

of 611 facilities was selected randomly from the sampling frame to

comprise the questionnaire survey sample. The survey was also

distributed to a census of 91 pesticide manufacturers that also

formulate, package or repackage pesticides which were identified from

the ``Pesticide Manufacturing Facility Census for 1986''. Two of the

611 sampled facilities and two of the 91 manufacturers were sampled

twice and received duplicate surveys so the actual number of facilities

sent surveys was 609 sampled facilities and 89 manufacturers for a

total of 698 surveyed facilities. EPA received responses from 676 (587

randomly sampled facilities and 89 manufacturers) of the 698 facilities

that received the questionnaire (a 97 percent response rate).

Of the 676 facilities that responded to the survey, 349 indicated

that they were formulating, packaging or repackaging pesticide products

in 1988 and 203 were refilling establishments. One hundred nineteen

(119) facilities did not formulate and package pesticide products in

1988. Of the remaining 5 facilities that were sent questionnaires, 3

had gone out of business, one was released from completing a

questionnaire and one sampled facility merged with a second sampled

facility. A small number of facilities (22) did not submit

questionnaires. EPA believes most of these facilities are refilling

establishments by virtue of their stratum, the company name and their

locations. Since the survey had drawn significant numbers of refilling

establishments, EPA did not further pursue these questionnaires. Based

on the responses to the surveys from the randomly sampled facilities

and the census of manufacturers, quantitative estimates of pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging activities were computed for the

entire U.S. population of such facilities.

EPA also received questionnaires from six facilities that were not

selected in the random sample part of the census of manufacturers.

Three of these facilities had participated in a pretest of the

questionnaire but were not chosen in the sample. The remaining three

were facilities that asked if they might submit voluntary surveys. The

responses to these questionnaires were reviewed but for statistical

reasons were omitted from any further analysis for the purpose of

national population estimates.

The questionnaire was divided into four sections. An introductory

section asked for information on the facility as a whole and whether it

was involved in formulating, packaging or repackaging any of the 272

active ingredients in 1988. If the facility did not formulate, package

or repackage pesticide products containing any of the 272 active

ingredients then no further information was required. If the facility

did formulate, package or repackage pesticide products containing the

272 active ingredients in 1988, then questions were asked regarding

water use. If the facility used no water in their process and thus, the

response to all water use questions were negative, then a minimal of

additional financial information was requested and no further

information was required. Facilities were also excused from responding

to the other sections of the questionnaire if 1988 was the last year

that they formulated, packaged or repackaged pesticide products

containing the 272 active ingredients.

The remaining sections were as follows: (1) A technical section

which requested details on production and water use practices, volumes,

and disposition, and wastewater treatment and characteristics; (2) an

economic section that asked for detailed information on assets, debts,

costs and revenues on the facility level as well as firm level data;

and (3) the last section of the questionnaire that requested the names

of contacts should EPA need to follow-up on the data provided and that

requested a certification that the information was accurate.

EPA also requested that pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities submit wastewater self-monitoring data. Fifty

facilities submitted some form of self-monitoring data. Six facilities

submitted data only for conventional pollutants, while ten of the 50

facilities submitted priority pollutant and/or nonconventional

pollutant data (including the active ingredients). However, most of

these data were not useful in characterizing pesticide process

wastewaters. In many cases, only one detection was reported for a

specific pollutant, or the sampling locations represented commingled

wastewaters containing pollutant discharges from other industrial

processes, such as pesticide manufacturing, organic chemical

manufacturing or formulating, packaging or repackaging other products

including pesticide products containing active ingredients not included

in the list of 272 active ingredients. Often the data represented

sampling results only at the end-of-pipe plant discharge. Self-

monitoring data from only 10 facilities included priority pollutant

discharges in raw pesticide process wastewaters.

The questionnaire was mailed to a stratified random sample of U.S.

pesticide formulating and packaging facilities with stratification done

according to pesticide production amount (large, medium, small, and

tiny) and pesticide type (fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, other and

combinations of these types for facilities that formulate and/or

package more than one type). The survey was also distributed to a

census of pesticide manufacturers that also formulate, package or

repackage pesticides. Based on sample results from the survey,

quantitative estimates of pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging activities were computed for the entire U.S. population of

such facilities. The results of these computations will be referred to

as national stratified estimates. The national stratified estimates

generated, include point estimates of totals, means (i.e., averages)

and medians (i.e., the point at which an equal number of responses are

above and below the value) and their associated standard errors.

In the 1988 survey, the facilities were originally classified into

strata based on each facility's projected 1989 pesticide product type

and 1989 projected production volume, and not based on actual reported

1988 product types and production volume, as intended. As such, the

sample facilities were selected at random from strata based on 1989

projected production characteristics when the ultimate goal was to

report production characteristics for strata based on 1988 production

levels and product types. In statistical terms, some of the facilities

classified using the original scheme were misclassified under the

derived scheme for stratification based on 1988 production only (e.g.,

a facility classified as ``large'' based on its estimated 1989

production level might instead be classified as ``medium'' when the

1988 production level is used). Because of instances of

misclassification the sample had to be post-stratified into correct

1988 based strata. Also, the typical formulas used to generate national

estimates of totals and standard errors of these totals are not wholly

correct. Instead alternate formulas have been used based on methods for

estimating totals on subpopulations as described in Sampling

Techniques, 3rd Edition by Cochran (1977, p. 143-144).

In general, misclassification of members in the final strata can

impact the estimated standard error. Most often, a larger variance will

be estimated than what would be obtained using the typical formulas for

stratified random samples. However, for the pesticides survey data, the

degree of misclassification is small enough that a large change in the

estimated standard errors was not expected. To test this expectation,

one would ideally rechoose sample facilities based on the actual 1988

production-levels and product type and re-estimate standard errors

using the typical formulas for a stratified random sample with no

misclassification. Since that is not feasible, a reasonable comparison

can still be made by examining the standard errors obtained by applying

the usual formulas to the original stratification scheme based on 1989

projected production levels. Because the same algorithm would be used

for selecting the number of facilities within each stratum, regardless

of the stratification scheme employed, it can be assumed that the

estimated standard errors from the original stratification will be

representative of the results that would have been computed had the

actual 1988 production characteristics been used to stratify the target

population initially.

Comparison of the estimates for selected survey questions,

including the distribution of facility revenues and the distribution of

facilities ownership and operation type, indicates that, as expected,

the estimated standard errors on the national totals are generally

larger after using Cochran's formulas to account for the

misclassification than those computed assuming no misclassification.

The magnitude of the differences was quite small (usually no more than

one or two percent) for the standard errors on the overall totals, but

was in a few cases 20 percent or more for very small strata.

Though restratification of the survey facilities often increases

the estimated standard errors, the national totals themselves will be

exactly the same mathematically, as long as the same set of facilities

is used to compute the estimates. In the PFPR project, a small number

of the facilities which were included in the sample because of

projected 1989 production figures did not have any actual production in

1988. These facilities were therefore not a part of the targeted

facility universe and so were excluded from the restratified

calculations. Even so, the overall national totals showed very minor

changes (on the order of at most four to five percent) when the

restratified estimates were compared with totals based on the original

stratification.

As noted above, a number of facilities sent questionnaires and

included in the original sample did not respond to the survey and hence

were missing from the database. If these facilities had been known to

be actual PFPR operations, it might have been possible to impute data

for the survey items of interest. However, since many facilities in the

sample indicated that they were not PFPR operations, it is possible

that at least some of the non-respondents were also not PFPR

operations, and hence not part of the target population. In this case

imputations for these facilities would have little meaning. Those

facilities that did not respond to the questionnaire were therefore

omitted from any further statistical analysis.

Because some facilities failed to answer all the survey questions,

data were imputed for missing responses. The amount of missing data was

negligible in most instances. The only case where a significant amount

of data was imputed involved wastewater volumes and production-

normalized wastewater volumes, which were reported on a line-by-line

basis for each combination of wastewater source and destination.

Approximately 10% of the volume and/or production-normalized volume

entries were missing and subsequently imputed.

The imputation strategy utilized provides an unbiased estimate of

the total for any given variable, when used in conjunction with the

formulae described above for national stratified estimates in the

context of misclassified strata.

3. Site Visits

In order to develop effluent guidelines for this industry, EPA

conducted site visits and sampling at a number of pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities, and at pesticide

manufacturing facilities which also are used as formulating and

packaging facilities. Typically, during guidelines development, EPA

depends on a wastewater sampling program to characterize the raw

wastewater and to establish which treatment systems operate at BAT and

NSPS levels. In the case of the pesticide formulating, packaging and

repackaging industry, EPA could not conduct a sampling program as

extensive as had been conducted for some of the previous effluent

guidelines rulemakings. This is because: (1) Only 12 facilities

surveyed reported operating on-site treatment systems that treated only

PFP water (out of those 12 facilities one was a voluntary participant;

not part of the sample); (2) facility operating schedules are very

unpredictable due to the batch nature of their operations and just-in-

time production philosophy; and (3) due to the batch nature of the

formulating and packaging processes, treatment is almost always

operated on a batch basis making it very difficult to characterize

long-term treatment performance (long-term even for a 3-day period).

Therefore, EPA had to implement a more widespread and in-depth site

visiting program than usual. Between 1991 and 1993, EPA visited 51

facilities (2 of these facilities are not survey or pretested

facilities and, therefore, did not fill out a questionnaire) and

collected wastewater samples from 13 facilities (one facility was

sampled during two different production periods for a total of 14

sampling episodes). The site visits were conducted to provide EPA with

an in-depth look at actual formulating, packaging or repackaging

operations and wastewater generation and wastewater handling practices.

4. Wastewater Sampling and Analytical Programs

Seven of the 14 pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

sampling episodes included sampling of wastewater treatment systems and

all 14 included sampling for raw wastewater characterization.

Raw wastewater characterization data were collected to provide EPA

with concentration data for pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging wastewaters for a number of different wastewater sources.

EPA collected 72 raw wastewater samples which contained 45 different

active ingredients at 14 different episodes. Wastewater samples were

collected for the following wastewater sources: equipment interior

cleaning, exterior equipment/floor wash, air or odor control scrubber

water, DOT aerosol test bath, drum or other raw material container

rinsate, laboratory equipment cleaning water, laundry and showers. A

number of these samples were collected to characterize wastewater that

was intended for reuse (the concentration of active ingredients in

these samples is expected to be high). Samples of commingled raw

wastewater sources were also collected. Raw wastewater samples are

typically analyzed for levels of conventional pollutants, non-

conventional pollutants (including active ingredients), metals, semi-

volatile and volatile organics.

Facilities were selected for sampling of treatment systems after an

evaluation of existing data and responses to the questionnaires and

follow-up telephone conversations. Facilities were selected for

sampling if: (1) The facilities were operating an apparently effective

wastewater treatment system (especially if the water treated was

intended for reuse); (2) the treatment system was used to treat

pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging wastewater only; (3)

the treatment system was similar to a system EPA was evaluating in a

treatability study (the facility treatment system could then be used as

a benchmark); (4) the expected active ingredients could be analyzed

using developed analytical methods; and/or (5) the facility was

treating wastewater that contained active ingredients (or structural

groups) for which data was lacking.

As mentioned above, sampling of wastewater treatment systems

occurred for 7 of the 14 sampling episodes. The treatment technologies

that were sampled to test treatment performance include: Activated

carbon adsorption, membrane filtration (ultrafiltration and cross-flow

filtration), ozonation, clarification and biological oxidation. EPA

analyzed the levels of pollutants in the raw and effluent streams and

the overall performance of the treatment systems.

Whenever possible, prior to a sampling episode at a pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging facility, representatives from

the Agency conducted an engineering site visit. Following the visit, a

draft sampling plan was prepared which provided the rationale for the

selection of sampling location as well as the procedures to be followed

during sampling. A copy of this draft plan was provided to the plant

for comments.

During the sampling episode, teams of EPA engineers and EPA

contractor engineers and technicians collected and preserved samples

and shipped them to EPA contract laboratories for analysis. Levels of

conventional pollutants, non-conventional pollutants (including the

pesticide active ingredients), and priority pollutants were measured in

raw wastewater and treated effluent. EPA always offered to split the

samples with the facility so that the facility could have an

independent analysis of pollutant concentrations made. When facilities

chose to split samples with EPA, either the facility accepted the split

samples provided by the EPA or plant personnel independently collected

wastewater from the EPA sampling sites. Following the sampling episode,

a draft trip report was prepared that included descriptions of the

pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging operations and

treatment processes, sampling procedures, analytical results, quality

assurance/quality control evaluation, and discussion of the raw

wastewater composition and treatment system performance. The report was

provided to the sampled facility for review and comment, and any

corrections were incorporated into the report. The facilities also

identified any information in the draft report that the facility

considered confidential business information.

5. EPA Bench-Scale Treatability Studies

EPA performed several treatability tests with various treatment

technologies on various pesticide active ingredient pollutants and also

a variety of pesticide manufacturing and formulating, packaging, and

repackaging process wastewaters. The purpose of these studies was to

expand the treatability information available on various active

ingredients to verify given technologies' effectiveness on pesticide

formulating, packaging, and repackaging wastewater matrices and to

evaluate the ability of some technologies to allow for recovery of

product. In addition, EPA is relying in this rulemaking on various

treatability studies done in conjunction with the development of the

recent pesticide manufacturers rulemaking. EPA also studied the

performance of a treatment system that will be referred to as the

``Universal Treatment System'' for pesticide formulating, packaging,

and repackaging wastewater (described below), and studied the

performance of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis separately due to

their use in recovering wastes. EPA also performed a treatability study

on the pyrethrin active ingredients, testing both hydrolysis rates and

carbon isotherms.

The Universal Treatment System treatability study was done because

EPA had no performance data on this complete system of control

technologies for treating pesticide active ingredients. Although EPA

has considerable data from the pesticide manufacturing rulemaking to

demonstrate that the individual treatment technologies are effective at

removing specific active ingredients from wastewater, the pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging wastewater may have a more

complex matrix (as compared to manufacturing wastewater) because of

emulsifiers and surfactants and thus these individual treatments might

not be as effective absent pretreatment to remove the emulsifiers/

surfactants. There are some pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities that do pretreat their wastewater to remove

surfactants and emulsifiers prior to treatment by activated carbon.

However, these facilities may not be using the most effective physical/

chemical technology for removing the active ingredient in their

wastewaters.

Bench-scale test results using a wastewater generated by a facility

which formulates and packages products containing Bromacil,

Tebuthiuron, Diuron, Terbufos and Benthiocarb indicate that the

concentrations of these active ingredients can be reduced to levels

below the analytical limit of detection. The technologies tested on

this wastewater were chemical assisted separation (emulsion breaking),

ozone/ultraviolet light oxidation and activated carbon adsorption. The

emulsion breaking step removed turbidity, a major portion of the oil

and grease and some total organic carbon (TOC). The rate of oxidation

of the active ingredients appears to be a function of the concentration

of other oxidizable organics contained in the wastewater. In this case,

oxidation converted a portion of the soluble organics into insoluble

precipitates, thus requiring a second clarification step prior to

activated carbon treatment. Carbon isotherm and carbon adsorption

column tests indicate that oxidation generates short chained organic

acids and alcohols which are poorly adsorbed on carbon, resulting in a

large TOC concentration in the effluent.

The second facility generated cleaning wastewater which contained

an alkali soap and followed a cleaning with isopropyl alcohol. The

active ingredients present in the wastewater included Piperonyl

Butoxide, Propoxur, Allethrin, Tetramethrin and Permethrin. The study

indicates that emulsion breaking using ferric chloride and a

polyelectrolyte removes the majority of Allethrin, Permethrin, oil and

grease and turbidity. This would indicate that the Allethrin and

Permethrin are more soluble in the organic or oil fraction and thus are

removed in conjunction with the removal of the oil and grease or

organic fraction. Alkaline hydrolysis at pH 12 and 60 deg.C followed

by carbon adsorption decreased the concentrations of Allethrin and

Permethrin to below the analytical limit of detection. Carbon

adsorption effluent contained approximately 800 mg/L of TOC of which

nearly 60 percent was derived from isopropyl alcohol.

EPA also conducted a study of ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse

osmosis (RO) membrane separations technologies. This study tested the

effectiveness of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis to obtain a clean,

reusable water stream and to generate a concentrate that could be

recovered for its product value. Membrane separation processes utilize

a pressure driven, semi-permeable membrane to achieve selective

separations. The pore size of the membrane can be relatively large if

precipitates or suspended materials are to be removed from a

wastewater, or very small for removal of inorganic salts or organic

molecules. During operation, the feed solution flows across the surface

of the membrane. Water permeates the membrane, and the contaminants

remain in the now more concentrated feed solution.

An earlier study had shown that reverse osmosis treatment alone was

not effective for formulating and packaging wastewater. This was

attributed to the presence of emulsifiers and surfactants that are

formulation components that subsequently contaminated the wastewater.

The surfactants or emulsifiers with a somewhat higher molecular weight

than the other components were not only retained by the RO membrane,

but also caused fouling and gumming of the membrane, which reduced its

effectiveness. Therefore, the EPA studied a treatment train consisting

of ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis. The ultrafiltration was added

to remove larger molecular constituents such as the emulsifiers and

surfactants from the wastewater. A major advantage of the process is

that not only can a high quality product water stream (permeate) be

produced, the membrane-rejected material can potentially be recycled

back into the formulating and packaging process, substantially reducing

the amount of material requiring disposal. The concentrates from both

the UF and the RO units were evaluated for recoverability.

Bench-scale tests using wastewaters from two PFPR facilities were

tested using UF followed by RO. Also, jar tests were performed to

evaluate alternative physical/chemical methods of pretreating the

wastewater before RO treatment.

Two separate systems were used for the ultrafiltration and reverse

osmosis tests. The bench-scale systems were designed to use

commercially available ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis equipment,

while keeping the size of the systems as small as possible. This design

approach was selected to provide results representative of a full-scale

system, while minimizing the amount of wastewater which had to be

collected, shipped, and ultimately disposed.

The results of the UF/RO study show this treatment sequence was

effective in removing the nine active ingredients present in the

wastewaters taken from the two PFPR facilities. Ultrafiltration

pretreatment prevented rapid fouling of the RO membrane. For all but

one of nine active ingredients (2, 4-D, Dicamba, MCPP, Prometon,

Bromacil, Benthiocarb, Diuron, Terbufos, and Tebuthiuron) better than

99% removal was accomplished by the treatment sequence. Data for

Bromacil indicate it was reduced by 89.3%; however, this percent

removal may misrepresent the treatment performance because there is

some indication the measurement of Bromacil in the untreated wastewater

was affected by analytical interference and thus could have been

present at a higher concentration that was measured. The UF/RO

treatment sequence appears to be a very effective alternative to the

Universal Treatment System, at least for high molecular weight active

ingredients, to achieve a treated water that can be reused in the

facility. It is less clear whether the concentrated waste created by

either of these treatment steps can be recovered for its product value.

The samples taken from the concentrate fraction show high

concentrations of the active ingredients, however, there are also high

concentrations of sodium, calcium and total dissolved solids which

could prevent the recoverability of these wastes.

A third treatability study was performed to support rulemaking for

both the PFPR and pesticide manufacturing. This study examined

wastewater containing pyrethrins to determine their treatability by

hydrolysis and activated carbon. Wastewater collected from a pyrethrin

manufacturer was tested under varying hydrolysis conditions of

temperature and pH. Carbon isotherms were also developed for this

wastewater.

The combined pyrethrins concentration in the untreated wastewater

was initially 110 mg/L. Hydrolysis tests performed at 60 deg.C and pH

values of 2 and 12 were used to determine the hydrolysis rates (half-

life values) of the pyrethrins. Pyrethrins hydrolyzed rapidly at pH 12,

exhibiting a half-life of 1.2 hours. Pyrethrins hydrolyses at pH 2 were

much slower, with a calculated half-life of 77 hours.

Six carbon dosages were also tested to determine adsorption

characteristics of pyrethrins. At a 10 gallon per minute flow rate, the

carbon column would have a service life of 11.4 days for combined

pyrethrins at 110 mg/L initial concentration indicating that pyrethrins

are adsorbed.

6. Data Transfers From Pesticide Manufacturing Subcategories and Other

Sources

The Agency has developed an active ingredient treatability dataset,

based on full-scale treatment system data, treatability study

information, and data transfers, that show that all of the 272 active

ingredients included in the survey are amenable to one or more of the

treatment technologies that are included in the Universal Treatment

System, which EPA is identifying as BAT for purposes of today's

proposed pretreatment standards for existing sources (see PSES

discussion below).

EPA transferred the treatability data from the following sources,

listed in order of preference.

(1) Pesticides manufacturing active ingredient or active ingredient

group BAT limitations development data. The data are transferred from

the manufacturing data base to support BAT limitations if the treatment

is based on activated carbon adsorption, chemical oxidation,

hydrolysis, a combination of these technologies, or precipitation of

organo-metallic active ingredients or active ingredient groups.

(2) EPA bench-scale treatability study reports.

(3) EPA sampling episode reports.

(4) Industry treatability study reports, literature articles, and

other data sources.

For some active ingredients, a different treatment technology, such

as resin adsorption or solvent extraction, may have served as the basis

for manufacturers' limitation because it was in use at a given facility

and judged to represent BAT performance based on monitoring data. In

some cases, a PFPR facility may want to use these types of

technologies, rather than the Universal Treatment System, if the

facility is only handling an active ingredient that requires that

technology. The wastewater matrix at PFPR facilities, however, may be

more complex than the manufacturer's wastewater containing the same

active ingredient because of emulsifiers and surfactants, and the

treatment technology identified as Best Available Technology for the

manufacturers' limitation may not be capable of achieving the removal

levels specified in the manufacturers rule without substantial

pretreatment. In addition, for most PFPR facilities, the commingled

wastewater will contain multiple active ingredients, all of which will

be amenable to the more common treatment technologies comprising the

Universal Treatment System. Furthermore, a treatment system relying on

a technology such as solvent extraction to remove an active ingredient

would still require activated carbon polishing to adsorb other

wastewater constituents, including residual extraction solvent, before

the treated wastewater could be reused. Rather than attempting to

integrate these other technologies of resin adsorption, solvent

extraction or others into a centralized wastewater treatment scheme,

EPA believes that the Universal Treatment System offers a more

consistent, simplistic, and cost-effective design and thus constitutes

BAT treatment at PFPR facilities (together with recycle/reuse of the

treated wastewaters, as described below). The technologies included in

the Universal Treatment System, together with pretreatment for

emulsifiers/surfactants where needed, are capable of removing all toxic

pollutants that may be in PFP wastewaters to levels that will allow

recycle or reuse of the wastewaters at the facility. Thus, these BAT

technologies support the zero discharge requirements proposed in

today's notice.

As stated above, EPA developed a treatability dataset for the 272

active ingredients in order to ensure that the Universal Treatment

System technologies will be effective in providing treated effluent

suitable for reuse. EPA evaluated full-scale and bench-scale

treatability data available for the 272 active ingredients, including

those where a different technology basis was used to support the

manufacturers' limitation. The Agency also developed technical

treatability data transfer methodologies for the transfer of activated

carbon adsorption and hydrolysis treatability data between

structurally-similar active ingredients.

Transfers of treatability data are based on an analysis of

properties of active ingredients and active ingredient groups, such as

chemical structure, molecular weight, aromaticity, and solubility. If,

based on this analysis, an active ingredient is considered amenable to

hydrolysis or carbon adsorption but lacks treatability data, then

treatability data are transferred to this active ingredient from a

structurally-similar active ingredients with either hydrolysis or

carbon adsorption treatability data. If multiple treatability data

exist for structurally-similar active ingredients, then the most

conservative data are transferred. If no data exist for structurally-

similar active ingredients, and if the active ingredient is expected to

be amenable to hydrolysis or carbon adsorption based on its structure,

solubility, or molecular weight, then conservative treatability data,

determined from all active ingredients with hydrolysis or carbon

adsorption treatability data, are transferred to the active ingredient.

In determining the efficacy of the treatment technologies in the

Universal Treatment System to the active ingredients in PFPR facility

wastewater, EPA also factored in the need for pretreatment steps. PFPR

facility wastewater may contain emulsifiers, surfactants, solids,

organic constituents in addition to the active ingredients, and other

pollutants that may interfere with active ingredient removals across

the treatment technologies. The Agency examined existing PFPR facility

treatment systems and vendor-supplied treatment systems designed to be

applicable at all PFPR facilities. The Agency's identification of Best

Available Technology includes the Universal Treatment System treatment

technologies including emulsion breaking, oil layer removal and off-

site disposal as a hazardous waste, solids separation and removal, and

removal of any remaining large particles by in-line strainers prior to

activated carbon adsorption.

Final effluent from the Universal Treatment System is expected to

be suitable for reuse, e.g., as general pesticide production area

cleanup water. Based on the active ingredient treatability dataset and

information from PFPR facilities that treat and reuse pesticide process

wastewater, the Agency believes that the identified of Best Available

Technology is applicable to all PFPR Subcategory C facilities.

VI. Industry Subcategorization

A. Prior Subcategorization Scheme

EPA divided the pesticide chemicals point source category into

three subcategories in the 1978 BPT rulemaking. These three

subcategories are the organic pesticide chemicals subcategory, which

applies to the manufacture of organic pesticide active ingredients; the

metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategory, which applies to the

manufacture of metallo-organic pesticide active ingredients; and the

pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging subcategory which applies

to the formulating and packaging of all pesticide products. In

addition, the regulations include Test Methods for Pesticide Pollutants

at 40 CFR part 455, subpart D (58 FR 50637, September 28, 1993).

B. Development of Current Subcategorization Scheme

In today's proposal EPA does not address the organic pesticide

chemicals and metallo-organic pesticide chemicals subcategories because

they were the subject of the recent rulemaking covering pesticide

manufacturing (58 FR 50637). Today's notice proposes to retain the

pesticide chemicals formulating and packaging subcategory (subpart C)

and to create a new subcategory: repackaging performed at refilling

establishments (subpart E).

EPA considered the factors that can most affect the decisions on

subcategorization:

product type;

raw materials;

type of operations performed;

nature of waste generated;

dominant product;

plant size;

plant age;

plant location;

non-water quality characteristics; and

treatment costs and energy requirements.

EPA has surveyed and visited facilities with a variety of product

types and has not seen evidence of differences in water use based on

product type. Therefore, EPA does not consider this factor to be a

basis on which to subcategorize.

The raw material of refilling establishments is the registered

pesticide product, which is simply transferred from one refillable

container (a stationary bulk tank) to another refillable container (a

minibulk tank). The raw materials for the formulating, packaging and

repackaging facilities are active ingredients and inert ingredients

which take all physical forms and require formulating and packaging to

result in the registered product. Thus, raw materials are a

contributing factor in subcategorizing this industry. In addition, the

type of operation performed at refilling establishments, repackaging

only, is considerably different from the operations performed at

formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities. Thus, the type of

operation also contributes to the subcategorization of this industry.

There are no great differences in the sources from which wastewater

is generated, virtually all wastewater is derived from cleaning

equipment and surrounding areas. However, there are differences in the

volumes of wastewater generated by facilities. The median annual volume

of PFPR wastewater generated by manufacturing/PFPR facilities is

179,330 gallons, the median annual volume generated by PFPR only

facilities is 2,223 gallons and the median annual volume generated by

refilling establishments is 736 gallons. Although these differences are

substantial, they alone might not justify subcategorization. They do,

however, affect the costs of wastewater treatment.

PFPR facilities do not necessarily have a dominant product although

most serve one predominant market. EPA considered the effect that

market differences could have within the PFPR subcategory as described

in the next section. The refilling establishments are very homogeneous

in that they serve only one market, the agricultural market, and the

products they repackage are mostly liquid bulk herbicides. Thus, the

dominant product is a factor in subcategorizing this industry to the

extent that the refillers have a dominant product and the PFPR

facilities do not.

Climatic conditions which are related to location could have an

effect on water use and water conservation practices. At the time of

the industry survey, California was experiencing a severe drought. EPA

noticed that the lack of and cost of water in this part of the country

encouraged many innovative pollution prevention and reuse techniques at

those facilities. However, many of these same techniques have been

implemented in areas of net precipitation, thus the climatic conditions

related to geographic location are not a factor in subcategorizing.

There are some distinct differences in the location of facilities.

Whereas most refilling establishments are either in rural locations or

in small towns near agricultural areas, many of the PFPR facilities are

located in urban areas. In particular the PFPR facilities that serve

the industrial and institutional/commercial markets are located in

urban areas. The Agency is unsure whether this is due to the fact that

the type of business these facilities are engaged in and the markets

that they serve result in their urban location, thus providing them

with access to POTWs, or that all facilities that were more rural in

their location and also direct discharges either discontinued

production or relocated and switched to becoming dischargers to POTW's

in response to the BPT limitations requiring the elimination of

dischargers directly to receiving waters.

Treatment costs and best available wastewater treatment technology

are a significant factor in considering whether to subcategorize PFPR

facilities and refilling establishments. As described more fully in the

discussion of the regulatory approach, wastewaters generated at

refilling establishments are expected to be recycled/reused without

treatment. EPA has estimated the cost of holding the wastewater until

it can be recycled/reused. As previously mentioned, the refilling

establishments generate a median of 736 gallons annually. These

wastewaters are expected to be collected in the containment system and

loading areas, whereafter they can be pumped into and held in a tank or

container. The few refilling facilities that are estimated to discharge

wastewater were discharging a total estimate volume of 1500 gallons

annually to POTW's. This represents an average volume of approximately

78 gallons per facility which can be held in a single minibulk

container, which costs about $200-$300. The PFPR facilities (other than

refilling establishments) are also expected to be able to recycle/reuse

wastewaters, however some wastewater sources may require treatment

before they can be recycled.

EPA has estimated the costs for storage of wastewater and treatment

through the Universal Treatment System. The average estimated cost of

compliance for PFPR facilities is approximately $32,300 annually. Based

on this higher cost between the two basic types of facilities and the

different operations, separate economic analyses were conducted. These

analyses showed that refilling establishments and most types of PFPR

facilities can achieve the zero discharge limitations economically.

However, EPA's analysis of economic impacts for PFPR facilities

indicate that a small segment, sanitizer facilities, will incur much

greater costs and economic impacts from complying with the zero

discharge limitations than the other facilities would incur. The Agency

considered creating a separate subcategory for sanitizer facilities,

but sanitizer facilities are very similar to other PFPR facilities in

other respects. Since the data indicate that the economic impacts can

be reduced and the amount of discharge is small for indirect

discharging sanitizer facilities, EPA decided not to form a separate

subcategory but simply to provide separate pretreatment standards for

sanitizer facilities.

As described above, there are clear differences between refilling

establishments and PFPR facilities. They differ in the raw materials,

water use, location, wastewater treatment requirements and costs.

Therefore, EPA proposes to establish a separate subcategory that will

apply to refilling establishments. However, following review of

comments on this proposal, the final rule may incorporate the refilling

establishments into the PFPR subcategory, provided the limitations are

the same.

C. Proposed Subcategories

The following discussions of EPA's subcategories reflects the

analysis done with the survey data representing the formulating,

packaging and repackaging practices for the 272 active ingredients that

were the subject of that survey. EPA believes that the formulating,

packaging and repackaging practices for the rest of the active

ingredients will be the same as for the 272, however, the data

presented in the following discussion does not reflect their inclusion.

1. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

This subcategory applies to the formulating, packaging and

repackaging of pesticide chemicals. BPT regulations already exist for

this subcategory. EPA proposes to add the word ``repackaging'' to the

title and applicability provision of this subcategory, but these do not

represent changes to the applicability or coverage of this subcategory.

Repackaging is proposed to be defined as ``the direct transference of a

single pesticide active ingredient or single formulation from any

marketable container to another marketable container, without

intentionally mixing in any inerts, diluents, solvents, other active

ingredients, or other materials of any sort.'' The term ``packaging''

in the applicability provision of Subpart C was always intended to

cover repackaging as well as packaging operations. Facilities engaged

in repackaging pesticide products must comply with the same reporting

requirements under FIFRA as formulating and packaging facilities. In

addition, repackaging frequently generates wastewater sources similar

in nature to formulating and packaging activities. Thus, repackaging

activities are within the scope of Subcategory C.

To assist EPA with its evaluation of the PFPR facilities, EPA

divided the industry into subgroups. This analysis of subgroups was

also performed to evaluate whether there was a need to further

subcategorize the industry based on these subgroups. These subgroups

were developed primarily from the information in the questionnaires.

The subgroups were analyzed to determine if there are trends in

water usage, water discharge or disposal methods, and production

associated with particular markets or products. EPA identified

facilities within the subgroups that are currently achieving zero

discharge through recycle or reuse of wastewater and facilities that

are not achieving zero discharge. This information was used to

coordinate additional data gathering activities.

EPA created ten subgroups defined as:

Aerosol--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities that operated a Department of Transportation

(DOT) aerosol test bath in any formulating, packaging or repackaging

operation. These facilities are not included in any other group,

regardless of other activities at the facility or the markets

reported by the facility.

Agriculture--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities with at least 90 percent of 1988 pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the agriculture

market that did not fall into any other subgroup (this does not

include refilling establishments). This subgroup also includes

facilities identified as ``agriculture'' through a review of their

products handled in 1988 and their revenue markets.

Consumer Home Products--All pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities with 1988 pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging revenues from the consumer home, lawn and

garden market that handled products specifically aimed at the home

portion of the market (including household cleaners).

Consumer Lawn and Garden--All pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities with 1988 pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging revenues from the consumer home, lawn and

garden market that handled products specifically aimed at the lawn

and garden portion of the market.

Industrial--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities with at least 90 percent of 1988 pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the industrial

market that did not fall into any other subgroup.

Institutional--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities reporting at least 90 percent of 1988

pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from the

disinfectant or institutional market or facilities reporting at

least 50 percent of the facility's pesticide formulating, packaging

or repackaging production from products with a product type of

``disinfectant,'' ``sanitizer'' or ``sterilizer'' that did not fall

into any other subgroup. This subgroup also includes facilities

identified as ``institutional'' through a review of their products

handled and their revenue markets; however, it does not include

those facilities placed in the consumer home products subgroup.

Manufacturers--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities that also manufactured one or more active

ingredient in 1986. These facilities are not included in any other

group, regardless of other activities at the facility.

Organo-Metallic--All pesticide formulating, packaging

or repackaging facilities reporting at least 90 percent of 1988

pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues from wood

preservatives market or facilities reporting at least 50 percent of

the facility's pesticide formulating, packaging, or repackaging

production from handling products containing organo-metallic active

ingredients, including organo-copper, organo-mercury, or organo-tin

active ingredients that did not fall into any other subgroup.

Organo-Metallic/Industrial--Pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities that fall into both the organo-

metallic and the industrial subgroups.

Other--All pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging facilities that do not fall into any of the above

categories. This subgroup does not include those facilities that

were placed in a subgroup based on the products and markets that

appeared to represent the majority of operations at the facility,

even if the facility did not meet all the criteria for the subgroup.

Each facility was put into only one subgroup. If a facility's

products or markets were not predominantly in one subgroup the facility

was placed in the ``other'' subgroup. EPA chose this approach to

evaluate the factors of market type, physical properties of an active

ingredient or active ingredient group, or formulation type which, aside

from the treatment requirements for a given active ingredient, were

believed to have the greatest effect on the generation of wastewater

and therefore treatment needs. The Agency split one market type:

``home, lawn and garden'' into two subgroups because facilities

producing products to be used inside the home such as insecticides

controlling roaches would likely be formulating, packaging or

repackaging their products throughout the year, whereas the facilities

that formulate, package or repackage pesticides for the lawn or garden

would likely have a seasonal production schedule. These different

production schedules can affect wastewater treatment requirements and

the ability to recycle or reuse wastewater. Similarly, all facilities

that reported having a DOT test bath were grouped together because this

source of significant volumes of wastewater affects wastewater

treatment requirements and the ability to recycle and reuse wastewater.

Manufacturers were separated from other pesticide formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities because they are chemical

manufacturers and tend to be large facilities with existing wastewater

treatment systems. Although their formulating, packaging or repackaging

operations are not different from other facilities, the scale at which

they produce pesticide products and the volumes of wastewater generated

and current wastewater disposal practices are different.

The subgroup analysis did not reveal substantive differences in the

water usage or production processes within any subgroup, thus EPA does

not believe there is any need for further subcategorization of this

subcategory. However, the economic impact analysis indicates that

facilities which formulate, package or repackage sanitizer chemicals

would be impacted by the costs of the various technology options.

Sanitizers chemicals are proposed to be defined as products containing

one or more of the active ingredients listed on Table 8 of the

regulation. EPA has segmented the sanitizer facilities for the purposes

of establishing PSES.

Facilities in the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

industry typically conduct more than one type of operation to produce

pesticide products. The industry generally comprises facilities that

either formulate and package pesticide products (68 percent), or

facilities that formulate, package and repackage pesticide products (22

percent). A small group of facilities perform other combinations of

these operations (e.g., package and repackage only).

The largest concentration of PFPR facilities, 45 percent of the

facilities are located in EPA Regions IV and V, the southeast and

midwest portions of the country. However, PFPR facilities can be found

in every geographic region of the United States.

Facilities were requested to report the percentage breakdown of

their 1988 pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging revenues by

market type. Revenues coming from the agricultural market constituted

the largest percentage, approximately 65 percent of the pesticide

formulating, packaging or repackaging revenues.

Products that are formulated, packaged or repackaged contain

various percentages of one or more of the 272 active ingredients

considered in the survey for this regulation by EPA. Some products may

contain less than one percent of active ingredient by weight, while

others may contain over 95 percent of active ingredient by weight. The

five active ingredients that had the highest estimated use in products

that were formulated, packaged or repackaged are listed below:

Atrazine is a herbicide used to control various weeds

mainly on corn and sorghum crops. An estimated 278 million pounds of

atrazine were used in products formulated, packaged or repackaged by

water-using pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

facilities in 1988.

Alachlor is used as a preemergence herbicide to control

certain grasses and weeds in a variety of crops such as corn,

cotton, soybeans, and potatoes. An estimated 141 million pounds of

alachlor was used in products formulated, packaged or repackaged by

the water-using pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

facilities in 1988.

Cyanazine is used as a preemergence or postemergence

herbicide for corn, or as weed control on fallow cropland. An

estimated 107 million pounds of cyanazine were used in products

formulated, packaged or repackaged by the water-using facilities in

1988.

Methyl Bromide is used as a space fumigant to control

insects and rodents in greenhouses, grain elevators, and other areas

used to store various commodities. It may also be used as a preplant

soil fumigant to control fungi, nematodes, and weeds. An estimated

95 million pounds of methyl bromide was used in products formulated,

packaged or repackaged by the water-using facilities in 1988.

Glyphosate is a non-selective, non-residual post-

emergence herbicide used on grasses, sedges and broad leaved weeds.

An estimated 86 million pounds of glyphosate was used in products

formulated, packaged or repackaged by the water using facilities in

1988.

Production lines range from complex configurations involving

numerous formulating and packaging steps to simpler lines that transfer

product from storage to a marketable container. Typically, facilities

that formulate and package products operate lines that include one or

more storage tanks, one or more formulating processes such as mixing,

blending, grinding, milling and filtering, and a final packaging

process. Facilities in Subcategory C that solely package products

typically transfer a product from a storage tank into a marketable

container, and facilities that solely repackage products transfer

product from one marketable container into another marketable

container. Facilities that merely relabel a product's container are not

under the scope of today's notice. The average market value of a

production line is estimated to be $216,000 and the median value is

estimated to be $10,000. The gap in magnitude between average and

median is representative of the fact that most of the facilities attach

a relatively modest market value (half estimates a value less than

$10,000) while a relatively few facilities attach very high market

value to their production lines bringing the average up to $216,000.

The number of products formulated, packaged or repackaged on each

line varies from line to line and from facility to facility. Some lines

are dedicated to one product while others may handle ten or more.

Certain lines produce a variety of pesticide products that contain the

same or a similar pesticide active ingredient, while other lines

produce pesticides that contain a variety of different active

ingredients. Some lines are also used to formulate, package or

repackage products that have different formulation types.

The questionnaire requested facilities to specify those months each

pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging line was in operation

in 1988, and to estimate the total number of days and hours each line

was in operation in 1988. Most lines (66%) are operated 80 days or less

in the production of registered products that contain one of the 272

active ingredients covered by the survey. A high proportion (28%) of

lines are estimated to be in operation 10 days or less per year.

2. Repackaging Performed at Refilling Establishments (Subcategory E)

This subcategory applies to repackaging of agricultural pesticide

products done by refilling establishments whose principal business is

retail sales, for the purpose of this preamble these facilities will be

referred to as refilling establishments. The term refilling

establishment is defined by the proposed 40 CFR part 165 rule as an

establishment where the activity of repackaging pesticide product into

refillable containers occurs, and encompasses a broader universe of

facilities than the previous description and than this proposal will

apply. When it became apparent that refilling establishments are so

numerous, and among themselves very similar but very different from the

formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities, EPA decided to

segregate refilling establishments into a separate subcategory. The

distinction of refilling establishments from repackaging activities is

that refilling establishments use a refillable container as the

receptacle of the repackaged product.

Refilling establishments perform a single operation that is covered

by today's notice: repackaging agricultural pesticide product. As a

group, refilling establishments are very similar to one another. They

differ from pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities

in the following ways: (1) Locations--refilling establishments of

agricultural pesticides are mostly in rural areas or small towns while

formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities are frequently urban;

(2) SIC codes--refilling establishments are in 5191, which

characterizes establishments as ``primarily engaged in the wholesale

distribution of animal feeds, fertilizers, agricultural chemicals,

pesticides, seeds and other farm supplies except grains'', whereas PFPR

facilities reported being classified in SIC code 2879; and (3)

customers--refilling establishments are retail establishments, selling

directly to the end user (i.e., the farmer), while formulating,

packaging or repackaging facilities sell to distributors or retailers.

EPA's approach to developing effluent guidelines and standards is

different between the two groups due in large part to the nature and

origin of the wastewater, as explained below.

Refilling establishments of agricultural chemicals repackage

pesticide products from bulk storage tanks into smaller portable

containers commonly referred to as minibulk or shuttle tanks. These

refillable containers are constructed of plastic and typically have

capacities ranging from 100 to 500 gallons. Minibulk containers may be

owned by the refilling establishment, the pesticide registrant, or by

the end user. Refilling establishments do not formulate a registered

pesticide product.

Refilling establishments may also offer additional pesticide

services such as custom blending and commercial application. Pesticide

products are usually blended with water or other carriers and applied

to farmers' fields using trucks equipped with application equipment. Of

the estimated 1,134 refilling establishments estimated by the 1988

data, 935 are estimated to provide application services of registered

pesticide products. Today's notice does not apply to facilities that

offer custom application services unless they are also refilling

establishments of agricultural pesticide chemicals. Refilling

establishments frequently provide fertilizer sales and application as

well as selling seeds and other farm supplies.

Refilling establishments are usually located in small towns and

serve rural agricultural areas. The largest concentration of refilling

establishments is in EPA Regions V and VII which contain most of the

midwestern agricultural states.

An estimated 97 percent of the products reported to be repackaged

and 90 percent of the total 1988 production (in pounds) are classified

as herbicides. Nine products classified as fungicides were reported to

be repackaged by refilling establishments; these amounted to less than

two percent of the total production (in pounds). These fungicides are

commonly used in grain storage areas.

Agricultural pesticide products that are repackaged at refilling

establishments contain various percentages of one or more of the 272

active ingredients that were part of the survey. An estimated 1,746

products that are repackaged contained between 40 percent and 50

percent active ingredients. An estimated 30 million pounds, (44 percent

of the total pounds) including 504 products repackaged by these

facilities contained between 80 percent and 90 percent active

ingredient.

The amount of active ingredient(s) in a product may vary somewhat

with the type of formulation of the product. The five active

ingredients that were repackaged in the greatest quantity by the water-

using refilling establishments are listed below:

EPTC is used as a herbicide to control perennial grassy

weeds in a variety of crops such as beans, legumes, potatoes, and

corn. An estimated 22 million pounds of EPTC were used in products

repackaged by the water-using refilling establishments in 1988.

Alachlor is used as a preemergence herbicide to control

certain grasses and weeds in crops such as corn, cotton, soybeans,

and potatoes. An estimated six million pounds of alachlor were used

in products repackaged by the water-using refilling establishments

in 1988.

Metolachlor is used as a preemergence and preplant

herbicide to control weeds in a variety of crops such as corn,

soybean, peanuts, potatoes, cotton and grain sorghum. An estimated

four million pounds of metolachlor were used in products repackaged

by the water-using refilling establishments in 1988.

Atrazine is a herbicide used to control various weeds

used mainly on corn and sorghum crops. An estimated 3.7 million

pounds of atrazine were used in products repackaged by the water-

using refilling establishments in 1988.

Butylate is used as a preemergence herbicide for grassy

weeds mainly on corn. An estimated 1.7 million pounds of butylate

were used in products repackaged by the water-using refilling

establishments in 1988.

The Office of Pesticide Programs also classifies products by their

type of formulation. The largest percentage of products reported to be

repackaged by water using refilling establishments were emulsifiable

concentrates, which composed an estimated 74 percent of the products

repackaged and 80 percent of the total 1988 production in pounds.

Production lines at refilling establishments typically consist of a

bulk storage tank, a minibulk into which the product is repackaged, and

any interconnecting hoses, piping and pumps. The bulk storage tanks are

usually clustered together, and the repackaging operations are

controlled by the use of either a computer- or manually-regulated

system of pumps and meters.

Some refilling establishments dedicate their bulk storage tanks,

hoses, piping and pumps to one product to prevent any cross

contamination of products that are applied to different crops. When a

repackaging line was used to repackage more than one product, the

establishment may have switched to a different product on that line

during the season to meet farmers' demands. For example, several

refilling establishments in the midwest that were contacted for the

phone survey reported switching from repackaging corn pesticides to

soybean pesticides during the middle of the season. These

establishments may or may not have utilized a single line to repackage

these different products.

Approximately half of the refilling establishments reported

operating their lines on an as-needed basis and the remainder reported

that they operated their lines during only one period. In both cases,

the facility provides the product on an as-needed basis to meet the

demands of a transitory market. The busiest period for repackaging is

March through June.

VII. Water Use and Wastewater Characteristics

A. Wastewater Sources and Characteristics

EPA estimates that 1,806 facilities (PFPR facilities and refilling

establishments combined) use water in their formulating, packaging or

repackaging process. The median annual volume of water discharged by

PFPR facilities is 3,003 gallons, except for manufacturing facilities

that formulate and package with a median annual volume of formulating

and packaging wastewater of 261,174 gallons. The average annual volume

of water discharged, as reported by refilling establishments, is

approximately 78 gallons.

Many pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities

reported no water use. EPA estimates there are 633 facilities

nationwide that do not use water in their formulating, packaging or

repackaging process. Of the estimated PFPR facilities that use water in

their formulating, packaging or repackaging process 652 discharge

wastewater to surface water or Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs),

19 refilling establishments are indirect dischargers to POTWs. An

estimated 457 facilities recycle or reuse on-site some or all of their

wastewater. In some cases, facilities treat and reuse their process

wastewater before reusing it. An estimated 142 facilities use off-site

disposal of some or all of their wastewater. Reports of off-site

disposal included incineration, deepwell injection and centralized

waste treatment facilities. An estimated 93 facilities dispose of some

or all of their wastewater to septic systems or by land application.

Previously established BPT for pesticide formulating, packaging or

repackaging requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

Nevertheless, there are a small number of facilities identified through

EPA's survey that do discharge directly to surface waters. Most of

these facilities are also manufacturing active ingredients and they

combine the wastewater from formulating, packaging or repackaging with

the other process wastewater through their wastewater treatment

systems. These facilities seek to show compliance with their National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions, which

include no allowance for the pollutants present in the formulating or

packaging wastewater, by showing that their combined discharge

(consisting of both manufacturing and formulating, packaging or

repackaging wastewaters) meets the permit limits.

EPA's survey of the pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

industry revealed that process wastewater derives primarily from

cleaning the process equipment, shipping and raw material containers,

the general processing area, laboratory equipment, and safety

equipment. Occasionally, formulating, packaging or repackaging

facilities will have an air pollution control scrubber, contaminated

stormwater (fairly common at refilling establishments), or a heated

water bath in which aerosol containers are tested for leaks. Wastewater

generated by cleaning the interior of formulating or packaging

equipment, bulk storage tanks, or the interior of raw material and

shipping containers contains the highest concentrations of active

ingredient and product constituents. Since these wastewaters are

generated from the cleaning interiors of equipment or containers, they

are referred to as ``interior'' cleaning wastewater sources for

purposes of this regulation. Wastewater from cleaning the general

facility, including floors, the exterior of equipment, and laboratory

or safety equipment, DOT aerosol test baths, and air pollution

scrubbers will also be contaminated with active ingredients and

product, but are likely to be less concentrated and may be contaminated

with other pollutants unrelated to the product's constituents. These

latter sources of wastewater are referred to as ``non-interior''

cleaning wastewater sources. EPA believes that the interior waste

streams will generally be capable of reuse directly without application

of wastewater treatment technologies. In contrast, the non-interior

waste streams may not be capable of reuse back into the product because

of non-product constituents that may be present, but may be reused

elsewhere in the facility (e.g., as floor washwater) after treatment to

remove or reduce pollutant concentrations.

The formulation type of the pesticide products will also have an

effect on the wastewater characteristics. For example, some pesticide

active ingredients are not very soluble in water, therefore the product

may use an organic solvent as a carrier for the active ingredient. Such

formulations may contain agents such as surfactants and emulsifiers to

aid in keeping the active ingredient in solution when applied. Some

pesticide products are produced as a solid. The active ingredient may

be a solid or liquid that is sprayed onto a dry substrate.

EPA collected wastewater samples from thirteen PFPR facilities.

Eight facilities were sampled over a period of two or three days and

numerous wastewater samples were collected. Six of these facilities

operated treatment systems which were the focus of the sampling

episode. One of the six facilities with treatment was sampled during

two distinct episodes. The remaining five facilities were sampled

during a one-day site visit. Usually only one sample was collected from

these five. EPA concentrated on sampling facilities that are operating

wastewater treatment technologies. EPA has also attempted to

characterize a variety of different formulation types with as many

different active ingredients as possible. Most of the eight facilities

sampled over a period of days are formulating and packaging a variety

of products containing a number of active ingredients. Therefore,

although in many cases all wastewaters may be combined and EPA may not

have been able to characterize wastewater from each production batch, a

considerable amount of data has been collected on the nature and

characteristics of wastewaters generated by formulating, packaging and

repackaging facilities.

EPA has not sampled any wastewater from refilling establishments,

however 7 facilities have been visited.

B. Pollution Prevention, Recycle, Reuse and Water Conservation

Practices

The pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging facilities

employ many pollution prevention, recycle and reuse practices. As

described above, wastewater is mainly generated by cleaning the

production areas and associated equipment. Throughout the site visiting

program, EPA noticed that pollution prevention practices are widely

accepted and practiced by the industry. Recycle and reuse practices are

evident in addition to other practices which are widely used by

facilities in this industry for water conservation or to avoid creating

a wastewater source. EPA believes that some or all of these practices

can be implemented at all pesticide formulating, packaging, and

repackaging facilities.

Pollution prevention, recycle and reuse practices fall into three

groups: actual production practices, housekeeping practices, and

practices that involve equipment designed for pollution prevention.

Some of these practices/equipment listed below conserve water, others

reduce the amount of active ingredient or pesticide product in the

wastewater, while others may prevent the creation of a wastewater

altogether.

Production practices include:

Using the appropriate solvent (water or organic) to

rinse and placing the rinsate from triple-rinsing raw material

shipping containers directly into the formulation;

Scheduling production to minimize cleanouts;

Segregating formulating/packaging equipment by

individual product, organic solvent- versus water-based

formulations, and grouping production by product ``families''

(products that contain similar PAIs in different concentrations);

Storing interior equipment rinsewaters for use in

future formulation of the same product;

Packaging products directly out of formulation vessels;

Using inert raw material drums for packaging final

products containing same inert; and

Dedicating equipment (possibly only mix tank or

agitator) for hard to clean formulations.

Housekeeping practices include:

Performing preventative maintenance on all valves,

fittings and pumps;

Placing drip pans under leaky valves and fittings; and

Cleaning up spills or leaks in outdoor bulk containment

areas to prevent contamination of stormwater.

Equipment that promotes pollution prevention by reducing or

eliminating wastewater generation includes:

Low volume--high pressure hoses;

Spray nozzle attachments for hoses;

Squeegees and mops;

Low volume/recirculating floor scrubbing machines;

Portable steam cleaners;

Drum triple rinsing stations (described later); and

Roofs over outdoor tank farms.

The following discussion describes how pollution prevention,

recycle, reuse and water conservation practices are applied by

formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities included in EPA's

survey.

1. Shipping Container/Drum Cleaning

Facilities frequently receive pesticide raw materials in containers

such as 55-gallon steel or 30-gallon fiber drums. In some cases, the

empty drums are returned to the supplier for reconditioning and reuse,

but usually the PFPR facility is responsible for disposal of the drums.

Many PFPR facilities reported rinsing raw material containers after

emptying. This practice was also common at the facilities visited. The

simplest, and generally the best method for handling the rinsate is to

add the rinsate to the product being formulated. This practice not only

eliminates a potential highly concentrated wastewater source, but also

recovers the product value of the raw material. Some facilities employ

a high-pressure, low-volume wash system equipped with a hose and a

spray nozzle to triple rinse drums. Such wash systems are reported to

use 5 to 15 gallons of water to rinse a drum. EPA identified many

facilities that reuse the rinsates from shipping containers directly

into product formulations.

2. Bulk Tank Rinsate

Pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities

sometimes store large quantities of formulated pesticide products and

raw materials in bulk tanks. These tanks are typically rinsed only when

it becomes necessary to use the tank for storage of a different

material. These tanks are most commonly found at refilling

establishments for agricultural pesticides, where they are used to hold

formulated pesticides (rather than raw materials) and where it is also

more likely that they will need to be cleaned due to product

changeover. For example, a refilling establishment may store bulk

quantities of a pesticide product used for corn crops during the spring

and then switch in the summer to storing a pesticide product used for

soybeans. Each time the facility switches the product stored in a bulk

tank, the tank is rinsed. Bulk tanks are sometimes also rinsed at the

end of a season as part of general maintenance procedures.

The recovery of product value from bulk tank rinsates is a common

pollution prevention practice in the industry. Bulk tank rinsates have

been reused by some PFPR facilities into product formulations and by

some refilling establishments in application mixtures of pesticides

mixtures (using the rinsate as make-up water). EPA has observed that

facilities can usually store this rinsate on site until the opportunity

arises to add it to a formulation or use it for application. Facilities

can also minimize the amount of rinsate generated during bulk tank

cleaning by using high-pressure, low-volume washers. Some PFPR

facilities have also demonstrated that the use of squeegees reduces

wastewater generation during the cleaning of bulk tanks. The smaller

the volume of water needed to clean the bulk tank, the more readily the

entire volume can be recovered by addition to the product or

application mixture.

3. Equipment Interior Cleaning

Formulated and packaged products may be either liquid or solid. A

liquid formulating and packaging line often consists of mix tanks, melt

kettles (if necessary), transfer piping or hoses and pumps, filters

prior to packaging, and a packaging hopper and fillers operating over a

conveyor belt. A dry formulating and packaging line often consists of

crushing, pulverizing, grinding, and/or milling equipment; blenders;

screening equipment; and the packaging equipment. Repackaging is often

a simple process of transferring material manually from one container

into another of different size. For both liquid and dry operations, the

packaging equipment is often portable.

Facilities often do not dedicate line equipment to a specific

product because most facilities produce many products and the

production schedules for any one product are usually seasonal and can

be very infrequent. Often the equipment is used for short-term

production campaigns, and can be used for both pesticide and non-

pesticide products. To ensure product quality, the production line

equipment is normally cleaned between product changeovers. Many

facilities perform routine periodic cleaning of production lines for

maintenance and, on occasion, also perform special or non-routine

cleaning due to equipment failures or the use of materials that require

additional cleaning time or cleaning solvents. Different types of lines

(i.e., dry, liquid, emulsifiable concentrates, etc.) require different

cleaning methods, such as water or solvent rinsing, flushing with solid

material, mechanical abrasion, or a combination of these techniques.

Lines handling dry products are usually cleaned by flushing with

the solid, inert material used as the carrier for the products handled

on the line. This may be followed by rinsing with water when additional

cleaning is required. EPA has seen one facility which used the dry

diluent to clean equipment out on a routine basis. However, the

facility thoroughly cleans out the equipment interiors with water prior

to product changeover or line shut down for the season. Because the

product is dry and this water cannot be reused to recover its product

value, this particular facility treats the wastewater and recycles it

back for use in the facility.

Liquid lines are usually rinsed between changeovers with either

water or an organic solvent, depending on the production just completed

and the product to be produced next on the line. Water cleaning is also

performed for routine maintenance. Changeover cleanings can be

eliminated or greatly reduced by dedicating equipment to specific

products or groups of products. Although entire lines are not generally

dedicated, EPA is aware of many facilities that dedicate formulation

mix tanks to specific products, thereby eliminating one of the most

highly concentrated wastewater streams generated by formulating,

packaging or repackaging pesticide products. Facilities also dedicate

lines to the production of a specific product type, such as water-based

versus solvent-based products, thereby reducing the number of cleanings

required, and allowing for greater reuse of the cleaning water or

solvent.

Another effective pollution prevention technique identified by EPA

is the scheduling of production to reduce the number of product

changeovers, which reduces the number of equipment interior cleanings

required. Facilities may also reduce the number of changeover cleanings

or the quantity of water or solvent used for cleaning by scheduling

products in groups or ``families.''

An effective water conservation technique that EPA has observed for

equipment interior cleaning is to equip water hoses with hand-control

devices (for example, spray-gun nozzles) to prevent free flow of water

from unattended hoses, and employing high-pressure, low-volume washers

instead of ordinary hoses. One of the facilities visited indicated that

the use of high-pressure washers reduced typical equipment interior

rinse volumes from 20 gallons per rinse to 10 gallons per rinse. Steam

cleaning can also be used to clean equipment interiors while producing

less wastewater. Steam cleaning can be a particularly effective method

to clean viscous products that might otherwise require considerable

water and/or detergent to remove. Many facilities will have access to

steam from boilers on-site, however, if there is no existing source of

steam, steam cleaning equipment is available for purchase. Although

steam generation can increase energy consumption and add NOx and

SOx pollutants to the atmosphere, the benefits to be gained by

creating a small volume of wastewater and potentially avoiding the need

to use detergents or other cleaning agents which could prevent product

recovery, make steam very attractive for some applications. The Agency

cautions that steam could be a poor choice for cleaning applications

where volatile organic solvents or inerts are part of the product as

the steam would accelerate the volatilization of the organics.

Facilities also clean equipment interiors by using squeegees to

remove the product from the formulation vessel and by using absorbent

``pigs'' for cleaning products out of the transfer lines before

equipment rinsing. These techniques minimize the quantity of cleaning

water required. Regardless of whether or not residual product is

removed from equipment interiors before rinsing, equipment interior

rinsate can typically be reused as makeup water the next time that a

water-based product is being formulated.

4. Department of Transportation (DOT) Aerosol Container Leak Testing

The DOT leak test bath water is a source of wastewater at aerosol

packaging facilities since it must be changed periodically, due to the

buildup of contaminants in the water. Leaking (or occasionally

exploding) cans contaminate the water bath with pesticide product. Can

exteriors may also contaminate the bath water since they may have

product or solvent on them from the can filling step. According to

several facilities, pesticide products and solvents can cause

visibility problems in the bath water and leave an oily residue on the

cans exiting the bath. One of the facilities visited also indicated

that bath water must be dumped and refilled periodically to prevent

rust particles from fouling steam sparging equipment (used to heat the

bath).

No method of eliminating this source of wastewater has been

identified; however, the volume of water used may be minimized through

the use of a contained water bath as opposed to a continuous overflow

water bath. A contained water bath is completely emptied and refilled

with water when required, based upon visual inspection by the operator.

Therefore, the quantity of wastewater generated is dependent on the

volume of the bath (200 gallons is a typical volume of the contained

water baths at visited facilities) and the frequency of refilling. It

is the Agency's opinion that the best practice to reduce wastewater

generated by aerosol container (DOT) leak testing is to use a contained

water bath where the water is changed out when it is determined to be

``dirty'' by visual inspection.

5. Floor/Wall/Equipment Exterior Cleaning

Pesticide formulating, packaging and repackaging facilities clean

the equipment exteriors and floors for general housekeeping purposes

and to keep sources of product contamination to a minimum. When water

is used, these cleaning procedures become a source of wastewater.

Equipment exteriors and floor areas of dry formulating and

packaging lines are typically cleaned without the use of water.

Vacuuming, scraping, and other mechanical means are used to clean the

areas around these lines. Floors and equipment exteriors associated

with liquid lines, and occasionally dry lines when an especially

thorough cleaning is desired, are rinsed with water (or an aqueous-

based cleaning solution, or possibly an organic solvent to clean

equipment exteriors). While some facilities routinely clean equipment

exteriors and floors, or do so at all changeovers between certain

products, many facilities have indicated that equipment exterior and

floor cleanings are performed only when required through visual

inspections by the operators or facility management. Walls around

formulating and packaging lines appear to be cleaned infrequently.

Therefore, wastewater from such cleaning is rarely generated. The

quantity of water used annually for equipment exterior or floor

cleaning varies widely from facility to facility, from several gallons

to thousands of gallons.

This wastewater source can be minimized through the use of high-

pressure, low-volume washers. Facilities have noted that attaching

spray nozzles or other devices to prevent the free flow of water from

unattended hoses has reduced water use. Additionally, steam cleaning of

equipment exteriors is practiced at some facilities to reduce the

amount of wastewater generated.

The Agency has identified some facilities that wipe the exterior

using rags, or use a solvent cleaner, such as a commercially available

stainless steel cleaner. This avoids the generation of a wastewater

stream, but creates a solid waste which, depending on the ingredients

involved, could be considered a hazardous waste. Squeegees are also

used to clean equipment exteriors and floors, and are not disposed

after single uses. It may be possible to dedicate squeegees to a

certain line or piece of equipment, but the use of squeegees may still

require some water. Automated floor scrubbers are also employed at some

facilities in place of hosing down floors. Mopping with a single bucket

of water can also be employed in place of hosing. Floor mopping can

generate as little as 10 gallons of water per cleaning.

EPA has been to a number of facilities where their floor wash water

is reused with and without filtering. One facility has set up its

production equipment on a steel grated, mezzanine platform directly

above a collection sump. Following production, the equipment and the

floor of the platform, on which the operator stands when formulating

product, are rinsed down and the water is allowed to drip into the

sump. A pump and a filter have been installed in the sump area to

enable the operator to transfer this rinsate back into the formulation

tank the next time he is ready to formulate. This sump is also

connected to floor trenches in the packaging area for the same product.

When the exterior of the packaging equipment and the floors in this

area are rinsed, this water is directed to the trenches and eventually

ends up in the collection sump for reuse.

It is the Agency's opinion that wastewater generated from floor and

equipment cleaning can be best reduced by: (1) Sweeping the area before

rinsing; (2) cleaning on visual inspection rather than routine/daily

cleaning; (3) using a floor scrubbing machine or a mop and a bucket to

clean the floors; and (4) using a high pressure, low volume hose with a

spray nozzle or a steam cleaning machine to clean equipment exteriors.

6. Leaks and Spills

Leaks and spills occur during the normal course of formulating and

packaging operations. Leaks originate at hose connections or valves.

Spills of raw materials occur from failures of bulk storage tanks and/

or during transfer of raw materials between vessels. Product spills can

occur during storage in bulk storage tanks and/or during packaging,

including overfilling containers, missing the container to be filled,

or tipping of filled containers before capping.

Leaks can be reduced by preventive maintenance such as checking

equipment and connections before use or on a regular basis, while good

housekeeping procedures like keeping work areas uncluttered can help in

the prevention of spills. Simple preventative measures such as placing

drip pans under areas where leaks and spills are likely to occur can

either eliminate or minimize the quantity of water required for many

types of cleanups. Leaks and spills of dry products can be vacuumed or

swept without generating any wastewater. Liquid leaks and spills can be

collected into a trench or sump (for reuse, discharge, or disposal)

with a squeegee, leaving only a residue to be mopped or hosed down if

further water cleanup is required. Liquid leaks and spills can also be

cleaned up using absorbent material, such as absorbent pads or soda

ash. For an acidic product, the use of soda ash or a similar base

material will also serve to neutralize the spill. If a residue remains,

some water may be used for mopping or hosing the area down, but methods

to reduce floor wash should be implemented whenever possible. EPA has

observed that many facilities cleanup liquid leaks and spills from

water-based products with water and reuse the wastewater in product

formulation. On the other hand the facilities generally cleanup liquid

leaks and spills from solvent-based products with absorbent materials.

Direct reuse of materials from leaks and spills is another possible

pollution prevention technique. If drip pans or other containers are

used to catch leaks and spills, the material can be immediately reused

in the product being formulated or packaged, or stored for use in the

next product batch. Collection hoppers or tubs can be installed beneath

packaging fillers to capture spills and immediately direct the spills

back to the fillers. Leaks or spills around bulk storage tanks and

dispensing areas can be contained by dikes, which, in fact, are often

required by state regulations. (EPA recently proposed a federal

regulation for containment structures at agricultural refilling

establishments and at certain other facilities (see 59 FR 6712,

February 11, 1994).)

7. Air Pollution or Odor Control Scrubbers

Some PFPR facilities employ wet scrubbers to reduce air emissions

from PFPR operations. Facilities that also perform non-PFPR operations

may employ scrubbers that are not specific to PFPR operations, but

instead serve the general facility. Scrubbers can be operated with

continuously recycled water until replacement of the contaminated water

is necessary (as practiced by one of the facilities visited) or they

can be operated with a bleed steam (blowdown) on a continuous basis.

Many PFPR facilities employ dry air pollution control equipment,

such as carbon filters and baghouses, thus accomplishing air pollution

reduction without generating wastewater.

Some facilities may only need a wet scrubber on one particular

process (i.e., a dedicated scrubber). These facilities have been able

to use the scrubber blowdown or changed-out scrubber water as make-up

water in the formulation of that particular product. Some facilities

with non-dedicated scrubbers have been able to use the scrubber

blowdown or changed-out scrubber water for floor or equipment exterior

cleaning.

8. Safety Equipment Cleaning

Most PFPR facilities employ the use of safety equipment, including

safety showers and eye washes, gloves, respirators, and rubber boots to

protect individuals from the dangers associated with some raw materials

and the production of PFPR products. Wastewater is generated from

routine checks of safety showers, routine flushes of eye wash stations

(to ensure the station is clean and operable), and rinsing of boots,

gloves, and respirators.

Quantities of contaminated wastewater generated from safety

equipment cleaning are generally on the order of several gallons or

tens of gallons. Some facilities are successful in avoiding the

generation of this type of wastewater by using disposable safety

clothing (gloves, dust masks). This practice does result in a solid and

possibly even hazardous waste stream, thus it does not prevent

pollution.

9. Laboratory Equipment Cleaning

Many PFPR facilities operate on-site laboratories for conducting

quality control (QC) tests of raw materials and formulated products.

Wastewater is generated from these tests and from cleaning glassware

used in the tests.

One effective pollution prevention technique for laboratory

equipment cleaning is to dedicate laboratory sinks to certain products,

so wastewater generated from testing a product can be collected for

reuse in the product or for transfer back to the PAI manufacturer or

product registrant. In the cases where solvents are often used in

conjunction with the QC tests performed in the laboratory, the facility

may not be able to reuse the solvent-contaminated water. One facility

uses a small activated carbon unit to treat their lab water.

10. Contaminated Precipitation Run-off

This source of wastewater includes all precipitation that falls

directly onto or runs onto PFPR facilities that is believed to be

contaminated by product constituents. Contaminated precipitation runoff

can be prevented by bringing all PFPR operations indoors, as many PFPR

facilities have done, or roofing outdoor storage tanks and dikes, which

has also been done at many PFPR facilities. The roofs must extend low

enough to prevent crosswinds from blowing rain or other precipitation

into spill-containment dikes. To prevent rainwater contamination, the

drain spouts and gutters should conduct roof runoff to areas away from

PFPR operations, and the roofs should be kept in good repair.

VIII. Wastewater Control Technology Currently Available

EPA has sampled six facilities with wastewater treatment. Through

EPA's survey of the formulating, packaging and repackaging industry,

very few facilities were found that use water in their formulating,

packaging and repackaging process that also treat their wastewater.

Most facilities discharge their wastewater indirectly to POTW's with

little or no pretreatment. Many facilities send some of their more

concentrated streams off-site for disposal or treatment, and many

others reported recycling or reusing some or all of their wastewater.

Of the few facilities that reported treatment, most are treating their

wastewater and recycling it back to the facility. Five of the six

sampled facilities that are treating their wastewater were recycling

their treated wastewater.

One of the six sampled facilities treated wastewaters from floor

and equipment exteriors cleaning with ultrafiltration followed by

activated carbon filtration. The treated water is recycled back to be

used for this purpose again. At the same facility most of the

wastewater generated by cleaning equipment interiors is recycled back

into the product. This facility segregates wastewaters generated in the

insecticide formulation area from those generated in the herbicide

formulation area but otherwise mixes all herbicide or insecticide

wastewaters together for treatment.

A second facility treats its wastewater through a filtration system

with a portion of the wastewater stream being sent to biological

treatment. Most of the filtered wastewater is recycled to the facility

for reuse as general process area cleaning water. The wastewater

treated through biological treatment is sent for use as make-up in the

general facility air pollution control scrubber.

Two other facilities treat their wastewater through a cross-flow

filter followed by activated carbon filtration. The wastewaters are

then sent back to the processing area to be used for general clean-up.

Another facility treats its wastewater through ozonation followed by

activated carbon filtration. This wastewater is recycled back to the

facility for reuse.

The sixth facility sampled is also a manufacturer of pesticide

active ingredient. This facility treats its formulating and packaging

wastewater along with its manufacturing wastewater through an activated

carbon system prior to discharge to an industrial pretreatment

facility.

The other surveyed facilities that treat their wastewaters were

mostly the pesticide manufacturing facilities.

Through site visits or phone follow-ups, EPA discovered that some

plants have instituted several changes to wastewater handling practices

since 1988. For example, one of the sampled facilities with wastewater

treatment has since shut down. Between 1988 and shut down, the

operation converted from discharge to reuse of wastewater. Two of the

facilities that were sampled for wastewater treatment system

performance have installed treatment since 1988. Another facility that

was sampled for its wastewater treatment system had upgraded its system

by adding ozonation treatment after 1988.

IX. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

EPA is not proposing any substantive amendments to the existing BPT

provisions applicable to Subcategory C, established in 1978. However,

EPA proposes to add the word repackaging to the title and the

applicability provision for subpart C (Sec. 455.40) and to specifically

exclude from BPT applicability the wastewaters generated by employee

showers and laundry facilities. These changes are being proposed to

clarify the types of operations covered and would not expand or

contract the current coverage of the BPT effluent limitations

guidelines. The term ``packagers'' in the subpart C applicability

provision, 40 CFR 455.40, was always intended to cover repackaging as

well as packaging. Likewise, EPA proposes to expressly exclude from

coverage wastewaters generated by employee showers (distinct from

safety showers, which are included), fire protection test water and

laundry facilities. The current regulation does not expressly state

whether employee showers and laundry facilities are process wastewater

sources. EPA is proposing to clarify that employee showers, fire

protection test water and laundries are not within the scope of

coverage because of concerns that their inclusion could cause a

disincentive for facilities to provide shower facilities for their

employees, which in turn could pose a potential health and safety

concern. Fire protection test water is generated by facilities testing

sprinkler systems or hydrants to ensure their operation should the

facility have a fire. EPA does not wish to create a disincentive for

this testing by controlling these waters especially since it is

unlikely they would be contaminated. EPA is aware of PFPR facilities

that have permits allowing discharges from employee showers and

laundries while other PFPR wastewater sources at the facilities are

required by their permits to achieve zero discharge. EPA is soliciting

comment on this clarification of the applicability of the PFPR

regulations to wastewater from showers, fire protection test water and

laundries.

BPT limitations for this subcategory require zero discharge of

wastewater pollutants. EPA's information shows that the majority of

PFPR facilities are complying with this requirement by virtue of the

large numbers of facilities which reported no discharge (an estimated

71 percent of the survey population) and because nearly all facilities

that reported discharging are indirect dischargers (to POTW's).

The BPT technologies identified in the 1978 regulation as capable

of achieving zero discharge were water conservation, reuse and recycle

practices, with any residual water being evaporated or hauled off-site

to a landfill. Several facilities that participated in a study of the

industry for that rulemaking reported using evaporation as the

principal means for disposing of wastewater from their formulating and

packaging operations. Since that time, the practice of disposing of

liquid hazardous wastes in landfills has been banned. (Nevertheless,

one recently surveyed facility did indicate that they send wastewater

to a landfill.) Additionally, EPA finds that disposal of wastewater by

evaporation is now a less preferred practice, presumably because of

concerns about pollutant transfers among media (e.g., air, soil,

groundwater). In our recent survey, EPA has found that only a small

proportion of PFPR facilities use evaporation to achieve zero

discharge. Mostly, zero discharge is attained through recycle and

reuse, though some facilities report hauling their wastewater off-site.

Off-site destinations include incinerators, deep wells, and commercial

waste treaters (in some cases, wastes are returned to the registrant or

manufacturer). Some facilities that are achieving zero discharge have

gone to considerable expense and installed state-of-the-art wastewater

treatment to accomplish it through treatment and recycling.

Because of recent revisions to the effluent guidelines for

pesticide manufacturers (58 FR 50637, September 28, 1993), some of the

facilities that manufacture pesticide active ingredients and also

formulate and package pesticide products may have to change their

current practices to comply with the existing BPT regulations for

formulating and packaging. A number of the direct discharging pesticide

manufacturers that also formulate and package have been combining

pesticide manufacturing wastewaters with wastewaters generated from

pesticide formulating and packaging and discharging the combined

wastewaters. They are able to combine these wastewaters and still

achieve the limits in their NPDES permits, which provide numeric

discharge limits for pollutants generated in the pesticide

manufacturing process. Although they are given no allowance for the

pollutants present in their formulating and packaging wastewater they

have been able to discharge this wastewater because the treatment

systems reduce the pollutants in the combined wastewater to the level

specified in their permits. The recently issued pesticide manufacturing

regulation sets production-based BAT limits for specific active

ingredients. These limits supersede the previous concentration-based

BPT limit for ``total pesticides.'' Due to these newly issued BAT

limits, it is unlikely that pesticide manufacturing facilities will be

able to continue to discharge their formulating and packaging

wastewater and still be in compliance with their new permits.

EPA did not project any costs associated with BPT regulations for

any direct discharging pesticide formulating, packaging or repackaging

facilities in Subcategory C, because BPT for Subcategory C is not being

amended.

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments Whose Principal Business is Retail Sales (Subcategory E)

As discussed above, refilling establishments generate wastewater

through cleaning minibulk containers and bulk storage tanks; also,

contaminated precipitation run-off often falls inside their containment

systems. BPT for these wastewaters from repackaging operations is

proposed to be zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants.

The existing BPT regulations do not cover refilling establishments.

As described above, the practice of refilling minibulks, etc. did not

begin until the 1980s, i.e., after the original BPT regulation was

promulgated in 1978. Further, the refillers are different from the

general packagers and repackagers because of the differences in their

volumes of wastewater generated and discharged, the homogeneity at

refilling establishments of processes, water generation and disposal

practices, and products being repackaged at refilling establishments,

and the differences between the type of business (e.g., retail sales

vs. wholesale sales) as described earlier. These types of facilities

were not part of the data base for the original BPT regulations and

were not considered in the development of those regulations.

EPA finds that secondary containment of bulk storage areas and

loading pads, plus the collection, holding and eventual reuse of

rinsates, contaminated precipitation run-off and leaks and spills

represents the best practicable technology for the refillers

subcategory. The Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs has proposed a

regulation under FIFRA that would require refilling establishments for

agricultural pesticides to build secondary containment structures and

loading pads to certain specifications (59 FR 6712, February 11, 1994).

The secondary containment structures are designed to collect spills,

rinsates from containers, and contaminated precipitation run-off.

Today's proposal builds on this proposed requirement to contain

contaminated wastewater by proposing that the contained wastewater may

not be discharged. It is likely, therefore, that the wastewater will be

held until such time as it can be applied as pesticide on a site

compatible with the product label or used as make-up water in an

application of pesticide chemical to an appropriate site. Of the

estimated 1134 facilities (based on the 1988 survey) that would be

affected by today's proposal, EPA's questionnaire responses indicate

that 98 percent or an estimated 1101 already achieve zero discharge,

primarily by holding contaminated wastewater and reusing it as make-up

water. Thus, this practice not only eliminates the discharge of

wastewater but also allows the facility to recover the value of the

product in the wastewater. Accordingly, EPA concludes that this

proposal represents the average of the best performance at existing

facilities. Indeed, because the proposal is to require zero discharge,

this also represents the best performance at any existing facility, and

therefore EPA is also identifying zero discharge as the basis for BAT

and PSES regulations (See below).

Since the Office of Pesticide Programs proposed rule would already

require these facilities to contain any contaminated wastewater, the

Office of Water does not expect there to be a significant additional

cost associated with the holding of this water until such time as it

can be used as make-up in commercial application. There are no existing

direct dischargers in this subcategory that EPA is aware of. The

average volume of wastewater discharged indirectly by refilling

establishments is estimated to be 78 gallons per year per facility. EPA

assumes volumes of this magnitude can be held in a minibulk container

until such a time as it can be reused. EPA estimates the cost of a

minibulk container to be about $300 capital investment. EPA concludes

that the cost of this proposed BPT regulation would not be wholly

disproportionate to the projected effluent reduction benefits.

As mentioned above, the sources of wastewater from refilling

establishments derive primarily from rinsates generated from cleaning

minibulk containers and bulk storage tanks. Another source of

wastewater that might contribute a significant volume is contaminated

stormwater. The current practice for many refilling establishments is

to contain and hold contaminated stormwater until it can be used as

make-up in a commercial application. However, this source can be

virtually eliminated by covering the bulk storage area and loading pad

under roof. According to an industry representative, it is becoming a

widespread practice for many of the midwestern refilling establishments

to do this. In addition to potentially avoiding the generation of a

contaminated wastewater that must be controlled, enclosing the bulk

storage area also protects it from vandalism and from severe weather

such as cold winters. Enclosing containment structures is not a basis

for today's proposed regulation, nor is it a requirement of the Office

of Pesticide Programs proposed containment rule. However, the Agency

would certainly consider roofing a bulk storage area and loading pad a

prudent and pollution-preventing action by refilling establishments.

EPA does also recognize that there may be barriers in some areas to

enclosing bulk storage under roofs, such as fire code restrictions.

EPA recognizes that it is not uncommon for refilling establishments

to have more than one pesticide product on-site to be used on different

crops. For example, a refilling establishment may have bulk

Bicep (atrazine and metolachlor) that is applied to corn

early in the season, and also have Freedom (alachlor and

trifluralin), which is applied to soybeans later in the growing season.

Mixtures of rinsates of the two products (Bicep and

Freedom) cannot be used in an application mixture if there is

no crop for which the two pesticides are mutually labelled. In

estimating costs, the Agency has assumed that the containment system,

including separate holding tanks, will segregate pesticide products to

avoid spills and stormwater from becoming cross contaminated. EPA has

seen this segregation in containment systems at refilling

establishments which have been designed to comply with state or local

requirements.

X. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology

The Agency is proposing to establish BCT limitations for each of

the two subcategories that are equivalent to the BPT limits and based

upon the same control technologies. Accordingly, there would be no

additional costs associated with the BCT regulations.

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations for this subcategory

that are equivalent to the limitations established for BPT. Since BPT

requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can

be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology

basis is appropriate for BCT.

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments (Subcategory E)

EPA is proposing to establish BCT limitations for this subcategory

that are equivalent to the limitation established for BPT. Since BPT

requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can

be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology

basis is appropriate for BCT.

XI. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable

The Agency is proposing to establish BAT for each of the two

subcategories on the equivalent technology basis as BPT. Accordingly,

there would be no additional costs associated with the BAT regulations.

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations for this subcategory

that are equivalent to the limitations established for BPT. Since BPT

requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can

be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology

basis is appropriate for BAT. EPA believes that there are no additional

costs associated with establishing these limits.

B. Repackaging of Agricultural Pesticides Performed by Refilling

Establishments (Subcategory E)

EPA is proposing to establish BAT limitations for this subcategory

that are equivalent to the limitation established for BPT. Since BPT

requires zero discharge of process wastewater pollutants and there can

be no more stringent limitations, EPA believes an equivalent technology

basis is appropriate for BAT.

XII. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources

A. Pesticide Chemicals Formulating, Packaging and Repackaging

(Subcategory C)

1. Options Selection

The Agency is proposing to establish PSES at the zero discharge

level. The best available technologies identified as a basis for these

proposed standards consist of recy

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.