oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4301
EPA-820-B-95-003
March 1995
"^^^^^"^"""""""""^^^"^^^WPBG^im
Information
Collection Request
for the Great Lakes
Water Quality
Guidance
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document has been reviewed by the Office of Science and
Technology, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication as a support document for the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative. Mention of trade names and
commercial products does not constitute endorsement of their
use.
AVAILABILITY NOTICE
This document is available for a fee upon written request or
telephone call to:
National Technical Information Center (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(800) 553-6847
(703) 487-4650
NTIS Document Number: PB95187274
or
Education Resources Information Center/Clearinghouse for
Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
1200 Chambers Road, Room 310
Columbus, OH 43212
(800) 276-0462
(614) 292-6717
ERIC Number: D047
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12j)
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION 1
2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 3
2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION 3
22 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION 4
2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND
DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY 4
222 INFORMATION RELATED TO DISCHARGES INTO
THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM 4
3.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED 5
3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS 5
32 INFORMATION REQUESTED 6
33 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES 8
4.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT . 9
4.1 GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES 9
42 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT 9
4.3 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY 9
4.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE 10
5.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION
CRITERIA 11
5.1 NONDUPLICATION 11
52 CONSULTATIONS 11
53 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION 12
5.4 GENERAL GUIDELINES 12
5.5 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS 12
6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 13
6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN ..; 13
6.1.1 APPLICATIONS BURDEN 13
6.1.2 MONITORING BURDEN 15
6.13 REGULATORY RELIEF OPTIONS BURDEN 19
62 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COST 20
62.1 APPLICATIONS COST 20
622 MONITORING COSTS 24
6.23 REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION COSTS 28
63 ESTIMATING GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COSTS 28
63.1 GOVERNMENT APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND
COST 28
632 GOVERNMENT MONITORING BURDEN AND
COST 30
633 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION
BURDEN AND COST 30
6.4 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS, AND SUMMARY OF
THE CHANGE IN BURDEN 30
-------
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
1.0 SHORT CHARACTERIZATION
This Information Collection Request (ICR) calculates the burden and costs associated with the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (hereafter referred to as the Guidance). The Guidance identifies
minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and antidegradation provisions for the
Great Lakes System. Implementation of these provisions is dependent upon future promulgation of
provisions consistent with the final Guidance by State or Tribal agencies or, if necessary, EPA. Until
actions are taken to promulgate and implement these provisions (or equally protective provisions
consistent with the final Guidance), there will be no economic effect of this rule.
The Great Lakes System is comprised of eight States: New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. In the Great Lakes Basin, there are 588
major dischargers - 316 are major municipal dischargers, and 272 are major industrial dischargers;
and 3,207 minor dischargers. In sum there are 3,795 dischargers (588 major, and 3,207 minor) that
will be affected by State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the Guidance.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue
permits for the discharge of pollutants or combinations of pollutants to the waters of die United
States. EPA and authorized States regulate discharges to waters of the United States through NPDES
programs. Such discharges include domestic wastewater, industrial wastewater, storm water as well
as others. To protect human health, aquatic life, and wildlife in the Great Lakes System, Congress
enacted, on November 16, 1990, the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (CPA). Section 101 of the
CPA amended Section 118 of the CWA and directed EPA to publish water quality guidance for the
Great Lakes that:
Conforms to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement;
Is no less restrictive than the CWA and national water quality criteria and guidance;
Specifies numerical limits on pollutants in ambient Great Lake waters that protect
human health, aquatic life, and wildlife; and
Provides guidance on minimum water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and
implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System.
Within two years after the final guidance is published, the CPA requires the Great Lakes
States to adopt water quality standards, antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures for
waters within the Great Lakes System that are consistent with the guidance. If a Great Lakes State
fails to adopt necessary standards, policies and procedures, EPA is required to promulgate them two
years after the final guidance is published.
Based on the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLWQI), the Great Lakes
Guidance will result in a new Part 132 of Title 40, Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System. The Guidance includes:
Minimum methodologies for setting numerical water quality criteria for all pollutants
except for Table 5 pollutants to protect human health, wildlife, and aquatic life.
A minimum antidegradation policy and procedures to maintain existing water quality.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Minimum implementation procedures to translate the criteria and antidegradation
policy into controls for specific sources of pollutants.
To conform with future requirements promulgated by Great Lakes States or Tribes consistent
the final Guidance, NPDES permit applicants may have to submit additional information for future
NPDES permit modification, renewal or issuance. Elements that may result in information collection
or record keeping burden include the following:
Permit applicants may be required to identify whether the 138 pollutants of initial
focus are present in their discharges. At least one type of numerical Great Lakes
water quality criteria have been determined for 30 of the 138 pollutants of initial
focus.
In cases where existing permits do not address pollutants for which numeric water
quality criteria have been included in the final Guidance, permittees may be required
to conduct additional monitoring where those pollutants are suspected to be present.
At facilities with water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) that are established
below the quantification level, as signified, e.g., by the most sensitive analytical
methods specified in or approved under 40 CFR Part 136 for a given pollutant,
permits will establish an actual limit exactly as calculated. However, any sample
analyzed in accordance with the analytical method specified in the permit and other
application procedures that is found to be below the quantification level shall be
deemed in compliance with the WQBEL. In addition, these facilities are required to
conduct pollutant minimization programs (PMPs) to review and monitor potential
pollutant sources and implement control strategies. If the pollutant is a
bioaccumulative chemical of concern (BCC), the permittee may also be required to
conduct a bio-uptake monitoring program.
The final Guidance includes two methodologies for developing numeric water quality criteria
to protect human health and aquatic life, and one methodology to protect wildlife. The Tier I
approach is used when certain minimum data requirements are met. Under the Tier II approach,
water quality values can be calculated based on fewer data than the full minimum data required for a
Tier I calculation. The Tier II approach was designed to provide a methodology for evaluating
pollutants and interpreting narrative water quality criteria when there is insufficient data to develop
Tier I criteria. To reflect the increased uncertainty associated with fewer data points, criteria
developed using the Tier II approach will generally be more stringent than criteria developed using
the Tier I approach.
This ICR has estimated the burden and costs associated with implementation of the Guidance.
The total annual burden to all respondents is estimated to be 128,901 hours with an associated cost of
$4,580,281. The total annual burden to local governments, as publicly owned treatment works
(POTW) operators, is estimated to be 45,296 hours with an associated cost of $2,008,624. The total
annual burden to State and Federal governments is estimated to be 6,478 hours with an associated cost
of $193,701, of which 5,886 hours of the burden and $175,992 fall upon the State governments.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
2.0 NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION
2.1 NEED AND AUTHORITY FOR THE COLLECTION
The primary objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nation's waters" (Section 101(a)). CWA Section 402 establishes the
NPDES program to regulate the discharge of any pollutant or combination of pollutants from point
sources into the waters of the United States. CWA Section 402(a), as amended, authorizes the EPA
Administrator to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants if those discharges meet the following
requirements:
All applicable requirements of CWA Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 403; and
Any conditions the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions
and objectives of the CWA.
Section 101 of-the CPA amends Section 118 of the CWA and directs EPA to publish water
quality guidance for the Great Lakes System. Provisions of the Guidance are codified in 40 CFR Part
132. The Guidance establishes minimum water quality criteria, implementation procedures, and
antidegradation provisions for the Great Lakes System.
EPA and delegated NPDES permitting authorities may need point source dischargers in the
Great Lakes Basin to collect and submit information for the following reasons:
To implement methodologies for setting numerical water quality criteria and values
promulgated by States and Tribes for pollutants in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes
States will use the methodologies consistent with the final Guidance when revising
existing or promulgating new water quality criteria.
To evaluate requests for permit changes using antidegradation policies and procedures
consistent with the final Guidance.
To further the pollution prevention policy that focuses on the virtual elimination of
toxic discharges into the Great Lakes System.
To translate provisions consistent with the elements of the final Guidance into controls
for point sources of pollutants.
To identify the facilities that require additional permit conditions (i.e., those that are
discharging pollutants at levels of concern into the Great Lakes System).
To identify new pollutants in existing discharges.
To evaluate water quality in the Great Lakes.
TO determine violations of State/Tribal provisions consistent with the Guidance.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
2.2 USE AND USERS OF INFORMATION
Although the applicants collect and submit many types of information, this information can be
broadly categorized as identification details (e.g., name, location, and facility description) and as
information related to pollutant discharges into the Great Lakes.
2.2.1 IDENTIFICATION, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY
Permitting authorities currently require dischargers to provide information such as the name,
location, and description of facilities to identify the facilities that require permits. EPA and
authorized NPDES States store much of this basic information hi the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) database. PCS provides EPA with a nationwide inventory of NPDES permit holders. EPA
Headquarters uses the information contained in the PCS to develop reports on permit issuance,
backlogs, and compliance rates. The Agency also uses the information to respond to public and
Congressional inquiries, develop and guide its policies, formulate its budgets, assist States in
acquiring authority for permitting programs, and manage its programs to ensure national consistency
in permitting.
2.2.2 INFORMATION RELATED TO DISCHARGES INTO THE GREAT LAKES
SYSTEM
NPDES permit applications and requests for supplemental information currently require
information about wastewater treatment systems, pollutants, discharge rates and volumes, whole
effluent toxicity testing and other data. Additional information collection requirements that may be
necessary to implement State, Tribal, or EPA promulgated provisions consistent with the final
Guidance include:
Monitoring (pollutant-specific and whole effluent toxicity or WET);
Pollutant minimization programs;
Bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria;
Antidegradation policy/demonstrations; and
Regulatory relief options (e.g., variances from water quality criteria).
This information may be used to ensure compliance with provisions consistent with the
Guidance and re-evaluate existing permit conditions and monitoring requirements. Data on discharges
is entered into STORET and PCS, EPA's databases for ambient water quality data and NPDES
permits, respectively. Results of water quality criteria testing will be entered into an EPA
Information Clearinghouse database.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
3.0 THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION COLLECTED
3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF RESPONDENTS
NPDES permits are required any time there is a point source discharge of pollutants to waters
of the United States, regardless of the type of discharger. Consequently, all point source dischargers
must apply for an NPDES permit. In addition, permits issued to point sources that discharge into the
Great Lakes System will be required to include provisions, as applicable, implementing State/Tribal
requirements consistent with the final Guidance. Based on a review of lists that States generated and
of permits issued since March 1991, EPA determined that initially 588 major and 3,207 minor point
sources would be affected (see Exhibit 3-1).
EPA distinguishes between major and minor point sources under the NPDES permitting
program. EPA designates major municipal dischargers as those: serving at least 10,000 persons;
having a design flow in excess of 1 million gallons per day; having significant amounts of toxics in
EXHIBIT 3-1
SUMMARY OF CATEGORY OF DISCHARGERS POTENTIALLY IMPACTED
BY THE GREAT LAKES GUIDANCE
Discharger Category
Major Dischargers
Mining
Food
Pulp and Paper
Inorganic Chemical Man.
Org. Chemical Man./Petroleum Refining
Metal Manufacturing
Metal Finishing
Steam Electric
Miscellaneous
Municipal (POTWs)
Subtotal
Minor Dischargers
Non-Municipal
Municipal
Subtotal
Total Dischargers
Number of Dischargers
14
12
54
19
28
37
31
50
27
316
588
2,280
927
3,207
. :
3,795 ' ' :; " ' "
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
their effluent; discharging into waters of significant concern; or designated as such by the permitting
authority. In characterizing major industrial dischargers, EPA considers several factors, including the
concentration of toxic pollutants in the discharge as well as the volume discharged. Major sources in
the Great Lakes System include 316 municipal (publicly owned treatment works or POTWs) and 272
industrial sources. Minor dischargers are all those permittees that are not designated as major
dischargers. Minor sources may discharge contaminated process wastes that could have a significant
toxic component, or have other characteristics addressed by the Guidance. EPA determined that there
are 3,207 minor dischargers in the Great Lakes System. Of these, 927 sources were determined to be
municipal dischargers and 2,280 non-municipal dischargers.
3.2 INFORMATION REQUESTED
Information collection associated with the implementation of the Guidance will ultimately
affect the burden and costs of program elements estimated in other ICRs that have been developed
under the NPDES program. This ICR will estimate the burdens and costs associated with information
collection activities that may be over and above those burdens and costs already estimated in the other
NPDES ICRs. These other ICRs include:
Information Collection Request for Application for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Discharge Permit and the Sewage Sludge Management Permit,
Approved by OMB September 17, 1992 (Applications ICR);
Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System: Discharge Monitoring Reports, Approved by OMB September 30, 1991
(Discharge Monitoring Report ICR); and
Information Collection Request for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Modification and Variance Requests, Approved by OMB September 10, 1992
(Modification and Variance ICR).
Generally, States and Tribes must adopt provisions consistent with the final Guidance. In
addition, EPA has included recommendations or guidance on other issues that permitting authorities
may choose to incorporate into their water programs. This makes it difficult to determine burdens
and cost associated with implementation of provisions consistent with the Guidance, however, EPA
assumes that most States/Tribes will implement the recommendations provided in the Guidance. As
such, EPA has included burden and costs associated with these recommendations throughout this ICR.
Burdens and costs, therefore, may be overstated in some places.
Applications ICR
To collect information requested for the NPDES program, EPA has developed standard
application forms for most applicants. Standard application forms include: Standard Form A; Short
Form A; Forms 1, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F; and the Uniform Federal Transportation/Utility System
Application Form (See the Applications ICR for more detailed information).
For some permits and application requirements, EPA has not developed standard application
forms. In some cases, standard forms are not appropriate; in others, EPA is currently developing
appropriate forms. This ICR calculates the burden to respondents for supplying information
addressing implementation of State, Tribal, or subsequently promulgated Federal provisions consistent
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
with the Guidance that may be in addition to existing application requirements of the authorized
NPDES permitting program.
Respondent application information collection activities that may be associated with the
implementation of the Guidance include:
Bioassay tests to support the development of water quality criteria for the 138
pollutants of initial focus;
Studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that
will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes System; and
Whole effluent toxicity testing required to meet minimum data requirements to
evaluate the need for WET limits.
Discharge Monitoring Report ICR
Discharge monitoring information collection relates to monitoring and reporting requirements
included iff NPDES permits issued to point source discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the
United States. These requirements pertain to collection and analyses of samples and the reporting of
summary information to the permitting authority. The permitting authority uses the data as the
primary source of information to assess compliance with permit limitations. Data are also used for
modifying or adding new permit requirements, assessing and/or developing effluent guidelines, and
assessing the need for water quality-based limits in a permit.
Information collection requirements specified in the Guidance that will affect the overall
burdens and costs estimated in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR include monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting requirements for:
WQBEL compliance monitoring;
WET limit compliance monitoring; and
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs).
Modification and Variance ICR
Section 301 of the CWA authorizes EPA and States with the authority to establish and modify
NPDES permit conditions or to vary the effluent limitations established in NPDES permits. Section
405 of the Act allows States with sludge management authority to issue and modify permits that
regulate the use and disposal of sewage sludge. The Modification and Variance ICR describes the
data requirements necessary for a permitting authority to determine (1) whether NPDES or sewage
sludge management permit conditions should be modified, or (2) whether a request for a variance
from certain NPDES permit conditions should be granted.
Under the Guidance, several additional regulatory relief options are allowed if appropriate
documentation is submitted to substantiate and justify them. In sum, relief options for dischargers to
the Great Lakes include mechanisms such as variances from criteria, alternative mixing zones,
phased-total maximum daily loadings (TMDLs), and site-specific criteria. All of these mechanisms
are available under the CWA and existing NPDES programs. Therefore, this ICR includes
information collection and record keeping activities associated with analyses and reporting to request
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
regulatory relief from Guidance requirements which are in excess of what would already be covered
under the existing Modification and Variance ICR.
33 RESPONDENT ACTIVITIES
Respondents may be required to submit a variety of different information by State/Tribal or
subsequent Federal requirements implementing the Guidance. This ICR explains these activities in
detail for each Guidance provision that may result in respondent information collection or record
keeping activities (see Section 6.1). In general, respondent activities will include the following:
Preparing Basic Information - This includes reading instructions or reviewing
regulatory application requirements, gathering general information, typing or filling
out forms, drafting letters, reviewing applications or other materials, and mailing
completed submissions.
Generating Detailed Information - Detailed information may include data on
production levels, data on effluent characteristics, pollutant minimization programs,
financial estimates, engineering data, socio-economic data, or other information
required by permitting authorities.
Sampling and Analyzing Discharges - This may involve pollutant analyses, biological
toxicity testing, predicting in-stream impacts, field monitoring, bioconcentration
testing, or other scientific analyses.
Maintaining Records - All NPDES permittees must keep records of the data used to
complete their applications and to demonstrate their compliance for at least three
years. First-time applicants may need to develop a record keeping system, enter data,
train personnel, and file information. For existing facilities, record keeping entails
collecting and filing raw data.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
4.0 THE INFORMATION COLLECTED: GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION, METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
4.1 GOVERNMENT ACTIVITIES
When permitting authorities receive NPDES permit applications, they must review them for
completeness. (Note that all of the Great Lake States but no Great Lakes Indian Tribes have NPDES
permitting authority.) If an application is incomplete, the authorities must notify the applicant and
request the missing information. Completed applications must be assigned to permit writers, who
then review the applications in more detail as they develop permit conditions. Permit authorities must
also enter certain application data into PCS and STORET.
Additional information may also be requested by the permit writer to assist in developing
discharge limits or other permit conditions. These data or special studies must be reviewed by the
permit writer. This information may be submitted prior to issuance or during the term of the permit.
Specific Guidance program elements that may necessitate additional government review when
promulgated by States/Tribes or EPA include:
Bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria;
Antidegradation demonstrations;
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs); and
Requests for regulatory relief (e.g., variances).
In addition to activities associated with reviewing respondent applications, the State permitting
authorities may experience other information collection and record keeping burdens associated with
implementation of the Guidance. However, in accordance with OMB guidelines covering ICRs, State
information collection and record keeping burdens not associated with respondent activities are not
included in this ICR.
4.2 COLLECTION METHODOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
Because each information collection activity associated with implementation of the Guidance
will contain unique information, and because permittees submit applications only once every 5 years,
improved information technology would not reduce respondent burden in a cost-effective manner.
EPA maintains some application data in the Agency's databases, PCS and STORET. This
technology reduces the burden to EPA Headquarters for gathering and analyzing national permit and
water quality data.
43 SMALL ENTITY FLEXIBILITY
For many reasons, EPA believes the information collection and reporting requirements
described in this ICR do not place an unreasonable burden on small business. For example:
In general, as the size of a facility increases, the amount of information required
increases. Therefore, the burden of information collection is much less for small
entities than for large entities.
Facilities submit permit applications infrequently; typically, once every 5 years.
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Many small entities do not discharge any toxic pollutants, or they discharge pollutants
to a sewage treatment plant. These small facilities may not be required to have
NPDES permits, and thus will not experience an information collection burden
associated with the Guidance.
Note however, some information collection and record keeping burdens associated with
implementation of the Guidance cannot easily be reduced for small businesses. This is true for two
reasons:
NPDES permitting authorities need certain basic information from all permittees to
make permitting decisions; and
The CWA requires all point source dischargers to obtain NPDES permits, regardless
of size. Therefore, all businesses that discharge directly into the waters of the Great
Lakes System must submit necessary permitting information, including information to
satisfy requirements ultimately adopted consistent with the final Guidance.
4.4 COLLECTION SCHEDULE
The Clean Water Act requires permittees to reapply for permits at least every 5 years,
although permit writers may issue permits with a shorter duration. Most respondents submit
applications every 5 years. When calculating burden, this ICR assumes that all permit applicants
affected by the implementation of the Guidance follow this 5 year schedule.
Great Lakes States/Tribes must adopt monitoring and reporting provisions consistent with
those specified in the Guidance. These will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the permitting
authority and will be individually specified in NPDES permits. Generally, monitoring requirements
will take effect upon issuance of the permit and will be in place throughout the life of the permit.
Information collection associated with regulatory relief requests based on State/Tribal or
Federal provisions consistent with the Guidance will occur only when a permittee decides to seek such
relief. EPA presumes that the few relief requests expected will continue to take place at time of
permit reissuance.
10
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
5.0 NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
5.1 NONDUPLICATION
EPA has examined all the reporting requirements contained in the Clean Water Act and 40
CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, 125, 403, 501, and 503. The Agency also has consulted the following
sources of information to determine if similar or duplicate information is available elsewhere:
The EPA Information Systems Inventory;
The EPA Inventory of Information Collection Requests;
The Federal Information Locator System;
The EPA Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule (53 FR 51698); and
The EPA Toxics Release Inventory.
Examination of these databases revealed no duplicate requirements. Therefore, EPA has concluded
that it has no other way to obtain the information addressed in this ICR.
5.2 CONSULTATIONS
The major provisions in the proposed Guidance were developed over a 2 year period by the
eight Great Lakes States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. National Park Service, EPA,
and members of the public. On December 6, 1991, the Great Lakes States recommended that EPA
publish the draft Guidance in the Federal Register for public review and comment. EPA generally
used the draft ratified by the Steering Committee as the basis for preparing the proposed guidance
published in the Federal Register on April 16, 1993 (58 FR 20802). However, EPA modified the
package to reflect statutory and regulatory requirements and EPA policy considerations, to propose
procedures for State and Tribal adoption of the final Guidance, to provide suitable discussion of
various alternative options, to accommodate necessary format changes, and to respond to comments
made by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB). Where modifications were made, the preamble to
the proposal described both the modification and the original Steering Committee-approved guidelines,
and invited public comment on both, All elements approved by the Steering Committee were either
incorporated in the proposed Guidance or discussed in the preamble to the proposal. The 150-day
public comment period on the proposal closed on September 13, 1993.
To evaluate the public comments and prepare the final guidance, the Office of Water created a
Task Force to oversee 21 workgroups composed of EPA management and staff from Headquarters
and Regions 2, 3, and 5, the Regions with Great Lakes States. To enhance intergovernmental
partnership as part of Executive Order No. 12875 and to stay abreast of public expectations for the
final Guidance, the Agency directed the Task Force to keep local, State and Tribal government
officials, co-regulators, the regulated community and environmental interests informed. During the
post-proposal process, the Task Force and workgroups participated in over 35 meetings with over 500
stakeholder representatives. The comments and issues raised by the stakeholders were incorporated
into the docket and considered by the Agency in its option selection process and regulatory impact
analysis for developing the final Guidance. The Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) comments
resulted in formal interagency consultation on two issues regarding endangered species and culminated
in a written Biological Opinion form FWS in 1994, which is in the docket.
These meetings kept EPA apprised of the most current scientific information and data to
consider in developing the final Guidance. As a result, EPA provided notice of data availability and
opportunity for public comment on August 30, 1994 (59 FR 44678). EPA received 23,000 pages of
11
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
comments, data, and information from over 5,700 commenters in response to these notices and from
meetings with members of the public. In response, to the States' concerns, the final Guidance
contains less detailed procedures for implementation, providing maximum flexibility for States and
Tribes. EPA considered comments regarding the relative contribution of pollutants by non-permitted
sources, discharges to polluted waters, maintaining present water quality, the mercury criteria, and
mixing zones raised by the stakeholders.
53 EFFECTS OF LESS FREQUENT COLLECTION
Requirements consistent with the Guidance will be promulgated by the States or Tribes or, if
necessary, by EPA, and then implemented through the water quality and permitting programs.
Permitted facilities must reapply for NPDES permits before their existing permits expire, generally
once every 5 years. The CWA prohibits issuance of NPDES permits with terms longer than 5 years.
Less frequent permit applications would not provide the permitting authority with sufficiently current
data to establish effective limitations or conditions when issuing permits. Less frequent permit
issuance would also hinder the ability of EPA and the regulated community to take advantage of
technological improvements as they occur.
The specific consequences of less frequent collection associated with monitoring and reporting
requirements implementing the provisions in the Guidance are no different than the consequences for
permittees not subject to the Guidance. A detailed discussion of these consequences are described in
the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR. However, note that:
Permits written based on infrequent monitoring data may not adequately represent
peak release; and
Reductions in monitoring frequency reduce the representation of discharge monitoring
data relative to true waste discharge characteristics.
Since permittees will decide whether or not to apply for regulatory relief (e.g., variances from
water quality criteria) from provisions implementing the Guidance, and generally pursuing relief is a
one-time effort for the permittee, less frequent information collection associated with Guidance
regulatory relief procedures is not relevant. Less frequent information collection would not provide
the permitting authority and EPA Headquarters with sufficient information to meet their
responsibilities for review and approval of regulatory relief under the under the CWA and Guidance.
5.4 GENERAL GUIDELINES
This information collection complies with the Paperwork Reduction Act guidelines (5 CFR
§1320.6).
5.5 CONFIDENTIALITY AND SENSITIVE QUESTIONS
Permit applications may contain confidential business information. If this is the case, the
respondent may request that such information be treated as confidential. All confidential data will be
handled in accordance with 40 CFR §122.7, 40 CFR Part 2, and EPA's Security Manual Part m,
Chapter 9, dated August 9, 1976. However, CWA Section 308(b) specifically states that effluent data
may not be treated as confidential.
No questions of a sensitive nature are associated with this information collection.
12
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
6.0 ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION
6.1 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT BURDEN
EPA has estimated the total respondent burden associated with implementation of provisions
consistent with the Guidance to be approximately 128,900 hours annually (see Exhibit 6.1). Burden
hours have been separated based on the following existing NPDES ICRs that would be modified by
the new burden (see also Section 3.2):
Applications ICR;
Discharge Monitoring Report ICR; and
Modification and Variance ICR.
EXHIBIT 6-1
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT BURDEN
Application Burden
Monitoring Burden
Regulatory Relief Options Burden
Total Burden
Increase in Respondent Burden
(Hours per Year):
72,330
41,535
15,036
128,901
6.1.1 APPLICATIONS BURDEN
Respondent burden associated with NPDES permit applications was estimated to increase by
approximately 72,330 hours annually. The types of activities for which burden were estimated
include:
Bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria for the 138 pollutants of
initial focus;
Studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that
will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes System; and
Whole effluent toxicity testing required to meet minimum data requirements to
evaluate the need for WET limits.
13
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Burden Associated With Studies to Support the Development of Water Quality Criteria
Based on its experience, and the opinion of relevant EPA experts, EPA determined that
bioassays, when necessary, to support the development of water quality criteria would, in almost all
cases, be conducted by outside laboratories. The burden associated with such bioassays was
calculated by dividing the total estimated cost ($1,188,097, see section 6.2.1) by the private sector
hourly rate of $34.09, resulting in a burden of 34,852 hours. In addition, ten hours for directing the
laboratory's work, or 760 hours of respondent burden, is anticipated to be associated with bioassays
to support the development of water quality criteria.
States/Tribes must establish water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELS) necessary to
protect water quality. The Guidance contains methodologies to calculate acute and chronic water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life, water quality criteria for the protection of human
health, and water quality criteria for the protection of wildlife. Tier I and Tier II methods are
included in the final Guidance that differ primarily on the minimum data requirements. States/Tribes
must adopt methodologies consistent with the final Guidance. They do not, however, have to develop
wildlife values using the Tier II methodology. Tier I methods require more data and are therefore
more precise and more expensive than Tier II methods. However, numerical values based on Tier II
methods are likely to be more stringent than those based on Tier I methods to account for the greater
uncertainty of the resulting values. For this ICR, EPA assumed that sources would request delay in
the compliance deadlines in permits in order to generate sufficient data to calculate Tier I criteria,
rather than Tier II values, in order to obtain less stringent WQBELS.
Further, EPA assumed that permittees would share information using the EPA Information
Clearinghouse of water quality data to reduce costs. In effect, bioassays to support the development
of water quality criteria will be conducted only once for each of the pollutants of initial focus for
which this data is not readily available. Since criteria have already been developed for some of the
pollutants of initial focus, bioassays to support the development of additional water quality criteria
will be conducted for the remaining pollutants. Further, because permits are renewed every 5 years,
EPA assumed that one-fifth of the criteria would be developed each year.
Antidegradation Policy Burden
The antidegradation provisions in the final Guidance applies to the discharge of non-
deminimus levels of pollutants to high quality waters. However, the criteria for when an
antidegradation demonstration must be performed are different for bioaccumulative chemicals of
concern (BCCs) and non-BCCs. The purpose of the demonstration is to confirm that the permittee
has evaluated options to reduce the extent of the need to lower water quality. In general, an
antidegradation demonstration consists of first performing a pollution prevention alternatives analysis
to identify prudent and feasible alternatives. If no pollution prevention alternatives are deemed
prudent and feasible, then the permittee must identify alternative or enhanced treatment techniques.
Finally, a permittee must demonstrate that the lowering of water quality is necessary to ensure social.
and economic development.
Based on compliance cost analyses performed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA
expects that 5 percent of the 3,795 permittees (approximately 190) will discharge BCCs. EPA
conservatively assumes that all of the permittees that discharge BCCs will request an increase in
permit limits and be required to perform an antidegradation demonstration. Conservatively assuming
that all of these permittees will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration in any given
14
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
year, and assuming that 60 hours is required to prepare the demonstration for BCCs, then the total
respondent burden is estimated to be about 11,400 hours annually.
Based on past experience, EPA expects that another 5 percent of the permittees
(approximately 190) are likely to request an increase in permit limits for non-BCCs. Conservatively
assuming that all of these respondents will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration in
any given year, and that 40 hours is required to prepare the demonstration for non-BCCs, the total
respondent burden is estimated to be about 7,600 hours annually. Such estimates are based upon
overconservative assumptions since all States are already required to have antidegradation
requirements in their programs.
WET Data Collection Burden
A minimum of 1 year of quarterly acute or chronic WET testing using a fish and a
macroinvertebrate (e.g., daphnia) was assumed necessary to evaluate the need for WET limits in a
facility's permit. If the minimum data are not available, then the data would be collected during the
first year of the permit term. Because this is a one-time data collection effort, it has been placed
under the application information collection activities. Because WET testing requires specific
expertise and equipment, EPA assumed it would be done by a contract laboratory. The burden
associated with such testing was calculated by dividing the total estimated cost ($604,000, see section
6.2.2) by the private sector hourly rate of $34.09, resulting in a burden of 17,718 hours.
6.1.2 MONITORING BURDEN
Due to Guidance provisions addressing monitoring and reporting, respondent burden was
estimated to increase by 41,535 hours annually. Guidance activities that may result in increased
respondent burden include monitoring and reporting requirements for:
WQBEL compliance monitoring;
WET limit compliance monitoring;
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) monitoring and reporting; and
Bioconcentration studies for BCCs below analytical detection levels.
Since the Guidance does not establish specific record-keeping requirements, no additional burdens and
costs are assumed for record keeping over those estimated in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR.
Based on previous experience and interviews with program personnel, EPA determined that
approximately 30 percent of Guidance-related monitoring associated with WQBELs and PMPs would
be conducted by outside laboratories. Because monitoring for WET limits and performing
bioconcentration studies require more sophisticated analyses, EPA assumed all WET monitoring and
bioconcentration studies would be conducted by outside laboratories.
WQBEL Compliance Monitoring Burden
Based on the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], and the methodology for determining burden developed
in the Discharge Monitoring Report ICR, respondent burden associated with the Guidance compliance
monitoring was estimated to be approximately 150 hours annually.
15
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Respondent burden for monitoring was based on the pollutants that were determined most
likely to need WQBELs based on implementation of methodologies consistent with the Guidance.
Current sampling and monitoring frequencies for those Guidance pollutants of initial focus that have
current permit limits or monitoring requirements were determined in the Final Assessment of
Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date].
Based on the potential for a facility's discharge to exceed a Guidance-based WQBEL, the variability
of the flow, the treatment employed, and the types of pollutants, the need for more frequent
monitoring was evaluated. In most cases, existing monitoring requirements in the permit were
deemed adequate as State policy often dictated the frequency of monitoring used in a permit. Also, if
additional parameters were added, the monitoring frequencies were established at a frequency similar
to the existing monitoring requirements of other parameters.
The methodology for determining respondent monitoring burden is described in detail in the
Discharge Monitoring Report ICR. Briefly, respondent burden for monitoring was defined to equal
the sum of the time required to collect samples, time required to analyze pollutants, and the time
required to prepare a report. Based on the methodology described in the Discharge Monitoring
Report ICR, EPA determined that only the time required to analyze pollutants would increase as a
result of WQBEL monitoring based on implementation of the Guidance. The Discharge Monitoring
Report ICR estimated that one half hour would be required for each monitoring event (i.e., each
pollutant) per year. Thus, the time required to analyze for pollutants is defined as:
Total Burden = Number of Pollutants * 0.5 hour
Based on the results from the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], EPA estimated that an additional 176 facilities will
require WQBEL monitoring for 306 pollutants as a result of implementation of State/Tribal or Federal
provisions consistent with the Guidance (see Exhibit 6-2). This results in a monitoring burden of just
over 150 hours each year.
EXHIBIT 6-2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR
WQBEL COMPLIANCE MONITORING CONSISTENT WITH THE
GUIDANCE
Discharger Category
Major Dischargers
Food and Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Metal Finishing
Mining
Metals Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Number of
Pollutants*
0
12
7
7
64
8
Total Burden
(Hours per
Year)
0
6
3.5
3.5
32
4
16
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
EXHIBIT 6-2
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR
WQBEL COMPLIANCE MONITORING CONSISTENT WITH THE
GUIDANCE
Discharger Category
Municipals (POTWs)
Organic Chemical Man. /Petroleum
Refining
Pulp and Paper
Steam Electric
Major Dischargers Subtotal
Minor Dischargers
Municipals
Non-Municipals
Minor Dischargers Subtotal
Total
Numbers represent total number of po
Number of
Pollutants'
94
15
83
16
306.00
0
0
0
306
Total Burden
(Hours per
Year) ;
47
7.5
41.5
8
153
0
0
0
153 ' =
lutants within an industrial category.
WET Limit Compliance Monitoring Burden
Similar to pollutant-specific WQBELs, if a WET limit is established for a facility, then
periodic compliance monitoring would be required. Based on the Final Assessment of Compliance
Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], existing State
WET limits and compliance monitoring requirements were deemed adequate for those facilities that
required WET limits. Therefore, no additional Guidance burden was estimated related to
implementation of the provisions for WET compliance monitoring.
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) Burden
After State/Tribal or Federal promulgation of provisions consistent with the Guidance,
permittees are required to establish PMPs for pollutants for which WQBELs are below quantification
levels. Total respondent burden associated with the establishment of PMPs was estimated to be
28,182 hours annually. Information collection activities associated with PMPs include:
An annual review/semi-annual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutants;
Quarterly influent monitoring and reporting;
17
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Development and submittal of a control strategy, including implementation of
appropriate practicable control measures; and
An annual status report.
Respondent burden associated with an annual review/semi-annual monitoring of potential
sources, and quarterly influent monitoring and reporting was calculated based on:
Numbers of potential sources of pollutants and number of pollutants with WQBELs
set below the detection limit were identified during the development of costs for the
Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date]; and
The Discharge Monitoring Report ICR methodology for determining time required for
analyzing pollutants described above.
The respondent's time required to analyze for pollutants under PMPs was calculated using the
following equation:
[(# Potential Sources of Pollutants * 2/yr) + (4/yr * # WQBELS Set Below MDL)] * 0.5
In sum, respondent burden associated with PMP monitoring is estimated to be about 4,031
hours annually (see Exhibit 6-3).
EXHIBIT 6-3
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR
IMPLEMENTING POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS (PMPs)
Discharger Category
Major Dischargers
Food and Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Metal Finishing
Mining
Metals Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Municipals (POTWs)
Organic Chemicals Man. /Petroleum
Refining
Pulp and Paper
# of Potential
Sources of
Pollutants
0
24
0
3
0
8
2,579
15
46
# WQBELS
Below Detection
Levels
0
4
0
3
0
45
549
30
47
Total Estimated
! Burderi
0
32
0
9
0
97.5
3,677
75
140.5
18
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
EXHIBIT 6-3
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT BURDEN FOR
IMPLEMENTING POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS (PMPs)
..;;. ' Discharger Category :.-'..
Steam Electric
Major Dischargers Subtotal
Miiujr Dischargers
Municipals
Non-Municipals
Minor Dischargers Subtotal
: Total
# of Potential
Sources of
Pollutants
0
2,675
0
0
0
2,675
#WQBELS
Below Detection
Levels
0
678
0
0
0
678
Total Estimated
:, Burden
0
4,031
0
0
0
4,031
EPA determined that most permittees would use outside contractors to develop an approvable
control strategy, and to prepare and submit annual status reports. To calculate burden associated with
the strategy and the annual report, the cost estimates described in section 6.2.2 were divided by the
private sector hourly rate, resulting in a burden of 19,995 hours for the approvable strategy and 4,156
hours for the annual report.
Bioconcentration Studies Burden
States and Tribes may, but are not required to, direct permittees to use fish monitoring and
other bio-uptake studies to evaluate PMP performance where WQBELs are established below
analytical detection limits. Such Studies would require sampling and laboratory analysis of fish
tissue. Consistent with the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of
the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], only analytical costs were estimated. Because the
fish tissue testing requires special expertise, EPA assumes that it is very likely that permittees would
contract with laboratories to conduct such studies. The burden associated with such studies was
calculated by dividing the cost described in section 6.2.2 ($450,000) by the private sector hourly rate
of $34.09 resulting in an annual burden of 13,200.
6.1.3 REGULATORY RELIEF OPTIONS BURDEN
Additional respondent burden associated with preparing requests for regulatory relief options
available through the Guidance was estimated to be approximately 15,000 hours.
19
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
To be granted relief from provisions adopted consistent with the Guidance, it is assumed that
the permittee will need to perform additional monitoring or special studies, etc., to support its
request. Based on EPA's Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], under the low-end cost estimate EPA conservatively
estimates that regulatory relief would be requested for a total of 87 pollutants (from 59 facilities).
EPA assumes that one-fifth (or about 18) will be requested each year. Permittee burden to prepare
and submit a request for regulatory relief will vary depending upon the type of relief being pursued
(e.g., criteria modification, alternative mixing zone, etc.). Based on a mid-range of costs to pursue
regulatory relief provided by EPA Region and State contacts (see section 6.2.3) and using the private
sector hourly rate, total respondent burden to prepare and submit variance requests is estimated to be
about 15,036 hours annually.
6 3 ESTIMATING RESPONDENT COST
Respondent costs are the sum of labor costs and contractor costs. Total respondent costs
associated with the information collection requirements of State/Tribal or Federal provisions
consistent with the Guidance were estimated to be $4,580,281 annually (see Exhibit 6-4).
When calculating respondent costs, EPA makes the following assumptions:
The average annual salary for federal and State employees is $38,869; this is
equivalent to the salary of a GS-9, Step 10 federal employee. At 2,080 labor hours
per year, the hourly rate is $18.69. Overhead cost for federal and State employees
are expected to be 60 percent, or $11.21 per hour, yielding a total hourly rate of
$29.90.
The average annual salary in the private sector is 14 percent higher than the federal
and State salary, creating an average annual salary of $44,311 and an hourly rate of
$21.30. Overhead costs for the private sector are assumed to be 60 percent, or
$12.79 per hour, yielding a total hourly cost of $34.09.
The average annual salary of a POTW employee is equivalent to that of a GS-7, Step
1 federal employee. The annual salary of this worker is $24,441; the hourly rate is
$11.75. Overhead costs add an additional 60 percent to these costs. Thus, the
average cost of a POTW worker is $39,106 per year, or $18.80 per hour.
Respondent costs estimated in this ICR are those associated with the Guidance and are over
and above the respondent costs estimated in the following ICRs which deal with similar costs and
burdens for the NPDES permitting program:
Applications ICR;
Discharge Monitoring Report ICR; and
Modification and Variance ICR.
20
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
EXHIBIT 6-4
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT COST
Applications Cost
Monitoring Cost
Modification and Variance Cost
Total Respondent Cost
Annual Respondent Cost
$2,342,975
$1,724,756
$512,568
$4,580,281
6.2.1 APPLICATIONS COST
Due to implementation of the Guidance requirements, respondent costs associated with
NPDES permit applications were estimated to increase by approximately $2,342,975 annually.
Respondent application costs are associated with:
Bioassays to support the development of water quality criteria for the 138 pollutants of
initial focus;
Studies to identify and provide information on antidegradation control measures that
will guard against the reduction of water quality in the Great Lakes System; and
Whole effluent toxicity testing performed to meet minimum data requirements to
evaluate the need for WET limits.
Costs Associated With Studies to Support the Development of Water Quality Criteria
Annual respondent costs associated with developing Tier I numerical criteria based on water
quality tests were estimated to be approximately $1,188,097 (see Exhibit 6-5 and oversight costs
below).
Based on experience and the opinion of relevant EPA experts, EPA determined that bioassays
to support the development of water quality criteria would, in almost all cases, be conducted by
outside laboratories. Of the 138 Guidance pollutants of initial focus, Tier I human health criteria
have already been developed for 18 pollutants; Tier I wildlife criteria have been developed for four
pollutants; and Tier I aquatic life criteria have been developed for 16 pollutants. Review of the
literature indicates that human health criteria can potentially be calculated for an additional 106
pollutants, and wildlife criteria for an additional three pollutants. The Guidance does not require
States to adopt provisions requiring development of wildlife toxicity test data for use in the Tier I or
Tier n methodologies; therefore, respondents would not be expected to conduct studies to support the
development of wildlife criteria. Further, respondents would not be expected to conduct aquatic life
21
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
bioassays for the following pollutants: the 52 pollutants that have been identified as carcinogens
because the human health criteria for such pollutants would always be more stringent; the eight
pollutants that have been identified as BCCs due to the associated high bioaccumulation factor; and
nine pollutants for which National criteria have been developed since nearly enough information has
already been collected on such pollutants. Therefore, respondents are assumed to conduct bioassays
to support the development of water quality criteria for 14 human health and 53 aquatic life
pollutants. Further, because permits are renewed every 5 years, it was assumed that one-fifth (i.e.,
three human health and 11 aquatic life) of the criteria would be developed each year.
For each of the pollutants that may require Tier I tests, costs include:
Aquatic life acute tests - It was assumed that aquatic life acute tests costing $2,600
each would be conducted for eight species per pollutant (i.e., a cost of $20,800 per
pollutant for 11 pollutants).
Criteria development - It was assumed that 56 hours per pollutant would be required
using an outside consultant (i.e., a cost of $1,909 per pollutant)
Aquatic life chronic tests - It was assumed that aquatic life chronic tests costing
$11,500 each would be conducted for three species per pollutant (i.e., a cost of
$34,500 per pollutant for 11 pollutants).
Criteria development - It was assumed that 56 hours per pollutant would be required
using an outside consultant (i.e., a cost of $1,909 per pollutant)
Human health tests - It was assumed that human health tests cost approximately
$70,000 for a LDM test and $100,000 for a 90-day subchronic study (i.e., $170,000
per pollutant for 3 pollutants).
Criteria development - It was assumed that 56 hours per pollutant would be required
using an outside consultant (i.e., a cost of $1,909 per pollutant)
Costs of overseeing the outside laboratories at 10 hours a laboratory were $4,718 for POTWs
and $17,352 for private industry, for a total of $22,070 in oversight costs.
The costs presented above are conservative in that they do not account for data that has
already been collected and could be used to support the development of criteria in conjunction with
the new data. They also do not discount the costs attributable to existing requirements in State and
Federal programs to develop water quality criteria under specified circumstances. In developing the
costs, it was also assumed that respondents would undertake the responsibility of collecting the
supporting data even though it is not required by the Guidance. However, in estimating the costs,
EPA has assumed that respondents will coordinate perfectly in the data collection which may temper
the conservative nature of the estimate slightly.
22
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
EXHIBIT 6-5
ANNUAL RESPONDENT COST FOR BIOASSAYS To SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT OF
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Aquatic Life Acute Tests
Aquatic Life Chronic Tests
Human Health Tests
Wildlife Protection Tests
Laboratory Oversight Costs
Total
Cost per
Pollutant
$22,709
$36,409
$171,909
$0
Number of
Pollutants
11
11
3
0
64
Annual
Respondent
Cost
$249,800
$400,500
$515,727
$0
$22,070
$1,188,097
Antidegradation Policy Cost
Exhibit 6-6 summarizes the estimated respondent costs associated with implementation of
provisions consistent with the Guidance antidegradation provisions. Based on compliance cost
analyses performed for the Regulatory Impact Analysis, EPA expects that 5 percent of 3,795
permittees (approximately 190) will discharge BCCs. Conservatively assuming that all of these
permittees will prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration each year, the total respondent
burden is estimated to be about 11,400 hours annually. Acknowledging that one-third of the
permittees affected by antidegradation provisions are POTWs, the total respondent cost is estimated to
be $330,524.
EPA expects that 5 percent of the permittees (approximately 190) are likely to request an
increase in permit limits for non-BCCs. Conservatively assuming that all of these respondents will
prepare and submit an antidegradation demonstration each year, the total respondent burden is
estimated to be about 7,600 hours annually. Acknowledging that one-third of the permittees affected
by the final Guidance are POTWs, the total respondent cost is estimated to be $220,354.
EXHIBIT 6-6
SUMMARY OF RESPONDENT COST FOR ANTIDEGRADATION
Municipal - BCCs
Non-Municipal - BCCs
# of Facilities
65
125
Burden
Estimate
3,800
7,600
Estimated Cost
$71,440
$259,084
23
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Municipal - non-BCCs
Non-Municipal - non-BCCs
Total
65
125
76
2,533
5,067
19,000
$47,620
$172,734
$550,878
WET Data Collection Costs
It was assumed that data would be collected to determine if WET limits should be included in
a permit. Because monitoring for WET limits requires more sophisticated quarterly tests using a
macroinvertebrate and a fish, EPA assumed all monitoring for WET limits would be conducted by
outside laboratories. The costs of collecting data, and the costs of monitoring for WET limits were
estimated to be about $604,000 annually in the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from
Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative [Date] (see Exhibit 6-7). These results are
based on the assumption that acute WET tests on average will cost $750 and chronic WET tests on
average will cost $1,500.
EXHIBIT 6-7
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT COST FOR
COLLECTING DATA AND MONITORING FOR WET LIMITS
Discharger Category
Major
Dischargers
Mining
Food
Pulp and Paper
Inorganic Chemical Man.
Org. Chemical Man./Petroleum Refining
Metal Manufacturing
Metal Finishing
Steam Electric
Miscellaneous
Municipal (POTWs)
Subtotal
Minor Dischargers
Non-Municipal
Municipal
Subtotal
Total
Annual Respondent
Cost ;
$17,000
$0
$15,400
$0
$138,400
$0
$12,000
$12,000
$38,400
$54,000
$287,200
$0
$316,800
$316,800
; $604,000
24
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
6.2.2 MONITORING COSTS
Due to implementation of Guidance provisions addressing monitoring and reporting,
respondent cost was estimated to increase by $1,724,738 annually. Guidance activities resulting in
increased respondent costs include monitoring and reporting requirements for:
WQBEL compliance monitoring;
WET limit compliance monitoring;
Pollutant Minimization Programs (PMPs) reporting and monitoring; and
Bioconcentration studies required when Guidance-based WQBELs for BCCs are below
analytical detection levels.
Based on previous experience and interviews with program personnel, EPA determined that
approximately 30 percent of Guidance related monitoring associated with WQBELs and PMPs would
be conducted by outside laboratories. Because monitoring for WET limits and bioconcentration
studies require more sophisticated tests, all related monitoring was assumed to be conducted by
outside laboratories.
WQBEL Compliance Monitoring Costs
Respondent costs, assuming approximately 70 percent of WQBEL monitoring is conducted in-
house, were estimated to be approximately $284,000 annually (see Exhibit 6-8). These costs were
estimated based on the estimated analytical costs provided in the Final Assessment of Compliance
Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date] (which were
based on a survey of laboratory costs).
EXHIBIT 6-8
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT COST FOR
WQBEL COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Discharger
; Category
Major Dischargers
Food and Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Metal Finishing
Mining
Metals Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Municipals (POTWs)
Annual Respondent Cost i
In-House
Monitoring
$0
$12,664
$1,764
$1,764
$63,017
$6,526
$45,018
Contracted
Monitoring
$0
$5,428
$756
$756
$27,007
$2,797
$19,294
Total
Cost
$0
$18,092
$2,520
$2,520
$90,024
$9,323
$64,312
25
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Organic Chemical Man./Petroleum
Refining
Pulp and Paper
Steam Electric
Major Dischargers Subtotal
Minor Dischargers
Municipals
Non-Municipals
Minor Dischargers Subtotal
; Total
$3,780
$54,438
$9,912
$198,884
$0
$0
$0
$198,884
$1,620
$23,331
$4,248
; $85,236
$0
$0
$0
$85,236
$5,400
$77,769
$14,160
$284,120
$0
$0
$0 .
$284,120
WET Limit Compliance Monitoring Cost
Similar to pollutant-specific WQBELs, if a WET limit is established for a facility, then
periodic compliance monitoring would be required. Based on the Final Assessment of Compliance
Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date], existing State
compliance monitoring requirements were deemed adequate for those facilities that required WET
limits. Therefore, no additional cost was estimated related to implementation of WET compliance
monitoring provisions consistent with the final Guidance.
Pollutant Minimization Program (PMP) Costs
The Guidance requires that permittees develop PMPs for pollutants in a discharge for which
WQBELs have been established below quantification levels. Total respondent cost associated with the
establishment of PMPs was estimated to be approximately $990,618 annually (see Exhibit 6-9).
Information collection activities associated with PMPs include:
An annual review/semi-annual monitoring of potential sources of the pollutants;
Quarterly influent monitoring and reporting; and
Development and submittal of a control strategy, including implementation of
appropriate practicable control measures; and
An annual status report
Respondent cost associated with semi-annual monitoring of pollutant sources, and quarterly
influent monitoring was estimated to be about $167,324 annually.
The one-time cost of developing a control strategy was estimated to be about $25,000 per
facility in the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date]. It was estimated that about 137 municipal and 40 non-
municipal facilities would be required to develop approvable control strategies. For this ICR it was
26
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
assumed that this one-time cost would be written off over 10 years. Therefore, the annual respondent
cost for developing the strategies was estimated to be about $681,631.
EXHIBIT 6-9
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RESPONDENT COST FOR
POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAMS
Discharger !
Category
Maior Dischargers
Food and Food Products
Inorganic Chemicals
Metal Finishing
Mining
Metals Manufacturing
Miscellaneous
Municipals (POTWs)
Organic Chemical Man./Petroleum
Refining
Pulp and Paper
Steam Electric
Major Dischargers Subtotal
Minor Dischargers
Municipals
Non-Municipals
Minor Dischargers Subtotal
Total
Annual Respondent Cost
PMP
Monitoring
$0
$529
$0
$103
$0
$2,900
$155,033
$1,006
$7753
$0
$167,324
$0
$0
$0
$167,324
Approvable
Strategy
$0
$28,476
$0
$10,678
$0
$26,696
$487,641
$26,696
$101,444
$0
$681,631
$0
$0
$0
$681,631
Annual
Report
$0
$5,695
$0
$2,136
$0
$5,339
$97,528
$5,339
$25,628
$0
$141,665
$0
$0
$0
$141,665
Total
Cost
$0
$34,699
$0
$12,916
$0
$34,935
$740,202
$33,041
$134,825
$0
$990,618
$0
$0
$0
$990,618
Annual status reports were estimated in the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting
from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance to cost about $5,000 per facility.
EPA determined that annual status reports would be prepared by outside contractors. The resulting
respondent cost was estimated to be approximately $141,665 annually for 177 permittees expected to
27
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
prepare and submit PMPs in the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation
.of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance.
Bioconcentration Studies
Permitting authorities may require bioconcentration studies for WQBELs included in a permit
that are below detection limits based on EPA approved methods. EPA conservatively assumed that
such studies would be required and determined that it is very likely that permittees would contract
with laboratories to conduct such studies.
A contractor cost of $5,000 per pollutant for bioconcentration studies was assumed for the
costs estimated in the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting from Implementation of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date]. In sum, total respondent costs for bioconcentration
studies were estimated to be about $450,000 annually.
6.2.3 REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION COSTS
Additional respondent cost associated with preparing requests for regulatory relief from
provisions consistent with the Guidance requirements was estimated to be approximately $512,568
annually (see Section 6.1.3 for more detail). The Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting
from Implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance [Date] estimates that the cost to the
facilities pursuing relief from Guidance-based WQBELS to range between $1,000,000 to $20,000 per
pollutant depending upon the type of relief being pursued. These costs are based on EPA and State
experience. EPA assumed a mid-range of $200,000 per pollutant for supporting requests for
regulatory relief. If 18 requests are received per year as assumed in Section 6.1.3, and assuming this
one-time cost would be annual ized over a 10 year period at 7 percent interest, then the annual costs
associated with pursuing regulatory relief options is estimated to be $512,568.
6.3 ESTIMATING GOVERNMENT BURDEN AND COSTS
EPA estimated annual State/Federal government burden to be approximately 6,475 hours.
State/Federal government cost was estimated to be approximately $193,700 annually. The State
government burden and costs estimated herein, amend the State government burden and costs
estimated in the Applications ICR, Discharge Monitoring Report ICR, and Modification and Variance
ICR. Specific burden and cost estimates for State and Federal governments are summarized in the
following sections. EPA estimated little additional federal government applications burden or cost
because all the Great Lakes States are delegated NPDES permitting authorities.
63.1 GOVERNMENT APPLICATIONS BURDEN AND COST
EPA estimated the total burden to States and the Federal government associated with
applications to be 4,186 hours, resulting in a cost of $125,170
Burden and Costs Associated With Studies to Support the Development of Water Quality
Criteria
28
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
EPA estimated the State application burden associated with data collection to support the
development of water quality criteria to be 2,714 hours with an associated cost of $81,158. The basis
of these values is as follows.
EPA estimated the following burden and associated costs with the review of Tier I criteria
development. It was assumed that only the minimum number of studies would be submitted for
review. Because the Guidance does not require States to develop wildlife criteria using the Tier n
methodology, studies would not be expected to be submitted to support the development of Tier I
wildlife criteria.
Aquatic Criteria: 1.5 hours/study (8 acute studies + 3 chronic studies) + 2 hours to review
criterion development = 18.5 hours per pollutant (i.e., 203.5 hours for 11 pollutants [53
potential pollutants divided by 5 permit years]).
Human Health Criteria: 2 hours per study * 2 studies + 2 hours to review criterion
development = 6 hours per pollutant (i.e., 18 hours for 3 pollutants [14 potential pollutants
divided by 5 permit years]).
The annual costs associated such burdens, using the government employee hourly rate of
$29.90, are $6,085 and $538, respectively.
EPA estimated an annual burden to the Federal government of 400 hours to set-up and
maintain the water quality database to serve as the Information Clearinghouse.
States may develop additional human health and wildlife criteria for some pollutants where
data already exists. EPA has estimated the following burden and costs associated with those tasks:
To perform the search for information - 40 hours/pollutant (i.e., 872 hours, considering the
106 pollutants and 3 pollutants over the 5-year permit term)
To evaluate the literature and calculate the criterion - 40 hours/pollutant (i.e., 872 hours)
To peer review - 8 hours/pollutant (i.e., 174.4 hours)
To prepare the report and document procedures - 8 hours/pollutant (i.e., 174.4 hours)
The total annual burden to develop additional human health and wildlife criteria of 2,492.8
hours results in an annual associated cost of $74,535, using the government employee hourly rate of
$29.90.
Antidegradation Burden and Costs
EPA estimated the State applications burden associated with antidegradation demonstration to
be approximately 1,216 hours annually. The State cost was estimated to be $36,358 annually. Such
estimates do not include burden and cost associated with implementing current antidegradation
requirements.
EPA determined that it would take a State about 2 days to review an antidegradation
demonstration. EPA also determined that approximately 76 antidegradation policy demonstrations
would be submitted annually.
29
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
Consistency Review Burden and Costs
An additional burden that will fall on State and Federal government is the preparation and
review of State regulations and criteria for consistency with the Guidance over the course of the first
five years of the program. EPA has estimated that preparation of the materials for Federal review
will require 40 hours of burden per State (i.e., 320 hours for all Great Lakes States or 64 hours per
year). The Federal government review of such materials will require a burden of 120 hours per State
(i.e., 960 hours for all Great Lakes States or 192 hours per year). The annual cost associated with
the preparation of the materials is $1,914 and for the consistency review is $5,741, using the
government hourly rate of $29.90.
6.3.2 GOVERNMENT MONITORING BURDEN AND COST
EPA estimated the State government burden for reviewing an approvable control strategy
which is one component of a permittee's PMP to be about 4 hours per facility. It was estimated in
the Final Assessment of Compliance Costs Resulting From Implementation of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance [Date] that about 137 municipal and 40 non-municipal facilities would be required
to develop approvable control strategies. Therefore, the annual State monitoring burden was
estimated to be about 708 hours. The estimated annual State government monitoring cost was
$21,169. EPA estimated no additional federal government monitoring burden or cost.
6.3.3 GOVERNMENT REGULATORY RELIEF OPTION BURDEN AND COST
EPA estimated the State government burden associated with requests for regulatory relief to
be approximately 1,584 hours. The State government regulatory relief option cost was estimated to
be approximately $47,362. No additional burden or cost was estimated for the federal government.
To determine the State burden associated with regulatory relief requests, EPA estimated that
State government would require:
Half a day (4 hours) to review a regulatory relief request for completion, including
any contact with the permittee for additional information;
Half a day (4 hours) for public notice and comment (assuming the regulatory relief
mechanism is independent of regular permit public notice); and
10 days (80 hours) to analyze the regulatory relief option request, decide if it is
justified, justify the decision, and prepare a permit modification if necessary.
In sum, EPA estimated 11 days (88 hours) of State government burden associated with
evaluation of regulatory relief options. As discussed in Section 6.1.3, EPA estimated 18 regulatory
relief option requests would be processed annually.
30
-------
Great Lakes Guidance Permit ICR
6.4 TOTAL BURDEN HOURS AND COSTS, AND SUMMARY OF THE CHANGE IN
BURDEN
Exhibit 6-10 presents the figures for total burden and costs to respondents and governments.
Exhibit 6-11 presents the change in burden and costs in the Applications ICR, Discharge Monitoring
Report ICR, and Modification and Variance ICR for respondents and governments. Exhibit 6-12
presents the total burden and costs to both local and State governments. All of the burden and costs
to local governments are associated with the operation of a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
31
-------
os
o
^-i
PL,
a
Ł
j
o
LAKES GUIDANCE
"S
o
fe
o
z
o
i
Ž S
3 |
Ł9 o
C3 fc*
1
i
^^
§
5
§
i
CQ
b
o
1
1
*
3
i
§
>
o
1
S
1
1
S
'.Ť*
:-3
TV
"111
C 9 te*
.<Ť&
2 *ť
13
^*
M*
H S3 §
.IŤS
1
' -a
Iff
lit
IE!
VO vo 0"
Cv| -
co ts r
oo"o"r
co ts -
oo oo
in % t
g .a .1
IS!
Ha -S i
3 g '
W)
O ^ ^2 p
'S 2i r2 i
J- t^ ^ !
&
1, s
" r~T °°
: *
* . co
* 1 C^
^ 1 ^l
i! ^
3 5?
2C
ftl
a 4-ť
*T t/5
. ^^
J u
t
S s§ 1
SI ^H O VI
1 g m j*
O C3 CO
CO - ON O ^T
" oo" co" ts"
ts ^^ TJ-
s s
i 1 5 1 5
^^
g
cs"
s
s
!2
0
i
i
>ť
Ui
2
C8
1
§2 \
O\ ;
g I
co j
o i
co"
wą
oo '
^
vo" ;
oo
C*
f
1
w.
g :
oo '
t* ;
n
,"2 :..
O -i'
1.
co
-------
-
a
m
8
es
1.1
8
^
83
-
3 s u
o a
?
1
s
o
a
00
ts
en
in
oo
CM
1
1
g-
I
8
t:
o
D
i2
1
g
p
a
> c
If
4> O
OS
u
l~
s,
o
-------
(d
OJ
u
ent
i
i
oo
a
1
3
OO
f ť
vp Ťo
V*
o Ť"
2*
Ť T>
g 00 . Tf ^
-Ťn. i ON1 T-
ovo -
en ts
ťŤ Ťs
ts -^
o\ ~
f+\ ^*
oo
0
S Ť ŤŤ
<Ť >, e >
'5 Ł -B 1
CO
3 (5 CO *
SO* 2 Q .52
" ' 60
** r; M.
Ť*>
oo
^l
ob"
*ť
*o
:l
u
* S
x
n
vo"
^^ ^^
VO NO
3 I 3
CM CS
CO
. . 00
0
1 ' ~
OO
0
r*
3
00
ť.
Q
TT
"I
ON
VO
I
OQ1
'
3
cs
a*
a-
i
l
^
ce
Guid
CL,
<i
a
o
------- |