&EPA
          United States
          Environmental Protection
          Agency
           Office of Water
           4301
EPA-820-B-95-010
March 1995
Assessment of
Compliance Costs
Resulting from
Implementation  of
the Final Great
Lakes Water
Quality Guidance

-------





































(Tt
CM
O
^
H




j= J^
O Q)
i
W g 4J CD
W Q)-H U
iJ Q) rH pH -H
EH ft, Ul ft (0 

























o o
H H
O O
1 1
in in o
 'S*
I i ro
CQ CQ
1 1 ^
O O CO
 H <
O ft  g O
O O
H &


-------
                              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.
V j
                      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:   PB95187340

                              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:  D054
                                                 ., ; v^eciion Agency
                                          »  ^.'i--i~T*'1  L *  " "

                                                             Floor
                                      Chicaco,

-------
                                                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	  ES-1

1. INTRODUCTION  	   1-1
       1.1    PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT	   1-1
       1.2    ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT	   1-2

2. METHODOLOGY	   2-1
       2.1    SUMMARY OF METHOD FOR DEVELOPING COST ESTIMATE FOR THE
             PROPOSED GUIDANCE	   2-1
       2.2    APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR THE FINAL
             GUIDANCE	   2-5
             2.2.1  Selection of Direct Discharge Facilities	   2-8
             2.2.2  Collection of Data/Information	   2-9
             2.2.3  Calculation of Permit Limits/Conditions	  2-12
                   2.2.3.2 Expanded List of Pollutants Evaluated in
                          Cost Analyses	  2-13
                   2.2.5.2 Development of Tier I Criteria and Tier II Values
                           Used in Cost Analyses  	  2-14
                   2.2.3.3 Revised Implementation Procedures  	  2-22
             2.2.4  Estimation of Facility Compliance Costs	  2-26
                   2.2.4.1 Compliance Cost Decision Matrix	  2-26
                   2.2.4.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Costs 	  2-32
             2.2.5  Estimation of Total Compliance Costs to the Regulated Community .  . .  2-32
             2.2.6  Estimation of Compliance Costs for Indirect Dischargers	  2-33

3. RESULTS  	   3-1
       3.1    OVERVIEW OF APPROACH	   3-1
       3.2    DISCUSSION OF RESULTS	   3-2
             3.2.1  Analysis of Low-End Cost Estimate for Direct Dischargers	   3-2
             3.2.2  Analysis of High-End Cost Estimate for Direct Dischargers	   3-6
             3.2.3  Comparison of Estimated Costs for the Final Guidance
                   to Costs of Proposed	  3-14

4. EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS	   4-1
       4.1    METHODOLOGY  	   4-1
             4.1.1  Estimation of Pollutant Reductions	   4-1
             4.1.2  Revised Toxic Weights	   4-3

-------
                                                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                    (continued)
                                                                              Page
             4.1.3  Toxicity Weighting and Extrapolation of Pollutant Baseline Loadings and
                   Reductions  	   4-4
             4.1.4  Determining Cost-Effectiveness  	   4-4
      4.2    RESULTS	   4-4

5.  EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS	   5-1
      5.1    SUMMARY  OF   ISSUES   RELATED  TO  COMPLIANCE  COST
             ESTIMATES	   5-1
      5.2    DESCRIPTION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS	   5-1
      5.3    METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE REGULATORY OPTIONS	   5-1
             5.3.1  Method for Evaluating the Impact of the Antidegradation Provisions of
                   the Final Guidance  	   5-6
             5.3.2  Method for Evaluating the Impact of Future Improvements to Analytical
                   Detection Levels	   5-8
      5.4    RESULTS  	   5-9
             5.4.1  Fish Consumption Rates	  5-10
             5.4.2  Use of Pollutant Minimization Programs When WQBELs Are Below
                   Analytical Detection Levels	  5-10
             5.4.3  Intake Credits  	  5-11
             5.4.4  Tier n Criteria	  5-12
             5.4.5  Wildlife Criteria/Mercury Criteria	  5-14
             5.4.6  Allowance of Mixing Zones for BCCs 	  5-15
             5.4.7  Additivity	  5-16
             5.4.8  Antidegradation  	  5-18
             5.4.9  Future Impact of Detection Levels	"	  5-19
APPENDIX A - REEVALUATION OF TIER U AQUATIC LIFE VALUES	A-l

APPENDIX B - WILDLIFE CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT	B-l
                                        ll

-------
                                                       LIST OF TABLES
                           LIST OF TABLES
                                                                Page
TABLE ES-1  SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS
           ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE FINAL GREAT LAKES
           WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE	 ES-3

TABLE 2-1   COST STUDY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CRITERIA/
           STANDARDS THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED
           BY FINAL GUIDANCE  	 2-7

TABLE 2-2   COST STUDY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION
           PROCEDURES THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED
           BY FINAL GUIDANCE  	 2-7

TABLE 2-3   DISCHARGERS REMOVED FROM THE COST ANALYSIS
           AND REPLACEMENT FACILITIES  	2-9

TABLE 2-4   MAJOR FACILITIES RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR COMPLIANCE
           COST EVALUATION	 2-10

TABLE 2-5   PARAMETERS IDENTIFIED FOR FINAL COSTING ANALYSES	 2-15

TABLE 2-6   CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN FINAL COST ANALYSES	 2-16

TABLE 2-7   COMPARISON OF MOST STRINGENT HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
           IN THE PROPOSED GUIDANCE, FINAL GUIDANCE, AND COST
           EVALUATIONS  	 2-20

TABLE 2-8   COMPARISON OF WILDLIFE CRITERIA IN THE PROPOSED
           GUIDANCE, FINAL GUIDANCE, AND COST EVALUATIONS	 2-21

TABLE 2-9   PARAMETERS USED TO TRANSLATE DISSOLVED
           METALS CRITERIA TO TOTAL RECOVERABLE WQBELs 	 2-23

TABLE 2-10  COST ESTIMATES FOR PURSUING REGULATORY RELIEF	 2-31

TABLE 2-11  SUMMARY OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
           BY THE GUIDANCE AT NINE PRETREATMENT POTWs 	 2-34

TABLE 3-1   SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED COMPLIANCE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE
           TO THE FINAL GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE	3-3

TABLE 3-2   FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR
           DIRECT DISCHARGERS: LOW-END SCENARIOS	3-4
                                 ill

-------
                                                        LIST OF TABLES
                           LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)
TABLE 3-3   BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
           BY POLLUTANT: LOW-END SCENARIO  	3-7

TABLE 3-4   FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR
           DIRECT DISCHARGERS:  HIGH-END SCENARIO  	 3-10

TABLE 3-5   BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
           BY POLLUTANT: HIGH-END SCENARIO  	 3-12

TABLE 3-6   COMPARISON OF PROPOSED AND FINAL COMPLIANCE
           COST ESTIMATES 	 3-16

TABLE 4-1   TOXIC WEIGHTS FOR POLLUTANTS EVALUATED IN
           THE FINAL GUIDANCE  	 4-5

TABLE 4-2   UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS	4-6

TABLE 4-3   TOXICITY WEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS	4-9

TABLE 5-1   SUMMARY OF ISSUES RAISED RELATED TO COMPLIANCE
           COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED GUIDANCE	5-2

TABLE 5-2   SUMMARY OF REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED FOR
           THE MAJOR ISSUES RAISED RELATED TO COMPLIANCE COST
           ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED GUIDANCE	5^

TABLE 5-3   VALUE OF SHIPMENTS FOR SIX MAJOR INDUSTRIAL SECTORS
           (MILLIONS OF DOLLARS)	 5-7

TABLE 5-4   PROPORTION OF DIRECT DISCHARGERS TO TOTAL INDUSTRY
           ESTIMATES	 5-8

TABLE 5-5   EVALUATION OF FISH CONSUMPTION RATES	 5-10

TABLE 5-6   EVALUATION OF POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAM
           REQUIREMENTS 	 5-12

TABLE 5-7   EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE CREDIT PROVISIONS	 5-13

TABLE 5-8   EVALUATION OF APPLICATION OF TIER I CRITERIA AND
           TIER D VALUES	 5-14
                                 IV

-------
                                                        LIST OF TABLES
                            LIST OF TABLES
                              (continued)
TABLE 5-9   EVALUATION OF APPLICATION OF WILDLIFE CRITERIA 	 5-15

TABLE 5-10  EVALUATION OF ALLOWING MIXING ZONES FOR BCCs	 5-16

TABLE 5-11  EVALUATION OF ADDITIVITY	 5-17

TABLE 5-12  EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF ANTIDEGRADATION
           PROVISIONS 	 5-18

TABLE 5-13  EVALUATION OF FUTURE IMPACT OF LOWER ANALYTICAL
           DETECTION LEVELS  	 5-20

TABLE A-l   COMPARISON OF TIER U AQUATIC LIFE VALUES CALCULATED
           FOR COST ANALYSES VS. THOSE CALCULATED USING FINAL
           GUIDANCE METHODS (/tg/1) 	A-2

TABLE A-2   COMPARISON OF AQUATIC LIFE VALUES CALCULATED USING
           FINAL GUIDANCE METHODS VS. THE MOST STRINGENT HUMAN
           HEALTH AND WILDLIFE CRITERIA (/ig/1)	A-3

TABLE B-l   WILDLIFE VALUES FOR RIA/INFORMATION USED TO
           CALCULATE VALUES	B-4

TABLE B-2   EXPOSURE PARAMETERS	B-5

TABLE B-3   WILDLIFE VALUES VS. CHRONIC AQUATIC LIFE VALUES FOR
           SK INORGANIC COMPOUNDS	B-5

-------
                                                        LIST OF FIGURES
                           LIST OF FIGURES

                                                                 Page

FIGURE 2-1  COMPLIANCE COST DECISION MATRIX	  2-27

FIGURE 3-1  FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR DIRECT
           DISCHARGERS:  LOW-END SCENARIO	  3-5

FIGURE 3-2  FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES FOR DIRECT
           DISCHARGERS:  HIGH-END SCENARIOS	  3-11
                                  VI

-------
                                                               EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       On April 16,  1993, the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) proposed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance (58 FR 20802) that included minimum water quality criteria,
antidegradation  provisions, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System.  In
support of the Regulatory Impact Analysis for this proposal, an estimate of the incremental cost
to direct dischargers resulting from the implementation of the proposed Guidance was developed.
The resulting estimate reflected the  incremental cost of complying with prospective permit
requirements stemming from compliance with procedures and water quality criteria specified in
the proposed Guidance.  In addition, because some of the  compliance costs may be passed on
to users of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), preliminary cost estimates for indirect
dischargers  (i.e., dischargers to POTWs)  were developed.  Preliminary  estimates of the
reductions of pollutant loadings resulting from implementation of the proposed Guidance were
also developed to evaluate the resulting cost-effectiveness.

       In response to the public comments received on the proposed Guidance, EPA has revised
the proposed Guidance to address many of the issues raised by the public. While revising the
proposed Guidance, EPA requested support in evaluating the costs associated with complying
with the final Guidance.  This report provides compliance  cost information for use by EPA in
decision-making for the final Guidance.  The primary purpose of this study was to develop the
cost of control measures (e.g., pollution prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, or other pollutant
controls) needed by point sources to meet effluent limitations developed using the final Guidance
water quality criteria and implementation procedures.   The estimate considers  only the
incremental cost of complying with the final Guidance.

I.     METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING COMPLIANCE COSTS AND
       POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS

       In general, the basic methodology used to estimate compliance costs and  pollutant load
reductions attributable to the proposal was employed to estimate costs for the final Guidance.
However, the approach was revised based on comments received by EPA to more accurately
project the costs to the regulated community and to better account  for the pollutant load
reductions.   Several of the significant revisions are described briefly below.

       •      Improved Data Collection:  For the final Guidance, the current information and
             data  (including permits, fact sheets, permit applications, and other  relevant
             discharge information) were updated and verified, and were used as the basis for
             comparison to Guidance requirements.  In addition,  State permitting authorities
             were requested to review each sample facility and provide recommendations or
             comments  so that the facilities were represented accurately.  Comments provided
             by States in response to the original cost estimates were also considered.
                                        ES-1

-------
                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       •      Consideration of Additional Pollutants: In addition to the 32 pollutants for which
              numeric criteria are  being  published as part of the final Guidance,  37 other
              pollutants were included in the cost analysis.  These 37 pollutants were identified
              at the sample facilities  and  were determined to have potential impacts on costs
              and pollutant loadings.  This increased the total number of pollutants evaluated
              to 69.

       *      Use of Tier I Criteria and Tier  II Values: Water quality criteria for  the 69
              pollutants were developed using the Tier I and Tier n methodologies outlined in
              Appendices A, B, C, and D of the final Guidance and readily available toxicity
              data. In addition, EPA  revised many of the criteria originally proposed under the
              Guidance,  including promulgating criteria  for metals in the dissolved form as
              opposed to the total form for aquatic life.

       •      Additivity: The estimate of costs for the sample facilities accounted for additivity
              of human carcinogenic effects of pollutants contained in a discharge. To estimate
              costs for the final Guidance, it was assumed that the total carcinogenic risk of the
              mixture of two or more carcinogens in a discharge would not exceed a lifetime
              incremental cancer risk equal to one in 100,000 (10~5).

       •      Intake Credits:   The presence  of intake water pollutants in  establishing water
              quality-based effluent  limits  was considered in  accordance with the final
              Guidance.

       In general, the assessment of compliance costs was revised to reflect modifications made
to the final Guidance to provide increased  flexibility for State and Tribal implementation.  For
purposes of estimating compliance costs, it was assumed that permitting authorities would use
the more stringent provisions specified in the final Guidance even when the Guidance provides
for less stringent alternatives.

       Finally, in an effort to ensure consistency in estimating the general types of controls that
would  be necessary for  a  sample facility to comply with the  final Guidance,  as well as to
integrate into the cost analysis the alternatives available through the final Guidance (e.g., phased
total maximum daily  loads/water  quality assessments,  site-specific criteria  modifications,
alternative mixing zones,  etc.), a costing decision matrix was used for each sample facility.  The
underlying assumption of  the decision  matrix  is that  facilities would first pursue least-cost
controls prior to incurring the costs to install end-of-pipe treatment.   As a final step before
assuming that treatment would be installed by the facility, the relationship between the cost of
adding the treatment and  other types of remedies or controls were considered.  If it was
concluded that other remedies or controls would be more feasible than installing end-of-pipe
treatment, then it was assumed that a facility would alternatively pursue some type of regulatory
relief from the Guidance water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL).

       Two different cost scenarios were developed for the final Guidance to primarily account
for the flexibility provided  in the Guidance (i.e., use of regulatory relief).  Under the low-end
compliance cost scenario, if the estimated annualized cost for removal of a pollutant by a facility
exceeded $200 per toxic  pounds-equivalent then it was assumed that the facility  would explore

                                         ES-2

-------
                                                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
the use of other remedies or controls.  Acknowledging that the use of regulatory relief may be
limited depending upon the particular circumstances for a "facility," compliance costs were also
estimated under a high-end cost scenario that assumes regulatory relief would be granted only
when the cost  for the particular "category  of dischargers"  exceeds $500 per toxic  pounds-
equivalent.  Under the high-end scenario, when the trigger for the category was exceeded, then
it was assumed that dischargers within the "category" would be granted regulatory relief.

H.     RESULTS

       The total annualized cost of the  final Guidance will be between $61 million (low-end) and
$376 million (high-end).  Table ES-1 presents a breakdown of costs for direct and indirect
dischargers.  Under the low-end estimate, direct dischargers account  for 67 percent of the total
estimated compliance costs  and indirect dischargers account for the remaining 33  percent.
Under the high-end estimate, direct dischargers account for 98  percent of the total estimated
cost, and indirect dischargers account for 2  percent. The increase  in capital costs under the
high-end resulted in a greater percentage of the costs associated with direct discharging facilities.


   TABLE ES-1  SUMMARY OF ANNUALIZED  COMPLIANCE COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
                    FINAL GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE
COST CATEGORIES
Major Direct Dischargers-
Industrial
Major Direct Dischargers-
Municipal
Minor Direct Dischargers
Indirect Dischargers
TOTAL
LOW-END COST SCENARIO
ESTIMATED
COSTS*
15.7
23.8
. 1.6
19.9
61.0
GROUP COST
AS PERCENT OF
TOTAL COST
25.8%
39.0%
2.6%
32.6%
100.0%
HIGH-END COST SCENARIO
ESTIMATED
COSTS*
108.2
259.8
1.6
6.6
376.2
GROUP COST
AS PERCENT OF
TOTAL COST
28.7%
69.1%
0.4%
1.8%
100.0%
   First Quarter 1994 $, Millions
Low-End Scenario Cost E.^i

       Under the low-end cost estimate for the direct dischargers, municipal majors are expected
to incur 58 percent of total costs and industrial majors account for 38 percent of total compliance
costs.  Minor direct dischargers  are estimated to incur 4 percent  of the total  costs for direct
dischargers.  The two major industrial categories with the largest total annualized cost are the
pulp and paper (20 percent of total) and miscellaneous (11 percent) categories.  The food and
food products, metal finishing, mining, and  metals manufacturing categories are estimated to
incur less than 1 percent of the total annualized compliance cost.
                                         ES-3

-------
                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       Although the municipal major category accounts for over 58 percent of the total estimated
cost under the low-end,  the average annual cost is just  over $75,000 per facility.  Average
annualized costs for industrial majors vary widely across categories, with the highest average
cost estimated for the miscellaneous ($168,000 per plant) and pulp and paper  ($151,000 per
plant) categories.  For minor  facilities, average  costs are negligible at an estimated $500 per
facility.

       Costs to direct dischargers  for developing and implementing  pollutant minimization
programs (required when WQBELs are below analytical  detection levels) account for most of
the low-end costs (58 percent of total annual costs).  Annualized  capital and operation  and
maintenance (O&M) costs  make up just over 21 percent of the total annual costs  and waste
minimization (i.e., pollution prevention) costs account for just over 11 percent.  Under the low-
end cost scenario, regulatory  relief was assumed  when the control costs  for a pollutant at a
facility exceeded $200 per toxic pounds-equivalent. Based on the analysis of sample facilities,
it was estimated that  regulatory relief would be required for less than 1 percent of all direct
dischargers.  For these facilities, cost for controls to comply with the final Guidance (e.g.,
capital and O&M, pollutant minimization programs,  waste minimization, etc.) were shifted to
costs related to pursuing  regulatory relief.   The resulting costs  associated  with pursuing
regulatory relief account for just over 6 percent of the total annual costs.

       Controls for mercury account for over 20 percent of annual low-end costs (attributable
primarily to pollutant minimization program-related  costs).  Other pollutants that account for
significant costs include methylene chloride, aluminum, benzene,  and copper.

High-End Scenario Cost Estimates

       Under the high-end scenario, regulatory relief was assumed necessary when the total cost
for a category exceeded  $500 per toxic pounds-equivalent reduced. Only the steam electric
industrial category was estimated to exceed the $500 toxic pounds-equivalent cost trigger.  In
general, estimated costs for end-of-pipe treatment of significant volumes of non-contact cooling
water accounted for the  high  costs within the steam electric category.  As a result of these
significant costs, costs for end-of-pipe treatment were shifted to costs to pursue regulatory relief
for certain high volume steam electric facilities.

       Under the high-end estimate for the direct dischargers, municipal majors are expected
to incur just over 69 percent of total costs and industrial majors account for 29 percent of total
annual compliance costs.  Minor direct dischargers are estimated to incur less than 1  percent of
the total costs.

       The two major industrial categories with the largest total annualized cost are the pulp and
paper (23 percent of total) and miscellaneous (3 percent) categories.  Even under the high-end,
the food and food products, metal finishing, mining, and metals manufacturing categories are
still estimated to incur less than 1 percent of the total annualized compliance cost. In addition,
due to the shift from end-of-pipe treatment to regulatory relief, the steam electric category also
accounts for less than 1 percent of the total compliance cost.
                                          ES-4

-------
                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       The municipal major category accounts for just over 69 percent of the total estimated
.cost, the average annual cost is just over $822,000 per facility.  Average annualized costs for
industrial majors vary widely across categories, with the highest average cost estimated for pulp
and paper ($1,583,000 per plant) and miscellaneous ($433,700 per plant) categories. For minor
facilities, average costs' are negligible at an estimated $500 per facility.

       For the high-end scenario, costs to direct dischargers shifted away from developing and
implementing pollutant  minimization plans and waste minimization  to capital,  operating and
maintenance costs (over 52 percent of total  annual costs) associated with construction and
application  of end-of-pipe  treatment.   Annualized  costs for developing and implementing
pollutant  minimization  plans make up just over 6 percent of total annual costs and waste
minimization costs account for less than 1 percent. Since regulatory relief was assumed for only
one category under the high-end, the costs associated with regulatory  relief account for less than
1 percent of the total annual compliance cost.

       Controls  for lead account for over 60 percent of annual costs (attributable primarily to
end-of-pipe treatment related controls). Other pollutants that account for significant costs include
heptachlor, pentachlorophenol, lindane, and mercury.

Comparison of Estimated Costs for the Final Guidance to Costs of Proposed Guidance

       The original proposal estimates were revised to reflect changes made in the approach to
estimating costs  for the final Guidance.  The reevaluated original proposal resulted was about
$240 million (low-end scenario) and $265 million (high-end scenario) higher than estimates for
the final Guidance.

       The annual cost  estimate for the final Guidance is  significantly lower than the revised
estimates for the proposed Guidance.  Some of this reduction is attributable to the final Guidance
intake credit provisions, which provide relief to several significant dischargers that discharge to
non-attained waters,  and to  the use of dissolved metals criteria, which also tends to lower  the
costs for the final Guidance.

       Common to both the reevaluated proposal and the  final Guidance, the lowering of  the
permit baseline also  accounts for an overall decrease in compliance costs and load reduction.
The lowering of  the  permit baseline  was expected due to State implementation of  the
requirements of Section  303(c) of the Clean Water Act, which  required all States to promulgate
water quality criteria for certain toxic pollutants.  To ensure  that the requirements of Section
303(c) are met, EPA promulgated the National Toxics Rule (57 FR 6084; 12/22/92) to provide
water quality criteria for pollutants  for  which States  did  not promulgate criteria.  More
important, each of the Great Lake States has been actively involved  in the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative since  1989, acting as  co-partners and major participants in  developing  the
Guidance.

       Consequently, most of the Guidance and current State water quality standards have a
wide number  of similarities.  In  fact, some States have already elected to promulgate more
stringent requirements  for  a variety of Guidance-related provisions in anticipation of the
Guidance.  As a result  of these and many other efforts by States, the stringency of National

                                          ES-5

-------
                                                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements continues to increase,
which decreases the incremental difference between the current State permit limits and Guidance-
based WQBELs.

m.    POLLUTANT LOADINGS REDUCTIONS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS

       Toxic pounds-equivalent represent a unit of measurement that permit uniform comparison
among pollutants based on their relative toxicity.  For example, reducing the discharge of
aluminum by 10 pounds will have a different effect on the environment as compared to reducing
the discharge of mercury by 10 pounds.  Normalizing the pollutant loading reductions by using
toxic weight factors enables one to compare the relative impacts of these pollutant  loading
reductions.

       For the final Guidance,  the toxicity-weighted baseline pollutant loading was projected to
be just over 35  million toxic pounds-equivalent per year (Ibs-eq/year). This baseline pollutant
loading represents almost a 72 percent reduction in the baseline projected by EPA for its original
analysis of the proposed Guidance (126 million Ibs-eq/year).

       This downward shift in  the baseline pollutant loadings is particularly significant in light
of the fact that over 35 more pollutants were added for the analysis of the final Guidance. This
shift is attributable to the fact that the existing permit baseline also moved downward (i.e.,
existing permit limits for the sample facilities were found to be more stringent). This downward
shift in the permit baseline is due, in part, to increased efforts by States to protect water quality.
The use of dissolved criteria for metals for the final Guidance, which tended to eliminate metals
for the cost and loading analysis also accounted for a shift in the baseline.  Finally, in contrast
to the cost analysis for the proposed Guidance, where baseline loads were estimated even when
all data were reported below analytical detection levels (in the absence of a permit limit), the
cost  analysis for the final Guidance excluded pollutants that were never  detected from further
evaluation.

       Upon implementation of the final Guidance, the estimated pollutant loadings under the
low-end estimate would be reduced by 5.8 million Ibs-eq/year, which represents a 16  percent
reduction of the baseline pollutant loadings. Under the high-end cost estimate, pollutant loading
reductions would increase by 1.8 million Ibs-eq/year to a total of 7.6 million Ibs-eq/year, which
represents a 22  percent reduction of the baseline pollutant loadings.

       The percent reductions estimated for the final Guidance are also lower than projected for
the proposed Guidance reevaluated using the revised approach for estimating costs and load
reductions.  Pollutant loadings  under the proposed Guidance would be 8.4 million Ibs-eq/year
(24 percent reduction) and 10.1 million Ibs-eq/year (29 percent reduction)  for the low- and high-
end scenarios, respectively.  The drop in estimated pollutant loadings can also be credited to the
changes made by EPA to the criteria for the final Guidance (e.g., adjusting bioaccumulation
factors, use of dissolved criteria for metals) and the toxic weights.  The combined result of these
changes was essentially less stringent criteria, which would tend to reduce the difference between
existing permit  limits and the Guidance-based WQBELs.
                                         ES-6

-------
                                                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       Under the low-end estimate for the final Guidance, the largest pollutant load reductions
occur for dieldrin and lead, which account for over 50 percent toxic weighted load reduction.
Chlordane, heiptachlor, and pentachlorobenzene were also reduced by significant amounts from
the baseline.  Under the high-end estimate, the largest pollutant  load  reductions  occur for
heptachlor, dieldrin, and lead which account for about 70 percent of the toxic weighted load
reduction.

       Approximately 80 percent of the  pollutant load reduction for the final Guidance,
regardless of the scenario, is attributable to reducing BCCs as a result of pollutant minimization
plans and end-of-pipe treatment.

       The cost-effectiveness  of the final Guidance under the low-end estimate is just under
$7.00/lbs-eq for the direct dischargers only; with  the cost  for indirect dischargers, the cost-
effectiveness rises to $10.30/lbs-eq.  Under  the high-end  estimate, the  cost-effectiveness
increases to just over $49.00/lbs-eq.

       The estimates for the  final Guidance are considerably more cost-effective than  those
estimated for the proposed Guidance using the revised approach ($35.96/lbs-eq and $63.83/lbs-
eq); low-end and high-end scenarios, respectively). For comparative purposes, cost-effectiveness
values for effluent limitations guidelines and standards range from just over $1.00/lbs-eq to over
$500/lbs-eq.

IV.    EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

       The proposed Guidance generated extensive comments related to  the potential costs of
numerous aspects of the Guidance. In response to the issues raised regarding the cost of various
provisions of the Guidance,  additional analyses were performed to evaluate the impact of
possible regulatory options to  address these issues.

Fish Consumption Rates

       Many commenters believed that EPA's proposed fish consumption rate of 15 grams per
day (grams/day) for establishing  human health protection criteria would not be protective of
recreational and subsistence anglers such as the Native American anglers and minority anglers,
or women of childbearing age and children within the Great Lakes Basin.  Further,  some
commenters suggested that a higher fish consumption rate ranging from 30-60 grams/day would
be necessary to protect lower income and minority subpopulations that eat more sport caught fish
on average.  The cost estimates for the final Guidance were based on a consumption rate of 45
grams/day. Decreasing the consumption rate to 15 grams/day had an insignificant impact on the
estimated compliance cost and expected pollutant load reductions.  The cost results at the high-
end also show relatively insignificant increases in estimated costs and pollutant load reductions.
The primary reason that decreasing fish consumption had little impact on costs or load reductions
was  due to the fact that the resulting  difference in criteria using  15 and 45  grams/day
assumptions was not significant enough to change the control options selected for a pollutant at
a particular facility. This was particularly the case  for most BCCs, for which criteria using 15
or 45 grams/day remained below  analytical detection levels.
                                        ES-7

-------
                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Use of Pollutant Minimization Programs When WOBELs Are Below Analytical Detection
Levels

       Procedure 8 of the final Guidance requires that the permitting authority require that a
pollutant minimization plan be required when a WQBEL is established below analytical detection
levels. The intent of the pollutant minimization plan is to reduce all sources of the pollutant to
maintain the effluent below analytical detection levels.  Although it is acknowledged that some
facilities will want to ensure compliance with WQBELs below detection levels through the use
of additional  or enhanced end-of-pipe treatment,  it  is likely  that an  aggressive pollutant
minimization program can successfully result in compliance with WQBELs below detection
levels.   Pollutant minimization programs account for a significant proportion  of the total
compliance cost under the low-end scenario.  The impact of these requirements were evaluated
by deriving cost estimates assuming that  permitting authorities would  only  require increased
monitoring for any pollutant for which a Guidance-based WQBEL was below analytical detection
levels. An analysis was performed of the impact of only requiring monitoring for pollutants for
which Guidance-based WQBELs are below analytical detection levels.

       It is estimated that annual compliance costs for direct dischargers will decrease by over
60 percent. The estimated pollutant load reductions decrease to  1.3 million Ibs-eq/day, which
is almost 80 percent less than the reduction estimated for the final Guidance.  Under the high-
end, compliance costs do not drop as dramatically as the low-end costs due to the shift towards
end-of-pipe treatment, however, the pollutant load reductions decrease by over 50 percent.

Intake Credits

       In generating cost estimates for the proposed Guidance, intake credits  were provided by
assuming there was no reasonable  potential for outfalls at facilities that added no additional
pollutants prior to discharge.  In an effort to evaluate the impact  of intake  credits on estimated
compliance costs,  compliance costs under a number of different intake credit scenarios were
developed.  For discharges to different bodies of water, no significant impact occurred (less than
O.S percent) to either the compliance costs or pollutant load reductions at either the low- or high-
end scenarios, regardless of whether intake credits are relaxed (no net increase) or made more
stringent (no intake credit allowed).  This result occurred because discharges  occurred only
infrequently to different bodies of water that were non-attained.

       Alternatively, the form  of intake credits does impact discharges to the same body of
water. When intake credits are allowed, a slight drop in costs is experienced concurrent with
a larger proportional drop in  pollutant load reduction.  At the low-end, compliance costs drop
by $700,000 (a  1.7 percent decrease), but pollutant load reductions drop by over 17  percent.
At the high-end, costs decrease  by less than 1 percent, but pollutant load reductions decrease by
13.5 percent.

       When intake credits were not allowed for discharges to  the same body of water, the
annual compliance costs for direct dischargers increased by $245 million,  representing over a
600  percent increase from the final Guidance  low-end estimate.   However,  pollutant load
reductions increased to 6.4 million Ibs-eq/year, which represents only a 9 percent increase from
                                          ES-8

-------
                                                                  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
the final Guidance low-end estimate.  The same trend results using high-end scenario costs
where the costs increase by over 60 percent, but pollutant reductions increase by only 7 percent.

Tier II Criteria

       One of the stated limitations of the cost estimate for the proposed Guidance was  that
compliance costs were not estimated for pollutants other than those for which numeric Tier I
criteria were proposed. The cost estimate for the final Guidance is based upon evaluation of
compliance with 69 pollutants of  initial focus. To determine the potential impact of the use of
Tier I criterion versus Tier n values, compliance costs under a variety of scenarios were
developed.

       If only Tier I criteria are used, the annual compliance costs for direct dischargers would
drop by $5 million, which is just under 12 percent of the final Guidance low-end estimate. The
pollutant load reductions would also decrease by about 8 percent of the estimate for the final
Guidance.   Under the high-end, both costs and pollutant load reductions  decrease similarly (2
percent drop in costs and 6 percent drop in pollutant load reduction from the high-end estimate
from the final Guidance).

       If Tier I and  n criteria are used for all pollutants, the annual compliance costs increase
insignificantly at both the low- and high-end. This result was expected since the scenario only
adds Tier n wildlife  values.  Although many of these additional Tier n wildlife values are more
stringent than other Guidance criteria, the impact is insignificant since both the Tier n wildlife
values and the other Guidance criteria are below analytical detection levels.

Wildlife Criteria/Mercury Criteria

       The final  Guidance limits the use  of the wildlife criteria  methodology  to the Tier I
procedure for the 22 BCCs for which sufficient data exist.   In response to the many concerns
raised regarding the  stringency of wildlife criteria and the potential significant costs associated
with complying with the criteria,  a number of alternatives were evaluated.

       Using additional wildlife criteria (beyond those required for the 22 BCCs) results in an
insignificant increase in annual compliance costs. Alternatively, excluding all wildlife criteria
also results in essentially no difference in compliance cost estimates and pollutant load reductions
at both the low- and high-end.  These results indicate that factors other than the wildlife criteria
tend to drive the costs of the final Guidance. In the absence of wildlife criteria, the Guidance
human health criteria would form the basis for Guidance-based WQBELs. The Guidance human
health criteria for most pollutants are below analytical  detection levels and, as such, the costs
for treatment and pollutant minimization  plans would be incurred  by a facility.  Although the
wildlife criteria in general are more stringent than the Guidance human health  criteria, they
would also result in Guidance-based WQBELs below analytical detection levels. Therefore, the
same  treatment  and pollutant minimization plan  requirements,  costs,  and pollutant load
reductions would occur.
                                         ES-9

-------
                                                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Allowance of Mixing Zones for BCCs

       As promulgated in Procedure 3 of Appendix F to Part 132, the final Guidance retained
the requirement for elimination of mixing zones for BCCs within 12 years. The final Guidance
also provides some flexibility to allow limited mixing zones for BCCs if the facility can show
that all prudent and  feasible  treatment technologies are being implemented to reduce the
discharge of BCCs to the maximum extent possible.  In estimating costs for the final Guidance,
it was conservatively assumed that no mixing zones would be allowed for BCCs.  To determine
the impact of this requirement on facilities (in terms of cost) and the environment (in terms of
pollutant load reductions), the sample facilities were reevaluated allowing the same mixing zones
for BCCs as are allowed for non-BCCs.

       The addition of mixing  zones for BCCs results in an estimated incremental annual cost
savings to direct dischargers of just over $200,000, which is less than a 0.5 percent decrease
from the final Guidance low-end cost estimate.  In  terms of pollutant load  reductions, the
addition of mixing zones results in an insignificant decrease in pollutant load reductions.  Slight
reductions in cost and pollutant load reductions were also found under the high-end  scenario.

       The relatively small impact associated with allowing mixing zones for  BCCs is due to
the fact that the criteria for most BCCs are relatively stringent, and usually well below analytical
detection levels.  Even with the dilution afforded  by the mixing zones, resulting WQBELs
remain below analytical detection levels and, as a result, do not drastically impact the costs and
load reductions (i.e.,  the pollutant  controls would not change if both WQBELs were below
analytical detection levels).

Additivitv

       In an effort to evaluate the impact of the additivity provision on the compliance cost of
the final Guidance, cost estimates for two scenarios were  developed.  Under one scenario, the
assumption was that additivity would be controlled if the total carcinogenic risk in a discharge
was less than 10*s and accounted for by assuming that individual criteria were based on a 10*5
risk level.   Under  the second  scenario,  the assumption was that the additive effects from
carcinogens would be  accounted for if individual criteria were based on a 10"6  risk level.

       The impact of the first scenario was relatively insignificant (less than 0.5 percent decrease
in costs and just over 1 percent decrease in pollutant load  reductions at both low- and high-end
estimates).  The relatively insignificant changes in cost and pollutant load reductions are based
on the  fact that most facilities  did not detect more than a few carcinogens in  their  discharge.
As a result, the final Guidance estimates (based upon a total carcinogenic risk of 10~5 but
accounted for by  distributing the risk across all carcinogens in the effluent) did not represent
more stringent WQBELs for carcinogens, as compared to only accounting for the risk through
the individual criteria.

       When the individual criteria risk level is adjusted down to 10"6, a more dramatic increase
in costs occurs.  A 10* risk level for individual criteria would increase the annual compliance
costs for direct dischargers to over $51 million under the low-end.  The  associated load
reductions do not increase as dramatically, accounting for only an additional 6,000 Ib-eq/year.

                                        ES-10

-------
                                                                 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The reason a large pollutant reduction did not accompany the large increase in costs under the
low-end scenario is the assumption that a significant number of facilities would pursue some sort
of regulatory relief, for which there is no pollutant reduction credit, to meet the more stringent
criteria based on a 10* risk level.

       The same trend occurs at the high-end, where costs increase by over 30 percent,  but
pollutant load reductions decrease by less than 1 percent. However, under the high-end scenario
where variances are limited to categories that exceed the high-end cost trigger, the significant
increase in costs is due to  the  costs associated with installing and maintaining end-of-pipe
treatment for pollutants impacted by  the  more  stringent criteria.   The insignificant load
reductions associated with the large increase in costs are due to the fact that some regulatory
relief was still justified under the high-end.  Further, for some pollutants with criteria below the
analytical detection level, the shift from criteria based on a 10s risk level  to criteria based on
a 10"* risk level resulted in criteria further below analytical detection levels, which had no impact
on pollutant load reductions.

Antidegradation

       It is assumed that the antidegradation provision of the final Guidance, as promulgated
under  Appendix E to Part 132,  may impact the regulated community.  However, due to  the
variety of site-specific factors that would  influence the future impact of the antidegradation
provision, it is uncertain whether the impact will be significant.  Therefore, an analysis of the
potential impact of the antidegradation provision was performed in the form of estimating  the
cost to lost opportunities for businesses in the Great Lakes Basin.

       Under the worst case where it was assumed that all (100 percent) facilities with BCCs
in their discharge (approximately 5 percent of all facilities) requested an antidegradation review
and were denied permission to increase loads, an opportunity cost of $43.2 million would be lost
due to the Guidance.  More realistically, if it was assumed that half (SO percent) of the facilities
requesting antidegradation reviews for BCCs were allowed to increase discharges, only $21.6
million of opportunity cost would be lost each year.  Finally, assuming that only 10 percent of
the facilities discharging BCCs request an antidegradation review, and only half are denied, then
the opportunity lost for growth would be approximately $2.2 million.

       If the low-end estimate is used, then a modest 3 percent increase in the low-end annual
compliance cost results.  The potential benefits, although  not quantified,  could be relatively
significant for some receiving waters because additional discharges of BCCs would be denied.

Future Impact of Detection Levels

       In recent years, several States in the Great Lakes System have promulgated water quality
criteria for various toxic pollutants that are more restrictive than the level of analytical detection.
Implementation of these existing water quality criteria by these States do take into account  the
ability to detect the pollutant in the wastestream. Likewise, Procedure 8, Appendix F, of Part
132 clearly provides that the water quality-based effluent limit must be derived from the water
quality criterion; compliance with that limit, however, will be based on the minimum level (ML)
where  available. When a promulgated ML is not available, compliance with that limit may be

                                        ES-11

-------
                                                                EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
based on the lowest level of quantification (at the State's discretion) defined in Procedure 8 of
Part 132.

       In estimating the compliance cost for the final Guidance, it was conservatively assumed
that the method detection level (MDL) would serve as the compliance level. In actuality, the
State permitting authority is only required to use the ML (as defined under 40 CFR Part 136)
as the basis for reporting compliance with the Guidance-based WQBEL.  Although the pollutant
MDL was used for costing purposes, it is acknowledged that estimating  treatment  costs for
WQBELs below the MDL, and most likely below the ML, would  be speculative for many
pollutants, particularly as such estimation relates to expected future performance.

       Nevertheless, an evaluation of the potential impact that improvements  to analytical
detection levels would have on compliance cost estimates was performed.  In particular, costs
and pollutant load  reductions were estimated under two scenarios, one that assumes MDLs
improve 10-fold over time and another that assumes MDLs improve 100-fold over time.  This
equivalent to a 30  to 60 fold or 300 to 600  fold improvement, respectively, in the minimum
level of quantification, which is used for determining compliance in the final Guidance.

       The results  of the analysis  show conceivable increases in  estimated compliance costs.
When MDLs become  10  times more stringent, annual costs increase by over $500  million
dollars. Pollutant load reductions also increase when MDLs decrease 10-fold by over 12 million
toxic pounds-equivalent per year.  When MDLs become 100 times more stringent, the annual
compliance costs are  estimated to increase  by  just over $880 million  and  pollutant  load
reductions would increase by approximately 19 million toxic pounds-equivalent per year above
the  final Guidance estimates.  These results indicate that as analytical detection levels improve,
the  costs to implement the final Guidance increase. However, the increase in compliance costs
are  offset by comparable pollutant  load reductions.
                                        ES-12

-------
SECTION 1                                                             INTRODUCTION
                                 1.  INTRODUCTION

       On April 16, 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance (58 FR 20802) which included minimum water quality criteria,
antidegradation provisions, and implementation procedures for the Great Lakes System.   In
support of this proposal, an estimate of the incremental cost to direct dischargers resulting from
the implementation of the proposed Guidance was developed. The resulting estimate reflected
the incremental cost of complying with  prospective permit requirements stemming from
compliance with procedures and water quality criteria specified in the proposed Guidance.  In
addition, because some of the compliance costs may be passed on to users of publicly owned
treatment works, preliminary cost estimates for indirect dischargers (i.e., dischargers to POTWs)
were  developed.  Preliminary estimates of the reductions of pollutant loadings resulting from
implementation of the proposed Guidance also were developed to evaluate the resulting cost-
effectiveness.

       In response to the public comments received on the proposed Guidance, EPA has revised
the proposed Guidance to address many of the issues raised by the public.  While revising the
proposed Guidance, EPA requested support in evaluating the costs associated with complying
with the final Guidance.

1.1    PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

       This report provides compliance cost information for use by EPA in decision-making for
the final Guidance.  The primary purpose of this study was to develop the cost of control
measures (e.g., pollution prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, or other pollutant controls) needed
by point sources to meet effluent limitations developed using the final Guidance water quality
criteria  and Implementation Procedures.  The estimate considers only the incremental cost of
complying with the final Guidance.

       The overall approach to developing a cost estimate for control measures for point sources
due to implementation of the final Guidance was the same as that used for estimating costs for
the proposed Guidance.  In general, this approach involved developing detailed cost estimates
for a  randomly selected subset of facilities and then extrapolating  these costs to the  entire
population of facilities. In estimating compliance costs for the selected facilities, SAIC generally
compared existing permit limitations, which are representative of nationally promulgated effluent
limitations and existing State  water quality  standards,  to  prospective water quality-based
limitations based on the final Guidance.  The control measures needed to provide the incremental
pollutant removal required to comply with the new Guidance-based effluent limitations were then
evaluated.  Finally,  compliance costs were  estimated for  these control  measures based on
information on treatment technologies and cost analyses available in the literature.

       The secondary purposes of this study were to revise estimates of the potential compliance
costs to indirect dischargers and estimates of the cost-effectiveness of the final Guidance. The
costs to indirect dischargers are based  on an estimated percentage of indirect dischargers that

                                         1-1

-------
SECTION 1                                                              INTRODUCTION

would incur compliance costs similar to direct dischargers. Cost-effectiveness, defined as the
incremental annualized cost of a pollution control option per incremental pound-equivalent of
pollutant removed by  that control  option,  is  based on the methodology used by  EPA in
developing national effluent guideline's limitations and standards under the Clean Water Act
(CWA).

      This analysis represents a "snapshot" of current  conditions.  It does not address the
economic impacts on specific firms or the region as a whole. It does not attempt to address the
effects or costs of future changes in policy, science, or the industrial structure or population of
the Great Lakes region.  The costs estimated here do not include the ancillary costs of pollutant
treatment technologies that generate transfers to other media (i.e., air and ground water).  In
addition, this report addresses costs to existing point source dischargers only.  It does not
attempt  to  identify the least costly means of controlling a particular pollutant or to allocate
available loads equitably between point and non-point sources.

      Finally, this report does not identify or estimate benefits of compliance with the final
Guidance.  Information on benefits is being developed by EPA using a case study approach in
a separate study.

1.2   ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT

      The remainder of this report is organized into four sections.  Section 2 describes the
revisions made to the methodology for calculating compliance costs for the final Guidance.
Section  3 discusses the results of the revised cost estimates  related to the final Guidance.
Section 4 presents the estimates of cost-effectiveness of the final Guidance.  Section 5 presents
the results of evaluations performed on regulatory alternatives to the final Guidance that were
identified and considered by EPA.
                                          1-2

-------
 SECTION 2                                                            METHODOLOGY
                                2. METHODOLOGY

       This section updates the methodology used to estimate the costs for  the  regulated
community to implement the final Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance (the final Guidance).
The methodology used  to estimate  costs for the  proposed  Guidance was presented hi the
"Assessment of Compliance Costs for Point Source Dischargers Resulting from Implementation
of the Proposed Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative," April 16,  1993.  The  revisions  and
updates to the original methodology presented here were made primarily in response to revisions
to the proposed Guidance, comments received during the public comment period, and comments
from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  The revised methodology is provided as
a supplement to the April 16,1993 report and, as such, does not repeat all information presented
previously.

2.1    SUMMARY OF METHOD FOR DEVELOPING COST ESTIMATE FOR THE
       PROPOSED GUIDANCE

       The overall approach to developing a cost estimate for control measures for point sources
due to implementation of the proposed Guidance was to develop detailed cost estimates for a
randomly selected subset of facilities and then extrapolate these costs to the entire population of
facilities.   A  sample of 50  facilities  was selected to represent  the estimated 588 major
dischargers and 9 minor facilities to represent the 3,207 minor dischargers in the Great Lakes
Basin.  For major dischargers, sample facilities were selected from each of the major categories
of facilities, which  included  nine primary  industrial  groups and  a category for municipal
wastewater treatment facilities, also known as Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). The
nine industrial categories were Mining,  Food and Food Products, Pulp and Paper, Inorganic
Chemical Manufacturing,  Organic  Chemical  Manufacturing/Petroleum Refining,  Metals
Manufacturing,  Electroplating/Metal   Fabrication,  Steam  Electric  Power  Plants,  and
Miscellaneous facilities (e.g., remedial clean-up discharges, tire manufacturers). Sample major
facilities also  were  selected to ensure  representation across facility size (as  measured by
discharge flow volume), through stratification by flow within each category.

       Because minimal compliance costs were  anticipated by minor dischargers, a  limited
number of randomly selected minor dischargers were analyzed to verify that assumption.
Furthermore, because limited discharge flow data were available for minor dischargers, it was
not possible to adopt a flow-stratified analytical plan similar to that used for major dischargers.

       For each sample  facility under review, the most current National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit data and background information were collected to calculate
the limits that would  be anticipated from current regulatory requirements (if not incorporated
into the current permit) and to develop  additional permit requirements based on the proposed
Guidance. Information was gathered from State and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Regional files that included permit applications, permit  fact sheets or rationale,  inspection
reports, discharge monitoring reports, pretreatment reports, short-term waste characterization
studies, receiving stream low-flow scenarios and total maximum daily loads/waste load allocation

                                         2-1

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

reports, and any other readily available information including industry-wide studies of various
industrial categories used in developing effluent guidelines.

       For each sample  facility,  new permit limits and additional permit conditions  were
developed based on the implementation procedures in the proposed Guidance.  The proposed
criteria would require some permitted facilities to meet new limits and  adopt other permit
conditions, such as whole effluent  toxicity testing and additional monitoring.  The limits
developed for estimating costs were calculated for those 32 pollutants for which numeric Tier
I criteria were proposed.  For a given facility, only those pollutants that were detected in the
discharge, or expected to be present in the discharge but  reported as not detected because of use
of less sensitive EPA-approved analytical methods, were  evaluated. The need for whole effluent
toxicity limits and monitoring was also evaluated in accordance with the proposal.  For each
facility, limits  were calculated for the  outfalls that  contain or may  contain observed  or
anticipated loadings for the pollutants of concern.

       If the  existing effluent limits for some of the permitted facilities selected did not reflect
current State water quality standards and implementation policies, permit limits were recalculated
to reflect the  newly revised State standards and requirements, which are based on the adoption
of toxic water quality standards under Section 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean  Water Act (CWA)
(referred to here as baseline requirements). This approach more accurately reflected differences
between existing effluent limits based on newly revised State requirements and procedures
required in the proposed Guidance.

       In determining specific requirements imposed by the proposed Guidance, site-specific
wasteload allocations (WLAs) for discharges to both  the open waters of the Great Lakes and
then* tributaries were calculated  using equations set forth in the proposed implementation
procedures.  Because of the general lack of readily available background concentration data for
receiving waters, two different WLAs were calculated for each sample facility.  The first WLA
assumed zero background in the absence of background data  (WLA #1).  The second WLA
assumed a value for background concentrations where no background data existed (WLA #2).
The assumed background values were approximately 50 percent of the proposed Guidance water
quality criteria.

       The resulting WLAs then  were used  to  establish water quality-based effluent limits
(WQBELs) for the sample facilities; the daily maximum WQBEL for a pollutant was set equal
to the Final Acute Value, which represents the WLA to  achieve the acute aquatic life criterion;
monthly average WQBELs were set equal to the most stringent WLA calculated to protect
chronic aquatic  life, wildlife, or human health criteria.  When negative WLAs were calculated
for a pollutant (because discharges from all sources of pollutants would be expected to exceed
criteria for a receiving water), two different sets of WQBFXs were calculated for each facility,
which  resulted hi different compliance cost scenarios.  In cases where  negative WLAs were
calculated using WLA #1, the WQBEL was set equal to the most stringent water quality criteria
(WQBEL #1); when negative WLAs  were calculated using WLA #2, then the WQBEL was set
equal to the assumed background concentration (WQBEL #2).
                                         2-2

-------
SECTION 2                                                            METHODOLOGY

       If either WQBEL #1 or WQBEL #2 was more stringent than the existing effluent limits-
cither hi current permits or calculated against current regulatory requirements—then costs were
developed based on options that likely would be available to the facility to comply with the more
stringent effluent limits.

       To estimate costs to the particular facilities reviewed and to develop potential compliance
options, an engineering analysis for each facility in the sample was conducted.  This included
a review of existing treatment systems at the facility and an assessment of the need to add new
or  supplement existing treatment capabilities.    Having defined the control  options,  the
compliance costs  to  facilities implementing each option  were estimated.  Compliance costs
generally included treatment costs, monitoring, and operations and maintenance costs, and a
variety of one-time costs of limited durations (e.g., waste minimization audits of production
processes).   Residual management costs were  also estimated  for industrial  and municipal
facilities that were projected to install end-of-pipe treatment and generate additional sludge (e.g.,
sludge produced from chemical precipitation).

       If the analysis showed that additional treatment was the most likely control method to be
used to comply with either WQBEL #1 or #2, then it was generally assumed that this treatment
would be added as an end-of-pipe unit process  (i.e., the treatment unit process would be added
at a point just prior to discharge to the receiving water). While additional treatment at end-of-
pipe may be  neither  technically nor economically efficient in a  variety of circumstances,  the
necessary facility-  or process-specific information,  such as contributing wastewater flows, in-
plant treatment capabilities or opportunities, process waste  characteristics, or  recycling
capabilities that would allow an assessment of other potentially less expensive alternatives were
not available.

       In many instances, however, it was determined that additional end-of-pipe treatment was
not necessary to allow a facility to meet Guidance-based WQBELs.  This was  the case  where
existing treatment facilities could accomplish the required treatment, the incremental amounts
of pollutants to be removed were insignificant, or where waste minimization/pollution prevention
control techniques were believed to be adequate to comply with the Guidance. The appropriate
control technique, therefore, was determined by the best professional judgement of the engineer
performing the costing analysis, based on the available facility file information.

       In the case  of POTWs, consideration was given to the number and types of industrial
users discharging  to  the collection system, as well as the size  of the POTW.  If additional
pretreatment controls or modifications seemed unlikely to achieve the pollutant reductions, then
additional treatment at the POTW  was considered the next most likely option.

       Monitoring costs for permitted facilities  were also estimated.  In those cases  where
additional parameters and limitations were  deemed necessary because of the Guidance,  the
monitoring regimes (i.e.,  sampling frequency) were established consistent with the existing
monitoring requirements for other  parameters.  Monitoring costs were then estimated based on
average costs per analytical method for the more common techniques.
                                         2-3

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

       Because the discharge of bioaccumulative chemicals of concern (BCCs) is  of special
interest under the proposed Guidance, monitoring-only costs were included for Tier I BCCs for
all affected facilities, regardless of whether Tier I BCCs were detected or expected to be present
in a discharge.

       A number of other costs were also considered depending on the specific circumstances
surrounding a particular type of facility.  These were generally one-time costs related  to
pollutant minimization studies,  bioconcentration  studies, whole effluent toxicity  testing,
pretreatment program revisions,  waste minimization audits, and implementation of pollution
prevention techniques.  Generally, these costs were included with the capital costs for purposes
of calculating annualized costs of compliance.

       Four different cost estimates were developed to account for differences between limits
based on WLA #1 (zero background absent actual data) and WLA #2 (assumed 50 percent  of
the most stringent Guidance criteria as background absent actual data), as well as the potential
range of costs associated with implementation of waste and pollutant minimization studies and
controls. These scenarios are described below.

       Scenario  1:  Limits based on WLA #1 and the low end of the estimated range of
       waste minimization costs for all facilities.

       Scenario 2: Limits based on WLA #2, the middle of the estimated range of waste
       minimization costs for industrial facilities, and the high end of the estimated range
       costs for the POTWs aggressively implementing the  pretreatment program  to
       promote source  control.

       Scenario 3t Limits based on WLA #2, the middle of the estimated range of waste
       minimization costs for industrial facilities, and end-of-pipe treatment installation
       by POTWs.

       Scenario 4:  Limits based on WLA #2, the high end of an estimated range  of
       waste minimization costs, and end-of-pipe treatment installation by  POTWs.

       The major difference between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 was the emphasis on pollution
prevention  versus end-of-pipe treatment.  Assumptions underlying Scenario 2  emphasized
pollution prevention through source control.   Scenario  3  focused on end-of-pipe treatment,
especially at POTWs.

       To develop a single cost estimate for each facility for each scenario described above, the
three cost  categories mentioned above  (treatment,  monitoring,  and one-tune costs)  were
combined into a single annualized cost, which reflects the annual economic costs associated with
recurring activities  (e.g., compliance  monitoring, and operation and  maintenance), repaying
capital expenses, and special studies.  Annualized costs were calculated by assuming that  all
capital costs and special study costs would be paid by borrowing money at an interest rate  of
                                          2-4

-------
SECTION 2                                                             METHODOLOGY

seven percent and paying it back over a 10-year period. Annual costs of monitoring, operation,
and maintenance were added directly.

       Given a single estimate of the annualized cost for each facility, the procedure for
extrapolating costs from the sample to the entire population was pre-determined by the stratified
random sampling procedure used to select the subset of facilities examined in detail. Using the
single  annualized cost  figure for  each plant,  an estimate of the cost for each category  was
calculated by averaging the values for applicable (sample) plants and then multiplying by the
total (population) number of plants in that stratum.  The cost estimate for the category  was
calculated by summing the strata in the category.  The cost estimate for the entire universe of
facilities was the sum across categories. This procedure was followed to estimate costs for each
scenario.

       An estimated 3,500 indirect industrial dischargers that discharge to POTWs in the Great
Lakes Basin were identified, and preliminary estimates of compliance costs were developed for
these dischargers.  These preliminary cost estimates were based on the assumption that indirect
dischargers affected by the proposed Guidance would incur costs comparable to those incurred
by direct industrial dischargers in the same category.  In addition, it was assumed that costs to
industrial users subject to categorical  pretreatment standards would be higher than the costs to
non-categorical significant industrial users. The following four scenarios for indirect dischargers
are consistent with the four cost scenarios developed for direct dischargers.

       Scenario 1:  Assumes that 10 percent of all indirect dischargers in the  Great
       Lakes Basin would install additional controls.

       Scenario 1:  Assumes that 30 percent of all indirect dischargers in the  Great
       Lakes Basin would install additional controls.

       Scenario 3:  Assumes that 20 percent of all indirect dischargers in the  Great
       Lakes Basin would install additional controls.

       Scenario 4:  Assumes that 20 percent of all indirect dischargers in the  Great
       Lakes Basin would install additional controls (same as Scenario 3).

       The estimated percent of indirect dischargers affected by the proposed Guidance  was
based on an assessment  of conditions involving industrial users and then* toxic discharges  to a
moderately large POTW in the Great Lakes Basin.

2.2    APPROACH FOR ESTIMATING  COMPLIANCE COSTS FOR  THE  FINAL
       GUIDANCE

       This  section discusses the revisions to the approach  used  to derive compliance  cost
estimates for the proposed Guidance.   The revisions to the approach are based primarily upon
the changes to the proposal discussed throughout the preamble and rule for the final Guidance,
and the public comments received on the methodology used for the proposal.

                                         2-5

-------
SECTION 2                                                             METHODOLOGY

       In general, the basic methodology attributed to the proposed Guidance (as described in
Section 2. 1) was employed to estimate compliance costs and pollutant load reductions for the
final Guidance.  However, the approach was revised, based on comments received, to more
accurately project the costs to the regulated community and to better account for the pollutant
load reductions.  Revisions to the original  analysis for the proposed Guidance are described
below.

       It should be noted that many of the  provisions included in the final Guidance provide
implementation flexibility for permitting authorities. Rather than requiring States and Tribes to
adopt a specific procedure, the final Guidance provides a recommended approach, and flexibility
was provided for the State or Tribe to use alternative approaches.  For purposes of estimating
compliance  costs, it was  assumed  that permitting authorities  would  use the  procedures
recommended by EPA in the preamble to  the final Guidance.  In general, the use of these
procedures was considered conservative for the costing analysis since it is likely that States will
sometimes adopt procedures that are less stringent than those recommended by EPA, and will
rarely adopt procedures that are more stringent.

       While the cost analysis implementation procedures were generally as, or more, stringent
than those  that will be  used by States, there  were a few areas  where assumptions  could
underestimate potential costs.  These include the following areas:

       • Cost analyses considered only 69 of the 138 pollutants of initial focus (see Section
         2.2.3.1).  It  is possible that other pollutants may eventually be detected hi facility
         discharges and  may require some  type of control.

       • Tier n values could be estimated  for only some of the  69 pollutants because actual
         procedures call for pollutant-specific evaluations.  Data collected by facilities  could
         result in more stringent Tier n values hi some instances.

       • Costs attributed to the antidegradation provisions of the final Guidance could only be
         estimated using a sensitivity analysis.   While the  assumptions were  considered
         conservative, the  actual costs may be higher or lower than predicted.
       • Where total maTimnm daily loads (TMDLs) are developed by States, the WLAs and
         resulting WQBELs will differ from those calculated in the cost analyses.  While this
         should generally result hi less stringent WQBELs for point sources, it could also result
         hi more stringent WQBELs under certain circumstances.

       Acknowledging that the assumptions noted above may result hi an underestimation of
potential costs, the analysis also utilized a number of assumptions that will likely result hi an
overestimation of costs.  Specific  elements  of the  costing analyses where more  stringent
assumptions were utilized are provided in Table 2-1 and Table 2-2.
                                          2-6

-------
SECTION 2
                           METHODOLOGY
   TABLE 2-1 COST STUDY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING CRITERIA/STANDARDS THAT ARE
                 MORE STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED BY FINAL GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE REQUIREMENT
Appendix B - Bioaccmnulation Factors (BAFs)
Human heath and wildlife criteria to be derived
using measured or predicted BAFs.

Appendix C - Human Health
Requires use of drinking water factors where
discharge is to open waters, connecting channels, or
designated drinking water sources.
Uses IS grams/day consumption rate.
MORE STRINGENT COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS

BAFs used to develop criteria for the costing
analysis were calculated using conservative
assumptions. BAFs were therefore more stringent
than those that would be calculated by States and
should result in more stringent criteria than would
be developed by States. Projected costs, therefore,
will likely overestimate actual costs.

Assumed all receiving waters were drinking water
sources. This resulted in more stringent criteria.
Therefore, projected costs will likely over-estimate
actual costs.
Assumed a fish consumption rate of 45 grams/day.
States will most likely use 15 grams/day; thus, the
cost projections will likely overestimate actual costs.
   TABLE 2-2 COST STUDY ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES
           THAT ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED BY FINAL GUIDANCE
            GUIDANCE REQUIREMENT
 MORE STRINGENT COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTION
 Procedure 1:  Site Specific Modifications
 Allows States to use more or less stringent, human
 health, wildlife, and aquatic life criteria and BAFs.
Cost analyses are based on final Guidance
recommendations.  It is most likely that States will
use the provision to relax criteria and BAFs, thus,
projected costs will likely overestimate actual costs.
 Procedures: TMDL/WLA
 All mixing zones for BCCs eliminated within 12
 years of rule publication.  Extensions may be granted
 for technical and economic considerations.

 Defines critical low flow for wildlife protection as
 the 90-year, 10-day flow (90Q10).
Assumed
                elimination of all mixing zones
for BCCs. Costs were developed assuming BCC
criteria were applied at end-of-pipe.  Since States
will likely allow mixing zones for many existing
sources up to 12 years, this would allow permittees
to defer some costs over the 12-year period.
Projected costs, therefore, will likely overestimate
actual costs.

Used 30-year, 5-day (30Q5) critical low flow for
protection of wildlife.
                                           2-7

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
 TABLE 2-2  ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION PROCEDURES THAT ARE MORE
              STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED BY FINAL GUIDANCE (continued)
GUIDANCE REQUIREMENT
Procedure 4: Additivity
Requires States to adopt an additivity provision.
Procedure 6: Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET)
WET limits must be determined where reasonable
potential is determined. States must develop and
apply WET limits, but may defer limit application
until sufficient data have been generated.
MORE STRINGENT COST ESTIMATE ASSUMPTION

WQBELs were calculated assuming that all
carcinogens were additive. Assumed an additive risk
of IxlO"5. This assumption is likely to be at the
stringent end of the options selected by States. The
projected costs, therefore, should slightly
overestimate actual costs.

Costed WET testing requirements for all facilities
where WET data were unavailable and where toxic
pollutants were present in discharge. Rigorous WET
testing requirements likely will exceed State
requirements; thus, projected costs likely will
overestimate actual costs.
Procedures: WQBELs Below Detection
Permits will specify the most sensitive analytical
technology and will establish the "Minimum Level of
Quantification" (MLOQ).
Cost analyses used the method detection level
(MDL) as the target concentration. Since the MDL
will be equal to, or more stringent than the MLOQ,
the projected costs will likely overestimate the actual
costs.
Procedure 9: Compliance Schedules
Final Guidance allows States to provide a three year
compliance period upon permit reissuance. This
could allow costs to be deferred for up to eight years
(i.e., five year permit cycle + three year schedule).
Cost analyses did not consider compliance schedules.
Costs were assumed to be incurred immediately.
Since States will likely provide compliance periods
for many existing sources, projected costs will likely
overestimate actual costs.
2.2.1  Selection of Direct Discharge Facilities

       The selection process for the 59 direct discharge facilities that were used to develop cost
estimates based  on the proposed  Guidance was described in  detail  in  the April 16, 1993
compliance cost report. The cost analyses for the final Guidance were performed for the same
group of direct dischargers with several exceptions described below.

       During the data collection effort for the revised cost analyses (described in Section 2.2.2
of this report),  it was determined that  four of the 59 sample  facilities had  either ceased
operation, altered manufacturing processes,  or redirected process discharges.  These facilities,
                                         2-8

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
therefore, were replaced by alternate facilities drawn at random from the appropriate category
and flow strata.  Table 2-3 summarizes the reasons for the removal of the facilities and presents
the facilities used as replacements.  In addition, Table 2-4 provides a complete list of the 59
study facilities used for  the final cost analyses.

           TABLE 2-3 DISCHARGERS REMOVED FROM THE COST ANALYSIS AND
                               REPLACEMENT FACILITIES
FACILITY NAME
Cyprus Northshore
Mining Corp.
(MI0046981)
RMI Company
(OH0002305)
Bellville Plating
Company
(MI00044S6)
Minnesota Power -
Dulutb (MN0001015)
CATEGORY
Mining
Metals Manufacturing
Metal Finishing
Steam Electric
REASON FOR REMOVAL
Process discharge was
redirected to a POTW.
Process discharge was
redirected to a POTW.
Process discharge was
redirected to a POTW.
Facility is not currently
operating. Effluent data and
other file information were,
therefore, unavailable.
ALTERNATE FACILITY
EVALUATED
Martin Marietta
(MI0004154)
Great Lakes Metals
Corporation
(OH0032727)
Johnson Control, Inc.
(MI0003484)
Holland BPW -
De Young Power Plant
(MI0001473)
2.2.2  Collection of Data/Information

       The original analysis for the proposed Guidance was performed based on data collected
from EPA Region 5, State permitting authorities, EPA development documents, and special
studies. Discharge data were based on 1990 Permit Compliance System (PCS) data, and facility-
specific permit file information were generally from 1992. For the final Guidance, the current
information and data (including permits,  fact sheets, permit applications, and other relevant
discharge information) were updated and verified, and were used as the basis for comparison to
Guidance requirements.  In addition, State permitting authorities were requested to review each
sample facility evaluated in the original cost estimate for the proposed Guidance and to provide
comments and additional information as necessary to ensure accurate reflection of current permit
requirements and discharge conditions.

       For the cost estimate for the final Guidance, 1993 PCS discharge data were used, as well
as permit file information and data provided by the State permitting authorities (generally
representing permits issued as late as through mid-1994). As a result of use of more recent data,
a shift was noted hi the baseline of permit requirements for the sample facilities; the baseline
was lowered based on more stringent NPDES permit requirements being applied by permitting
                                          2-9

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
       TABLE 2-4 MAJOR FACILITIES RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR COMPLIANCE
                            COST EVALUATION
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
FACILITY NAME
MINING
MI0004154
MN0055301
MI0038369
MI0003158
MARTIN MARIETTA
RESERVE MINING CORP
TILDEN MINING CO
MEDUSA CEMENT CO-CHARLEVOK
REPORTED SIC CODE

1011
1011
1011
3241
FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTS
M10002542
MI0002003
MI0002267
MI0002224
MICHIGAN SUGAR CO-CROSWELL
MICHIGAN SUGAR CO-SEBEWAING
MICHIGAN SUGAR CO-CARO
MICHIGAN SUGAR CO-CARROLLTON
PULP AND PAPER
WI0002798
MI0000060
NY0000515
WI0003140
WI0000990
WI0001848

OH0000990
OH0000493
IN000003S
MI0002381
SUPERIOR FIBER PROD-SUPERWOOD
MENOMINEE PAPER CO
SCHOELLER TECHNICAL PAPERS INC
JAMES RIVER PAPER COMPANY
APPLETON PAPERS INC - LOCKSMILL
FORT HOWARD PAPER COMPANY
2063
2063
2063
2063

2493
2611
2621
2621
2611
2611
INORGANIC CHEMICALS
ZACLON INC
SCM CHEMICALS
UNION CARBIDE LAKESIDE PLANT
ATOCHEM NORTH AMERICA INC
2819
2816
2813
2819
ORGANIC CHEMICALS AND PETROLEUM REFINING
NY0000345
NY0000400
MI0000868
NY0003328
FMC CORPORATION
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES INC
DOW CHEM USA-MIDLAND
E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO
2879
2834
2821
2869
                                  2-10

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
        TABLE 2-4  MAJOR FACILITIES RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR COMPLIANCE
                         COST EVALUATION (continued)
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER

MI0002763
MI0001902
OH0032727
IN0000175
MI0002399
FACILITY NAME
REPORTED SIC CODE
METALS MANUFACTURING
EXTRUDED METALS
QUANEX CORP-MICH SEAMLESS TUB
GREAT LAKES METALS CORP.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION
MCLOUTH STEEL-TRENTON
3354
3317
3360
3312
3312
METAL FINISHING
MI0002836
KD0003484
OH0000281
WI0001309
FEDERAL MOGUL CORP-GREENVILLE
JOHNSON CONTROL INC
ARGO TECH CORPORATION
KOHLERCO
3714
3691
3471
3471
STEAM ELECTRIC
OH0003786
MI0001473
W10000922
MI0001
-------
SECTION 2                                                             METHODOLOGY

         TABLE 2-4  MAJOR FACILITIES RANDOMLY SELECTED FOR COMPLIANCE
                              COST EVALUATION (continued)
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER
M10042439
W10024767
PA0026301
M10022276
FACILITY NAME
WEST BAY CO REGIONAL WWTP
MILWAUKEE MSD - JONES ISLAND
ERIE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BATTLE CREEK WWTP
REPORTED SIC CODE
4952
4952
4952
4952
authorities.  The overall effect of lowering the baseline was that estimated compliance costs and
pollutant load reductions were not as substantial as were originally projected for the proposed
Guidance.

       One  of the limitations of the original compliance cost study for the proposed Guidance
was a general lack of site-specific receiving water data (i.e., background data) for the sample
facilities.  To fully evaluate  EPA's provisions in the final  Guidance for  intake credits (i.e.,
determining whether discharges are to same or different bodies of water and for identifying non-
attainment waters), as well as to ensure that all available data were used for the cost analysis,
additional background concentration data for each of the sample facilities was collected.  Data
submitted as a part of the  public comments, as well as the water quality files contained  hi the
STORE! data base, were  reviewed and considered.  In addition, State permitting authorities
were contacted frequently  to collect all applicable data.

       Consistent with Procedure 3 of Appendix F to the final Guidance, fish tissue data (either
caged or resident fish tissue data) were also collected to  represent ambient water  column
background  concentrations.   When fish tissue data  were available for the pollutants  being
evaluated at a sample facility, a simplified approach for converting the  tissue data to ambient
water column concentrations was used. This method entailed dividing fish tissue data (hi mg/kg
wet weight)  by the pollutant-specific bioaccumulation factor (BAF) used to derive Tier I criteria
(in I/kg) and multiplying the result by 1,000 to  give the result as  concentration of pollutant
0*g/l).  When data for more than one species was available,  the geometric mean for all species
was calculated and used.

2.2.3  Calculation of Permit Limits/Conditions

       The proposed Guidance Implementation Procedures outlined the specific methodologies
to calculate  WQBELs and  determine the need to include the  calculated limits in a permit. The
final Guidance,  however, establishes only  the  framework for WQBEL calculation  in the
regulation.   This approach provides State permitting authorities the flexibility to  develop their
own specific procedures for WQBEL calculation as  long as the assumptions used are consistent
with final Guidance requirements. While the procedures outlined hi the proposed Guidance are
not included hi the regulation for the final Guidance, the preamble does indicate that procedures
                                         _

-------
 SECTION 2                                                               METHODOLOGY

 in the proposed Guidance are fully consistent with the final Guidance, and may be used by States
 to satisfy Guidance requirements.   Because several States  will likely  use  the recommended
 procedures, the final costing analysis did not revise the formulae used to calculate WQBELs.

       While the general approach and the equations used to calculate WQBELs were  not
 modified in order to perform the final costing analyses, there were several significant changes
 to the criteria and implementation procedures  hi  the final  Guidance that impacted WQBEL
 calculations. The specific revisions to the final Guidance that affected the costing analyses, and
 the approach used to address these revisions are described below.

 2.2.3.7  Expanded List of Pollutants Evaluated in Cost Analyses

       The proposed Guidance, while  generally applying to all pollutants, was structured to
 provide an initial focus on 138 pollutants.   The 138 pollutants were identified as  those being
 known or suspected of being  of primary concern hi the Great Lakes  Basin.  The proposed
 Guidance included numeric criteria to protect aquatic life, human health, and/or wildlife for 32
 of the  138 pollutants.   The  cost  study for the proposed Guidance was based on these 32
 pollutants. Because of concern that the 32 pollutants did not represent all the possible pollutants
 that may contribute to potential costs, the study evaluated whether additional pollutants should
 be included in the cost analysis.  The evaluation used three criteria—  loadings, frequency  of
 occurrence, and toxicity, to determine whether  additional pollutants should be included in the
 final analysis.

       To determine which pollutants exhibited significant loadings to the Great Lakes Basin,
 the loadings for all 138  pollutants of initial focus listed hi the  proposed Guidance at the 59 study
 facilities were calculated.  The loadings were based on facility permit limits or measured effluent
 concentrations.   The loadings were then multiplied by EPA toxic weights to normalize the
 toxicity of each pollutant to that of copper.  (See Section 4 for further discussions related to EPA
 toxic weights.) Using the statistical extrapolation factors developed for the costing analysis, the
 total toxic weighted  loadings for the 138 pollutants were extrapolated to the universe of major
 dischargers hi the Great Lakes  Basin.  Based on the results of this evaluation, it was determined
 that  pollutants  that exhibited  "de minimis" loadings would  be omitted from the final costing
 analysis.  The  "de minimis" value selected was 10 pounds-copper toxicity equivalents per day.
 This value corresponds to a total pollutant load  from all major point source  dischargers to the
 Great Lakes Basin of 10 pounds of copper per day.

       In addition to the loadings analysis, it was important to ensure that other pollutants that
were frequently limited or required to  be monitored at  facilities, but  that might have  been
undetected or that exhibited low toxicity and thus were not  captured hi the  loadings analysis,
were also included  hi  the  final costing analyses.   Since the loadings  analyses should  have
captured the most significant pollutants of concern, this evaluation was considered a "safety net."
This analysis captured any pollutant that was limited, detected, or required to be monitored at
three or more of the 59 sample facilities.
                                          2-13

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

       As a final "safety net" it was important to ensure that any pollutant limited, detected, or
required to be monitored at any facility that exhibited a high toxicity (high toxic weight) was
included in the final costing. This evaluation was performed by multiplying the  "frequency of
occurrence" for a given pollutant by its toxic weight.  The resulting value was designated the
"Occurrence Toxic Equivalent" (OTE).  The OTE analysis captured those pollutants that might
have  not been detected and thus escaped the loadings evaluation, but that had monitoring
requirements at one or more facilities. A target value of 0.1 OTE was selected to ensure that
any pollutant with a toxic weight of 50 or greater, and even a single monitoring requirement at
one sample facility, would be included in the final costing analysis.

       The additional pollutant evaluation identified 76 pollutants that were limited, detected in
the effluent, or required to be monitored at one or more of the 59 sample facilities.  From this
list of 76 pollutants, 37 were determined  to be of consequence  to the loadings and costing
analyses using the rationale described above.   This  increased the total number of pollutants
evaluated for compliance costs and load reductions  in the final  analysis to 69.   The list of
pollutants included in the final analysis and those found but not included in the costing analyses
are provided in the Table 2-5.

       An example of a pollutant found at study facilities, but excluded from the final analyses,
is vinyl chloride.  Vinyl chloride was limited in a permit for one facility and was detected in the
effluent at a second facility.  Based on the permit limit and the monitoring data, a total load of
vinyl chloride of 0.04 pounds per day was determined.  Using the vinyl chloride toxic weight
of 0.0013 and extrapolating the load to  the 588 major discharges in the Great Lakes Basin, a
total toxic weighted load of 0.0018 pounds-equivalent per day was estimated, which is below the
"de minimis" criteria of 10 pounds-equivalent per day.  The occurrence frequency for vinyl
chloride (2 of 50  facilities or four percent) did not exceed the trigger of five percent. The OTE
was then calculated by multiplying the occurrence frequency of four percent by the toxic weight
(0.0013). This resulted in an OTE of 0.00005, which  is less than the 0.1 OTE trigger.  As a
result of this analysis, vinyl chloride was not considered in the final costing analyses.

2.2.3.2 Development of Tier I Criteria  and Tier 11 Values Used in Cost Analyses

       Having established the list of 69 pollutants for the final costing analyses, criteria for these
pollutants were developed utilizing the Tier I and Tier n procedures outlined in Appendices A,
B, C, and D of the final Guidance and readily available toxicity data. For the 32  pollutants for
which numeric criteria were established in the proposed Guidance, the criteria for protection of
aquatic life were generally used; however, the criteria for protection of wildlife  and human
health were revised to  reflect modifications to the Guidance procedures for determination of
BAFs.  In addition, it was necessary to calculate criteria values for the additional 37 pollutants
added to the costing analysis, using  the final Guidance methodologies  and the most current
toxicity data.  The results of the criteria  development efforts are provided in Table 2-6.
                                          2-14

-------
SECTION 2
                                               METHODOLOGY
            TABLE 2-5  PARAMETERS IDENTIFIED FOR FINAL COSTING ANALYSES
       PROPOSED GUIDANCE
          PARAMETERS
PARAMETERS ADDED FOR FINAL
           ANALYSES
 PARAMETERS FOUND Bur NOT
          ANALYZED
  2,3,7,8-TCDD
  2,4-Dimethylphenol
  2,4-Dinitrophenol
  ArsenicOH)
  Benzene
  Cadmium
  Chlordane
  Chlorobenzene
  Chromium(III)
  Chromium(VT)
  Copper
  Cyanide, Free
  Cyanide, Total
  DDT
  Dieldrin
  Endrin
  Heptachlor
  Hexachlorobenzene
  Hexachloroethane
  Lindane
  Mercury
  Methylene Chloride
  Nickel
  Parathion
  PCBs
  Pentachlorophenol
  Phenol
  Toluene
  Total Selenium
  Toxaphene
  Trichloroethylene
  Zinc
1,1 -Dicholoroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,2-trans-Dicnloroethylene
1,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
alpha-Endosulfan
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Aluminum
Antimony
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium
beta-Endosulfan
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chrysene
Endosulfan
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Iron
Lead
Pentachlorobenzene
Phenanthrene
Silver
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
3,4-Benzofluoranthene
11,12-Benzofluoranthene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,2,3,4-Tetrachlorobenzene
2-Chlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyaceticacid
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthalene
Acrolein
Anthracene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
Bromoform
Butylbenzylphthalate
Chlorodibromomethane
Chloroethane
Dichlorobromomethane
Diethyl phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
Fluorine
Hexachlorobutadiene
Indeno[ 1,2,3 cdjpyrene
Isophorone
Methyl bromide
Methylchloride
Octachlorostyrene
Pyrene
Vinyl Chloride
                                              2-15

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
        TABLE 2-6 CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN FINAL COST ANALYSES*
PARAMETER (1,2)
Aciylonitrile
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (IE)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium
ddmimn
Carbon tetrachloride
Cbloniftne
Chlorobenzenc
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium (ffl)
Chromium (VI)
Chryscne
Copper
Cyanide, free
Cyanide, total
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1 -Dichloroetnane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
AQUATIC IDE (3)
Final
Acute
Value
(Mg/I)
7.55E+03
6.00E+00
1.50E+03
1.76E+02
&80E+02
5.30E+03
2.50E+03

1.30E+02
3.61E+00
3.52E+04
2.40E+00

2.89E+04
1.66E41
*.81E+«2
3.1SE+01

1.40E+01
4ME+01

6.00E-01
1.05E+03
1.10E+00


1.18E+05

Criterion
Continuous
Concentration
(M/Q
4.19E+02

8.70E+01
3.00E+OJ
l-SOE-Htt
2.94E+02
1.39E+02

5.30E+00
6.6BEA1
1.96E+03
4.30E-03

1.24E+03
4.JOE-02
43ee.+m
IME+Ql

434E+W
5JOE+W

3.33E-02
5.83E+01
1.00E43


6.56E+03

WILDLIFE
Wildlife
Domestic
Animnl
Criteria
(fgfl)

6.70E-07









9.24E-05
1.97E+OJ

3.47E-01






2.78E-06
2.78E-O6
2.78E-06




HUMAN HEALTH <4)
Human
Non-
Cancer
Value
(15g)
(««)

SJ8E-05

1^1£+OI
834E+00
1J8E+01
8J4E+01

lJ3K+(tt
1J9E+01
1JUE+01
8^1E-03
4.18E+W
2.72E-KO
ijdE+ai
2.78E+04
1J5E+02

1.90E+03
536E+02
6.11E+02


L2«E4$



2J5E+W
Human
Cancer
Value
(15g)
UgH)
6.43E-01
U2E4M


2.04E-01
ld4B+«t
1J1&03
LOSE-05
7.12E42

2.15E+00
1.44E44

5^7E+01



3.10E4S



4.<5E^4
2^
-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
    TABLE 2-6 CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN FINAL COST ANALYSES* (continued)
PARAMETER (1,2)
1 ,2-Jrans-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
VMdritt

2,4-DuuGtuylphcaol
2.4-Djnhropheiiol
•tpha-Endosulfui
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulian
Endrin
Fluorantbene
Fluoride
Heptachtor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Heuchlorocyclohexane
Hexachloroethane
Iron
Lead
Undue
Mttwuy
Memytene Chloride
Nkkei
Panftion
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
P«ntacUotophenoJ
AQUATIC LIFE 0)
Final
Acute
Value
(M/I)


4JO&41
2.12E+03

2.20E-01
2.20E-01
2.20E-01
1.80E-01
3.98E+03

5.20E-41
J.20E+01


2.00E+00
9.80E+02

5.91E+01
L90E+00
M1E+W

SJOE+02
1J30E4I
2.00E+00

LWE+01
Criterion
Continuous
Concentration
a
1.79E+03
554E+02

«.8fiE45
9.5JB-02
7.^7E+02
Human
Cancer
Value
(15g)
0^)

S.04E+00
2J3&46








J.7REW
2.62E44
2.87R«3
l.MIXC
l.OOE-02
3J8E+00


«.17EXO

4.73E+01


U9E45

5.12E-01
HUMAN HEALTH (5)
Human
Non-
Cancer
Value
(45g)
(MA)
4.93E+02

«J4E-05
1.06E+02
5J9E+01
;.«£-O7
7.«£-07
(J.02E-0;
1.72E4Q
1.15E+02
3J9IH-03
J.22E-02
8.97E-03



8.88E-01

l^OE+01
«JME-02
S45B*4
1.75E+03
5.48E+02

2J9E45
J.79E-02
5.57E+07
Human
Cancer
Value
(45g)
0>gA)

4.70E-HW
*.75E-07








5.97E-«5
8.7SEXB
9^0E-04
3.46E43
3^E^»3
1.12E+00


2,78E4a

4^0E+01


4.64E-06

1.93E-01
                                   2-17

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
      TABLE 2-6 CRITERIA DEVELOPED FOR USE IN FINAL COST ANALYSES* (continued)

PARAMETER (1,2)
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium (Total)
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetnchlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetnchloroetfaylene
Thallium
Toluene
Tonpbene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichtoroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Whole Effluent Touchy
(WET)
Zinc
Number of Her I Criteria
Number of Tier O Values
AQUATIC las, (3)
Rnai
Acute
Value
0*/1)
6.00E+01
7.29E+03
3.69E+OI
1.05E+00

l.OOE-02
5.28E+03
1.40E+03
1.75E+04
1.46E+00

4.50E+04


L31E+02
16
34
Criterion
Continuous
Concentration
(M/l)
6.30E+00
1,1«E-M»
441B+0Q


l.OOE-05
2.93E+02
4.00E+01
9.72E+02
2.00E-04

2.50E+03
9.70E+02

S.9SE+01
15
34
WILDLIFE
Wildlife
Domestic
Amrnnl
Criteria
On/i)

1.63E42


2.98E-03
2.00E49
1.20E+00

6.75E+00
7.70E-05
9.00E+01




7
21
HUMAN HEALTH (4)
Human
Non-
Cancer
Value
OSg)
<«/»

L21E+03
135E-f02
U9E+02
233&4H
4JNE48
l.«E+02
1JOB+00
4.ME+OZ
5.94E43
8.81E+01
4.4SE+02


8.13E+03
46
6
Human
Cancer
Value
(15g)






«.1SE4»



1.93EXW

2JIB+«1
2J2E+«1


31
2
HUMAN HEALTH (5)
Human
Non-
Cancer
Value
(45g)
Gig/I)

4.23E+02
1J6E402
1^7E+02
7J7E42
1.68E-OS
9J5E+01
7.82E-01
1.72E+02
1.98E-03
t35to¥9t
3.61E+02


7.ME+03
46
6
Human
Cancer
Value
(45g)
(W»)





2.4SE49



6.43E-06

2O8E+01
1.78E+01


31
2
 *  Criteria were developed Maiming-

         Hardness = 50.0 mg/1 as CaCO,
         pH = 6.50 S.U.

   Criteria used in calculating WQBELs were adjusted for actual hardness and pH as appropriate.

 (1) Shaded parameters indicate that criteria were presented in the proposed Guidance
 (2) Values that are shaded and bolded are considered Tier I' criteria - all others are considered "Tier 0 values"
 (3) Criteria for metals are for the "dissolved" fraction
 (4) Human health criteria calculated assuming a fish consumption rate of IS grams per day
 (5) Human health criteria calculated Mmming a fish consumption rate of 45 grams per day
                                                   2-18

-------
 SECTION 2                                                              METHODOLOGY

 Aquatic Life

        Criteria  for the protection of aquatic life were determined for 50  of the 69 costed
 pollutants using Tier I and Tier n methodologies.  Generally, the most current toxicity data were
 used as input to calculate  aquatic life criteria used for the costing analyses; however, where
 toxicity data were insufficient to calculate tier I criteria, estimates of appropriate Tier n values
 were developed. The following methods were used to calculate aquatic life criteria:

        • Tier I criteria were calculated using the same procedures and data utilized for the
          proposed Guidance. The values, therefore are identical to those published in Tables
          1 and 2 of the proposed Guidance.

        • Tier n values were determined based on  the availability of toxicity data for the
          specific pollutant.   Where the EPA Office of Science and Technology (OST) had
          published or proposed aquatic life criteria for a pollutant (e.g., National Toxics Rule),
          it was assumed that reliable toxicity data existed; thus, the published criteria were used
          as the Tier n values.   For pollutants where criteria had not  been published or
          proposed, the  "lowest observed effect level"  (LOEL) was used to derive the Final
          Acute Value (FAY) and to obtain the Criteria Continuous Concentration (CCC).1

 Human Health

       Criteria for the protection of human health were determined for 64  of the 69 costed
 pollutants. The  criteria for 58 of the 64 pollutants were determined using Tier I methodologies,
 and Tier n values were determined for the remaining 6.  The only difference between the Tier
 I and Tier n methodologies used to develop criteria for the cost analyses, pertained to the data
 available to calculate BAFs. Where sufficient data were  available to accurately calculate BAFs,
 criteria were considered Tier I.   Where minimum data were not available  to develop reliable
 BAFs, existing data were used to  estimate BAFs.  Criteria calculated using the estimated BAFs
 were considered Tier n values.

       Human health criteria were also calculated for copper and lead using alternate methods.
 Since neither  slope factors nor reference dose data were  available for these  pollutants, the
 costing analyses used the drinking water "maximum contaminant levels"  (MCL) as the criteria.

       Tier I methods were used for all pollutants for which BAFs could be accurately calculated
 and for which carcinogen slope factors or toxic reference  dose data were available.   For the
purposes of the costing analyses, EPA provided revised BAFs for many of the study pollutants.
In addition, EPA provided the most recent carcinogen slope factors and toxic reference dose data
   'Following the development of the cost estimates, it was determined that the procedures used to calculate Tier
U aquatic life values were inconsistent with final Guidance methodologies. A subsequent analysis of the affect of
these inconsistencies on projected costs and load reductions determined that impacts were negligible. A summary
of the impact analysis is provided in Appendix A.

                                          2-19

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
for each of the study pollutants.  In nearly all instances, the parameters and assumptions used
to calculate human  health criteria for the cost analyses resulted  in criteria  that were more
stringent than those published in the proposed Guidance. Following the completion of the cost
analyses, EPA again updated its calculation of BAFs,  slope factors, and reference  doses, in
order to calculate numeric criteria for the final Guidance.  Based on the revised parameters and
assumptions,  many  of the human health criteria published in the final  Guidance were less
stringent than those used for the costing analyses. A comparison of the criteria published in the
proposed Guidance, those published in  the final Guidance, and  those used for the costing
analyses, are provided in Table 2-7.

    TABLE 2-7  COMPARISON OF MOST STRINGENT HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA IN  THE
           PROPOSED GUIDANCE, FINAL GUIDANCE,  AND COST EVALUATIONS
CHEMICAL
Benzene
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Cyanide
DDT
Dieldrin
2,4-DimethylphenoI
2,4-Dinitrophenol
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Lindane
- Noncancer
- Cancer Tier n
Mercury'
Methylene chloride
PCBs (class)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Toluene
Toxaphene
Trichloroethylene
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
G«g/l)
l.OOE+01
2.00E-04
5.00E+02
8.00E+02
7.00E-05
l.OOE-04
3.00E+02
7.00E+01
l.OOE-04
2.00E+00
7.00E-01
2.00E-03
5.00E+01
3.00E-06
l.OOE-08
6.00E+03
2.00E-05
3.00E+01
FINAL GUIDANCE
0«g/l)
1.16E+01
2.46E-04
4.69E+02
6.00E+02
1.46E-04
6.45E-06
4.45E+02
5.52E+01
4.49E-04
4.21E+00
4.72E-01
1.99E-03
4.74E+01
3.91E-06
8.53E-09
5.59E+03
6.74E-05
2.95E+01
COST EVALUATIONS
(Mg/D
1.02E+01
4.79E-05
2.92E+02
6.02E+02
2.95E-05
9.75E-07
1.06E+02
5.29E+01
8.76E-05
8.88E-01
9.54E-02
2.78E-03
5.35E-04
4.60E+01
4.64E-06
2.05E-09
1.72E+02
6.43E-06
2.81E+01
  Includes Methylmercury
                                        2-20

-------
 SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
Wildlife

       Criteria for the protection of wildlife were calculated for 7 of the 69 costed pollutants
using Tier I methodologies and for an additional 21 pollutants using Tier II methodologies.  The
Tier I methods used were identical to those published in the proposed Guidance; however, BAFs
were updated by EPA based on revised data.  Use of these revised BAFs generally resulted in
the calculation of wildlife criteria that were less stringent than those published in the proposed
Guidance.   However, following completion of the cost  analyses, EPA again updated  the
parameters used to calculate the wildlife criteria in order to calculate numerical values for the
final Guidance.  These updates resulted in  final wildlife criteria that  were less stringent than
those used for the cost analyses.   Table 2-8 provides a comparison of the wildlife criteria
published in the proposed Guidance, those published in final Guidance and those used in the cost
analyses.

       Tier n wildlife values were calculated using the same procedures used to calculate Tier
I criteria; however,  the  wildlife toxicity data were limited for these pollutants; thus Tier I
criteria could  not be determined.  A summary of the Tier  n methodology is provided in
Appendix B.

  TABLE 2-8 COMPARISON OF WILDLIFE CRITERIA IN THE PROPOSED GUIDANCE, FINAL
                          GUIDANCE, AND COST EVALUATIONS
CHEMICAL
DDT (and metabolites)
Mercury1
PCBs (class)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
(Mg/D
8.70E-07
1.80E-04
1.70E-05
9.60E-09
FINAL GUIDANCE
G«g/I)
1.10E-05
1.30E-03
7.40E-05
2.00E-09
COST EVALUATIONS
(us/I)
2.78E-06
9.12E-04
9.20E-05
2.00E-09
 1 Includes Methylmercury

Dissolved Metals Water Quality Criteria

       As described above, EPA revised many of the criteria originally proposed  under the
Guidance. Among the various updates made by EPA, was the change in promulgation of criteria
for metals in the dissolved form, as opposed to the total form for aquatic life.  The procedures
used to derive metals criteria in the dissolved form for use in deriving compliance cost estimates
is described  briefly below.

       In order to apply metals criteria in the dissolved form, conversion factors, based on
toxicity testing results, were used to revise criteria from  the total form to the dissolved form.
The conversion factors were based on the ratio of dissolved metals to total metals present in the
laboratory toxicity  tests performed to establish the criteria for toxic metals.  Conversion factors
                                         2-21

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

were obtained  from the EPA report "Results  of Simulation Tests Concerning the Percent
Dissolved Metal in Freshwater Toxicity Tests" (EPA Duluth 1994) and from the EPA Policy
memo from Martha G. Prothro to EPA's Water Management and Environmental Services
Division Directors in Regions I-X dated October 1, 1993.

       Conversion factors ranged from 0.333 for trivalent chromium, to 1.0 for trivalent arsenic.
Where conversion factors  were not available, a conversion factor of 1.0 was assumed.  The
conversion factor of 1.0 was determined to be appropriate because the majority of the actual
values were in the range of 0.90 to 1.0.  The criteria for the dissolved form of the metals were
then adjusted back to the total form using the theoretical partitioning relationship between the
total/dissolved phases described in the October 1,  1993  EPA policy memo.

       The October 1,  1993 memo reiterates EPA's position that permit limits for metals must
be established for total metals and describes three methodologies for translating dissolved metals
criteria to the total form.  Two of the three methods rely on site-specific studies performed to
determine actual in-stream partitioning relationships. However, since actual  metals partitioning
data were not available for any of the 59 study facilities, the third alternative, based  on the
theoretical partitioning relationship,  was used  to calculate Guidance-based WQBELs.  The
theoretical partitioning relationship is based on a partitioning coefficient, determined empirically
for each metal, and the concentration of total suspended solids (TSS) hi the receiving water.

       In performing the cost analysis for each study facility, an attempt was made to determine
the TSS concentration of the receiving water. These data were generally available in the facility
file, or were obtained through the EPA STORET database.  In a few instances,  however,  TSS
data were not available.  In these cases a default  TSS value ranging from  10 to 20 mg/1 was
selected based on the best professional judgement of the  reviewer.  This range was reflective of
actual TSS data available for other study facilities.

       Using the theoretical partitioning relationship, partitioning factors  (T) were determined
in the range of 2.0 for nickel, to 20.55 for trivalent chromium.  Where  empirically determined
partitioning coefficients were not available, a partitioning factor of 2.0 was  assumed. Therefore,
partitioning factors assumed to be 2.0 would produce an appropriately stringent permit limit.
Table 2-9 provides a summary of the parameters used to translate the  metals criteria from
dissolved metals to total metals fractions at a TSS concentration of 20 mg/1.

2.2.3.3 Revised Implementation Procedures

Intake Credits

       In estimating the compliance costs for the sample facilities, the intake credit provisions
of the final guidance were applied to applicable facilities.  Consistent with the proposal, intake
credits were provided hi one of two general ways.
                                         2-22

-------
SECTION 2
                                                             METHODOLOGY
        TABLE 2-9 PARAMETERS USED TO TRANSLATE DISSOLVED METALS CRITERIA
                                TO TOTAL RECOVERABLE WQBELs
COMPOUND
Aluminum
Antimony
Anenfc (HOC)
BeryDhon
f^mluiUau
Chromium (HOC**)
Chromium (VI)
^tiyiimiigii
Copper
Iran
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium (Total)
Selenium (IV)
Selenium (VI)
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
KP.
STREAM
N/A
N/A
480,000
N/A
4;00o,ooo
3,360,000
N/A
3,360.000
1,040.000
N/A
310,000
2,910,000
490,000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,250,000
or
STREAM
N/A
N/A
-0.7286
N/A
-1.1307
-0.9304
N/A
-0.9304
-0.7436
N/A
-0.1856
-1.1356
-0.5719
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.7038
**
LAKE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.520.000
2.170,000
N/A
2,170,000
2.850,000
N/A
2,040,000
1,970,000
2,210.000
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.340,000
or
LAKE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.9246
-0.2662
N/A
4.2662
-0.9000
N/A
-0.5337
-1.1718
-0.7578
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-0.6788
K*
STREAM
N/A
N/A
54,114
N/A
135.203
206.948
N/A
206,948
112.095
N/A
177,783
96,927
88.336
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
151.791
K«
LAKE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
220.602
977.520
N/A
977,520
192.273
N/A
412,354
58,873
228.282
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
437,127
T
STREAM
2.00
2.00
2.08
2.00
3.70
5.14
2.00
5.14
3.24
2.00
4.56
2.94
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
4.04
T
LAKE
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
5.41
20.55
2.00
20.55
4.85
2.00
9.25
2.18
5.57
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
9.74
 Where:
*
 T
                             1 +[K«*(TSS)»(lE-6)]
                         Kp, - Empirically determined partitioning coefficient
                         a «=  Constant
                         K< "= She-specific partitioning coefficient
 Notes:   N/A - Data Not Available
         * «= Assumed As(m) partitions similarly to total Arsenic
         ** = Assumed CitflD partitions similarly to total Chromium
         (1) Variables correspond to those described in EPA October 1993 memo.
         (2) "T" indicates the multiplier for translating "dissolved" to "total* metals fractions.
         (3) Table values assume TSS = 20 mg/1. Cost analyses were developed using site-specific TSS concentrations.
                                                 2-23

-------
SECTION 2                                                              METHODOLOGY

       First, the evaluation determined whether there would be a reasonable potential for the
discharge to cause or contribute to an excursion above a narrative or numeric water quality
criterion.  For purposes of estimating compliance costs, no reasonable potential was determined,
and WQBELs were not established, for outfalls that met the following criteria:

       • The facility withdrew 100 percent of the intake water containing the pollutant from the
         same body of water into which the discharge was made.

       • The facility did not contribute any  additional  mass of the identified intake  water
         pollutant to its wastewater.

       • The facility did not chemically or physically alter the identified intake water pollutant
         in a manner that would cause adverse  water quality impacts that would not occur if
         the pollutants were left in-stream.

       • The facility did not increase  the identified intake water  pollutant concentration
         compared to the pollutant concentration in the intake water.

       • The timing and location of the  discharge would not cause adverse water quality
         impacts to occur that would not occur  if the identified intake pollutants were left in-
         stream.

       It should be noted that when intake pollutant data for a sample facility was not available,
it was assumed that there would be a reasonable potential to exceed WQBELs, and appropriate
compliance costs were estimated for the sample facility. This assumption tends to overstate the
costs, since  some of the facilities for  which no data was available could qualify for an intake
credit.  There were also instances when some intake pollutant data was available, but not all the
data  needed to determine whether all five  of the criteria described above would  be met.  In
general, for purposes of estimating  compliance costs, it  was assumed there would  be no
reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards if at least the first two criteria described
above (i.e.,  withdrawing  100 percent from the  same body of water, and no additional pollutant
was added to the discharge) were met.  This assumption could potentially underestimate the cost
impact of the intake credit provisions  contained in the final  Guidance.

       Second, intake credits were granted  for sample facilities when the level of the pollutant
upstream of the discharge exceeded the most stringent applicable water quality criterion for that
pollutant.  When this situation occurred, relief was provided by making  the WQBEL for the
pollutant(s) equal to the most stringent Guidance criterion, instead of prohibiting the discharge
or making another more stringent assumption.  This was done for both discharges to different
and same bodies of water.   The final Guidance allows "no net increase"  (i.e., discharge at
background  concentrations) for up  to 12 years, or until a total maximum daily load (TMDL) is
established,  for discharges to the same body of water.  Cost estimates conservatively assumed
that TMDLs justifying loads greater than criteria would not be developed after 12 years and
dischargers to the same body of water would eventually need to comply with the most stringent
criteria at end-of-pipe.

                                          2-24

-------
 SECTION 2                                                            METHODOLOGY

 Additivitv/TEFs

       The estimate of  costs for the sample  facilities accounted  for  additivity of  human
 carcinogenic effects of pollutants contained in  a  discharge.   To estimate costs for the final
 Guidance,  it was  assumed that  the  total  carcinogenic risk  of the  mixture of two or more
 carcinogens in a discharge would not exceed a lifetime incremental cancer risk equal  to one in
 100,000 (10*5).  The final Guidance allows  States to use a less stringent incremental cancer risk
 for additivity; however, a risk level of 10"5 was assumed for the mixture for estimating costs
 because some States may choose  to use a 10~5 risk level. In addition, the final Guidance allows
 a State or Tribe to account for additivity by establishing individual human carcinogen doses at
 levels corresponding to an incremental cancer risk of one in 1,000,000 (10*), or applying a
 scientifically defensible method to account  for the  additive effects of carcinogens.

       The first step in estimating the cost attributable to additivity was to determine the number
 of potential carcinogens discharged by a study facility, the concentration of those pollutants in
 the discharge, and the background concentrations in the ambient water for those pollutants.  The
 second step  was to determine the human cancer value (HCV) associated  with a lifetime
 incremental cancer risk equal to one in 100,000  for those individual pollutants identified in the
 discharge.  The third step was to divide each of the HCVs for those carcinogens identified in
 the discharge by the total number of carcinogens  in the discharge to determine the allowable
 concentration for each carcinogen that  could be discharged.   This concentration  was then
 compared to the actual concentration in the  discharge for that pollutant to determine whether the
 facility needed to reduce  that pollutant.  This approach results in an equivalent (proportional)
 reduction for each HCV at a sample facility. This approach was selected to provide a consistent
 method for addressing additivity  to all sample facilities.

       Toxicity equivalent factors (TEFs)  were also considered when establishing wasteload
 allocations  for  both human health non-cancer and cancer  criteria for compounds similar to
 2,,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin  (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in accordance with  Procedure 4  of
 Appendix F of the final Guidance. It should be noted, however, that for those sample facilities
 for which  2,3,7,8-TCDD WQBELs  were  established, no  concentration data existed for  the
 chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDDs) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDFs)  in an  effluent.
 Thus equivalent concentrations for 2,3,7,8-TCDD-type chemicals were not developed.

 Acute Mixing Zones for Whole Effluent Toxicity AVET)

       The implementation procedures presented in  the proposed Guidance required that facilities
 comply with an acute WET criterion of 1.0 acute  toxic unit (TUJ at the end-of-pipe (i.e., no
 mixing zone allowed).  The final Guidance requires that no discharges exceed 0.3 TU. at  the
edge of an  approved acute mixing zone.  As a result,  for purposes of estimating costs, mixing
zones were allowed to comply with acute WET criteria. WLA equations provided in Procedure
 3 of Appendix  F of the proposed Guidance  and the  1-year,  10-day (1Q10) critical receiving
water flow as recommended in Procedure 3 of Appendix F of the final Guidance were used to
calculate acute WET limits.
                                         2-25

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

2.2.4  Estimation of Facility Compliance Costs

       Subsequent to the analyses for determining which Guidance pollutants should be regulated
and for developing WQBELs based on the final Guidance water quality criteria, the costs of
compliance to be borne by each sample facility were  determined or estimated.  Prior to
estimating  compliance costs, an engineering analysis of how the facility could comply with the
Guidance-based effluent limitations was performed.  The costs were then estimated based on the
decisions and assumptions  made in the analysis.  Compliance costs evaluated at each facility
included capital  costs for  treatment, annual costs (compliance  monitoring,  operation  and
maintenance, or O&M, and residuals management costs), and special costs defined  as one-time
costs  that would be incurred during the first year of the permit.  The procedures used for
calculating facility costs, and for annualizing capital (and other one-time) costs, were not revised
to develop the final cost estimates.  The procedures  for determining the appropriate  control
measure for a specific facility, however, were revised as described below.

       In deriving the cost estimate  for the proposed Guidance, it was  assumed that when
treatment costs became excessive in light of the  amount of pollutant to be removed, or  if
information   regarding   the  existing  treatment  system  was  lacking,   that   waste
minimization/pollution prevention techniques would be the preferred control approach selected
by the regulated community.  In addition, for the proposed Guidance, the evaluation also did not
consider the alternatives available to facilities through regulatory relief mechanisms such as
variances, mixing zone studies, phased-TMDLs, site-specific criteria, and others.

       The Guidance, consistent with the CWA and NPDES program, does not direct facilities
on how to comply with permit requirements.  Therefore, each regulated facility  can consider a
variety of options to  comply with permit requirements.  In estimating compliance costs, control
options were selected considering both the technological achievability and the reasonableness of
the selected control measure(s). The determination of the appropriate pollutant control strategy,
therefore, was performed on a case-by case basis using engineering best professional judgement.

       To ensure consistency in estimating the general types of controls that would be necessary
for a sample facility to comply with the final  Guidance (assuming that the final Guidance
resulted in more stringent requirements), as well as to integrate the other alternatives available
through the final Guidance into the cost analysis, a costing decision matrix was developed  that
was used for each sample facility.  The underlying assumption of the decision matrix is that a
facility will examine lower-cost alternatives prior to incurring the expense and potential liabilities
associated with constructing end-of-pipe treatment facilities.

2.2.4.1  Compliance Cost Decision Matrix

       To  model the decision process  used by actual facilities,  a cost decision matrix  was
developed  to determine appropriate, cost-effective control measures that could  be used by a
facility to meet final Guidance-based WQBELs.  Specific  rules were established in the matrix
to provide  reviewers with guidance in selecting options in a consistent manner.   The matrix is
presented in Figure 2-1.

                                          2-26

-------
SECTION 2
                           METHODOLOGY
| .
T2 *3
o 8

il
II
        .s
        £l
         J£
         cx
        £ »

                 2 «

                    •
                  Bfi
                §  .
             till
             1111
 I
                       t
                        t
§
E
e
u
u
u
8
              jl
                    «-l«§ a*
II
                      fSl.i'l
                      l^l-§'!'a
                      111"
                      «S .2 "5 oa
                       «£-S"B:
                            2-27

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
        2 K -
        I if


        ill
        1111
                                I

                                        t

           JS J2 JS
                                  iiilisni
                                  tilf.fl 15
                         2-28

-------
SECTION 2
                 METHODOLOGY
    ll
            .
        *. O ••• ••• V t"  • u
        JS -o -o -a c eoo E
                                       ~ e 2 u
                                       £ o E —

                                       f*§l
                                       £ jf C g

                                       g Jj .i 2

                                       8 JJfrc
                         *
                                  I •    «  1 "


                                  fat 11 si
                                  if S S  S: S> & S
                &!c



               I 11


              11 £«
              ill|
              »5 u $>
8
                                            '"SilelJ  ** 1 8 81 l-l
                                            bi § 8 u i  Ss8'S'S<2.ll
    I.
 I    . &  |  .fi
f f    a g S 3  o &
i|  .  |«fi|  ||2|




|||  8||s



lU  I III
                                               if 51
                                  &81
                                    5  sf.
                                                 &a
                                                 = *
        •g «  BO~ J8
        9s  -S S ^
        1 :8  -Sflfi.
                                                      •
                                   il
                                    8F ss
           B«».|1  2
                             2-29

-------
SECTION 2	METHODOLOGY

       Under the decision matrix, costs for minor treatment plant operation and facility changes
were considered first.  Modification or adjustment of existing treatment was determined to be
feasible where literature indicated that the existing treatment process could achieve the revised
WQBEL and where the additional pollutant reduction was relatively small (e.g., 10 - 25 percent
of current discharge levels).

       Where it was not technically feasible to simply adjust existing operations, the next most
attractive  control  strategy  was  determined to be waste  minimization/pollution prevention
controls. These controls, however,  were costed only where they were considered feasible based
on the reviewing engineer's understanding of the process(es) at a facility.  The practicality of
techniques was determined based on several "rules of thumb" established in the decision matrix.
Decision considerations included the  level of pollutant reduction achievable through waste
minimization/pollution prevention techniques, appropriateness of waste minimization/pollution
prevention for the specific pollutant, and knowledge of the manufacturing processes generating
the pollutant of concern.  In general, detailed treatment and manufacturing process information
was not available in NPDES permit files; therefore, the assessment of feasibility was primarily
based on best professional judgement using general  knowledge  of industrial and municipal
operations.

       If waste  minimization/pollution prevention alone was deemed not feasible to reduce
pollutant levels to  those needed to  comply with the final Guidance criteria,  a combination of
waste minimization/pollution prevention and simple treatment was considered.  If these relatively
low-cost controls could not achieve the Guidance-based WQBELs, then end-of-pipe treatment
was considered.

       Development of end-of-pipe treatment cost estimates began with a review of the existing
treatment systems at each facility.  Decisions to add new treatment systems  or to supplement
existing treatment systems were based  on this initial evaluation. For determining the need for
additional  or supplemental treatment, sources of performance  information included EPA
Development Documents for effluent guidelines  and standards  for the facility's industrial
classification and the EPA Office of Research and Development,  Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory's "RREL Treatability Database" (Version 4.0).  The pollutant removal capabilities
of the existing treatment systems and/or any proposed  additional or supplemental systems were
evaluated based on the following  criteria:  (1) the effluent levels that were being achieved
currently at the facility;  (2) the levels  that were achieved at similar facilities with similar
treatment systems documented in the effluent guideline  Development Documents; and (3) the
levels that are documented in the EPA  "RREL Treatability Database."   If this analysis showed
that additional treatment was  needed,  unit processes that would achieve compliance with the
GLWQG-based effluent limitations were then chosen using the same documentation.

       Following the calculation of end-of-pipe treatment costs, the relationship between the cost
of adding the treatment and other types of remedies or controls was considered.  Specifically,
if the estimated annualized cost  for removal of a  pollutant exceeded $200 per toxic pounds-
equivalent then the decision matrix indicated that  dischargers would explore the use of other
remedies or controls.  This cost trigger was based on the upper end of the range of the  costs to

                                         2-30

-------
 SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
 comply with promulgated effluent guideline limitations  and standards for direct discharger
 industrial categories.  When it was assumed that facilities would pursue alternative relief, no
 treatment cost was estimated for a facility; however, a nominal cost for some efforts to reduce
 the pollutant until the relief is granted was included. In addition, pollutant load reductions were
 not calculated or credited for any pollutant for which alternative relief was assumed.

       Finally, based on discussions  with  EPA Regional and State  permitting agencies  and
 outside experts, the typical cost to facilities pursuing relief from Guidance-based WQBELs was
 estimated. These costs will be in the form of additional monitoring, performing special studies,
 etc.,  to support facilities' requests for relief from the Guidance-based WQBEL.  The costs
 estimated by the Regions and States for the relief mechanisms ranged from $1,000,000 per
 pollutant  for phased-TMDLs to $20,000 for criteria modifications.   Table 2-10 provides a
 summary of the cost estimates provided by States and EPA Regions. For purposes of estimating
 compliance costs, a mid-range cost value of $200,000 per pollutant was used each time a relief
 mechanism was assumed necessary.

            TABLE 2-10 COST ESTIMATES FOR PURSUING REGULATORY RELIEF
SOURCE
Michigan
DNR
Minnesota
DNR
New York
DEC
Indiana DEM
Ohio EPA
Pennsylvania
DER
Wisconsin
DNR
REGULATORY RELIEF MECHANISM*
Phased-TMDL
NA
NA
$400/NA
NA
NA
NA
NA/$1,000,000
Variance
NA
$2,000/NA
NA/$100,000
NA
NA/$150,000
NA
$10,000/$75,000
Site-Specific
Criteria
NA
NA/$50,000
NA/$200,000
NA
NA
NA
$70,000/$50,000
Change
Designated
Use
NA
$2.000/NA
NA/$75,000
NA
NA/$40,000
NA
NA/$ 1,000,000
Alternative
Mixing Zone
NA
$5,000/NA
NA/$150,000
NA
NA/$150,000
NA
NA/$ 100,000
 NA - Not Available
 * - State Costs/Facility Costs

       In developing and using the cost decision matrix, it is acknowledged that granting relief
from WQBELs  is dependent  upon the specific circumstances  at a  facility,  as  well as the
judgement and implementing procedures of the permitting authority.  It is also acknowledged
that opportunities for waste minimization are dependent upon the specific  circumstances at a
                                         2-31

-------
SECTION 2                                                              METHODOLOGY

facility. The use of a $200 per toxic pounds-equivalent trigger for a "facility" assumes that the
regulatory flexibility in the final Guidance would be available and granted to all facilities that
exceed the cost trigger.

       Acknowledging that the  use of regulatory relief may be limited depending on the
particular circumstances for a "facility," costs were also estimated under a higher cost scenario
that assumes regulatory relief would be granted only when the cost for the particular "category
of dischargers"  exceeds  a cost trigger.  Particularly, if the estimated annualized cost for a
"category of dischargers" exceeded $500 per toxic pounds-equivalent then it was assumed that
dischargers  within the "category"  would be granted regulatory relief.  This cost  trigger was
based on  the highest  costs to comply with promulgated effluent guideline limitations and
standards for direct discharger industrial categories, which ranged from $1 to $500 per toxic
pounds-equivalent per industrial category.

2.2.4.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization Costs

       As discussed briefly  in the section above, waste minimization/pollution prevention
techniques were used as controls for a number of sample facilities. The costs associated with
the implementation of these techniques, developed for the proposed Guidance, were based on
a limited evaluation of information available through the EPA Pollution Prevention Information
Clearinghouse (PPIC). In the absence of information for a particular category of dischargers,
best professional judgement was used to estimate the cost to implement pollution prevention.

       Since the time of proposal,  an attempt was made to collect additional information to
verify or replace the original estimates  of pollution prevention/waste minimization costs.  In
particular, input was solicited from the EPA Pollution  Prevention Office and the American
Institute of Pollution Prevention.   Both of these  organizations acknowledged the difficulty in
developing generic costs  because  of the site-specific nature of manufacturing processes and
pollutants  being removed.   In  fact,  the  implementation of waste minimization/pollution
prevention techniques may actually result hi a cost saving for a facility. Because of the general
lack of information related to the cost of pollution prevention techniques,  the original estimates
for waste minimization/ pollution prevention were retained. Specifically, the mid-range pollution
prevention/waste minimization estimates were used to develop compliance costs for the final
Guidance.

2.2.5  Estimation of Total Compliance Costs to the Regulated Community

       As in the cost analyses for the proposed Guidance, compliance cost estimates  were
calculated for each facility chosen to represent a category or group of similar facilities.  This
resulted in estimates of three major types of costs for each facility— capital costs, annual costs,
and special studies costs.  Capital costs include the total investment cost needed to comply with
new permit limits.  Annual costs include  costs of yearly monitoring events, operation and
maintenance (O&M), but none of the recurring costs of capital.   The costs of special studies
include one-time-only  monitoring events,  such  as bioaccumulation  studies,   and  major
investigative efforts, such as waste or pollutant minimization audits.
                                         —                                         -

-------
 SECTION 2                                                            METHODOLOGY

       To develop a single cost estimate for each facility, the cost categories were combined into
 a single  "annualized cost," that reflects the annual expense associated with recurring activities,
 repaying capital expenses, and special studies.  Annualized costs were calculated by assuming
 that all capital costs, special monitoring costs and special minimization study costs would be paid
 by  borrowing money at an interest rate of seven percent and  paying it back over a 10-year
 period.   Annual costs of monitoring, operation, and maintenance were added directly.

       Given a single estimate of the annualized cost  for each  facility,  the procedure  for
 extrapolating costs from the sample to the entire population is predetermined by the stratified
 random  sampling  procedure  (described in Section 2.1  of the cost report for the proposed
 Guidance) used to select the subset of facilities examined in detail.

       Using the single annualized cost figure for each plant, an estimate of the cost for each
 flow  stratum can  be  calculated by averaging the two  (or in  some  cases three)  values  for
 individual (sample) plants, and then multiplying by the total (population) number of plants in that
 category/stratum.  The cost estimate for the category is calculated simply by summing over the
 two (or  in some cases three) flow strata  in the category.  The  cost estimate  for the entire
 universe of facilities is simply the sum across categories.  The results of these calculations  are
 reported in Section 3.

 2.2.6  Estimation of Compliance Costs for Indirect Dischargers

       The approach to estimating indirect discharger  costs, for the proposed Guidance, was
 based on an analysis of one major, highly industrialized,  sample POTW  (City of Battle Creek,
 Michigan). Based on this evaluation, it was assumed that the number of indirect dischargers that
 could be affected  ranged  from 10 to 30  percent.  To  further verify  this range  for use  in
 estimating  costs for the final Guidance,  information for an  additional eight POTWs was
 analyzed, based on data collected from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
 and Wisconsin DNR. In addition, the original sample POTW was re-evaluated based on changes
 to the final Guidance (as reflected in estimated WQBELs for the POTW).

       Since not all of the eight POTWs were selected as one of the 59  study facilities, it was
 assumed for the purpose of this analysis, that the pollutants limited by each POTW's existing
 NPDES  permit would be the same as those that would  require regulation under the final
 Guidance (i.e.,  the Guidance would not result in additional pollutants being regulated, but would
result hi more stringent permit limits). Based on the results provided in the EPA An Analytical
Survey of Nine POTWs from the Great Lakes Basin (Draft Report, December 15, 1994), this
assumption was considered reasonable in light of the limited detection of pollutants, particularly
BCCs. It should be noted that information for three of the additional POTWs was not sufficient
to determine the number of industries potentially affected.

       For each POTW, the potential indirect dischargers of  each regulated pollutant were
identified from among the POTW's list  of indirect dischargers,  as  well  as the number  of
industrial users found to be violating the POTW's permit limits for any of the pollutants  of
concern over a 1-year  period. Based  on these data, the range  of potentially affected indirect
                                         _

-------
SECTION 2
METHODOLOGY
users  is estimated to be 8 to 44 percent of the total number of the indirect dischargers to a
POTW.  The results show that the assumed range of indirect dischargers affected (10 to 30
percent) had a reasonable basis:  Table 2-11 summarizes the results of the evaluation of Battle
Creek, Michigan and the additional eight POTWs.

       For purposes of developing costs for the final Guidance, it was assumed that 30 percent
of all indirect dischargers in the Great Lakes Basin would be impacted by source control efforts
by POTWs as a result of more restrictive Guidance-based WQBELs.  The average compliance
cost per direct discharger facility was also updated, based on the revisions made to the sample
facilities as a result of the final Guidance.

       TABLE 2-11 SUMMARY OF INDIRECT DISCHARGERS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
                  BY THE GUIDANCE AT NINE PRETREATMENT POTWs
POTW
Battle Creek, MI
Greenbay, WI

DePere, WI
Heart of the Valley, WI
Appleton, WI

Saginaw, MI
Mt. Pleasant, MI
Bay City, MI
Nenah, WI

NUMBER
OFSIUS
36
35

36
9
13

20
4
10
19

POLLUTANTS
PRESENT
CN
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni,
Zn, CN
Cr, Cu, Zn, Ag,
CN, Hg
Cd, Cu, Ag, CN, Cr
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni,
Zn, Hg, CN
*
*
*
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni,
Zn, Hg, CN
FORMER
PRETREATMENT
VIOLATORS
WITH GUIDANCE
POLLUTANTS
(% OF TOTAL)
3 (8.3%)
*

*
1 (11%)
2 (15%)

*
*
*
3 (16%)

POTENTIAL
DISCHARGERS
OF GUIDANCE
POLLUTANTS
(% OF TOTAL)
8 (22%)
11 (31%)

10 (27%)
4(44%)
5 (38%)

*
*
*
6(31%)

   Information not available
                                        2-34

-------
SECTION 3                                                                     RESULTS
                                     3.  RESULTS

       Compliance costs  estimates related to the implementation of the final Guidance were
developed, based on the adjustments made to the cost study approach, described in Section 2.
This section presents the results of the adjustments and discusses.

3.1    OVERVIEW OF  APPROACH

       The approach for this final cost analysis was to update the detailed technical review of
the sample of 59 facilities evaluated for the proposed Guidance to reflect changes in the final
Guidance criteria and implementation procedures.   These facility-specific  compliance cost
evaluations were then used to extrapolate to an overall estimate of costs for all facilities in the
Great Lakes System.1

       As discussed throughout Section  2, several methodological  changes were made to
          the assumptions needed to derive compliance costs for the sample facilities.   One of
the more significant changes involved the use of a decision matrix for selecting the appropriate
facility-specific control option(s) to comply with final Guidance water quality-based effluent
limits (WQBELs). The underlying assumption of the decision matrix is that facilities would first
pursue least-cost controls prior to incurring the costs to install end-of-pipe treatment.  As a final
step before assuming that treatment would be installed by the facility, the relationship between
the cost of adding the treatment and other types of remedies or controls were considered. If it
was concluded that other remedies or controls would be more feasible than installing end-of-pipe
treatment, then it was assumed that a facility would alternatively pursue some type of regulatory
relief from the WQBEL.

       As described in Section 2.2.4.1, two different cost scenarios were developed to primarily
account for the flexibility provided in the final Guidance (i.e., use of regulatory relief).  Under
the low-end compliance cost scenario, if the estimated annualized cost for removal of a pollutant
by  a facility exceeded $200 per toxic pounds-equivalent then it  was assumed that the facility
would explore the use of other remedies or controls.  Acknowledging that the use of regulatory
relief may be limited depending on the particular circumstances for a "facility, " compliance costs
were also estimated under a high-end cost scenario that assumes regulatory relief would  be
granted only when the cost for the particular "category of dischargers" exceeds $500 per toxic
pounds-equivalent.  If the high-end trigger for the category was exceeded, then it was assumed
that dischargers within the  "category" would be granted regulatory relief.
   1  The results of these individual analyses are provided in a separate report prepared for EPA entitled "Technical
Background Document for the Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance Implementation Procedures Final Compliance
Cost Study" (March 13, 1995).

                                          3-1

-------
 SECTION 3                                                                    RESULTS

 3.2    DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

       Table 3-1 presents a summary of the total annualized costs of implementing the final
 Guidance to direct and indirect dischargers. As shown in Table 3-1, the compliance cost for the
 final Guidance is estimated to range from $61 million dollars to $376 million dollars.

       Under the low-end estimate, direct dischargers account  for  67  percent of the total
 estimated compliance cost, and indirect dischargers are estimated to incur 33 percent of the total
 cost.   Under the high-end estimate, direct dischargers account  for  98  percent of the total
 estimated cost, and indirect dischargers account for 2 percent. This shift in proportion of costs
 between direct and indirect dischargers between the high and the low cost estimates is due to the
 increased use of end-of-pipe treatment for direct dischargers under the high-end estimates.  In
 addition, it was assumed that a smaller proportion of indirect dischargers (10 percent) would be
 impacted under the high-end estimate, since municipal wastewater treatment plants are adding
 end-of-pipe  treatment, which should reduce the need for control of indirect dischargers  (i.e.,
 reduce the need for increased pretreatment program efforts).

 3.2.1  Analysis of Low-End Cost Estimate for Direct Dischargers

       Table 3-2 presents the projected annualized cost for each direct discharger and major cost
 category under the low-end cost scenario.  As shown in Table 3-2,  under the low-end cost
 estimate for the direct dischargers,  municipal majors are expected to incur about 58 percent of
 total costs and industrial majors account for 38 percent of total compliance costs. Minor direct
 dischargers are estimated to incur 4 percent of the total costs for direct dischargers.  The two
 major industrial categories  with the largest total annualized cost are  the pulp and  paper (20
 percent of total) and miscellaneous  (11 percent) categories.  The food and food products, metal
 finishing, mining, and metals manufacturing categories are estimated to incur less than 1 percent
 of the total annualized compliance cost.

       Although the municipal major category accounts for over 58 percent of the total estimated
cost, the average annual cost is just over $75,000 per facility.  Average  annualized costs  for
 industrial majors vary widely across categories, with the highest average cost estimated for the
miscellaneous ($168,000 per plant) and pulp and paper ($151,000 per plant) categories.  For
minor facilities, average costs are negligible at  an estimated $500  per facility.

       Figure 3-1 presents  a summary of the distribution of low-end compliance costs across
cost  categories.   Costs  to direct  dischargers for developing  and  implementing pollutant
minimization programs (required when WQBELs are below analytical detection levels) account
for most of  the costs (58 percent of total annual costs).  Annualized capital and operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs make up just over 21  percent of the total annual costs, and waste
minimization (i.e., pollution prevention) costs account for just over 11 percent. Under the low-
end cost scenario, regulatory relief was assumed when the control costs  for a pollutant at a
facility exceeded $200 per toxic pounds-equivalent. Based on the  analysis  of sample facilities,
 it was estimated that regulatory relief would be required for less than  1 percent of all direct
                                          3-2

-------
SECTION 3
                                       RESULTS
10

< fc.

fc O
                     u p d
                     111
                     05
                      81
                           00
                           (S


                           8
                              VO
                                    oo
                                       8
                                 VO
               vq
               vd
                     S
                           oo
                                 v
                                    v
                                       8
                      IS
                      K H
                              oo
                           ir
                    wsg

                    IS;
                                       vo
                    g
                              VO

                              ft
            s.
            m
                                    oo
                           1
                                 £
                                 0
                                    oo
                           *
          o
         I
                                3-3

-------
SECTION 3
                                                           RESULTS
O


<
u
en
I
g
u
U
CO
a

I
u
u
u
u
u
2
CQ

H
lj«
        1
       I
s
         *
         o
         6
                8
                8
                8
        8
                8
                8
              I
              8*
                    8
             8
                        i
                 8
                 8
                 8
                 8
                 8
                  8
                     8
                     8
                     8
8
                              a
                       W

                       6
   8
                       8
                              8
                       i
   8
8
                              i
                                  "
                                  8
                                    8
       8
                                    8
                            §
8
   8
                               8
                               S

                               8
         8
8
                                           I
                                   8
8
                                      .

                                      8
                                      8
                  8
                  8
                                              8
                                                8
                   i
                                                8
                                                8
              8
                                               8
                 8
8
                                                S
                                                8
             8
                          8
                    8
                                                8
                             8
                 8
                                                        8
     8
                    8
                             8
                8
8
i
                                                          £

                                                          8
                                                          E
                                                                 '

                                                               u •* "
                                                               c A e.

                                                               ^fil

                                                               se 2

                                                               8 8 8
                                    3-4

-------
 SECTION 3
                         RESULTS
   FIGURE 3-1: FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
         FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS: LOW-END SCENARIO
               SPECIAL MON. (2.6%)

         WASTE MIN. (11.5%)
VARIANCE (6.1%)


           O&M (15.8%)
COMPLIANCE MON. (0.7%)
                                                  CAPITAL (5 5%)
           POLLUTANT MIN. (57.8%)
                                3-5

-------
SECTION 3                                                                      RESULTS

dischargers.  For these facilities,  cost for controls to comply with the final Guidance (e.g.,
capital and O&M, pollutant minimization programs, waste minimisation, etc.) were shifted to
costs related to  pursuing  regulatory relief.  The resulting costs associated  with pursuing
regulatory relief account for just over 6 percent of the total annual costs.

       Table 3-3  presents a summary  of compliance costs under the low-end scenario  by
pollutant.  As shown in Table 3-3, controls for mercury account for more than 20 percent of
annual costs (attributable primarily to pollutant minimization program-related  costs).   Other
pollutants accounting for significant costs include methylene chloride, aluminum, benzene, and
copper.

3.2.2  Analysis of High-End Cost Estimate for Direct Dischargers

       Under the high-end scenario, regulatory relief was assumed necessary when the total cost
for a category  exceeded $500 per toxic pounds-equivalent reduced.  Only the steam electric
industrial category was estimated to exceed the $500 toxic pounds-equivalent cost trigger.  In
general, estimated costs for end-of-pipe treatment of significant volumes of non-contact cooling
water accounted  for the high costs within the steam electric category.  As a result of the.se
significant costs, costs for end-of-pipe treatment were shifted to costs to pursue regulatory relief.

       Table 3-4 presents the projected annualized cost for each discharger and major cost
category under the low-end scenario.  As shown hi Table 3-4, under the high-end estimate for
the direct dischargers, municipal majors are expected to incur just over 70 percent of total costs
and industrial majors account for 29 percent of total annual compliance costs.  Minor direct
dischargers are estimated to incur less than 1 percent  of the total costs.

       The two major industrial categories with the largest total annualized cost are the pulp and
paper (23 percent of total) and miscellaneous (3 percent) categories. Even under the high-end,
the food and food products, metal finishing, mining,  and metals manufacturing categories are
still estimated to incur less than 1 percent of the total annualized  compliance cost.  In addition,
due to the shift from end-of-pipe treatment to regulatory relief, the steam electric category also
accounts for less  than 1 percent of the total  compliance cost.

       The municipal major category accounts for almost 70 percent of the total estimated cost,
the average annual  cost is just over $822,000 per  facility.  Average annualized costs for
industrial majors vary widely across categories, with the highest average cost estimated for pulp
and paper ($1,583,000 per plant) and miscellaneous ($433,700 per plant) categories.  For minor
facilities, average costs are negligible at an estimated $500 per facility.

       Figure 3-2 presents a summary of the distribution of low-end compliance costs  across
cost categories.   For the high-end scenario, costs to direct dischargers shifted  away from
developing and implementing pollutant minimization plans and waste minimization to capital and
O&M  costs (more than 52  percent of total annual  costs) associated with construction and
application of  end-of-pipe treatment.   Annualized costs  for developing and  implementing
pollutant minimization plans account for just over 6 percent and  waste minimization costs

                                           3-6

-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
          TABLE 3-3 BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                     BY POLLUTANT: LOW-END SCENARIO
PARAMETER
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic(m)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium(in)
Chromium(VI)
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide, Free
Cyanide, total
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3 ,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
0
0
2,793,250
0
139,280
2,101,420
0
0
0
11,400
92,300
687,167
0
339,336
0
0
0
0
2,100,048
1,088,809
0
8,250
8,250
695,417
5,820
972,000
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
0.0%
0.0%
6.9%
0.0%
0.3%
5.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
1.7%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
5.2%
2.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
2.4%
                                  3-7

-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
          TABLE 3-3 BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                 BY POLLUTANT:  LOW-END SCENARIO (continued)
PARAMETER
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachloroethane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Parathion
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
92,300
256,280
0
0
695,417
0
0
0
0
0
687,167
0
10,920
1,786,935
698,342
1,751,908
687,167
687,167
0
10,920
41,920
1,088,593
12,646,210
3,063,667
0
0
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
0.2%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
4.4%
1.7%
4.3%
1.7%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
2.7%
31.2%
7.6%
0.0%
0.0%
                                    3-8

-------
 SECTION 3
RESULTS
             TABLE 3-3  BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                     BY POLLUTANT:  LOW-END SCENARIO (continued)
PARAMETER
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium, Total
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Ttichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Whole Effluent Toxicity
Zinc
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
689,303
687,167
1,863,493
0
0
0
0
0
687,167
0
0
0
698,342
0
0
0
654,121
2,520
40,529,768
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
1.7%
1.7%
4.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%
0.0%
100.0%
      All costs ate in 1st Quarter 1994 dollars; total cost may not match Table 3-2 due to rounding during
      extrapolation.
account for less than 1 percent of total annual costs.  Since regulatory relief was assumed for
only one category under the high-end, the costs associated with regulatory relief account for less
than 1 percent of the total annual compliance cost.

       Table 3-5 presents a summary of compliance costs under the high-end scenario by
pollutant. As shown in Table 3-5, controls for lead account for more than 60 percent of annual
costs (attributable primarily to end-of-pipe treatment related controls).  Other pollutants that
account for significant costs include heptachlor, pentachlorophenol, lindane, and mercury.
                                          3-9

-------
SECTION 3
                                                       RESULTS
1
bd
U
U
Ed
U

         I
       i
I
o


        s
        s
               8
               8
               8
               8
               8
               8
ind
*

d
3
i
8
            8
            i
I
8
            i
Inorganic
                       1
    8
               8
               8
    §
               8
               8
                  s
                  s
      8
      8
                         i
      8
      8
8
         8
                    8
                           I
         8
         8
8
            8
8
                          s

                                    R.
8
                 1
                                    s

                                 §
8
                                        s
                     1
                                        1
               8
               8
               s
                       i
                                          8

             i
8
                8
                  8
                      8
                      8
                                                    s
                                                    8
8
                     8
                8
                                 8
                  8
                     8
                     8
                                                    1
8
              8
                  8
                     8
                     8
                                      §
                                                          .5-
                                                          ii
                              .IE
                             o •-
                             <2 >
                                                               sin
                                                               Mb

                                 3-10

-------
SECTION 3
            RESULTS
  FIGURE 3-2: FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
       FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS: HIGH-END SCENARIO
      O&M (79.2%)
                                             VARIANCE (0.1%)
                                             MPLIANCE MON. (0.1%)
CAPITAL (13.5%)





  WASTE MIN. (0.5%)


 POLLUTANT MIN. (6.4%)


SPECIAL MON. (03%)
                               3-11

-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
          TABLE 3-5 BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                     BY POLLUTANT:  HIGH-END SCENARIO
PARAMETER
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic(m)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrcne
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium(ni)
Chromium(VI)
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide, Free
Cyanide, Total
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
0
0
4,211,188
0
225,080
2,101,420
0
0
0
11,400
0
642,833
0
2,379,520
0
0
0
0
2,100,048
824,107
0
8,250
8,250
651,083
5,820
11,970,000
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
3.3%
                                  3-12

-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
          TABLE 3-5  BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                 BY POLLUTANT:  HIGH-END SCENARIO (continued)
PARAMETER
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-DichIoropropane
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachloroethane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Parathion
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
6,331,000
0
0
0
651,083
0
0
0
0
0
642,833
0
10,920
24,747,833
654,008
6,890,333
642,833
642,833
0
10,920
236,008,507
21,525,000
15,235,978
3,063,667
0
0
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%
0.2%
1.9%
0.2%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
64.2%
5.9%
4.1%
0.8%
0.0%
0.0%
                                   3-13

-------
SECTION 3
RESULTS
            TABLE 3-5 BREAK-OUT OF FINAL GUIDANCE COMPLIANCE COSTS
                    BY POLLUTANT:  HIGH-END SCENARIO (continued)
PARAMETER
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium, total
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
WET
Zinc
TOTAL
TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS ($)*
644,969
642,833
22,260,000
0
0
0
0
0
642,833
0
0
0
654,008
0
0
0
634,456
2,520
367,678,369
PERCENT OF TOTAL COST
0.2%
0.2%
6.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.0%
100.0%
 * Costs are in 1st Quarter 1994 dollars; total cost may not match Table 3-4 due to rounding during
   extrapolation.

3.2.3  Comparison of Estimated  Costs for the Final Guidance to Costs  of Proposed
       Guidance

       Table 3-6 provides a comparison of compliance cost estimates for the final Guidance to
costs of the proposed Guidance.  The proposed Guidance  estimates were revised to reflect
changes made in the approach to estimating costs for the final Guidance (as described in Section
2).  As shown in Table 3-6, revaluation of the proposed Guidance resulted in an increase in the
estimate of costs of about $240 million under the low-end scenario and $265 million for the
high-end scenario when compared to the final Guidance.
                                        3-14

-------
SECTION 3                                                                    RESULTS

       The annual cost estimate for the final Guidance is significantly lower than the revised
estimates for the proposed Guidance. Some of this reduction is attributable to the final Guidance
intake credit provisions, which provide relief to several significant dischargers that discharge to
non-attained waters, and to the use of dissolved metals criteria, which also tends to lower the
costs for the final Guidance.

       Common to both the reevaluated proposed Guidance and the final Guidance, the lowering
of the permit baseline also accounts for an overall  decrease in compliance  costs and  load
reduction.  The lowering of the permit baseline was expected due to State implementation of the
requirements of Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), which required all States to
promulgate water quality criteria for certain toxic pollutants.  To ensure that the requirements
of Section 303(c) are met, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the National
Toxics Rule (57 FR 6084; 12/22/92) to provide water quality criteria for  pollutants for which
States did not promulgate criteria.  More important, each of the Great Lake States has been
actively involved in the Great  Lakes Water Quality Initiative since 1989, acting as co-partners
and major participants in developing the final Guidance.

       Consequently, most of the final Guidance and current State water quality standards have
a wide number of similarities.  In fact, some States have  already elected to promulgate more
stringent requirements for a variety of Guidance-related provisions in anticipation of the final
Guidance.  For example, New York, Minnesota,  Illinois,  and Wisconsin  all use a higher fish
consumption rate than required by the final Guidance for deriving human health  criteria.  Many
of the Great  Lakes  States also currently have provisions in  their water  quality programs  to
account for additivity of risk from carcinogens.  As a result of these and many other efforts by
States, the stringency of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
requirements  continues to increase,  which decreases  the  incremental difference between the
current State permit  limits and Guidance-based WQBELs.
                                         3-15

-------
SECTION 3
                                                      RESULTS
           i
           1
                 •—i p* r™

                    i
                 lit
                  !*I
                    fe

111
                 e
                 s


     V3
     S

     I
     s

     I
Municipal
                         5
                           VO
                              VO
                              S
                                1
                i*
                                   I
                  I  j
                                       u

                                       1
                                   S»*S
                                   II 3*
                                   e e s s
                                   s s S i
                 s  ««
                                      11
                                   C O 2 s
                                      •— ~-

                                      uiu3
                            3-16

-------
 SECTION 4                                       EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                    4.  EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

       This section presents a revised cost-effectiveness analysis which was performed to
compare the estimated  costs related  to  implementing the  final Guidance to those of other
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory programs.  In addition, the results from this
cost-effectiveness analysis  reflect revisions to  the reported cost-effectiveness values in the
proposed Guidance.

       For a pollution control option, cost-effectiveness is defined as the incremental annualized
cost per incremental pound of pollutant removal. Cost-effectiveness is measured in dollars per
toxic pounds-equivalent removed per year.  Toxic pounds-equivalent units are standardized to
allow comparison among different pollutants.

       This cost-effectiveness analysis has  limitations because  of  the  available data  and
simplifying assumptions used to calculate pollutant reductions for the 59  sample facilities for
which compliance cost estimates were derived.  These limitations and assumptions, discussed
throughout this section,  affect the estimation of pollutant reductions and directly influence the
cost-effectiveness measure.   These limitations  and  assumptions notwithstanding,  the results
presented in this section should indicate whether the costs to implement the final Guidance are
comparable to other EPA regulatory programs.

4.1    METHODOLOGY

       The methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness used  in this  study is generally
consistent with the methodology used in the proposed Guidance and is based on the methodology
used by EPA in analyzing pollutant control options for national effluent guidelines and standards.
This  methodology  entails  estimating pollutant loading reductions  attributable to the final
Guidance implementation procedures for each major  sample facility, converting the pollutant
reduction estimates  into toxic pounds-equivalents, and escalating the weighted pollutant loading
reductions to represent the  universe of direct discharging facilities hi the  Great Lakes Basin.
The pollutant loading reductions were computed under two different sets of assumptions to arrive
at a low-end and a  high-end loadings  reduction  estimate.  The total annual costs for both the
low-end and the  high-end scenarios were  then divided by the low-end and  the high-end annual
loadings reductions, respectively, resulting in low-end and high-end cost effectiveness estimates.

4.1.1  Estimation of Pollutant Reductions

       As for the proposed  Guidance,  pollutant loading reductions were calculated using major
municipal and industrial sample facility data to indicate the decrease hi pollutant discharge due
to  more  stringent  water   quality-based  effluent  limitations  (WQBELs)  resulting  from
implementation of the final  Guidance.  Pollutant loading reductions were calculated by finding
                                          4-1

-------
SECTION 4	EVALUATION  OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

the difference between the existing permit limitation (considered the baseline value) and the final
Guidance-based effluent limitation.1

       First, baseline pollutant loadings were determined to establish a fixed reference from
which to estimate pollutant loading reductions.  In this case, the existing permit limit was used
as the baseline discharge concentration for each pollutant.  If a permit limit was not available
for a pollutant,  then the highest reported effluent concentration was used.  In cases where the
facility did not  have a permit limit  and reported  all values for a pollutant below reasonable
detection levels, the pollutant was not evaluated further.  Baseline loadings were converted to
pounds per day  by multiplying the existing permit limitation or effluent concentration (in /zg/1)
by the facility's average daily flow rate (in million gallons per day, or MGD) and a conversion
factor (0.00834) to calculate the loadings in pounds per day.

       Next, the low-end and the high-end pollutant loadings were calculated.   The low-end
estimate represents loadings when regulatory relief is allowed to facilities if the cost exceeds a
threshold  value.   For  example, if the expected  pollutant reduction  was insignificant  in
comparison to the capital and operational costs incurred for reducing the pollutant,  then it was
assumed that the  facility would be granted a relief by complying with final Guidance  limits
instead of having to implement treatment systems.  In cases when a facility was determined to
require relief, any loading reduction was "zeroed" such  that no credit was given to the final
Guidance for any  projected load reduction.

       The nigh-end estimate  is based on the cost and pollutant loading reductions resulting from
the use of a higher cost threshold for a category of dischargers. Under the assumptions for this
estimate, only  one industrial category's (the Steam Electric  Category)  cost  exceeded  the
threshold.

       Low-end and  high-end pollutant loading  reductions were  calculated  by  taking  the
difference between the baseline and low-end load estimates, and  the baseline and high-end load
estimates.  Several assumptions were made in determining the reduction for a pollutant:

       •      If the difference between the baseline value  and the final Guidance limitation was
              negative,  a zero loading reduction was assumed.  Although  it  seems counter
              intuitive, this situation can occur because of the method of determining the need
              for a WQBEL.  In the absence of a permit limit for a pollutant, if the projected
              effluent quality (based on the reported concentration) exceeded the Guidance-
              based  WQBEL,  a final Guidance-based  effluent limitation  was  established.
              However, there were  instances when the projected effluent quality was greater
              than  the  final Guidance  limit (indicating  the need for  a WQBEL)  but  the
   'It should be noted that using a facility's permit limitations as the baseline for calculating pollutant reductions
portrays the difference between existing and final Guidance-based permit limitations rather than a true estimate of
the pollutant reductions (or baseline loads) that would be attributable to the final Guidance.  Some (or most) facilities
may be discharging at concentrations below permitted amounts, so that actual removals (or baseline loads) may be
less than estimated here.

                                            4-2

-------
 SECTION 4                                        EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

              maximum reported concentration was less than the final Guidance permit limit.
              The difference  between  the  maximum  reported concentration  and the final
              Guidance permit limit would therefore be negative. In such cases,  no loading
              reduction (as opposed to a negative reduction) was assumed,

       •      If the final Guidance-based effluent limit was below analytical detection levels,
              one-half of the analytical detection level was used to compute the final Guidance
              loading. The final Guidance loading  was then subtracted from the baseline load
              calculated using the facility's existing  permit limit. If both the baseline value and
              the Guidance-based effluent limit were below analytical detection levels, then no
              pollutant load reduction credit  was  attributed to the Guidance (but the costs
              related to implementation of pollutant minimization programs were still included).

       •      For purposes  of calculating a baseline value, it was assumed that the facilities
              were discharging at the level of the existing permit limitation.2

 4.1.2  Revised Toxic Weights

       Toxic weights were used in the proposed Guidance (and revised hi the final Guidance)
 to derive cost-effectiveness estimates  as  well  as to compare the relative loadings  of the 138
 pollutants of initial focus analyzed for the cost study.  Toxic weights are used as normalizing
 factors that relate the toxicity of any pollutant to the toxicity of copper.  The  factor considers
 the aquatic toxicity  and the human health effects of a pollutant and is calculated using the
 following formula:

 Toxic Weight =  5.6/[fresh water chronic criteria Gtg/1)] + 5.6/[human health criteria (jtg/1)]

       The value of 5.6 /ig/1 was  the original  National chronic  water quality  criterion for
 copper; thus, the toxic weight for copper was equal  to 1.0.  A pollutant with a toxic weight of
 10, therefore, would be considered 10 tunes as toxic as copper.

       The national chronic water quality criterion for copper has since been revised to 12 /xg/1;
 however, the 5.6  value is retained for consistency.   This results in copper currently having a
 toxic weight of 5.6/12, or 0.47.

       Toxic weights  from  1988 were used in calculating  baseline pollutant loads and load
 reductions for the proposed Guidance.  These loads  and load reductions are expressed in toxic
pounds-equivalent. In analyzing the impact of the final Guidance, toxic weights  were developed
 or recalculated for all 69 pollutants included in  the cost study, using the most recent criteria and
toxicity information available.  These updates resulted hi both raising and lowering of the 1988
   2It should be noted that this assumption was primarily the reason that pollutant reductions and compliances were
estimated for pollutants for which production has been banned (e.g., PCB, 4,4-DDT, etc.)

                                           4-3

-------
SECTION 4                                        EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

toxic weights, depending on the toxicity data available for a specific pollutant.  Table  4-1
.presents the revised toxic weights for each pollutant evaluated in the cost study.

4.1.3  Toxicity Weighting and Extrapolation of Pollutant Baseline Loadings and Reductions

       Each pollutant's baseline load, low-end load, and high-end load were multiplied by their
respective toxic weights to express them hi units of toxic pounds-equivalent.  The toxic weighted
loading reductions were then calculated by taking the difference between the baseline values  and
the low-end values, and the baseline and the high-end values.  The total toxic weighted baseline
load and reduction for all pollutants for a facility was determined  by summing toxic weighted
baseline loads and reductions.  Each facility's total baseline pollutant load and load reduction
were then summed with other facility toxic weighted loads and reductions within each strata  and
then extrapolated to arrive at the total baseline pollutant loading and reduction for the universe
of direct dischargers into the Great Lakes Basin.

4.1.4  Determining Cost-Effectiveness

       Cost-effectiveness was determined by multiplying the total pounds-equivalent for all
pollutants (in pounds-equivalent per day) by 365 days to derive the total annual low-end  and
high-end toxic weighted pollutant reductions. The total annualized low-end costs  were divided
by the total annual low-end toxic pounds reduced to determine the cost-effectiveness, expressed
hi dollars per toxic pounds-equivalent removed.  The procedure was repeated to determine the
high-end cost-effectiveness.

4.2    RESULTS

       Tables 4-2 and  4-3  present  the annual unweighted and toxic weighted extrapolated
baseline pollutant load and loading reductions attributed to implementation of the final Guidance.
As shown hi Table 4-3,  the toxicity-weighted baseline pollutant loading was projected to be just
over 35 million toxic pounds-equivalent per year (Ibs-eq/year).  This baseline pollutant loading
represents almost a 72 percent reduction hi the baseline projected by  EPA for its original
analysis of the proposed Guidance (126 million Ibs-eq/year).

       This downward shift in the baseline pollutant loadings is particularly significant hi light
of the fact that more than 35 pollutants were added for the analysis  of the final Guidance. This
shift is  attributable to the fact that the existing permit baseline also moved downward (i.e..,
existing permit limits for the sample facilities were found to be more stringent).  This downward
shift hi the permit baseline is due, in part, to increased efforts by States to protect water quality.
The use of dissolved criteria for metals for the final Guidance, which tended to eliminate metals
for the cost and loading analysis, also accounted for a shift hi the baseline.  Finally, hi contrast
to the cost analysis for the proposed Guidance, where baseline loads were estimated even when
                                           4-4

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
   TABLE 4-1  TOXIC WEIGHTS FOR POLLUTANTS EVALUATED IN THE FINAL GUIDANCE
PARAMETER
Acrylonitrile
Aldrin
AlumiiHirn
Antimony
Arsenic(III)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzofalpyrene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
ChlorDvrifos
Chromium(IIT)
ChromiumCVT)
Chrvsene
Copper
Cyanide, Free
Cyanide. Total
4.4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3 ,3-Dichlorobenzidine
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1.2-Dichloroethane
1 . 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 .2-Dichloropropane
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Toxic WEIGHT
8.50E-01
5.00E+01
6.40E-02
1.90E-01
4.00E+00
1.80E-02
l.OOE+03
4.30E+03
5.30E+00
5.20E+00
1.30E-01
2.30E+03
2.90E-03
2.10E-03
1.40E+02
2.67E-02
3.55E+01
1.80E+01
4.70E-01
1.08E+00
1.08E+00
7.60E+02
. 9.50E+02
6.50E+03
7.30E+00
3.90E-04
6.20E-03
1.80E-01
9.30E-05
1.50E-02
5.70E+04
5.30E-03
8.40E-03
l.OOE+02
l.OOE+02
PARAMETER
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocvclohexane
Hexachloroethane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Parathion
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium. Total
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2.3,7.8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1.1.1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2.4.6-Trichlorophenol
Zinc
Toxic WEIGHT
l.OOE+02
9.80E+01
9.20E-01
3.50E-02
4.10E+03
7.20E+02
4.30E+01
1.20E+01
1.80E+01
7.40E-02
5.60E-03
1.80E+00
7.00E+01
5.00E+02
4.20E-04
3.60E-02
4.30E+02
7.49E+03
2.30E+00
5.00E-01
1.90E+01
2.80E-02
1.10E+00
4.70E+01
2.00E+00
4.20E+08
7.40E-02
1.40E-01
5.60E-03
2.90E+04
4.30E-03
6.30E-02
3.50E-01
5.10E-02

                                   4-5

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
            TABLE 4-2 UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS
POLLUTANT
Aciylonitrile
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (m)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrene
Beryllium
PaHmiiim
Carbontetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium (ID)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide, Free
Cyanide, Total
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3 ,3-Dichlorobenzidine
POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS/YEAR)
BASELINE
	 *
—
37,185,781
—
5,494
9,111
—
—
—
66,313
4,985
424
—
61,429
—
—
—
—
5,111
87,218
—
0
0
10
15,132
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
—
—
397,172
—
5,389
56
—
—
—
0
4,054
289
—
3,333
—
—
—
—
1,583
9,657
—
0
0
0
9,400
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
—
—
397,172
—
5,389
56
—
—
—
0
4,323
289
—
3,333
—
—
—
—
1,583
9,657
—
0
0
0
12,392
                                   4-6

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
             TABLE 4-2 UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADINGS (continued)
POLLUTANT
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachloroethane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
POLLDTANT LOADING (LBS/YEAR)
BASELINE
—
4,677
344
—
333
56
—
—
—
—
—
1,934
—
73,584
567
754
1,926
1,929
1,926
—
3,166,429
997,118
77
1,039
11,905
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
—
3,065
0
—
333
37
—
—
—
—
—
1,875
—
0
106
272
1,900
1,869
1,843
—
0
600,078
0
133
4,762
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
—
3,065
0
—
333
37
—
—
—
—
—
1,875
—
0
537
272
1,902
1,869
1,843
—
0
666,078
76
136
4,762
                                    4-7

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
               TABLE 4-2 UNWEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADINGS (continued)
POLLUTANT
Nickel
Parathion
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium, total
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachloiobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Zinc
TOTALS
POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS/YEAR)
BASELINE
2,444
—
61
192,974
13,484
—
—
—
9,078
194,448
0
—
—
2,143
580
—
96
—
34,020
44,183,751
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
2,111
—
0
191,967
0
—
—
—
0
188,401
0
—
—
0
1
—
72
—
1,490
1,431,248
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
2,111
—
0
191,969
11,782
—
—
—
—
193,268
0
—
—
357
1
—
72
—
1,490
1,452,029
 * Indicates that there was no reasonable potential for the pollutant to exceed Guidance-based WQBELs for
   any of the sample facilities.
                                          4-8

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
         TABLE 4-3 TOXICITY WEIGHTED POLLUTANT LOADING REDUCTIONS
POLLUTANT
Aciylonitrile
Aldrin
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic (HI)
Benzene
Benzidine
Benzo[a]pyrcne
Beryllium
Osmium
Carbontetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
Chromium (HI)
Chromium (VI)
Chrysene
Copper
Cyanide, Free
Cyanide, Total
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
DDT
3,3-Dichlorobenzidine
POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS-EQ/YEAR)
BASELINE
	 *
—
2,379,890
—
21,975
164
—
—
—
344,827
648
975,523
—
129
—
—
—
—
2,402
95,940
—
45
21
88,152
110,466
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
—
—
25,419
—
21,556
1
—
—
—
0
527
664,604
—
7
—
—
—
—
744
10,623
—
23
10
212
68,619
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
—
—
25,419
—
21,556
1
—
—
—
0
562
664,604
—
7
—
—
—
—
744
10,623
—
23
10
212
90,465
                                   4-9

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFTECTTVENESS
              TABLE 4-3 POUNDS-EQUIVALENT POLLUTANT LOADING
                           REDUCTIONS (continued)
POLLUTANT
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethylene
1 ,2-trans-Dichlorocthylene
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Dieldrin
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
alpha-Endosulfan
beta-Endosulfan
Endosulfan
Endrin
Fluoranthene
Fluoride
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane
beta-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
HexachloFoethane
Iron
Lead
Lindane
Mercury
POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS-EQ/YEAR)
BASELINE
—
29
62
—
5
3,190,719
—
—
—
—
—
189,557
—
73,584
2,324,390
542,816
82,945
23,117
34,675
—
17,732
1,794,813
5,366
519,286
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
—
19
0
—
5
2,092,368
—
—
—
—
—
183,778
—
0
434,659
195,908
81,721
22,423
33,172
—
0
1,080,141
0
66,304
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
—
19
0
—
5
2,092,368
—
—
—
—
—
183,778
—
0
2,201,441
195,908
81,788
22,423
33,172
—
0
1,080,141
5,289
67,878
                                   4-10

-------
SECTION 4
EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
                TABLE 4-3 POUNDS-EQUIVALENT POLLUTANT LOADING
                               REDUCTIONS (continued)
POLLUTANT
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Parathion
PCBs
Pentachlorobenzene
Pentachloropbenol
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Selenium, Total
Silver
1 ,2,4,5-Tetrachlorobenzene
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetrachloroethylene
Thallium
Toluene
Toxaphene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Zinc
TOTALS
POLLUTANT LOADING (LBS-EQ/YEAR)
BASELINE
5
88
—
454,908
443,840
6,742
—
—
—
426,685
388,895
3,989,245
—
—
12
16,833,496
—
8
—
1,735
35,364,934
REDUCTION
(Low ESTIMATE)
2
76
—
0
441,528
0
—
—
—
0
376,802
0
—
—
0
36,956
—
6
—
76
5,838,289
REDUCTION
(HIGH ESTIMATE)
2
76
—
0
441,528
5,891
—
—
—
—
386,536
0
—
—
2
36,956
—
6
—
76
7,649,510
   Indicates that there was no reasonable potential for the pollutant to exceed Guidance-based WQBELs for
   any of the sample facilities.
                                        4-11

-------
SECTION 4	EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

all data were reported below analytical detection levels (in the absence of a permit limit), the
cost analysis for the final Guidance excluded pollutants that were  never detected from further
evaluation.

       Upon implementation of the final Guidance, the estimated pollutant loadings under the
low-end estimate would be reduced by 5.8 million Ibs-eq/year, which represents a  16 percent
reduction of the baseline pollutant loadings. Under the high-end cost estimate, pollutant loading
reductions would increase by 1.8 million Ibs-eq/year to a total of 7.6 million Ibs-eq/year, which
represents a 22 percent reduction of the baseline pollutant loadings.

       The percent reductions  estimated  for the final Guidance are also  lower than those
projected for the proposed Guidance which was reevaluated using  the revised approach for
estimating costs and load reductions.  Pollutant loadings under the proposed Guidance would be
8.4 million Ibs-eq/year (24 percent reduction) and 10.1 million Ibs-eq/year (29 percent reduction)
for the low- and high-end scenarios, respectively. The drop in estimated pollutant loadings can
also  be credited to the  changes made by EPA to the criteria for the final Guidance (e.g.,
adjusting bioaccumulation factors, use of dissolved criteria for metals) and the toxic weights.
The  combined result of these changes was essentially less stringent criteria, which would tend
to reduce the difference between existing permit limits and the Guidance-based WQBELs.

       Under the low-end estimate for the final  Guidance, the largest pollutant load reductions
occur for dieldrin and lead,  which account for over 50 percent toxic weighted load reduction.
Chlordane, heptachlor, and pentachlorobenzene  were also reduced by significant amounts from
the  baseline.  Under the high-end estimate, the largest pollutant load reductions occur for
heptachlor, dieldrin, and lead, which account for about 70 percent of the toxic weighted load
reduction.

       Approximately 80 percent of the pollutant  load reduction for the final  Guidance,
regardless of the scenario, is attributable to reducing bioaccumulative pollutants of concern
(BCCs) as  a result of pollutant minimization plans  and end-of-pipe  treatment.   However,  it
should be noted that for  several BCCs (e.g., PCBs, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, mercury,  toxaphene), little
or no reduction from the baseline is estimated. This phenomenon occurs because of the method
used to derive load reductions. As described in  Section 4.1.1, when an existing permit limit or
a Guidance-based  WQBEL is below the  analytical  detection level,  one-half of the method
detection level is used for each limit or WQBEL. The result of this approach is that no pollutant
reduction would be estimated, regardless of whether the Guidance-based WQBEL was  further
below  detection levels than the existing permit  limit.  Therefore,  hi effect,  for several of the
toxic pollutants of concern, the lack of estimated reduction is due to the downward shift hi the
permit baseline (i.e.,  more stringent existing permit limits).

       The cost-effectiveness of the final  Guidance under the low-end estimate  is just under
$7.00/lbs-eq for the direct dischargers only; with the cost for indirect dischargers, the cost-
effectiveness rises  to $10.30/lbs-eq.   Under  the high-end  estimate,  the  cost-effectiveness
increases to just over $49.00/lbs-eq.
                                         4-12

-------
SECTION 4                                      EVALUATION OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS

       The estimates for the final Guidance are considerably more  cost-effective than those
estimated for the proposed Guidance using the revised approach ($35.96/lbs-eq for the low-end
scenario and $63.83/lbs-eq for the high-end scenario).  For comparative purposes,  cost-
effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines and  standards range from just over
$1.00/lbs-eq/year to more than $500/lbs-eq/year.
                                        4-13

-------
SECTION 5                                    EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
                  5. EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

       The proposed Guidance generated extensive comments related to the potential costs of
the Guidance.  Many comments related to the cost associated with specific provisions of the
Guidance.  Most of the regulated community, driven by the uncertainty, of future impacts of the
Guidance, also claimed that the costs could be orders of magnitude higher than those estimated
for the proposed Guidance.  There also were concerns from several States that the estimated
impact of the proposed Guidance, in relation to their current program of regulating point source
dischargers, was too great.

       In response to the issues raised regarding the cost of various provisions of the proposed
Guidance, additional analyses  were performed to evaluate the impact of possible regulatory
options and address these issues.  This section discusses the major issues raised by commenters,
the approach used to evaluate these issues,  and the results of these analyses.

5.1    SUMMARY OF ISSUES RELATED TO COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES

       There were many comments received on the  compliance cost and pollutant  loading
reduction estimates that were provided for the proposed Guidance.  Based on the comments
submitted, there were several issues identified that could significantly  impact the estimated
compliance cost for the final Guidance. These issues were considered "cost drivers."

      Table 5-1 summarizes the cost driver issues related  to the Guidance compliance cost
estimates.

5.2   DESCRIPTION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

      In response to the cost driver issues identified in the public comments, a number of
regulatory alternatives for these issues were developed and analyzed to determine the impact of
the cost drivers on the compliance cost and pollutant load reduction estimates for the Guidance.

      Table 5-2 presents a summary  of the regulatory alternatives  that were identified to
address the issues described in Section 5.1  above.  In general, for each cost driver, costs and
pollutant load reduction estimates were derived for one alternative believed to be less stringent
than the regulation contained hi  the proposed Guidance, as  well  as an alternative considered
more stringent.   However, due to the nature  of some of the issues,  both types of alternatives
(i.e., less and more stringent) could not be developed.

5.3   METHODOLOGY TO EVALUATE REGULATORY OPTIONS

      For each of the cost driver issues, (except the evaluation of the antidegradation provisions
and the impact of future improvement of analytical detection levels), the same methodology, as
described in Section 2 of this report, was used to estimate the compliance cost and pollutant
                                        5-1

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
                                                           ll
                                 5-2

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
        u
        u
        o
        I
        g
        o
        £
        u
        u

        !i
                                 5-3

-------
SECTION 5
                    EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
                il

                'I
00
                 es
                          a
                                          ss

                                                       So
                                                       I- v &
                                                       £$ '5

                                5-4

-------
SECTION 5
   EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
            11
                       «s
                          l
                                                     I  I
                                                     '5  '5
                                                     73  73
                                                     3  3
                     rl8
                     ulu I
                          s
                          "K
                          5
                          < 73
                                                      .§
I
                 .§ «

                 il
                 il
                 ^•i
                 D >
                 •c
                 5
                          00


                          |
                          E£

                              5-5

-------
 SECTION 5	EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

 reduction  impact  of each  regulatory  alternative.    Since  evaluation of  the  impact  of
 antidegradation provisions and improved analytical detection levels involves predicting impacts
 in the future, alternative  methods were developed.  These alternative methods are described
 further hi the following sections.

 5.3.1  Method for Evaluating the Impact of the Antidegradation Provisions of the Final
       Guidance

       An alternative methodology was also used to analyze the impact of the antidegradation
 provisions considered for the final Guidance because the impacts would be highly site-specific
 and unpredictable in terms of when a facility will need to request an antidegradation review.
 Further, of particular concern to commenters was the possible lost economic opportunities should
 they be denied the ability to increase discharges hi the future.

       Therefore, the method used to estimate the impact of the final Guidance antidegradation
 provisions involved estimating  what lost opportunity costs may  result.   This analysis  was
 particularly based on the antidegradation requirements for BCCs contained hi the final Guidance,
 that requires an antidegradation review if there is a deliberate action on the part of a facility that
 results hi a significant lowering of water quality (i.e., the activity results hi an increase hi BCC
 loadings).1  The  general premise behind the antidegradation analysis was that the economic
 growth hi the Great Lakes region would continue at a pace equal to the average growth over the
 last 8 years (1987-1994).

       Table 5-3  shows one measure of economic growth (the total value of shipments) for six
 major industrial categories hi the Great Lakes Basin for which data were  readily available.
Based on these data, the total value of shipments hi the Great Lakes Basin hi 1994 is projected
to be $172 billion; the average annual growth (total value of shipments) over the 8-year period
 across all categories is just over 1 percent (1.29).

       Acknowledging that not all industrial facilities are direct dischargers, and therefore not
 all economic growth is attributable to direct dischargers,  data was collected to determine what
proportion of the total industry was  made up of direct dischargers.  Table 5-4 shows data
 collected  from EPA  development  documents supporting effluent limitations guidelines  and
 standards for the six industrial categories for which economic data was collected.  As shown  in
 Table 5-4, and assuming that national proportions are reflective of the Great Lakes Basin, direct
 dischargers account for 38.9 percent  of the total industry on average across all six industrial
 categories. Multiplying the 1994 total value of shipments ($172 billion) by 38.9 percent results
 hi a total value of shipments attributable to direct dischargers of $67 billion.
   1  The final Guidance does not require State and Tribal permitting authorities to adopt antidegradation
procedures for non-BCCs.  Therefore, the cost impact analysis focused only on BCCs.

                                           5-6

-------
    SECTION 5
                                                    EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
I
I
X
55
I
en
|
       i
       OB
       &
              oo
              oo
              00
              Os
              VO
              VO
                 VO

                    65
                    65
                    oo
                    65
%
                             3
                             00
                             00
                             O
                                8
                                65
                                      S!
                                      00
                                         co
                                         Os
                                         VO

                                            65
                                                     00
                                                     VO
                                                     vo
                                                     00
                                                     *»»
                                                     VO
in
                                                        65
                                                        65
                                                        o

                                                              oo
                                                              00

                                                                 OS
                                                                 £
            65
            65
                                                                    vo
                                                                    65
            O
                                                                          8
                                                                          VO
                     S

                                                                             oo
                                                                             Os
O
                        65
                                                                                      oo
                                                                                         Os
                                                                                         oo
                                                                                         3
O
                                                                                            «
                                                                                            Os (i,
                                                                                            «:
                                                                                            73
                                    If
                                    I8
                                                                                            o S
                                                                                            82
                                             5-7

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
       Based on  an average  annual  growth rate  of  1.29  percent, the resulting estimated
incremental annual growth above 1994 estimates, which is attributable to direct dischargers in
the Great Lakes Basin, is estimated to be $864 million.  This estimate served as the baseline
from which Guidance antidegradation requirement impacts were estimated.

   TABLE 5-4 PROPORTION OF DIRECT DISCHARGERS TO TOTAL INDUSTRY ESTIMATES
INDUSTRIAL CATEGORY
Iron and Steel
Pulp and Paper
Nonferrous Metals
Inorganic Chemicals
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Resins
Pharmaceuticals
TOTAL
NUMBER OF
DISCHARGERS
1,020
674
448
1,142
941
439
NUMBER OF
DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
733
338
112
481
300
55
Average
DIRECT
DISCHARGERS
AS PERCENT
OF TOTAL (%)
71.9
50.2
25.0
42.1
31.9
12.5
38.9
 Source: EPA Development Documents

       The impact on the total estimated annual growth in the Great Lakes Basin ($864 million)
was then estimated under three different scenarios:

       •      High-End Scenario - assuming that all facilities  that contained BCCs in then-
             discharge (approximately 5 percent of all direct dischargers)  would request an
             antidegradation review and all 5 percent were denied their request to increase the
             discharge of pollutants.

       •      Mid-Range Scenario - assuming that half of the facilities discharging BCCs and
             requesting antidegradation reviews were allowed to increase discharges.

       •      Low-End Scenario - assuming that only 10  percent of the facilities discharging
             BCCs would request an antidegradation review each year, and half of the facilities
             requesting antidegradation reviews were allowed to increase discharges.

5.3.2  Method for Evaluating the Impact of Future Improvements to Analytical Detection
       Levels

       The methodology used to  derive estimates of possible Guidance-driven compliance costs
and pollutant load reductions when analytical  detection levels become  more stringent hi the
                                         5-8

-------
 SECTION 5                                     EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

 future is based on the premise that pollutant control cost-effectiveness will remain constant over
 time.  If it  is assumed that treatment technology will keep pace with improvements in analytical
 detection levels, then  the cost-effectiveness based on the Guidance high-end  cost estimates
 provides a  reasonable upper-bound estimate of costs.

       Compliance costs and pollutant load reductions were estimated under two scenarios:
 (1) assuming that analytical method detection levels (MDLs) improve 10-fold over time, and
 (2) assuming that MDLs improve 100-fold over time.  The first step in estimating compliance
 costs under these future scenarios was to develop expected pollutant load reductions for each
 category of direct  dischargers evaluated for the final Guidance. The same procedure used to
 derive pollutant load reduction estimates for the sample facilities (as described in  Sections 2 and
 4) was used to estimate pollutant  load reductions.  The resulting incremental  pollutant load
 reductions attributable to MDLs decreasing 10- and 100-fold (in toxic pounds-equivalent) were
 then multiplied by  the high-end cost-effectiveness values for each category (in annual cost per
 toxic pounds-equivalent) to develop the incremental cost of each scenario.

       It should be noted that many of the same conservative assumptions that were used in the
 cost analysis were continued for purposes of estimating the impact of improvement in analytical
 detection levels.  These assumptions include:

       •     Assuming no mixing zone is allowed for BCCs; and

       •     Assuming  that the future MDL will be used as the  compliance level.  This
             equivalent to a 30 to  60 fold or 300 to 600 fold improvement, respectively, in the
             minimum level of quantification, which is used for determining compliance in the
             final Guidance.

 In addition, because the analysis is  based on the high-end compliance cost estimates, the use of
 regulatory  flexibility provided  in   the final  Guidance (e.g.,  phased total maximum daily
 loads/water quality assessments, economic/technical feasibility determination for  elimination of
 mixing zones for BCCs, site-specific criteria modification, etc.) was limited to the steam electric
 category (see related discussion in  Section 3.2.2).  As a result, except for the  steam electric
 category, the analysis uses the  average  high-end compliance costs for a category  which  are
 heavily weighted with end-of-pipe treatment costs.

 Finally, the analysis does not off-set costs for treatment that may be required to achieve current
 NPDES permit limits that are below analytical detection levels.
5.4    RESULTS

       The following subsections present the results of the analyses performed for each of the
final Guidance regulatory alternatives.  For each cost driver a summary table is provided to
compare the results to the estimates for the final Guidance.
                                         5-9

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
5.4.1  Fish Consumption Rates

       Many commenters believed that EPA's proposed fish consumption rate of 15 grams per
day (grams/day) for establishing human health protection criteria would not be protective of
recreational and subsistence anglers such as the Native American anglers and minority anglers,
or women of childbearing  age  and children within the Great Lakes Basin.   Further, some
commenters suggested that a higher fish consumption rate ranging from 30-60 grams/day would
be necessary to protect lower income and minority subpopulations that eat more sport caught fish
on average.  In an effort to evaluate the impact of increasing fish consumption rate assumptions;,
an analysis of the compliance costs  associated with increasing the consumption rate to  45
grams/day was performed.

       Table  5-5 summarizes the results of the analysis of the  impact  of alternative fish
consumption rates on the estimated costs and pollutant loading reductions of the final Guidance.
The estimates for the final Guidance were based on a consumption rate of 45 grams/day.   As
shown in Table 5-5, decreasing the consumption rate to 15 grams/day had negligible impact on
the estimated compliance cost and expected pollutant load reductions.  The cost results at the
high-end also show relatively insignificant increases hi estimated costs  and pollutant load
reductions. The primary reason that decreasing fish consumption had little impact on costs or
load reductions was because the resulting difference hi criteria using 15 and  45 grams/day
assumptions was not significant enough to change the control options selected for a pollutant at
a particular facility. This was particularly the case for most BCCs, for which criteria using 15
or 45 grams/day remained below analytical detection levels.

                 TABLE 5-5 EVALUATION OF FISH CONSUMPTION RATES
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (IS
grams/day)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
41.1
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(10* LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,854
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
369.6
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,631
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.

5.4.2  Use of Pollutant Minimization Programs When WQBELs Are Below Analytical
       Detection Levels

       As discussed in Section 2.2.2, there was an attempt made to collect some data related to
the cost and effectiveness of pollution prevention techniques for the pollutants being regulated
under the final Guidance. The result of these efforts, which generally constituted an extensive
review of the EPA Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC), was that very little
                                        5-10

-------
SECTION 5	EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

is documented regarding  the effectiveness of pollution prevention to remove many of the
pollutants subject to the final Guidance.  The limited data did, however, suggest that there are
facilities that have reduced toxic pollutants to below analytical detection levels using pollution
prevention techniques.

       Although it is acknowledged that some facilities will want to ensure compliance with
WQBELs below detection levels through the use of additional or enhanced end-of-pipe treatment,
it is  likely  that  an  aggressive  pollutant  minimization  program  can  successfully result in
compliance with WQBELs below detection levels.  In fact, several of the sample facilities
examined as part of the cost study have successfully performed studies, required as part of their
current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, to effectively reduce
all detectable amounts of particular pollutants of concern from their discharge.  For example,
the State of Wisconsin required the Fort Howard Paper Company, as part of an NPDES permit
special condition, to  perform a PCB reduction study "to reduce PCBs to the maximum extent
possible with a goal of zero discharge."  Resulting  effluent concentrations of PCBs allowed the
State of Wisconsin to recommend reduced permit requirements for PCBs in the subsequent draft
reissued permit.

       As discussed in Section 3.2.1, pollutant minimisation programs account for a significant
proportion of the  total  compliance cost under the low-end scenario.  The  impacts of these
requirements were evaluated by deriving cost estimates  assuming that permitting authorities
would only require increased monitoring for any pollutant for which a Guidance-based WQBEL
was below analytical detection levels.  Table 5-6 summarizes the results of the analysis of the
impact of only requiring monitoring for pollutants for which Guidance-based WQBELs are below
analytical detection levels.

       As shown in Table 5-6, it is estimated that annual compliance costs for direct dischargers
will decrease  by  more than 60 percent  to $16.6  million.   It should be noted  that pollutant
reduction credit was not taken because monitoring alone is not expected to systematically identify
pollutant sources  within a facility, as well as result in  pollutant  removal.  As a result the
estimated pollutant load reductions decrease to 1.3 million pounds-equivalent/day, which is
almost 80 percent less than the reduction estimated for the final Guidance. Under the high-end,
compliance costs do not drop as dramatically as the low-end costs, due to the shift towards end-
of-pipe treatment; however, the pollutant load reductions  decrease by more than 50 percent.

5.4.3  Intake Credits

       In generating cost estimates for the proposed Guidance, intake credits were provided by
assuming there was no  reasonable  potential for outfalls  at facilities that added no additional
pollutants  prior to discharge.  Furthermore, two  different cost scenarios  were developed to
account for the lack of ambient background concentration data and for when negative wasteload
allocations were calculated.  As discussed in Section 2.2.3.3 a revised approach was used for
estimating costs for  the final  Guidance to reflect the intake credit provisions of the  final
Guidance.
                                         5-11

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
    TABLE 5-6 EVALUATION OF POLLUTANT MINIMIZATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Require
monitoring only when
WQBELs are below analytical
detection levels)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
16.6
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
1,308
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
337.9
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(10* LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
3,084
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.

       In an effort to evaluate the impact of intake credits on estimated compliance costs,
compliance costs under a number of different intake credit scenarios were developed.  The
results of these analyses are presented in Table 5-7. As shown in Table 5-7, for discharges to
different bodies of water, no significant impact occurred (less than 0.5 percent) to either the
compliance costs or pollutant load reductions at either the low- or high-end scenarios, regardless
of whether intake credits are relaxed (no net increase) or made more stringent (no intake credit
allowed). This result occurred because discharges occurred only infrequently to different bodies
of water that were non-attained.

       Alternatively, the form of intake credits does impact discharges to the  same body of
water.  When intake credits are allowed, a slight drop in costs is experienced concurrent with
a larger proportional drop in pollutant load reduction. At the low-end, compliance costs drop
by  $700,000 (a 1.7 percent decrease), but pollutant load reductions drop by  more than  17
percent. At the high-end, costs decrease by less than 1 percent, but pollutant load reductions
decrease by 13.5 percent.

       When intake credits were not allowed for discharges to the same  body of water, the
annual compliance costs for direct dischargers increased by $245 million, representing more than
a 600 percent increase from the final Guidance low-end  estimate.  However,  pollutant  load
reductions  increased to 6.4 million pounds-equivalent/year, which represents only a 9 percent
increase from the final Guidance low-end estimate.  The same trend results using high-end
scenario costs  where the costs increase by more than 60 percent, but  pollutant reductions
increase by only 7 percent.

5.4.4  Tier H Criteria

       One of the stated limitations of the cost estimate for the proposed Guidance  was that
compliance costs were not estimated for pollutants other than those for which numeric Tier I
criteria were proposed. As discussed in Section 2.2.3.1, the cost estimate for the final Guidance
                                          5-12

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
          TABLE 5-7 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE INTAKE CREDIT PROVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Intake credits
allowed for different body of
water; the WQBEL is set
equal to the background
concentration)
Final Guidance (Intake credits
allowed for different body of
water; the WQBEL is set
equal to zero)
Final Guidance (Intake credits
allowed for same body of
water; the WQBEL is set
equal to the background
concentration)
Final Guidance (Intake credits
allowed for same body of
water; the WQBEL is set
equal to zero)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
41.1
41.2
40.4
286.6
POLLUTANT LOAD
REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,883
5,883
4,841
6,386
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
369.6
369.6
368.3
614.8
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,659
7,659
6,617
8,162
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.

is  based on evaluation of compliance with 69 pollutants  of initial focus.  To determine the
potential impact of the use of Tier I  criteria versus Tier n values, compliance costs under a
variety of scenarios were developed.

       Table 5-8 presents the results for the different regulatory scenarios evaluated. As shown
in Table 5-8, if only Tier I criteria are used, the annual compliance costs for direct dischargers
would drop by  $5 million,  which is just under 12  percent of the final  Guidance low-end
estimate.  The pollutant load reductions would also decrease by approximately 8 percent of the
estimate for the  final Guidance.  Under the high-end,  both costs and pollutant load reductions
decrease similarly (2 percent drop in costs and 6 percent drop in pollutant load reduction from
the high-end estimate from the final Guidance).

       If Tier I criteria and Tier n values are used for all pollutants, the annual compliance costs
increase insignificantly at both the low- and high-end.  This result was expected since the
scenario only adds Tier n wildlife values.  Although many of these additional Tier n wildlife
                                          5-13

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
values are more stringent than other final Guidance criteria, the impact is insignificant since both
the Tier n wildlife values and the other Guidance criteria are below analytical detection levels.


    TABLE 5-8 EVALUATION OF APPLICATION OF TIER I CRITERIA AND TIER n VALUES
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Use Tier I
criteria only for aquatic life,
human health and wildlife
protection)
Final Guidance (Use Tier I
criteria and Tier n values for
aquatic life, human health, and
wildlife protection)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
36.1
41.1
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,416
5,955
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
363.2
369.6
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,192
7,731
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars.  Costs are for direct dischargers only.

5.4.5  Wildlife Criteria/Mercury Criteria

       The final Guidance limits the  use of the wildlife criteria methodology to the Tier I
procedure for the 22 BCCs for which  sufficient data exist.  In response to the many concerns
raised regarding the stringency of wildlife criteria and the potential significant costs associated
with complying with the criteria, a number of alternatives were evaluated.

       As discussed in Section 2.2.3.2, the final Guidance cost estimate includes numeric Tier
I wildlife criteria for mercury, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, PCBs, and DDTs.  In addition, Tier I criteria
were developed for three additional BCCs and Tier n values were developed for 21 other
pollutants that were used to assist hi estimating costs for the final Guidance.  Six of the 21
pollutants are not BCCs, which tends to further overstate the impact of the wildlife criteria, as
the final Guidance requires development of Tier I wildlife criteria for only BCCs.  Furthermore,
these values  were estimated using many simplifying and conservative assumptions  that are
expected generally to be more  stringent than those values that would be derived by permitting
authorities using the wildlife methodology contained in the final Guidance.

       Table 5-9 presents the results of the analysis of the impact of wildlife criteria on the cost
estimate for the final Guidance. Using the additional wildlife criteria results hi an insignificant
increase  hi annual  compliance  costs.   Alternatively, excluding all wildlife criteria also results
in essentially no difference hi compliance cost estimates  and pollutant load reductions at both
the low-  and high-ends.  These results indicate that factors other than the  wildlife criteria tend
                                         5-14

-------
 SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
 to drive the costs of the final Guidance.  In the absence of wildlife criteria, the final Guidance
 human health criteria would form the basis for Guidance-based WQBELs. The final Guidance
 human health criteria for most pollutants are below analytical detection levels and, as such, the
 costs for treatment and pollutant minimization plans would be incurred by a facility. Although
 the wildlife criteria in general are more stringent than the final Guidance human health criteria,
 they also would result in Guidance-based WQBELs below analytical detection levels. Therefore,
 the same treatment and pollutant minimization plan requirements,  costs,  and pollutant load
 reductions would occur.

            TABLE 5-9 EVALUATION OF APPLICATION OF WILDLIFE CRITERIA
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Use no
wildlife criteria)
Final Guidance (Use Tier I
criteria and Tier D values for
aquatic life, human health, and
wildlife protection)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
41.1
41.1
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,856
5,955
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
369.6
369.6
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,632
7,731
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars.  Costs are for direct dischargers only.

5.4.6  Allowance of Mixing Zones for BCCs

       As promulgated in Procedure 3 of Appendix F to Part 132, the final Guidance retained
the requirement for elimination of mixing zones for BCCs within 12 years. The final Guidance
also provides some flexibility to allow limited mixing zones for BCCs if the facility can show
that all prudent and  feasible  treatment technologies are being implemented to  reduce  the
discharge of BCCs to the maximum extent possible.

       A sensitivity analysis was performed to address this issue prior to the proposed Guidance.
In general, assuming analytical detection limits remain the same, it was concluded that a cost
would be incurred infrequently for a BCC after mixing  zones have  been taken away.  This
conclusion was based on the fact that many of the WQBELs and associated criteria for BCCs
were already  below analytical detection levels.

       In estimating  costs for the final Guidance,  it was conservatively  assumed was that no
mixing zones would  be allowed for BCCs.  To determine the impact of this requirement on
facilities (in terms of cost) and the environment  (in terms of pollutant  load reductions),  the
                                         5-15

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
sample facilities were reevaluated allowing the same mixing zones for BCCs as are allowed for
non-BCCs.

       As shown in Table 5-10, the addition of mixing zones for BCCs results hi an estimated
incremental annual cost savings to direct dischargers of just over $200,000, which is less than
a 0.5 percent decrease from the final Guidance low-end cost estimate. In terms of pollutant load
reductions, the addition of mixing  zones results hi an insignificant decrease hi pollutant load
reductions.  Slight reductions hi cost and pollutant load reductions were also found under the
high-end scenario.

       The relatively small impact  associated with allowing mixing zones for BCCs is due to
the fact that the criteria for most BCCs are relatively stringent and usually well below analytical
detection levels.  Even with the dilution afforded by the mixing  zones, resulting WQBELs
remain below analytical detection levels and, as a result,  do not drastically impact the costs and
load reductions (i.e., the pollutant controls would not change if both WQBELs were below
analytical detection levels).

5.4.7  Additivity

       In an effort to evaluate the impact of the additivity provision on the compliance cost of
the final Guidance, cost estimates for two scenarios were developed.  Under one scenario, the
assumption was that additivity would be controlled if the total carcinogenic risk hi a discharge
was less than 10~s and accounted for by assuming that individual criteria were based on a  105
risk level.   Under the second scenario,  the assumption was that the additive  effects from
carcinogens would be accounted for if individual criteria were based on a 10*  risk level.

            TABLE 5-10 EVALUATION OF ALLOWING MIXING ZONES FOR BCCs
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Mixing zones
allowed for BCCs)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
40.9
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,839
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
369.5
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,615
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars.  Costs are for direct dischargers only.

       As shown hi Table 5-11, the impact of the first scenario was relatively insignificant (less
than 0.5 percent decrease hi costs and just over 1 percent decrease hi pollutant load reductions
at both low- and high-end estimates).  The relatively insignificant changes hi cost and pollutant
load reductions  are based  on the  fact that  most facilities  did  not  detect more  than a  few
carcinogens hi their discharge.  As a result, the final Guidance estimates (based on a total
                                         5-16

-------
 SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
 carcinogenic risk of 10"5, but accounted for by distributing the risk across all carcinogens in the
 effluent) did not represent more stringent WQBELs  for  carcinogens, as compared to .only
 accounting for the risk through the individual criteria.

       When the individual criteria risk level is adjusted down to 10"*, a more dramatic increase
 hi costs occurs. A 10"6 risk level for individual criteria would increase the annual compliance
 costs for direct dischargers to more than $51 million under the low-end.  The associated load
 reductions do not increase as dramatically,  accounting for only an additional 6,000 pounds-
 equivalent/year.  The reason a large pollutant reduction did not accompany the large increase
 in costs under the low-end scenario is the assumption that a significant number of facilities
 would pursue some sort of regulatory relief, for which there is no pollutant reduction credit, to
 meet the more stringent criteria based on a 10*6 risk level.

       The same trend occurs at the high-end, where costs increase by more than 30 percent,
 but  pollutant load reductions decrease  by less than 1  percent.   However, under the high-end
 scenario where variances are limited to categories that exceed the high-end cost trigger,  the
 significant increase hi costs is due to the costs associated with installing and maintaining end-of-
 pipe treatment for pollutants impacted by the more stringent criteria.   The insignificant load
 reductions associated with the large increase in costs is because some regulatory relief was still
justified under the high-end. Furthermore, for some pollutants with criteria below the analytical
 detection level, the shift from criteria based on a 10*5 risk level to criteria based on a 10* risk
 level resulted hi criteria further below analytical detection levels, which had no  impact on
pollutant load reductions.

                        TABLE 5-11  EVALUATION OF ADDnTVITY
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance
Final Guidance (Additivity at
10'5 risk for individual
criteria)
Final Guidance (Additivity at
10* risk for individual
criteria)
LOW-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
40.9
51.4
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(10* LBS-EQ/YR)
5,883
5,791
5,877
HIGH-END ESTIMATE
ANNUAL
COST
(MILLIONS)
369.6
369.4
481.5
POLLUTANT
LOAD REDUCTION
(103 LBS-EQ/YR)
7,659
7,567
7,653
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.
                                          5-17

-------
SECTION 5                                      EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

5.4.8  Antidegradation

       It is assumed that the antidegradation provision of the final Guidance, as promulgated
under Appendix E to Part 132, may impact the regulated  community.  However, due to the
variety of site-specific factors that would influence the future impact of the antidegradation
provision, it is uncertain whether the impact will be significant.  Therefore,  an analysis of the
potential impact of the antidegradation provision was performed hi the form of estimating the
cost to lost opportunities for businesses hi the Great Lakes  Basin.

       As shown in Table 5-12,  under the worst case  where it was assumed that all  (100
percent)  facilities with BCCs in  then* discharge  (approximately 5  percent of all facilities)
requested an  antidegradation  review and were  denied permission to  increase  loads,  an
opportunity cost of 5 percent ($43.2 million) of the  incremental annual growth would be lost due
to the final Guidance.  More realistically, if it was assumed that half (50 percent) of the facilities
requesting antidegradation reviews for BCCs were allowed to increase discharges, only $21.6
million of opportunity costs would be lost each year. Finally, assuming that only 10 percent of
the facilities discharging BCCs requested an antidegradation review, and only half (50 percent)
were denied, then the opportunity lost for growth would be approximately $2.2 million.

       An antidegradation review resulting in an  increase  in baseline loadings should not  be
expected for BCCs because for many, their use is  already banned or  severely restricted by the
EPA.  A study performed for EPA shows that 14 of the 28 BCCs are banned or severely
restricted, and another four of the 28 are by-products of banned or severely restricted BCCs.2
The remaining 10 BCCs have some limited restrictions for use, are not restricted at all, or  no
data were found for  them.   Based on  this study,  the  mid-  and high-end estimates of lost
opportunity are probably unlikely because the increase of banned or restricted BCCs should not
occur due to releases from the manufacture or use of the BCC. In fact, it is assumed that the

        TABLE 5-12 EVALUATION OF IMPACT OF ANTIDEGRADATION PROVISIONS
DESCRIPTION •
Final Guidance (Low-End Estimate)
Final Guidance (High-End Estimate)
Potential Lost Opportunity Cost (High-end)
Potential Lost Opportunity Cost (Mid-range)
Potential Lost Opportunity Cost (Low-end)
ANNUAL COST (MILLIONS)
41.1
369.6
43.2
21.6
2.2
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.
   2 Memo to Mark Morris (EPA Office of Science and Technology) from Abt Associates regarding "Use and
Production of the Great lakes Initiative Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern" (July 21, 1994).

-------
SECTION 5                                     EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS

levels of these BCCs will decrease over time in point source discharges and in the environment.
Several other BCCs are present as contaminants or by-products of banned or restricted BCCs
(e.g., heptachlor epoxide is a metabolic breakdown product of heptachlor), and for the same
reason, the levels of these BCCs should also decrease over time.  Therefore, antidegradation
reviews as a result of an increase in loading levels for BCCs that results in a significant lowering
of water quality are not expected.

       If the low-end estimate is used, then a modest 3 percent increase hi the low-end annual
compliance cost results.  The potential benefits, although not quantified, could be relatively
significant for some receiving waters because additional discharges of BCCs would be denied.

5.4.9  Future Impact of Detection Levels

       In recent years, several States hi the Great Lakes System have promulgated water quality
criteria for various toxic pollutants that are more restrictive than the level of analytical detection.
Implementation of these existing water quality criteria by these States do take into account the
ability to detect the pollutant hi the wastestream.  Likewise, Procedure 8, Appendix F, of Part
132 clearly provides that the water quality-based effluent limit must be derived from the water
quality criterion; compliance with that limit, however, will be based on the ML where available.
When a promulgated ML is not available, compliance with that limit may be based on the lowest
level of quantification (at the State's discretion) defined hi Procedure 8 of Part 132.

       In estimating the compliance cost for the final Guidance, it was conservatively assumed
that the MDL would serve as the compliance level. In actuality, the State permitting authority
is only required to use the ML (as defined under 40  CFR Part 136) as the basis for reporting
compliance with the Guidance-based  WQBEL.  Although the pollutant MDL  was used for
costing purposes,  it is acknowledged  that estimating treatment costs for WQBELs below the
MDL,  and most likely below the ML, would be speculative for many pollutants, particularly as
such estimation relates to expected future performance.

       Nevertheless, an evaluation of the  potential  impact that improvements to analytical
detection levels would have on compliance cost estimates was performed.  In particular, costs.
and pollutant load reductions were estimated under  two scenarios,  one that assumes MDLs
improve 10-fold over time and another that assumes MDLs improve 100-fold over time.

       The results of the analysis presented  hi Table  5-13  show conceivable increases hi
estimated compliance costs.  When MDLs become 10 times more stringent, annual costs increase
by over $500 million dollars. Pollutant load reductions also increase when MDLs decrease 10-
fold by over 12 million toxic pounds-equivalent per year.  When MDLs become 100 times more
stringent, the annual compliance costs are estimated to increase by just over $880 million and
pollutant load reductions would increase by approximately 19 million toxic pounds-equivalent
per year above the final Guidance estimates. These results indicate that as analytical detection
levels improve, the costs to implement the final Guidance increase.  However, the increase hi
compliance costs are offset by comparable pollutant load reductions.
                                        5-19

-------
SECTION 5
EVALUATION OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
  TABLE 5-13 EVALUATION OF FUTURE IMPACT OF LOWER ANALYTICAL DETECTION
                                 LEVELS
DESCRIPTION
Final Guidance (Low-End Estimate)
Final Guidance (High-End Estimate)
Increment Assuming Future MDLs Improve 10-fold
Increment Assuming Future MDLs Improve 100-fold
ANNUAL COST
(MILLIONS)
41.1
369.6
569.8
882.S
POLLUTANT LOAD
REDUCTION
(10* LBS-EQ/YR)
5,838
7,650
12,202
18,900
 All costs 1st Quarter 1994 dollars. Costs are for direct dischargers only.
                                     5-20

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX A
       APPENDIX A - REEVALUATION OF TIER H AQUATIC LIFE VALUES

       Following the completion of the initial assessment of compliance costs resulting from
implementation of the final Guidance,  it was determined that the procedures used to estimate
"Tier IT values for protection of aquatic life differed from those that will be published hi the
final Guidance for 18  of the 69 costed pollutants.  In several cases, the Tier n aquatic life values
that were developed for the cost evaluation were less stringent than those determined using the
procedures outlined in the final Guidance.  Because of this discrepancy,  an evaluation was
performed to determine whether the less stringent aquatic life values could have impacted the
initial cost analyses.
       Table A-l  presents a comparison of the Tier n aquatic  life values used for the cost
evaluation versus Tier n values calculated using the final Guidance methodologies.  Table A-l
indicates that the Final Acute Values (FAV) and the Criteria Continuous Concentrations (CCC)
calculated using the  final Guidance procedures are  significantly  more  stringent  than  those
calculated for the cost analyses for several pollutants.  In order to determine how these changes
might affect the cost analyses,  the most stringent aquatic  life criteria were then compared to
applicable human health and wildlife criteria.

       Table A-2 provides a comparison of the most stringent aquatic life value (calculated using
final Guidance methods) and the most stringent human health and wildlife criteria used for the
cost analyses. Where either the human health or wildlife criterion was more stringent than the
aquatic life value for a pollutant, the water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL) was driven by
the human health or wildlife criterion; thus,  there would be no effect on costs or loadings due
to the revised aquatic Me value. In general, Table A-2 indicates that human health or wildlife
values are more  stringent for most of these pollutants; however, seven pollutants were identified
where the aquatic life values may drive WQBELs under some situations (e.g., human health and
wildlife criteria use slightly higher mixing zone flows).

       Having identified seven pollutants where the revised Tier n aquatic life value may, under
certain circumstances, drive the WQBELs, the potential impact of the revisions was evaluated.
The possible impacts of the more stringent aquatic life were determined by first determining
which of the 59 study facilities were evaluated for these pollutants, and second, determining
whether the lower aquatic life values would change  cost or loading calculations.

       The results of this analysis indicated  that there were no cost or loading impacts due to
the revised  aquatic  life values  for  chlorpyrifos,  hexachloroethane,  tetrachloroethane  or
trichloroethylene.   The revised  lead value resulted in the elimination of the  "reasonable
potential" determination at one study facility; however, the only costs projected for the facility
were $360 for lead monitoring.  This cost would not be incurred if the revised lead value was
implemented. The revised toluene value resulted hi a minimal underestimation (less than 1 toxic
pounds-equivalent) of load reduction at  one  study facility; however, costs were not impacted.
The fluoranthene value  resulted in the underestimation of  1.12 toxic pounds-equivalent at one
study facility; however, costs were also unaffected for this facility.

                                          A-l

-------
                                                                              APPENDIX A
Based  on the findings of this evaluation, the initial cost and pollutant load reduction results
developed for the final Guidance will not be significantly affected by the modifications to the
Tier n aquatic life values.

   TABLE A-l  COMPARISON OF TIER H AQUATIC LIFE VALUES CALCULATED FOR COST
        ANALYSES VS. THOSE CALCULATED USING FINAL GUIDANCE METHODS 0*g/l)
CHEMICAL
Aciylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
1,2-Dichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene
Hexachloroethane
Lead **
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Thallium
AQUATIC Lira VALUES USED FOR
COST ANALYSES
FAV
7,550
5,300
2,500
130
35,200
28,900
0.166
0.600
1,050
118,000
2,120
3,980
980
59.1
5,280
17,500
45,000
1,400
ccc
419
294
139
5.3
1,960
1,240
0.0410
0.0333
58.3
6,560
118
221
54.4
1.04
293
972
2,500
40.0
AQUATIC LIFE VALUES
CALCULATED ACCORDING TO
FINAL GUIDANCE METHODS
FAV
580.8
757.1
312.5
16.25
4,400
3,612
0.043
0.086
47.9
9,076.9
1,300
8.37
44.8
149.4
865.6
2,187.5
660
20
CCC
32.3
42.1
17.36
0.903
244.4
200.7
0.002
0.0048
2.66
504.3
530
0.47
2.49
8.3
48.09
121.53
36.67
1.9
 Where: FAV = CMC/adjustment factor   CCC = FAV/18 (acute/chronic ratio)

        *      The CMCs come from the document "water quality criteria summary concentrations" except
               chlorpyrifos which was calculated using the most recent water quality criteria document and
               applying an adjustment factor of 4.3 (7 species available).
        **
               Revisions to lead calculations resulted in less stringent aquatic life values.  Values displayed
               were calculated at a hardness of 50 mg/1.
                                            A-2

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX A
TABLE A-2 COMPARISON OF AQUATIC LIFE VALUES CALCULATED USING FINAL GUIDANCE
   METHODS VS. THE MOST STRINGENT HUMAN HEALTH AND WILDLIFE CRITERIA 0»g/l)
CHEMICAL
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chlorpyrifos *
4,4-DDD
4,4-DDE
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Fluoranthene *
Hexachloroethane *
Lead**
Tetrachloroethylene *
Toluene *
Trichloroethylene *
Thallium
AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
CALCULATED USING
FINAL GUIDANCE METHODS
FAV
580.8
757.1
312.5
16.25
4,400
3,612
0.043
0.086
47.9
9,076.9
1,300
8.37
44.8
149.4
865.6
2,187.5
660
20
ccc
32.3
42.1
17.36
0.903
244.4
200.7
0.002
0.0048
2.66
504.3
530
0.47
2.49
8.3
48.09
121.53
36.67
1.9
WILDLIFE
CRITERION
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.347
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MOST STRINGENT
HUMAN HEALTH
CRITERION
0.634
10.2
0.00149
0.0570
1.53
52.6
4.42
0.000155
0.00000820
3.76
106
115
0.888
15.0
90.5
172
22.8
0.782
 *      Indicates that the revised aquatic life value may be more stringent than other applicable criteria
        under some circumstances.

 **     Revised aquatic life value for lead may be less stringent than other applicable criteria under some
        circumstances.
                                         A-3

-------

-------
                                                                          APPENDIX B
               APPENDIX B - WILDLIFE CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
Introduction

       The chemicals identified for evaluation were divided into 5 categories and reviewed to
determine whether wildlife values could or needed to be calculated. The five categories were:

       1.     Inorganic metals
       2.     Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs)
       3.     Carcinogens
       4.     Non-carcinogens
       5.     No human health data

       Wildlife values were calculated for 28 of the 69 chemicals.  Table B-l summarizes the
wildlife values for the 28 chemicals along with the BAFs and toxicity data used.  Table B-2
summarizes the exposure assumptions used for deriving each wildlife value and Table B-3
compares the wildlife values for six inorganic metals and the chronic aquatic life criteria.  The
rationale for why  certain chemicals were selected  for review along with the data  used are
included in the following sections.

1. Inorganic Metals

       Wildlife values for metals were assumed to be similar to existing aquatic life criteria, and
therefore were not estimated  for use hi the cost analyses.  This was verified by estimating
wildlife values for  the six pollutants listed hi Table B-3.  Of the six pollutants evaluated, all of
the wildlife values  were greater than the chronic aquatic life values.

       The toxicity data for these six pollutants were taken from the report "Interim Wildlife
Criteria: Assessment of Screening Level Values".  The exposure parameters were the same as
those in Table B-2, and the BAFs were assumed to be 1.

2. Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs)

       Wildlife values were estimated for  16 BCCs.  Values could not be  calculated  for
hexachlorohexane,  alpha-BHC,  or beta-BHC because the only toxicity  data available is for
cancer, which is not an endpoint used for deriving wildlife values.

       Mammalian Toxicity Data - The toxicity data for both mammals and avian species for
       DDT  and  its  metabolites (4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDD), mercury,  2,3,7,8-TCDD,  and
       mercury were the same as used in the proposed Guidance with some modifications of the
       uncertainty  factors.
                                         B-l

-------
                                                                   APPENDIX B
The mammalian toxicity data for hexachlorobenzene came from  the  report "Interim
Wildlife  Criteria: Assessment  of Screening  Level Values".   There  were no other
mammalian wildlife data available.  Because of this it was decided to use rodent studies
as the surrogate for  mammalian wildlife data.

For the other 10 BCCs, the toxicity data for  mammalian species was  estimated by
assuming that the effective dose - effects level divided by uncertainty factors - was id-
fold greater than the associated human health RfD for that chemical. For example, if the
human health RfD was 10 mg/kg/day, then the effective dose for  mammalian  wildlife
was assumed to be 100 mg/kg/day for purposes  of estimating wildlife values.  A factor
of 10 was selected because the intraspecies uncertainty factor normally used in deriving
human health criteria is not normally used for estimating wildlife values.  This also
assumes that the endpoints used for estimating the human health RfD and the associated
uncertainty factors were the same as for wildlife, which in many cases may not be valid.
However, to provide some  estimate of the  potential  wildlife values this seemed a
reasonable assumption.

Avian Toxicity Data - The avian data for toxaphene, dieldrin, and endrin came from the
report "Interim Wildlife Criteria:  Assessment of Screening Level Values".  There was
no other avian data available.

Exposure Parameters - The exposure parameters used are summarized in Tables 1 and
2. The BAFs for DDTs, mercury, PCBs, and 2,3,7,8-TCDD are described in the "July
1994 Technical Support Document for Derivation of BAFs" (TSD).  The trophic level
4 BAFs for the other BCCs were estimated by multiplying the baseline BAFs reported
in the TSD  for the pollutant by  0.079 (lipid content for wildlife species) and  then
multiplying this sum by the fraction of the freely dissolved portion for that pollutant.

The BAFs for trophic level 3 were estimated two ways.  The preferred method was to
calculate a baseline  1 BAF for trophic level 3 for  each chemical using the arithmetic
mean of the calculated measured log BAFs for sculpin, alewives, and small smelt. These
data are included in  the July 1994  TSD. Once the baseline trophic level 3 values were
estimated, the same procedure as described above could be used to derive a trophic level
3 BAF to be used for estimating wildlife values.  This method was used for chlordane,
hexachlorobenzene,  lindane, pentachlorobenzene, and 1,2,4,5-tetrachlorobenzene.

When the calculated measured log  BAFs for sculpin, alewife, and small smelt were not
available for a chemical, it was assumed that the baseline BAFs for trophic level 3 were
80% of the baseline trophic level 4 BAFs for that chemical.  The 80% value was used
as an conservative assumption.  Once the baseline trophic level 3 values were estimated,
the same procedure  as described above could  be used to derive a trophic  level  3 BAF.
This method was used for aldrin,  dieldrin, endrin, heptachlor, and  toxaphene.
                                  B-2

-------
                                                                           APPENDIX B
3.  Carcinogens

       Wildlife values were not estimated for A, B, or C human carcinogens, with the exception
of carcinogenic BCCs.  The assumption was made, for several reasons, that the human health
criteria for carcinogens would be equal to or more stringent than the associated wildlife values
for that pollutant.

       First, for some pollutants (e.g., 2,4,6-trichlorophenol), the only available human health
values are for cancer.  Since cancer is not an endpoint used for assessing effects on wildlife it
did not seem appropriate to attempt to derive wildlife values for these pollutants.  Second, the
human health values for cancer are often very low because of the conservative assumptions used
in then* derivation. It is unlikely that the wildlife values would be substantially more stringent
than the human health cancer criteria with the possible exception of those pollutants with large
BAFs, which are already covered by the BCC category.

4.  Non-carcinogens

       Wildlife values were estimated for 14  human health  non-carcinogens  (see Table 1).
These pollutants were  selected because they were not classified as carcinogens and  thus it
seemed reasonable that the wildlife values could be less than the associated human health values.

       The procedure for estimating mammalian wildlife toxicity data was the same as described
above for the BCCs.  There was no avian data for these 14 chemicals. The toxicity  data is
summarized  in Table 1  and  the exposure parameters are summarized hi Table B-2.  The
procedure for estimating trophic 4 wildlife BAFs is the same as described above for  BCCs.
Because of uncertainty in the precise baseline BAF for trophic level 3 it was decided to assume
that the trophic level 3 BAFs were the same as trophic level 4 BAFs. The one exception was
for phenol where 80% of the trophic level 4 BAFs was used.

5.  No data available

       Wildlife values for parathion,  1,1-Dichloroethane, anthracene, and phenanthrene were
not estimated because of lack of toxicity data.
                                          B-3

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX B
  TABLE B-l WILDLIFE VALUES FOR RIA/INFORMATION USED TO CALCULATE VALUES
CHEMICAL
Aldrin
Chlordaoe
Chlorobemene
Chlorpyrifos
DDT and metabolites
1,2-trans-DichloroethyleDe
Diddrin
2,4-Dimetbylpbenol
2,4-DinitrophenoI
Endosulfan
alpbjMndosulfan
beta-endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
HexacUorobemene
Undone
Mercury
PCBs
Pentaddorobenzeiie
Phenol
TCDD
Tetrachlorobenzene
Tetnchloroethylene
Toluene
Toxapbene
1,1,1-Triddoroethane
WILDLIFE VALUES 
-------
                                                             APPENDIX B
                 TABLE B-2 EXPOSURE PARAMETERS
SPECIES
Mink

Otter

Kingfisher
Osprey
Eagle



BODY
WEIGHT (kg)
0.8

7.4

0.15
1.6
4.65



INGESTION
RATE (g/day)
0.155

1.3

0.075
0.3
0.517



DRINKING
WATER (I/day)
0.081

0.60

0.017
0.081
0.16



AVERAGE TROPHIC LEVEL OF
FOOD SOURCE: PERCENT OF DIET
Terrestrial: 20%
Aquatic TL3: 80%
TL3: 80%
TL4:20%
TL3: 100%
TL3: 100%
Fish: 92%
TL3:80%
TL4:20%
Birds: 8%
herring gull:70%)
non-aquatic:30%)
TABLE B-3 WILDLIFE VALUES VS. CHRONIC AQUATIC LIFE VALUES FOR SIX
                      INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
CHEMICAL
Aluminum
Arsenic
Cadmium
Copper
Nickel
Zinc
WILDLIFE VALUES 
-------