Economic Analysis for the Revision of Certain Federal Water Quality Criteria Applicable to Washington

Contract # EP-C-13-03

August 17, 2015

Prepared for:
United States Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20460

Submitted by:
Abt Associates
4550 Montgomery Avenue
Suite 800 North
Bethesda, MD 20814

In Partnership with:
PG Environmental, LLC

Contents
Contents	i
Exhibits	vi
Acronym List	vii
Executive Summary	ix
Background and Potential Revised Criteria	ix
Point Source Compliance Costs	ix
Nonpoint Source Controls	x
1.	Introduction	1
1.1	Background	1
1.2	Purpose and Scope of the Analysis	2
1.3	Organization of Report	2
2.	Baseline for the Analysis	4
2.1	Water Quality Criteria and Implementation Procedures	4
2.2	Sources of Toxic Pollutants to Surface Waters	8
2.2.1	Municipal and Industrial Dischargers	8
2.2.2	Urban Stormwater	9
2.2.3	Agriculture and Forestry	9
2.2.4	Atmospheric Deposition	10
2.2.5	Contaminated Sediments	10
2.3	Water Quality	10
3.	Potential Revised Criteria	14
4.	Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources	19
4.1	Major Dischargers	19
4.1.1	Sample Selection	19
4.1.2	Reasonable Potential Analysis	21
4.1.3	Projecting Effluent Limitations	22
4.1.4	Identifying Compliance Scenarios and Costs	25
4.1.5	Summary of Unit Control Costs	33
4.1.6	Extrapolation to All Major Dischargers	34
4.2	Minor Dischargers	34
5.	Methods for Identifying Potential Costs: Nonpoint Sources	36
5.1	Identifying Exceedances	36
5.2	Identifying Compliance Actions and Costs	38
6.	Potential Compliance Costs	40
6.1	Point Sources	40
6.2	Nonpoint Sources	40
6.3	Uncertainties and Quality Assurance	41
7.	References	43
Appendix A  -  Facility Analyses	46
A.1	Chambers Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility	46
A.1.1	Treatment Processes	46
A.1.2	Effluent Data	46
A.1.3	Receiving Water	46
A.1.4	Baseline Scenario	47
A.1.5	Policy Scenario	47
A.2	King County South WWTP and CSO System	47
A.2.1	Treatment Processes	47
A.2.2	Effluent Data	47
A.2.3	Receiving Water	49
A.2.4	Baseline Scenario	50
A.2.5	Policy Scenario	52
A.3	King County West Point WWTP and CSO System	53
A.3.1	Treatment Processes	53
A.3.2	Effluent Data	53
A.3.3	Receiving Water	54
A.3.4	Baseline Scenario	55
A.3.5	Policy Scenario	57
A.4	Pasco Wastewater Treatment Works	58
A.4.1	Treatment Processes	58
A.4.2	Effluent Data	59
A.4.3	Receiving Water	59
A.4.4	Baseline Scenario	59
A.4.5	Policy Scenario	61
A.5	Puyallup WWTP	62
A.5.1	Treatment Processes	62
A.5.2	Effluent Data	63
A.5.3	Receiving Water	63
A.5.4	Baseline Scenario	63
A.5.5	Policy Scenario	64
A.6	Redondo WWTP	64
A.6.1	Treatment Processes	64
A.6.2	Effluent Data	64
A.6.3	Receiving Water	67
A.6.4	Baseline Scenario	67
A.6.5	Policy Scenario	69
A.7	Salmon Creek WWTP	70
A.7.1	Treatment Processes	70
A.7.2	Effluent Data	71
A.7.3	Receiving Water	71
A.7.4	Baseline Scenario	72
A.7.5	Policy Scenario	73
A.8	BP Cherry Point Refinery	74
A.8.1	Treatment Processes	74
A.8.2	Effluent Data	75
A.8.3	Receiving Water	77
A.8.4	Baseline Scenario	78
A.8.5	Policy Scenario	79
A.9	Cosmo Specialty Fibers	80
A.9.1	Treatment Processes	81
A.9.2	Effluent Data	81
A.9.3	Receiving Water	81
A.9.4	Baseline Scenario	81
A.9.5	Policy Scenario	82
A.10	Intalco Aluminum Corporation	82
A.10.1	Treatment Processes	82
A.10.2	Effluent Data	82
A.10.3	Receiving Water	83
A.10.4	Baseline Scenario	84
A.10.5	Policy Scenario	85
A.11	Quincy Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facility	86
A.11.1	Treatment Processes	86
A.11.2	Effluent Data	86
A.11.3	Receiving Water	86
A.11.4	Baseline Scenario	87
A.11.5	Policy Scenario	87
A.12	Steelscape Inc.	87
A.12.1	Treatment Processes	87
A.12.2	Effluent Data	87
A.12.3	Receiving Water	88
A.12.4	Baseline Scenario	88
A.12.5	Policy Scenario	88
A.13	Sonoco Products	88
A.13.1	Treatment Processes	88
A.13.2	Effluent Data	89
A.13.3	Receiving Water	89
A.13.4	Baseline Scenario	90
A.13.5	Policy Scenario	91
A.14	Tesoro Refining and Marketing LLC - Anacortes	92
A.14.1	Treatment Processes	92
A.14.2	Effluent Data	92
A.14.3	Receiving Water	95
A.14.4	Baseline Scenario	95
A.14.5	Policy Scenario	97
A.15	TransAlta Centralia Generating Station	98
A.15.1	Treatment Processes	98
A.15.2	Effluent Data	98
A.15.3	Receiving Water	101
A.15.4	Baseline Scenario	101
A.15.5	Policy Scenario	103
A.16	TransAlta Centralia Mining	104
A.16.1	Treatment Processes	104
A.16.2	Effluent Data	104
A.16.3	Receiving Water	104
A.16.4	Baseline Scenario	105
A.16.5	Policy Scenario	106
A.17	U.S. Oil & Refining Corporation	107
A.17.1	Treatment Processes	107
A.17.2	Effluent Data	108
A.17.3	Receiving Water	108
A.17.4	Baseline Scenario	109
A.17.5	Policy Scenario	110
A.18	References and Sources	111
Appendix B  -  Sample Facility Results and Statewide Extrapolation	113
B.1	Baseline Scenario Extrapolation	113
B.2	Policy Scenario Extrapolation	115

Exhibits
Exhibit 2-1. Baseline Freshwater and Marine Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants in Washington[1]	4
Exhibit 2-2. Number of Dischargers in Washington by Category	8
Exhibit 2-3. 2015 Proposed Category 4 and 5 Listings for Toxic Pollutants	11
Exhibit 2-4. Summary of TMDLs for Toxic Pollutants in Waters in Washington[1]	11
Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Key Assumptions for Calculating Human Health Criteria	13
Exhibit 3-2. Proposed Human Health Criteria (ug/L)	14
Exhibit 4-2. Summary of Major Discharger Sample	19
Exhibit 4-3. Summary of Projected Effluent Limitations and Incremental Load Reductions under the Proposed Criteria	22
Exhibit 4-4. Summary of Potential End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies	29
Exhibit 4-5. Estimated Unit Costs of Compliance Mechanisms (2014$)	32
Exhibit 5-1. Potential Incremental Impairments[1]	34
Exhibit 6-1. Total Annual Costs by Discharger Type	38
Exhibit 6-2. Uncertainties in Analysis of Costs	39

Acronym List
AML			Average monthly effluent limit
BMP			Best management practices
CWA		 	Clean Water Act
DMR			Discharge monitoring report
Ecology		Washington Department of Ecology
EIM			Environmental Information Management
EPA			United States Environmental Protection Agency
FCR			Fish consumption rate
I&I				Inflow and infiltration
MDL			Maximum daily effluent limit
MEC			Maximum effluent concentration
MEP			Maximum extent practicable
MERA			Mercury Education and Reduction Act
MS4			Municipal separate storm sewer systems
NPDES		National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NTR			National Toxics Rule
P2				Pollution prevention
PARIS			Permitting and Reporting Information System
POTW			Publicly owned treatment works
QL				Quantitation level
SMS			Sediment management standards
SWMP			Stormwater management program
SWPPP		Stormwater pollution prevention plan
TMDL			Total maximum daily load
WAC			Washington Administrative Code
WLA			Waste load allocation
WQBELs		Water quality based effluent limitations
WQS			Water quality standards
WWTF		Wastewater treatment facility

Executive Summary
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update the current federal human health criteria applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the State of Washington, to protect Washington residents from exposure to toxic pollutants. This report provides estimates of the potential incremental compliance actions and costs that may be associated with the proposed regulation.
Background and Potential Revised Criteria
EPA promulgated existing criteria for the protection of human health for waters in the State of Washington in 1992 as part of the National Toxics Rule (NTR) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 131.36). The NTR was necessary to bring all states into compliance with the requirements of Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(c)(2)(B).
EPA derived the criteria in the NTR using a fish consumption rate (FCR) of 6.5 grams per day (g/day) based on national surveys. The best available data now demonstrate that fish consumers in Washington, including tribes with treaty-protected rights, consume much more fish than 6.5 g/day. There are also new data and scientific information available to update the toxicity and exposure parameters used to calculate human health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes to revise the federal human health criteria applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the state of Washington to take into account the best available science, including local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies, guidance, and legal requirements, to protect human health.
Although the proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution, state implementation may result in new or revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for point source dischargers and additional controls on nonpoint sources of pollutant loadings. This analysis provides information on the potential for incremental costs to be associated with such incremental requirements necessary to assure attainment of state water quality designated uses protected by the criteria in the proposed rule.
Point Source Compliance Costs
EPA identified approximately 406 point source facilities that could ultimately be affected by the rule. Of these potentially affected facilities, 73 are classified as major dischargers, and 333 are minor dischargers. Minor facilities are unlikely to incur costs as a result of implementation of the rule. Minor facilities are typically those that discharge less than one million gallons per day (mgd) and do not discharge toxics in toxic amounts. Although lower human health criteria could potentially change this characterization (effluent monitoring could indicate concentrations at levels of concern), EPA did not have effluent data on toxic pollutants to evaluate any minor dischargers for this preliminary analysis. Additionally, EPA also did not have data to evaluate general permits (e.g., stormwater discharges) for which permit conditions typically focus on best management practices rather than pollutant-specific limits derived from numeric water quality criteria.
Of the 73 potentially affected major dischargers, EPA evaluated a sample of 17 major facilities. EPA evaluated the 2 major municipal facilities with design flows greater than 100 mgd, and the largest industrial facility, in attempt to capture potential for the largest costs. For the remaining major facilities, EPA evaluated a random sample of facilities to represent discharger type and category. For all sample facilities, EPA evaluated existing baseline permit conditions, reasonable potential to exceed human health criteria based on the proposed rule, and potential to exceed projected effluent limitations based on the last three years of effluent monitoring data (if available).
Analysis of the available data for the sample of facilities indicates that there are likely to be exceedances of projected effluent limits for arsenic and mercury. In instances of baseline effluent limitations not being reflective of baseline criteria, EPA estimated baseline effluent limitations, compliance actions, and costs. In instances of exceedances of projected effluent limitations under the proposed rule, EPA determined the likely compliance scenarios and costs. Only compliance actions and costs that would be needed above the baseline level of controls are attributable to the proposed rule.
EPA assumed that dischargers will pursue the least cost means of compliance with water quality based effluent limits. Incremental compliance actions attributable to the proposed rule may include pollution prevention, end-of-pipe treatment, and alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., variances). EPA annualized capital costs, including study (e.g., variance) and program (e.g., pollution prevention) costs, over 20 years using a 7% discount rate to obtain total annual costs per facility. For the random sample, EPA extrapolated the annualized costs based on the sampling weight for each sample facility. To obtain an estimate of total costs to point sources, EPA added the results for the certainty sample to the extrapolated random sample costs.
For the 73 major dischargers in the state, EPA estimates that the total annual cost may be approximately $13 million. All of these costs are attributable to industrial dischargers, primarily for treatment of arsenic. Overall, compliance with revised human health criteria for arsenic accounts for 99% of the costs, while compliance with revised human health criteria for mercury accounts for the remaining 1%.
Nonpoint Source Controls
Revised human health criteria could also have implications for nonpoint sources. However, it is difficult to model and evaluate the potential costs impacts of this rule to those sources because they are intermittent, variable, and occur under hydrologic or climatic conditions associated with precipitation events. Also, data on instream and discharge levels of the pollutants of concern after dischargers have implemented controls to meet current water quality standards, total maximum daily loads for impaired waters, or other water quality improvement plans, are not available. Therefore, determining which sources would need an incremental level of control attributable to the revised human health criteria after complying with existing regulations and policies may not be possible.
EPA identified potential incremental exceedances of the revised human health criteria based on available data in the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) Environmental Information Management System (EIM). According to the state's Water Quality Program Policy (Ecology, 2012c), Ecology generally uses the last ten years of data to determine impairment status of surface waters. EPA used available surface water monitoring data on pollutants of concern from EIM for the years 2005 to 2014. For each monitoring station and parameter, EPA compared the pollutant concentration to both the existing baseline human health criteria and the revised human health criteria. Station results that would indicate impairment under EPA's proposed criteria but not under the existing baseline criteria may represent potential incremental impairments.
Using the baseline criteria, monitoring data indicate potential impairment on the basis of human health criteria exceedances in the water column at 205 stations. Under the revised criteria, there are 254 exceedances, for a total of 49 potential incremental impairments (or a 24% increase compared to the baseline).

Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to update the current federal human health criteria applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the state of Washington, to protect Washington residents from exposure to toxic pollutants. This report provides estimates of the potential incremental compliance actions and costs that may be associated with the proposed regulation.
Background
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended through P.L. 107 - 303, November 27, 2002), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), sets the basic structure for regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of the United States. In the CWA, Congress established the national objective to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters," and to achieve "wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for recreation in and on the water" (CWA sections 101(a) and 101(a)(2)).
The CWA establishes the basis for the current water quality standards (WQS) regulation and program. CWA section 303 addresses the development of state and authorized tribal WQS. WQS reflect the CWA national objectives for each water body. The core components of these standards are designated uses, water quality criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the environmental objectives for a water body, while water quality criteria define the minimum conditions necessary to achieve those environmental objectives. The antidegradation program complements designated uses and criteria by providing a framework for maintaining and protecting water quality.
After states, authorized tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states and authorized tribes) designate the uses of waters under their jurisdiction, they must establish water quality criteria that protect those designated uses. EPA's regulation at §131.11(a)(1) provides that that such criteria "must be based on sound scientific rationale, and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use." States and authorized tribes must also adopt antidegradation policies to protect and maintain high quality waters and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific methods to implement those policies (§131.12).
The CWA also requires states and authorized tribes to hold public hearings once every three years for the purpose of reviewing applicable WQS and, as appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. The results of this triennial review must be submitted to EPA, and EPA must approve or disapprove any new or revised standards. CWA Section 303(c)(4)(B) authorizes the Administrator to determine, even in the absence of a state submission, that a new or revised standard is needed to meet CWA requirements.

EPA promulgated existing criteria for the protection of human health for waters in the State of Washington in 1992 as part of the National Toxics Rule (NTR) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 131.36). The NTR was necessary to bring all states into compliance with the requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B).
EPA derived the criteria in the NTR using a fish consumption rate (FCR) of 6.5 grams per day (g/day) based on national surveys. The best available data now demonstrate that fish consumers in Washington, including tribes with treaty-protected rights, consume much more fish than 6.5 g/day. There are also new data and scientific information available to update the toxicity and exposure parameters used to calculate human health criteria. Therefore, EPA proposes to revise the federal human health criteria applicable to waters under jurisdiction of the state of Washington to take into account the best available science, including local and regional information, as well as applicable EPA policies, guidance, and legal requirements, to protect human health.
Purpose and Scope of the Analysis
The purpose of this analysis is to identify, using available water quality and discharge data and information, the incremental compliance actions and costs that publicly owned wastewater treatment works (POTWs) and industrial point source dischargers may incur as a result of EPA's proposed criteria. EPA did not consider potential costs associated with new or expanding facilities. Although the proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of pollution, state implementation may result in new or revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for point source dischargers to incorporate revised water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs). Due to the large number of pollutants of concern, the estimates of statewide compliance costs reflect the extrapolation of results for a sample of major dischargers.
The revised standards may also result in incremental determinations that waters exceed WQS. As such, Ecology may need to develop additional total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters. There may also be incremental controls and costs associated with load allocations for nonpoint sources under such TMDLs to attain standards. However, the data and information needed to evaluate potential control needs are more limited. For this preliminary analysis, EPA identified the potential for incremental impairment, and thus incremental controls and costs for nonpoint sources, but did not develop statewide cost estimates.
Organization of Report
This remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2: Baseline for the Analysis  -  describes the current applicable toxic criteria and Ecology procedures for implementing the criteria in NPDES permits, sources of toxic pollutants to surface waters, water quality impairments from toxic pollutants, and ongoing efforts to reduce and eliminate these impairments.
Section 3: Potential Revised Criteria  -  outlines the changes to existing water quality standards.
Section 4: Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources  -  describes the method for estimating compliance costs associated with baseline and revised criteria for point sources in terms of revisions to NPDES permits.
Section 5: Method for Identifying Potential Costs: Nonpoint Sources  -  describes the method for identifying potential for incremental impairment and compliance costs associated with baseline and revised criteria for nonpoint sources.
Section 6: Potential Compliance Costs  -  provides estimates of potential costs to comply with the revised WQS, and discusses the uncertainties associated with the estimates.
Section 7: References  -  provides the references used in the analysis.
Appendices provide data and information on individual sample facilities, and analyses of potential impacts under the proposed rule.

Baseline for the Analysis
This section describes the applicable baseline for evaluating the incremental costs associated with the revised WQS, including current water quality criteria and associated implementation procedures, potential sources of the pollutants of concern, the current level of impairment, and listing procedures.
Water Quality Criteria and Implementation Procedures
Exhibit 2-1 shows the applicable baseline criteria for toxic pollutants for which there are human health criteria. Ecology designates all surface waters for the protection of both aquatic life and human health. EPA did not consider further those pollutants for which the aquatic life criteria are more stringent than the proposed revised human health criteria because the more stringent criteria coupled with the implementing procedures (e.g., allowable dilution factors) would always result in more stringent effluent limitations. Therefore the proposed rule would not lead to additional compliance costs for these pollutants.
Exhibit 2-1. Baseline Freshwater and Marine Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants in Washington[1]
Parameter
Freshwater Aquatic Life (ug/L)
Marine Aquatic Life (ug/L)
Human Health (ug/L)

Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Water and Fish
Fish Only
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane

                                     0.17
                                      11
1,1,2-Trichloroethane

                                      0.6
                                      42
1,1-Dichloroethylene

                                     0.057
                                      3.2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene

1,2-Dichlorobenzene

                                     2700
                                     17000
1,2-Dichloroethane

                                     0.38
                                      99
1,2-Dichloropropane

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine

                                     0.04
                                     0.54
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene

1,3-Dichlorobenzene

                                      400
                                     2600
1,3-Dichloropropene

                                      10
                                     1700
1,4-Dichlorobenzene

                                      400
                                     2600
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)

                                  0.000000013
                                  0.000000014
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol

                                      2.1
                                      6.5
2,4-Dichlorophenol

                                      93
                                      790
2,4-Dimethylphenol

2,4-Dinitrophenol

                                      70
                                     14000
2,4-Dinitrotoluene

                                     0.11
                                      9.1
2-Chloronaphthalene

2-Chlorophenol

2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol

                                      13
                                      765
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine

                                     0.04
                                     0.077
4,4'-DDD

                                    0.00083
                                    0.00084
4,4'-DDE

                                    0.00059
                                    0.00059
4,4'-DDT

                                    0.00059
                                    0.00059
Acenaphthene

Acrolein

                                      320
                                      780
Acrylonitrile

                                     0.059
                                     0.66
Aldrin

                                    0.00013
                                    0.00014
alpha-BHC

                                    0.0039
                                     0.013
alpha-endosulfan

                                     0.93
                                       2
Anthracene

                                     9600
                                    110000
Antimony

                                      14
                                     4300
Arsenic
                                      360
                                      190
                                      69
                                      36
                                     0.018
                                     0.14
Asbestos[2]

                                    7000000

Benzene

                                      1.2
                                      71
Benzidine

                                    0.00012
                                    0.00054
Benzo(a) anthracene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Benzo(a) pyrene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Benzo(b) fluoranthene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Benzo(k) fluoranthene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
beta-BHC

                                     0.014
                                     0.046
beta-endosulfan

                                     0.93
                                       2
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether

                                     0.031
                                      1.4
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether

                                     1400
                                    170000
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate

                                      1.8
                                      5.9
Bromoform

                                      4.3
                                      360
Butylbenzyl phthalate

Carbon tetrachloride

                                     0.25
                                      4.4
Chlordane
                                      2.4
                                    0.0043
                                     0.09
                                     0.004
                                    0.00057
                                    0.00059
Chlorobenzene

                                      680
                                     21000
Chlorodibromomethane

                                     0.41
                                      34
Chloroform

                                      5.7
                                      470
Chrysene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Copper

                                      4.8
                                      3.1

Cyanide
                                     22.0
                                      5.2
                                      1.0

                                      700
                                    220000
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Dichlorobromomethane

                                     0.27
                                      22
Dieldrin
                                      2.5
                                    0.0019
                                     0.71
                                    0.0019
                                    0.00014
                                    0.00014
Diethyl phthalate

                                     23000
                                    120000
Dimethyl phthalate

                                    313000
                                    2900000
Di-n-butyl phthalate

                                     2700
                                     12000
Endosulfan sulfate
                                     0.22
                                     0.056
                                     0.034
                                    0.0087
                                     0.93
                                       2
Endrin
                                     0.18
                                    0.0023
                                     0.037
                                     0.023
                                     0.76
                                     0.81
Endrin aldehyde

                                     0.76
                                     0.81
Ethylbenzene

                                     3100
                                     29000
Fluoranthene

                                      300
                                      370
Fluorene

                                     1300
                                     14000
Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-BHC; lindane)
                                      2.0
                                     0.08
                                     0.16

                                     0.019
                                     0.063
Heptachlor
                                     0.52
                                    0.0038
                                     0.053
                                    0.0036
                                    0.00021
                                    0.00021
Heptachlor Epoxide

                                    0.0001
                                    0.00011
Hexachlorobenzene

                                    0.00075
                                    0.00077
Hexachlorobutadiene

                                     0.44
                                      50
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

                                      240
                                     17000
Hexachloroethane

                                      1.9
                                      8.9
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene

                                    0.0028
                                     0.031
Isophorone

                                      8.4
                                      600
Methyl bromide

                                      48
                                     4000
Methylene chloride

                                      4.7
                                     1600
Nickel

                                     74.0
                                      8.2
                                      610
                                     4600
Nitrobenzene

                                      17
                                     1900
N-Nitrosodimethylamine

                                    0.00069
                                      8.1
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine

                                       5
                                      16
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)

                                     13.0
                                      7.9
                                     0.28
                                      8.2
Phenol

                                     21000
                                    4600000
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
                                      2.0
                                    0.0014
                                     10.0
                                     0.03
                                    0.00017
                                    0.00017
Pyrene

                                      960
                                     11000
Selenium
                                     20.0
                                      5.0
                                      290
                                     71.0

Tetrachloroethylene

                                      0.8
                                      8.9
Thallium

                                      1.7
                                      6.3
Toluene

                                     6800
                                    200000
Toxaphene
                                     0.73
                                    0.0002
                                     0.21
                                    0.0002
                                    0.00073
                                    0.00075
Trichloroethylene

                                      2.7
                                      81
Vinyl chloride

                                       2
                                      525
Zinc

                                     90.0
                                     81.0

Mercury
                                      2.1
                                     0.012
                                      1.8
                                     0.025
                                     0.14
                                     0.15
Source: Ecology (2014a) and WAC 173-201A-240.
1. Metals criteria are in dissolved form; blanks indicate no baseline criteria.
2. Asbestos criteria are in fibers/L.

Section 173-201A-260 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) specifies the procedures for applying water quality criteria. As part of these procedures, the state addresses how to handle situations when natural and irreversible human conditions cause a receiving water to not meet applicable criteria. In those instances, Section 173-201A-260(1)(a) stipulates that the natural conditions constitute the water quality criteria.
Sources of Toxic Pollutants to Surface Waters
Toxic pollutants can be introduced to surface water through natural and human activities, including municipal and industrial effluents, stormwater discharges, agricultural runoff, forestry (chemical application), atmospheric deposition, and contaminated sediments.
Municipal and Industrial Dischargers
Ecology's Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System (PARIS) indicates that there are 406 major and minor NPDES permitted dischargers in Washington. Exhibit 2-2 shows the number of facilities by type (major/minor) and category (based on SIC codes provided in PARIS and facility-specific fact sheets).
Exhibit 2-2. Number of Dischargers in Washington by Category
Category
Minor
Major
All
Agriculture, Fishing, and Forestry
                                      14
                                       0
                                      14
Mining
                                       4
                                       1
                                       5
Construction
                                       4
                                       0
                                       4
Food and Kindred Products
                                      30
                                       1
                                      31
Lumber and Wood Products, Except Furniture
                                      11
                                       0
                                      11
Paper and Allied Products
                                       1
                                      12
                                      13
Chemicals and Allied Products
                                      10
                                       1
                                      11
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
                                       4
                                       5
                                       9
Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete Products
                                       5
                                       0
                                       5
Primary Metal Industries
                                       6
                                       4
                                      10
Fabricated Metal Products, except Machinery and Transportation Equipment
                                       1
                                       0
                                       1
Transportation Equipment
                                      19
                                       0
                                      19
Transportation & Public Utilities (except POTWs)
                                      19
                                       1
                                      20
POTW
                                      184
                                      48
                                      232
Wholesale Trade
                                      10
                                       0
                                      10
Retail Trade
                                       2
                                       0
                                       2
Services
                                       7
                                       0
                                       7
Public Administration
                                       2
                                       0
                                       2
Total
                                      333
                                      73
                                      406
Source: based on data from the Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System (PARIS) database, and supplementary data from facility fact sheets. Categorizations based on 2-digit SIC codes.

Ecology issues general NPDES permits for 18 different discharger categories, including industrial (e.g. lumber and wood products, petroleum refining, metal manufacturing, and construction) and municipal, with over half of permitted dischargers being municipal POTWs.
Urban Stormwater
Stormwater discharges are generated by precipitation and runoff from land, pavements, building rooftops, and other surfaces. Stormwater from municipal and industrial areas may contribute pollutants (including toxic pollutants) to surface waters (for example, see Ecology, 2012a). Ecology regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) through general permits. The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a stormwater management program (SWMP), with the goal of controlling pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). According to Ecology, an SWMP involves planning, public education and involvement, illicit discharge detection programs, and passing appropriate ordinances to reduce stormwater pollution (Ecology, 2014b).
Ecology has issued a Phase I permit (Ecology, 2015a), which covers 6 jurisdictions (Seattle and Tacoma, and unincorporated King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Clark counties), each serving more than 100,000 people. The Phase II general permits cover those systems serving municipalities with populations less than 100,000 located within Census Bureau-defined urbanized areas. There are two Phase II stormwater permits; one for the eastern part (Ecology, 2012b) of the state and one for the western part (Ecology, 2014c).
Industrial dischargers, including those engaged in manufacturing, transportation, mining, and steam electric power industries, scrap yards, landfills, certain sewage treatment plants, and hazardous waste management facilities may have stormwater requirements in their NPDES permits. Additionally, Ecology issues an Industrial Stormwater general permit (Ecology, 2014d), which requires industrial stormwater dischargers to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes best management practices (BMPs) to prevent, control, and treat stormwater pollution, a monitoring plan and discussion of the site controls that the discharger will implement to prevent stormwater pollution.
Agriculture and Forestry
Pesticides applied to agricultural or forestry lands can reach surface waters through irrigation return flow, stormwater runoff, and erosion of soils.
The Department of Ecology works with farmers in Washington to incentivize and implement BMPs on agricultural land to reduce runoff of pollutants from agricultural lands.
Washington regulates forestry activities on State and private lands through the Washington Forest Practices Act (chapter 76.09 RCW) and the associated forest practices rules (Title 222 WAC). The Washington Forest Practices Board (the authority empowered to enforce forest practices rules) designed and adopted the forest practice rules, in part, to meet the requirements of the CWA and State water quality standards. The rules cover a variety of forestry activities, including timber harvesting, thinning, road construction, fertilization, and chemical application.
Atmospheric Deposition
Atmospheric deposition may be a potential nonpoint source to surface waters through either direct or indirect deposition. Direct deposition occurs when pollutants are deposited directly on surface waters from the atmosphere. Indirect deposition reflects the process by which metals and other pollutants such as pesticides deposited on the land surface are washed off during storm events and enter surface water through stormwater runoff. Atmospheric deposition is not directly addressed through any existing regulation, but may be indirectly addressed through TMDLs.
Contaminated Sediments
When pollutants enter a waterbody through runoff, precipitation, or other means, they can accumulate in sediments and contribute to poor water quality for many years (U.S. EPA, 2012). Many waterbody sediments are contaminated by legacy pollutants including DDT, PCBs, and other pesticides. To address sediment contamination, Washington implemented the Washington State Sediment Management Standards (SMS) Chapter 173-204 WAC to reduce and ultimately eliminate sediment contamination in Washington waterbodies. The SMS set numeric and narrative criteria for sediments, apply the standards to reduce pollutant discharges, and provide a decision process for the cleanup of contaminated sites.
Water Quality
Ecology classifies all surface waters into one of five categories, based on available monitoring data, as follows:
Category 1 waters are those for which sufficient monitoring data are available to determine that the water is below all applicable criteria (i.e., it is not impaired)
Category 2 waters are "waters of concern," which means that there is one observation exceeding the criteria or two or more observations exceeding the criteria but not within a 3-year period
Category 3 waters for which there are insufficient data to determine whether it is impaired
Category 4 waters are impaired but Ecology is not pursuing TMDLs for them because a) there is an EPA-approved TMDL, b) there is a pollution control program in place, or c) it is impaired by a cause other than a pollutant
Category 5 waters are impaired and a TMDL or pollution control plan is required; to be placed into Category 5 on the basis of water concentrations, there must be two or more exceedances of criteria within a 3-year period.
Waters can also be placed into Category 5 on the basis of fish tissue concentrations, if the mean of the three highest available resident fish tissue observations exceed the fish tissue criteria, which are back-calculated from surface water concentrations using bioconcentration factors from the NTR.
Ecology recently conducted a public review of the latest updated Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) List for Washington State (the public comment period for the review ended on May 15, 2015). This assessment updates fresh water listings based on data collected as of the end of December 2010. The integrated report identifies impaired waters and reports on the status of water quality statewide. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the proposed Category 4 and 5 listings for each of the pollutants of interest. Exhibit 2-4 summarizes existing TMDLs targeting or including toxic pollutants in waters in Washington.
Exhibit 2-3. 2015 Proposed Category 4 and 5 Listings for Toxic Pollutants
Parameter
Waterbodies
Lake/Marine Square Kilometers
River Kilometers
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
                                      65
                                      50
                                      52
4,4'-DDD
                                      31
                                       3
                                      97
4,4'-DDE
                                      93
                                      14
                                      182
4,4'-DDT
                                      64
                                       4
                                      184
Aldrin
                                       4
                                       2
                                       7
alpha-BHC
                                      10
                                       6
                                       7
Arsenic
                                      12
                                       3
                                      18
Benzo(a) anthracene
                                      25
                                      11
                                       0
Benzo(a) pyrene
                                      23
                                       9
                                       0
Benzo(b) fluoranthene
                                      28
                                      11
                                       0
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
                                      23
                                      10
                                       0
beta-BHC
                                       3
                                       2
                                       0
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
                                       3
                                       1
                                       0
Chlordane
                                      13
                                       5
                                      16
Chrysene
                                      34
                                      14
                                       0
Copper
                                      19
                                       1
                                      32
Dibenzo(a,h) anthracene
                                      11
                                       3
                                       0
Dieldrin
                                      54
                                      25
                                      78
Heptachlor epoxide
                                       2
                                       0
                                       7
Hexachlorobenzene
                                      10
                                      11
                                      23
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) pyrene
                                      16
                                       5
                                       0
Toxaphene
                                      19
                                      11
                                      20
Zinc
                                      12
                                       0
                                      47
Mercury
                                      29
                                       8
                                      37
Source: Based on data from the Proposed Draft Assessment Database (available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/SearchList.aspx).

Exhibit 2-4. Summary of TMDLs for Toxic Pollutants in Waters in Washington
Waterbody
Parameter(s)
Status and Notes
Source
Stillaguamish Basin
Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, mercury, pH, temperature
Mercury levels exceeding aquatic life criteria are rare (occurring during high-flow events) and attributable to natural background sources without contribution from anthropogenic sources; load allocation for total suspended solides expected to reduce occurrences of mercury concentrations higher than aquatic life criteria.
Ecology (2005)
Snohomish River Area
Dioxin
Exceedances of human health criteria attributed to a point source discharge.
Ecology (1992a)
Commence-ment Bay
Dioxin
Exceedances of human health criteria attributed to a point source discharge.
Ecology (1992b)
Deschutes River Watershed
Dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform, PCB, pH, phosphorus, temperature
TMDL is under development.
Ecology (2014e)
Walla Walla River Watershed
Chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, fecal coliform, pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature
Exceedances of human health criteria for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs attributed to historical application of chlorinated pesticides to soils and crops in agricultural areas of the watershed.
Ecology (2006a)
Palouse River
Chlorinated pesticides and PCBs
Exceedances of human health criteria for chlorinated pesticides and PCBs; TMDL includes waste load allocations for WWTPs and nonpoint sources.
Ecology (2007a)
Yakima River Watershed
Toxics and Pesticides
Exceedances of human health and aquatic life criteria are attributed to historical applications.
Ecology (2012c; 2010)
Wanatchee River Area
DDT
Exceedances of human health criteria are attributed to historical applications.
Ecology (2007b)
Lake Chelan
DDT and PCBs
Exceedances of human health criteria are attributed to historical applications
Ecology (2006b)
Lower Okanogan River Basin
DDT and PCBs
Exceedances of human health and aquatic life criteria are attributed to historical applications.
Ecology (2004a)
Lower Similkameen River
Arsenic
Exceedances of human health criteria for arsenic attributed to historic mining practices and natural sources.
Ecology (2004b)
Spokane River
Dissolved metals
Exceedances of aquatic life criteria for dissolved metals attributed to point sources in Idaho (upstream) and Washington.
Ecology (1999)
Source: information from the Department of Ecology Water Quality Improvement Projects database (available at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/TMDLsbyWria/TMDLbyWria.html)
TMDL = total maximum daily load
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant

Potential Revised Criteria
EPA is proposing changes to several inputs in the equation for calculating human health criteria.  The criteria are calculated as follows (EPA, 1980):
AWQC = (RfD xRSC) x BWDI+(FIxBAF)
AWQC=10-6q1*xBWDI+(FIxBAF)
where,
AWQC	= 	ambient water quality criterion (mg/L)
BW	 	= 	human body weight (kg)
RfD 		= 	reference dose based on noncancer human health effects (mg/kg BW-day)
RSC 		= 	relative source contribution (%)
DI	 		= 	drinking water intake (L/day)
FI			= 	human fish consumption (kg fish/day)
BAF 		= 	bioaccumulation factor (L/kg fish)
q1*	 	= 	cancer potency factor in (kg BW-day/mg).

The criteria from the NTR are the applicable existing AWQC for each pollutant of concern. EPA is proposing updated values for BW, RfD, RSC, DI, FI, BAF and q1*. These updates come from EPA (2014 (as available); 2002), with a FI specifically proposed for Washington.
In 2001, EPA published a revised methylmercury criterion based on the concentration of methylmercury in fish tissue, calculated using the following equation (EPA, 2001a):

TRC=BWx(RfD-RSC)i=24FIi

where,
TRC		= 	tissue residual concentration in mg methylmercury/kg fish
FIi 			= 	human fish consumption of trophic level i (kg fish/day)
RSC		= 	relative source contribution in mg methylmercury/kg body weight-day.

Exhibit 3-1 summarizes the key assumptions that EPA made to calculate human health criteria.
Exhibit 3-1. Summary of Key Assumptions for Calculating Human Health Criteria
Variable
Value
Fish consumption rate (FCR; g/day)
                                      175
Body weight (BW; kg)
                                      80
Drinking water intake (DWI; L/day)
                                      2.4
Excess cancer risk level (RL)
                                    10[-6]
Relative source contribution (RSC)
                                  0.2 to 0.8
Toxicity factors basis
                                U.S. EPA (2014)
Mercury criteria basis
                               U.S. EPA (2001a)

Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the human health criteria for the pollutants of concern derived using the assumptions in Exhibit 3-1. The exhibit also shows Ecology's quantification limits (QLs) which represent the minimum level to which dischargers need to measure each pollutant. Compared with the proposed criteria, the state's freshwater and marine aquatic life criteria are more stringent for selenium, while the marine aquatic life criteria are more stringent for copper, nickel, and zinc (see Exhibit 2-1). Because the aquatic life criteria are more stringent, EPA did not analyze discharges of these pollutants in relevant areas.
Exhibit 3-2. Proposed Human Health Criteria (ug/L)
Parameter
Freshwater Criteria
Marine Criteria
Quantification Limit
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
                                     8000
                                     20000
                                      2.0
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
                                      0.1
                                      0.3
                                       2
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
                                     0.35
                                     0.90
                                       2
1,1-Dichloroethylene
                                      300
                                     2000
                                       2
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
                                     0.036
                                     0.037
                                      0.6
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
                                      300
                                      300
                                      7.6
1,2-Dichloroethane
                                      8.9
                                      73
                                       2
1,2-Dichloropropane
                                     0.72
                                      3.3
                                       2
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
                                     0.01
                                     0.02
                                      20
1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene
                                      100
                                      400
                                       2
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
                                      0.9
                                       1
                                      7.6
1,3-Dichloropropene
                                     0.22
                                      1.2
                                       2
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
                                      70
                                      80
                                     17.6
2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin)
                                    5.8E-10
                                    5.9E-10
                                   0.000005
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
                                     0.25
                                     0.28
                                       4
2,4-Dichlorophenol
                                       4
                                       6
                                       1
2,4-Dimethylphenol
                                      90
                                      300
                                       1
2,4-Dinitrophenol
                                      10
                                      40
                                       2
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
                                     0.039
                                     0.18
                                      0.4
2-Chloronaphthalene
                                      100
                                      100
                                      0.6
2-Chlorophenol
                                      20
                                      80
                                       2
2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol
                                       1
                                       3
                                      NR
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine
                                     0.012
                                     0.015
                                       1
3-Methyl-4-Chlorophenol
                                      200
                                      200
                                      NR
4,4'-DDD
                                    7.9E-6
                                    7.9E-6
                                     0.05
4,4'-DDE
                                    8.8E-7
                                    8.8E-7
                                     0.05
4,4'-DDT
                                    1.2E-6
                                    1.2E-6
                                     0.05
Acenaphthene
                                      10
                                      10
                                      0.4
Acrolein
                                       3
                                      50
                                      10
Acrylonitrile
                                     0.058
                                     0.85
                                       2
Aldrin
                                    4.1E-8
                                    4.1E-8
                                     0.05
alpha-BHC
                                    4.8E-5
                                    4.8E-5
                                     0.05
alpha-Endosulfan
                                       3
                                       3
                                     0.05
Anthracene
                                      40
                                      40
                                      0.6
Antimony
                                      2.5
                                      37
                                       1
Arsenic[1]
                                    0.0045
                                    0.0059
                                      0.5
Asbestos[2]
                                    7000000
                                      NC
                                      NR
Benzene[3]
                                     0.44
                                      1.7
                                       2
Benzidine
                                    0.00013
                                    0.0012
                                      24
Benzo(a) Anthracene
                                    0.00016
                                    0.00016
                                      0.6
Benzo(a) Pyrene
                                    1.6E-5
                                    1.6E-5
                                       1
Benzo(b) Fluoranthene
                                    0.00016
                                    0.00016
                                      1.6
Benzo(k) Fluoranthene
                                    0.0016
                                    0.0016
                                      1.6
beta-BHC
                                    0.0013
                                    0.0014
                                     0.05
beta-Endosulfan
                                       4
                                       4
                                     0.05
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
                                     0.027
                                     0.24
                                       1
Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether[8]
                                      200
                                      400
                                      0.6
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
                                     0.045
                                     0.046
                                      0.5
Bromoform
                                      4.6
                                      12
                                       2
Butylbenzyl Phthalate
                                     0.013
                                     0.013
                                      NR
Carbon Tetrachloride
                                      0.2
                                      0.5
                                       2
Chlordane
                                   0.000022
                                   0.000022
                                     0.05
Chlorobenzene
                                      50
                                      80
                                       2
Chlorodibromomethane
                                     0.60
                                      2.2
                                       2
Chloroform
                                      50
                                      200
                                       2
Chrysene
                                     0.016
                                     0.016
                                      0.6
Copper[4][,][5]
                                     1300
                                      NC
                                       2
Cyanide
                                       4
                                      50
                                      10
Dibenzo(a,h) Anthracene
                                    1.6E-5
                                    1.6E-5
                                      1.6
Dichlorobromomethane
                                     0.73
                                      2.8
                                       2
Dieldrin
                                    7.0E-8
                                    7.0E-8
                                     0.05
Diethyl Phthalate
                                      80
                                      80
                                      7.6
Dimethyl Phthalate
                                      200
                                      200
                                      6.4
Di-n-Butyl Phthalate
                                       3
                                       3
                                       1
Endosulfan Sulfate
                                       4
                                       4
                                     0.05
Endrin
                                     0.002
                                     0.002
                                     0.05
Endrin Aldehyde
                                      0.1
                                      0.1
                                     0.05
Ethylbenzene
                                      12
                                      13
                                       2
Fluoranthene
                                       2
                                       2
                                      0.6
Fluorene
                                       5
                                       5
                                      0.6
Gamma-BHC; Lindane
                                     0.43
                                     0.43
                                      NR
Heptachlor
                                    3.4E-7
                                    3.4E-7
                                     0.05
Heptachlor Epoxide
                                    2.4E-6
                                    2.4E-6
                                     0.05
Hexachlorobenzene
                                    5.0E-6
                                    5.0E-6
                                      0.6
Hexachlorobutadiene
                                     0.01
                                     0.01
                                       1
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
                                      0.4
                                      0.4
                                       1
Hexachloroethane
                                     0.02
                                     0.02
                                       1
Indeno(1,2,3-cd) Pyrene
                                    0.00016
                                    0.00016
                                       1
Isophorone
                                      30
                                      200
                                       1
Methyl Bromide
                                      100
                                     1000
                                      10
Methylene Chloride
                                      10
                                      100
                                      10
Methylmercury[6]

                                     0.033

Nickel[5]
                                      30
                                      39
                                      0.5
Nitrobenzene
                                      10
                                      60
                                       1
N-Nitrosodimethylamine
                                    0.00065
                                     0.34
                                       4
N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine
                                    0.0044
                                     0.058
                                       1
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
                                     0.62
                                     0.69
                                       1
Pentachlorophenol (PCP)
                                     0.002
                                     0.002
                                       1
Phenol
                                     4000
                                     30000
                                       4
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)[7]
                                    7.3E-6
                                    7.3E-6
                                      0.5
Pyrene
                                       3
                                       3
                                      0.6
Selenium[5]
                                      25
                                      95
                                       1
Tetrachloroethylene
                                      2.4
                                      2.9
                                       2
Thallium
                                     0.048
                                     0.054
                                     0.36
Toluene
                                      29
                                      52
                                       2
Toxaphene
                                    6.6E-5
                                    6.6E-5
                                      0.5
Trichloroethylene
                                      0.3
                                      0.7
                                       2
Vinyl Chloride
                                     0.020
                                     0.18
                                       2
Zinc[5]
                                      450
                                      580
                                      2.5
NC = no criteria proposed
NR = not reported
1. The criteria for arsenic refer to the inorganic form of arsenic only.
2. The criterion for asbestos is expressed in fibers/L, and is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (56 FR 3526, January 30, 1991).
3. EPA's national 304(a) recommended criteria for benzene use a CSF range of 0.015 to 0.055 per mg/kg-day. EPA proposes to use the higher end of the CSF range (0.055 per mg/kg-day) to derive the proposed benzene criteria.
4. The criterion for copper is the MCLG developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR 141.80, June 7, 1991).
5. The existing aquatic life criteria are more stringent than the proposed freshwater and marine criteria for selenium, and the proposed marine criteria for copper, nickel, and zinc. As such, EPA did not analyze discharges of these pollutants.
6. The criterion for methylmercury is expressed as the fish tissue concentration of methylmercury (mg methylmercury/kg fish). See Water Quality Criterion for the Protection of Human Health: Methylmercury (EPA-823-R-01-001, January 3, 2001) for how this value is calculated using the criterion equation in EPA's 2000 Human Health Methodology rearranged to solve for a protective concentration in fish tissue rather than in water.
7. The criteria for PCBs apply to total PCBs (e.g., the sum of all congener or isomer or homolog or Aroclor analyses).
8. Bis(2-Chloro-1-Methylethyl) Ether was previously listed as Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether.

Method for Estimating Potential Costs: Point Sources
This section describes the method for estimating the potential costs to point sources associated with compliance with the revised human health criteria. Compliance costs for municipal and industrial point sources may result from changes to NPDES permit requirements and associated effluent limitations.
Major Dischargers
EPA estimated costs to major municipal and industrial dischargers under the proposed criteria by estimating costs to a representative sample of facilities, then extrapolating the results to the rest of the facilities (by category). This section describes sample selection, the reasonable potential analysis, identification of limits under the revised criteria and comparison to existing criteria, estimation of costs to meet revised criteria, and extrapolation to all major dischargers. Unless otherwise noted, EPA updated all cost estimates to 2014 year dollars using the consumer price index.
Sample Selection
Factors that may affect the potential magnitude of compliance costs include flow and type of facility. Larger flows are typically associated with the largest treatment costs, although per-unit costs may decrease due to economies of scale. Industrial category may also be indicative of the potential to incur costs. Treatment requirements differ for municipal and industrial discharges, and effluent quality may be similar across categories of facilities. As shown in Exhibit 2-2, there are 406 total individually permitted dischargers, including 73 major dischargers (48 municipal POTWs and 25 industrial dischargers) and 333 minor dischargers (184 municipal POTWs and 149 industrial).
To evaluate potential costs to major dischargers, EPA selected a representative sample of the major dischargers to evaluate potential costs in detail. First, EPA selected a certainty sample of the two largest municipal facilities and the largest industrial facility; this certainty sample attempts to ensure that the highest potential for cost is captured in the analysis. From the remaining major dischargers, EPA selected a random sample of dischargers across categories. EPA then extrapolated the results of the sample evaluation to estimate costs across all major dischargers by category. Exhibit 4-1 provides a summary of major discharger categories and the distribution of the sample across those categories.
Exhibit 4-1. Summary of Major Dischargers by Industrial Category
Category
Universe
Sample

Facilities
Design Flow (mgd)
Facilities
Design Flow (mgd)
Food and Kindred Products
                                       1
                                       5
                                   1 (100%)
                                   5 (100%)
Mining
                                       1
                                       0
                                   1 (100%)
                                    0 (NA)
Paper and Allied Products
                                      12
                                      336
                                    2 (17%)
                                    24 (7%)
Chemicals, Petroleum Refining, and Related Industries
                                       6
                                      27
                                    3 (50%)
                                   18 (67%)
Primary Metal Industries
                                       4
                                      27
                                    2 (50%)
                                    8 (28%)
POTW
                                      48
                                     1,019
                                    7 (15%)
                                   419 (41%)
Transportation & Public Utilities (except POTWs)
                                       1
                                      12
                                   1 (100%)
                                   12 (100%)
Total
                                      73
                                     1,425
                                   17 (23%)
                                   486 (34%)
mgd = million gallons per day
POTW = publicly owned treatment works

Exhibit 4-2 provides a summary of the sample for evaluation. Appendix A provides additional information on these facilities.
Exhibit 4-2. Summary of Major Discharger Sample
NPDES Number
Facility Name
Category
Design Flow (mgd)
Certainty Sample
WA0029581
King County South WWTP
POTW
                                     144.0
WA0029181
King County West Point WWTP
POTW
                                     215.0
WA0022900
BP Cherry Point Refinery
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
                                     13.0
Random Sample
WA0039624
Chambers Creek STP
POTW
                                     28.7
WA0044962
Pasco WWTP
POTW
                                      3.5
WA0037168
Puyallup STP
POTW
                                     14.0
WA0023451
Redondo WWTP
POTW
                                      5.6
WA0022772
Salmon Creek WWTP
POTW
                                      8.1
WA0037338
Transalta Centralia Mining
Mining
                                      5.0
WA0000884
Sonoco Products Company
Paper and Allied Products
                                      0.3
WA0000809
Cosmo Specialty Fibers, Inc.
Paper and Allied Products
                                     24.0
WA0001783
U.S. Oil & Refining Facility
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
                                      0.6
WA0000761
Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company LLC
Petroleum Refining and Related Industries
                                      4.3
WA0021067
Quincy Industrial
Food and Kindred Products
                                      4.9
WA0040851
Steelscape, Inc.
Primary Metal Industries
                                      0.2
WA0002950
Intalco Aluminum Corp Ferndale
Primary Metal Industries
                                      7.4
WA0001546
Transalta Centralia Generation
Transportation & Public Utilities (except POTWs)
                                     12.1
mgd = million gallons per day
POTW = publicly owned treatment works
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
STP = sewage treatment plant

Reasonable Potential Analysis
For each facility in the sample, EPA conducted a reasonable potential analysis to determine whether there is reasonable potential for the effluent to cause a water quality violation for any parameter. For consistency with state implementation procedures (Ecology, 2015c), EPA utilized Ecology's spreadsheet tool (PermitCalc) for permit writers for determining reasonable potential.
For each facility and parameter, the reasonable potential analysis uses data on effluent concentrations, receiving water characteristics, ambient parameter concentrations, and dilution factors. EPA gathered these data from a variety of sources, including:
Facility-specific permit fact sheets, available from PARIS
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) data available from PARIS
Ambient pollutant concentrations from the Environmental Information Management (EIM) database
Other facility documentation such as inspection reports and permit applications, available from PARIS.
There were not sufficient and adequate data available for all sample facilities to perform reasonable potential analyses for all parameters for which human health criteria have been specified. EPA did not assess reasonable potential for parameters for which data were unavailable. Appendix A provides facility-specific reasonable potential results (under both the baseline and policy scenarios) and additional information on the specific data sources used for each facility.
Projecting Effluent Limitations
When EPA found reasonable potential, it calculated average monthly and maximum daily effluent limitations based on procedures contained in the PermitCalc tool. These procedures specify that the permit writer first derive a waste load allocation according to the following equation:
	WLA = D x WQC  -  Cb x (D  -  1)
   where,
      WLA		= waste load allocation (in units of concentration)
      D		= dilution factor
      WQC		= water quality criterion concentration (applicable human health criterion)
      Cb		= ambient background concentration (geometric mean).
In instances where the receiving water is impaired due to natural or irreversible anthropogenic conditions (i.e., Cb > WQC), EPA set the WLA equal to the WQC. This approach is consistent with EPA guidance (see EPA, 1991).
According to Chapter 7, Section 5.1 of the Washington Permit Writer's Manual (Ecology, 2015c), the projected average monthly effluent limitation (AML) to protect human health is computed by setting the AML equal to the applicable WLA:
	AML = WLA (in units of concentration)
Chapter 7, Section 5.1 of the Washington Permit Writer's Manual further states that the maximum daily effluent limit (MDL) is calculated by multiplying the AML by a factor derived on the basis of the effluent variability and the anticipated number of monitoring and compliance samples collected per month (which is based on EPA, 1991; Table 5-3).
In order to estimate compliance costs attributable to the proposed rule, EPA then compared the projected AML and MDL for each pollutant to the existing NPDES permit limitations for that pollutant. If the projected AML and MDL are more stringent than existing NPDES permit limitations, EPA estimated the costs for the control mechanisms required to ensure compliance with the projected AML and MDL (see Section 4.1.4). However, the NPDES permits for the sampled facilities do not contain any WQBELs.
Based on EPA's evaluation of the NPDES permit fact sheets for the sample facilities, it appears that the absence of WQBELs in the sample facility NPDES permits is due to a number of reasons. For example, in evaluating reasonable potential for the sample facilities, EPA identified instances where background pollutant concentrations exceeded applicable water quality criteria and no WQBELs were established based on Ecology's use of natural conditions as the water quality criteria. In other instances, it was not clear based on the data and information provided in the fact sheet. Particularly for arsenic, EPA noted discussions in several permit facts sheets that describe the lack of data to quantify the extent of the natural background concentrations of arsenic, and a lack of regulatory mechanism to deal with the issue.
The lack of existing WQBELs may not accurately characterize the potential impacts attributable to the proposed revisions to the human health criteria (i.e., compared to the NTR) because the lack of existing WQBELs appears to be the result of implementing state-specific policies unrelated to EPA's proposed rule that, should they continue to be applied in the context of revised criteria, would continue to result in a lack of WQBELs. However, it is also possible that Ecology would change these implementation policies and practices and develop and implement WQBELs.  Therefore, a fair and reasonable approach to evaluate the potential upper-bound impact of EPA's proposed rule is for EPA to evaluate reasonable potential based on the existing human health criteria as a baseline and determine whether a WQBEL would have been included in the permit were it not for the approaches and other policies used by Ecology. EPA's approach reflects the most conservative approach to compliance with 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), which states that effluent limitations must be established when a pollutant is discharged "...at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any State water quality standard, including State narrative criteria for water quality." Thus, in cases of no existing WQBELs under the baseline criteria and current Ecology policies, EPA evaluated reasonable potential and projected baseline effluent limitations consistent with the approach described above. For facility-specific results, see Appendix A.
In all cases, an AML would be more stringent than the corresponding MDL. Therefore, EPA compared the baseline AML to the projected AML to determine whether the discharger would be in compliance with the new effluent limitation. In the absence of a baseline effluent limitation (i.e., there was no reasonable potential to exceed existing human health criteria), EPA compared the maximum observed effluent concentration (MEC) to the projected AML to determine whether the discharger will be in compliance with the new effluent limitation. This method ensures facilities are discharging below applicable limitations. If the baseline AML or MEC exceeds the projected AML, compliance actions and associated costs are likely. A summary of these determinations is provided in Exhibit 4-3.
Exhibit 4-3. Summary of Projected Effluent Limitations and Incremental Load Reductions under the Proposed Criteria
Facility Name[1]
QL (ug/L)
MEC or Baseline AML (ug/L)
Projected AML (ug/L)
Incremental Reduction (lbs/year)
                                   Antimony
Transalta Centralia Generation
                                     0.21
                                      2.0
                                      2.5
                                       0
                                    Arsenic
BP Cherry Point Refinery
                                      0.5
                                      19
                                     0.81
                                      720
Intalco Aluminum Corporation
                                      0.5
                                      11
                                     0.46
                                      237
King County South WWTP
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
King County West Point WWTP
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
Pasco WWTP
                                      0.5
                                     0.018
                                    0.0045
                                       0
Redondo WWTP
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
Salmon Creek WWTP
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
Sonoco Products Company
                                      0.5
                                      2.3
                                     0.59
                                      1.6
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Group
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
Transalta Centralia Generation
                                      0.5
                                     0.018
                                    0.0045
                                       0
Transalta Centralia Mining
                                      0.5
                                     0.018
                                    0.0045
                                       0
US Oil & Refining
                                      0.5
                                     0.14
                                    0.0059
                                       0
                                    Mercury
Transalta Centralia Mining
                                    0.0005
                                    0.0029
                                    0.00088
                                     0.031
BP Cherry Point Refinery
                                    0.0005
                                    0.0114
                                    0.00088
                                     0.42
Tesoro Refining and Marketing Group
                                    0.0005
                                     0.44
                                     0.017
                                     0.24
AML = average monthly effluent limitation
MEC = maximum effluent concentration
QL = quantitation level (as established by Ecology; see Attachment 1-I (to Form 2C) or Appendix A of EPA/Ecology Form 2A at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/forms.html)
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant
1. Includes sample facilities for which EPA found that there is reasonable potential to exceed the proposed criteria. Chambers Creek STP, Puyallup STP, Quincy Industrial, and Steelscape have no reasonable potential for any pollutants and are not included here. See Appendix A for more details.

EPA estimated the incremental pollutant loading reduction based on the difference between the MEC and the AML (either baseline or projected), in most circumstances, according to the following equation:
   LR = 0.00834 x Q x (MEC  -  AML) x 365
   where,
      LR	= load reduction (lbs/year)
      0.00834	= conversion factor [(lbs)(L)/(ug)(mg)]
      Q	= effluent flow rate (mgd)
      MEC	= maximum effluent concentration (ug/L)
      AML	= average monthly effluent limitation (ug/L)

When the AML was below the analytical limit of quantitation established by Ecology, EPA based the reduction on the difference between the MEC and the QL according to the following equation:
   LR = 0.00834 x Q x(MEC  -  QL) x 365
   where,
      LR	= load reduction (lbs/year)
      0.00834	= conversion factor [(lbs)(L)/(ug)(mg)]
      Q	= effluent flow rate (mgd)
      MEC	= maximum effluent concentration (ug/L)
      QL	= quantitation level (ug/L).
EPA calculated the incremental load reduction by subtracting the load reduction due to the baseline AML (i.e., the baseline scenario) from the load reduction from the projected AML (i.e., the policy scenario).
   ILR = LRpolicy  -  LRbaseline
   where,
      ILR 		= incremental load reduction (lbs/year)
      LRpolicy		= load reduction to meet the policy scenario (lbs/year)
      LRbaseline	= load reduction to meet the baseline scenario (lbs/year).
Identifying Compliance Scenarios and Costs
Analysis of the available data for the sample of facilities indicates that there are likely to be exceedances of projected effluent limits for arsenic and mercury (i.e., instances where the projected effluent limits under the baseline criteria are less stringent then the projected effluent limits based on the proposed criteria). There are a number of potential alternatives for compliance with effluent limits for these pollutants, including:
Optimizing treatment processes (e.g., adding chemicals to increase flocculation or filtration efficiency) to increase pollutant removal efficiencies
Source control (e.g., pollution prevention (P2) program, inflow and infiltration (I&I) reductions, more stringent pretreatment standards)
Installing end-of-pipe treatment technology (e.g., reverse osmosis, granular activated carbon, or chemical precipitation)
Alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., site-specific criterion, dilution credits, TMDL, or variance).
Dischargers will pursue the lowest cost means of compliance with effluent limitations. However, for the proposed human health criteria, technical feasibility is also an issue, particularly when projected effluent limitations are below analytical limits of quantification.  Hence, there may be a need for alternative compliance mechanisms. For example, many projected effluent limitations based on the proposed arsenic human health criteria will be below analytical limits of quantification (i.e., dischargers will be unable to demonstrate compliance with the effluent limitations).
Process Optimization
The lowest cost option is likely the adjustment of existing treatment (process optimization).  This option would be most feasible when relatively low pollutant reductions are needed or monitoring data indicate that pollutant loads increase throughout the treatment process as a result of chemical additions or treatment techniques.
Process optimization usually involves process analysis and process modifications. Process analysis is an investigation of the performance-limiting factors of the treatment process and is a key factor in achieving optimum treatment efficiency. Performance-limiting factors for common wastewater treatment processes (e.g., sedimentation, activated sludge, filtration) may include operator training, response to changes in wastewater quality, maintenance activities, automation, and process control testing. The cost of process analysis includes the cost of additional or continuous monitoring throughout the treatment process, and a treatment performance evaluation. These costs vary based on the number of treatment processes utilized and the magnitude of the reductions needed.
Process modifications include activities short of adding new treatment technology units (conventional or unconventional) to the treatment train. For increasing pollutant removal efficiencies, process modifications could include adjusting coagulant doses to increase settling, equalizing flow if pollutant concentrations spike during wet weather events, increasing filter maintenance activities or backwash cycles, training operators, and installing automation equipment including necessary hardware and software. Several months of adjustments may be needed to achieve a desired level of process optimization. In practice, the process modifications necessary would be determined by the process analysis study.
Process optimization costs depend on the pollutant needing reductions and existing treatment processes and operations. For example, a facility could add a flocculent aid to secondary treatment to increase solids removal, and thus, the removal of any pollutants that adhere to particulates (e.g., mercury). In addition, chemicals used in wastewater treatment could contain contaminants (e.g., chlorine contaminated with low levels of mercury), and for certain pollutants (e.g., mercury) the use of such chemicals could result in exceedances. Thus, switching chemicals or the source of chemicals could be another low cost process optimization control option.
The effectiveness of process optimization largely depends on the efficiency of current operations, the existing treatment processes, and the fate and transport of the pollutant through the treatment train. For example, if a facility is already well maintained and operated, implementing process optimization may not result in sufficient pollutant reductions because the existing treatment processes are already performing at feasible limits. Also, because the design of most conventional treatment technologies maximizes removal of suspended solids, process optimization aimed at increasing those removal efficiencies may not result in sufficient reductions for pollutants existing primarily in dissolved form. Given the available information for the sample facilities, it is generally not possible to determine the reductions achievable with process optimization; rather, a detailed, site-specific study would be necessary.
Source Controls
If adjusting existing operations would not be feasible or would not be sufficient to achieve the necessary reductions, source controls would likely be the next most cost-effective control option. Source control could be used alone, or in conjunction with process optimization. The feasibility of source control efforts depends on the makeup of the influent and potential sources of the pollutant. For example, certain toxic pollutants are primarily used in industrial processes. Thus, for a municipal facility, a feasible source control option would be regulating indirect industrial dischargers through pretreatment permits. However, for pollutants in which the main sources are commercial and residential wastewater (e.g., mercury), a facility would likely have to concentrate efforts on public outreach and education or a sewer use ordinance. Other pollutants, such as arsenic, may be present in the wastewater due to natural sources (e.g., groundwater), and reducing I&I or treating source water may be necessary.
Costs for source control activities depend on the pollutant and the measures or controls implemented. P2 programs can be a cost-effective means of reducing mercury in wastewater effluents. However, as contributing sources are identified and controlled, the cost-effectiveness and efficacy that a P2 program would provide will diminish, and a discharger may need to pursue alternative compliance mechanisms (i.e., a variance) if compliance with permit conditions has not been achieved.
EPA estimated a range of source control actions and costs for control of arsenic that include industrial P2 programs, I&I reduction programs, and variances. In Washington, arsenic occurs naturally at high levels in state surface waters and groundwater (see http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/PolicyForum5Presentations.pdf#page=31). These naturally occurring sources can be a significant source within municipal wastewater systems, as contaminated groundwater leaks into sewer systems. I&I controls may enable compliance with baseline and revised criteria and EPA estimated the associated costs based on unit costs used in other cost analyses conducted within the region. Note that these costs may be incurred independent of compliance with arsenic criteria or be partially off-set by secondary benefits associated with I&I reduction activities (i.e., reduce flow to treatment plant, which reduces treatment costs, and sewer overflows).
Pollution Prevention Program
Successful P2 programs will likely include at least some of the following steps:
Identify sources  -  particularly sources that contribute the greatest load to the influent
Form a workgroup  -  preferably composed of representatives from government, industry, community, and environmental organizations that are either familiar with P2 strategies or familiar with the pollutant
Define program goals  -  including a statement of how the municipality intends to reduce pollutant levels in its effluent, the purpose for doing so, and a time line for completion
Develop an approach  -  including selecting sectors for P2 efforts, the criteria for targeting efforts (e.g., size of the source loading, authority available to control the source, time required to produce desired results), whether efforts will be voluntary or regulatory, and who will execute each program effort
Estimate program costs  -  develop estimates and identify entities that will bear the costs
Implement program  -  starting with the most cost-effective measures and modifying activities and approach based on measured results
Assess progress  -  including both successes and failures (i.e., lessons learned) throughout the duration of the program
Provide follow-up  -  necessary to ensure P2 measures continue to be implemented
Develop a contingency plan  -  including a description of actions to be taken if plan efforts are unsuccessful.
The focus and approach of the program will be different for each community and sector targeted. As such, plans vary in complexity and in the resources necessary to achieve the goals set forth.
The reductions in mercury achievable through P2, and thus the ability to achieve compliance with numeric effluent limits using P2 alone, will vary based on existing treatment processes, the makeup and size of the service area (e.g., number of potential mercury sources), and the level of P2 already being implemented in the community. For example, in 2003, the Washington State Legislature passed the Mercury Education and Reduction Act (MERA). MERA bans the sale of some mercury-containing products, requires the labeling of mercury-containing light bulbs and lamps, and requires the removal of mercury from elementary and high schools. The State may fine repeat violators of MERA up to $5000 per violation. Ecology also administers an automotive mercury switch removal program. Many automobiles made before 2003 contain mercury switches or other mercury-containing equipment. Ecology offers auto recyclers up to $9 per mercury-containing component. Dentists in the State must use and maintain a dental amalgam separator.
Large municipal facilities with numerous potential mercury sources may see significant reductions after implementation of a measure that targets a major influent mercury source.  However, facilities with much smaller service areas may not be able to achieve the same effluent reductions with P2 due to a lower percent of easily identifiable and controllable sources contributing to the influent mercury load. For example, sources from the residential sector are not as easy to identify as those from industrial and commercial sectors since these may originate from a wide range of products and smaller municipalities are likely to receive most of their inflow from the residential sector.
There is little information available on the cost of P2 programs for individual pollutants because facilities typically do not account for pollutant-specific P2 costs as a budget item that can be verified apart from other base program costs. However, the experiences of facilities that have already developed P2 programs for pollutants such as mercury provide some information on likely program components and costs.
Community size is likely to be a factor affecting P2 program costs. For example, it is unlikely that a minor facility would need the same amount of resources for program development and outreach efforts as a large major municipal facility because the service area is smaller and contains fewer households and commercial/industrial dischargers to target.  Smaller facilities may also pool their resources together and develop a joint P2 program to save time and money on program development and outreach materials.
EPA (2008) previously estimated that P2 program costs for mercury may be approximately $58,000 per year for a small municipal facility (1 mgd to 5 mgd), $109,000 for a medium-sized municipal facility (>=5 mgd to 20 mgd), and to $165,000 per year for a large municipal facility (> 20 mgd). P2 program costs for pollutants with fewer potential sources would likely be lower ($25,000 to $50,000). More recent information pertaining to program costs is not available, but P2 programs should become less costly over time as more jurisdictions adopt these programs and refine best practices. EPA updated the labor rate components of these cost estimates to incorporate Washington-specific labor rates (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 2014). In total, these estimates encompass costs for the following program components:
* Program planning and development
* Sampling and analysis of internal process waters and effluents
* Site visits and workshops
* Development of public-service announcements, advertising, and a website to promote awareness of program activities and goals
* Procurement and distribution of mercury free products (e.g., thermometers) to certain public and commercial sector entities.
EPA also estimated costs to indirect dischargers to a municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) under a mercury P2 program (see Appendix A). For other pollutants, identifying groups of indirect dischargers likely to be contributing to the influent load at the treatment plant is more difficult because the pollutants are no longer actively used (e.g., legacy pesticides), could be formed as a byproduct of numerous processes (e.g., dioxin), or there is a lack of information available. Thus, it is not possible to estimate pretreatment or P2 costs to indirect dischargers for pollutants other than mercury without specific information on the types of industrial dischargers in each service area.
End-of-Pipe Treatment
If process optimization or source control would not be sufficient for compliance with the baseline or revised criteria, alternative discharge options or end-of-pipe treatment technologies may be necessary. However, many of the criteria approach the limits of analytical capabilities (e.g., mercury) or fall below QLs (e.g., arsenic). In addition, for some pollutants, the lowest levels achievable through end-of-pipe treatment are highly uncertain due to the fact that dischargers have not been required to treat to such low levels and performance data are not available.
For metals such as mercury and arsenic, technologies that primarily target the dissolved fraction of the pollutant are most likely to achieve low effluent levels because most of the particulate fraction would already have been removed with existing treatment controls designed to remove solids (see discussion of process optimization).
Exhibit 4-4 summarizes the end-of-pipe treatment technologies that may be used to remove the pollutants of concern.
Exhibit 4-4. Summary of Potential End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
Technology
Pollutants Removed
                           Granular activated carbon
                                    Mercury
                              Membrane filtration
                               Arsenic, mercury
                                Reverse osmosis
                                    Arsenic

For this analysis, and as documented further in Appendix A (Facility Analyses), EPA determined that only end-of-pipe treatment for arsenic was necessary for ensuring compliance with projected effluent limits (i.e., there are compliance options other than treatment for mercury). Based on information contained in U.S. EPA 2008, EPA assumed the use of reverse osmosis as the treatment system for arsenic. Although less costly treatment options exist (e.g., membrane filtration), reverse osmosis can consistently reduce arsenic effluent concentrations to below analytical detection levels. EPA derived the costs for reverse osmosis treatment based on the costs documented in U.S. EPA, 2008.
Alternative Compliance Mechanisms
If none of the control options discussed above would result in compliance with baseline or revised effluent limitations, or if the costs of available treatment would be prohibitive, dischargers would likely need some form of relief from the requirements.
Site-Specific Criteria
If dischargers suspect that the conditions in the vicinity of their discharge warrant alternative (i.e., site-specific) criteria values that would result in less stringent effluent limitations in their permit, they may work to collect data to develop site-specific criteria. Ecology may also develop site-specific criteria as part of a TMDL process (i.e., identifying the appropriate target value). EPA must review and approve site-specific criteria prior to implementation.
Because additional data are likely required to assess the appropriateness of site-specific criteria at a particular location, the extent of use of this mechanism by dischargers is uncertain. However, consideration within the context of a TMDL is likely, and may or may not reflect an incremental increase in effort above that associated with current TMDLs (this type of data collection and evaluation may already be a part of TMDL development efforts).
Intake Credits
Under 40 CFR 122.45(g), EPA allows dischargers to request that technology-based effluent limitations be adjusted to reflect credit for pollutants in the discharger's intake water when certain conditions are met. However in terms of complying with WQBELs, the State of Washington does not yet have an approved intake credit policy and, therefore, does not provide intake credits for water quality-based effluent limitations. Therefore EPA did not consider intake credits as a valid compliance action for the proposed human health criteria.
Variances
Under WAC 173-201A-420, Ecology may temporarily modify criteria for individual facilities, or stretches of water, through the use of a variance. Variances may be approved when:
   (a) The modification is consistent with the requirements of federal law (currently 40 CFR 131.10(g) and 131.10(h));
   (b) The water body is assigned variances for specific criteria and all other applicable criteria must be met; and
   (c) Reasonable progress is being made toward meeting the original criteria.
The decision to approve a variance is subject to a public and intergovernmental involvement process. Under the state's current regulations, the department may issue a variance for up to five years, and may renew the variance after providing for another opportunity for public and intergovernmental involvement and review. Variances are not in effect until they have been adopted under state law and approved by EPA. Factors for allowing variances under 40 CFR 131.10(g):
   1. Naturally occurring pollutant concentrations prevent the attainment of the use.
   2. Natural, ephemeral, intermittent, or low flow conditions or water levels prevent the attainment of the use, unless these conditions may be compensated for by the discharge of sufficient volume of effluent discharges to enable uses to be met without violating state water conservation requirements.
   3. Human-caused conditions or sources of pollution prevent the attainment of the use and cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than to leave in place.
   4. Dams, diversions, or other types of hydrologic modifications preclude the attainment of the use, and it is not feasible to restore the water body to its original condition or to operate such modification in a way which would result in the attainment of the use.
   5. Physical conditions related to the natural features of the water body, such as the lack of a proper substrate, cover, flow, depth, pools, riffles, and unrelated to water quality preclude attainment of aquatic life protection uses.
   6. Controls more stringent than those required by CWA sections 301(b) and 306 would result in substantial and widespread economic and social impact.
To demonstrate that any of the first five conditions above apply as part of an application for a variance, dischargers would likely prepare documentation of the conditions warranting the variance.
To evaluate the potential for control costs to cause substantial and widespread economic and social impacts (the sixth condition above), dischargers are likely to follow EPA's (1995) Interim Economic Guidance for Water Quality Standards Workbook which provides worksheets and instructions for public and private sector entities. Following EPA (1995), dischargers conduct a two-step analysis, first determining whether the control costs would have a substantial adverse financial impact and, if so, whether that impact would cause widespread adverse impacts on the surrounding community.
Permitting authorities may require implementation of a P2 or source control program as part of the conditions for granting a variance. Thus, to be conservative (i.e., err on the side of overestimating costs), EPA assumed that facilities would need to implement a P2 program as part of a variance.
Dilution Credits
Under WAC 173-201A-410, Ecology may implement mixing zones and associated dilution credits in NPDES permits. Regulatory mixing zones may be established when a discharger has applied all known and reasonable treatment and a mixing zone analysis has been performed. Once approved, dilution credits can reflect no more than the level of effluent and ambient receiving water mixing which occurs under critical conditions. Dilution credits are used to account for the assimilative capacity of the receiving water when computing the waste load allocation applicable to a specific parameter and associated effluent limitations, as described in Section 4.1.3.
Dischargers who cannot readily comply with end-of-pipe effluent limitations based on the proposed human health criteria and who do not currently possess an approved regulatory mixing zone, may elect to pursue approval of a regulatory mixing zone as means of coming into compliance with the effluent limitations.
When applying for a regulatory mixing zone, a special study is required to estimate and document the level of mixing which is likely to be present in the receiving water under applicable critical conditions. A special study of this type will typically require data collection and the mathematical modeling of the discharge and ambient receiving environment. In developing costs associated with developing a dilution special study, EPA estimated that approximately 320 hours would be required of an environmental engineer to develop and interpret the model, and an additional 50 hours by an environmental engineer at Ecology to review the model. EPA assumed the costs to obtain modeling software would be negligible, as EPA distributes software appropriate to this application (i.e., VisualPlumes) free of charge. Labor costs are based on median wage rates for an environmental engineer in the State of Washington (BLS, 2014).
Summary of Unit Control Costs
EPA based unit costs for P2 programs, I&I reduction, alternative compliance mechanisms, and end-of-pipe treatment (i.e., reverse osmosis) on estimates previously developed for economic analysis of WQS for the State of Oregon (U.S. EPA, 2008). EPA updated these costs to reflect local labor rates and escalated to 2014 dollars using appropriate cost indices. EPA developed costs associated with applying for dilution credits and for process optimization special studies as described in Section 4.1.4.
Exhibit 4-5 summarizes the unit costs utilized in the sample facility compliance cost analyses.
Exhibit 4-5. Estimated Unit Costs of Compliance Mechanisms (2014$)
Compliance Mechanism
Municipals
Industrials

1-5 mgd
5-20 mgd
>20 mgd

Pollution prevention program ($/year)
                                    $58,000
                                   $110,000
                                   $165,000
                                    $28,000
Other pollution prevention programs
                                    $60,000
                                    $60,000
                                    $60,000
                                    $28,000
Dilution study
                                    $50,000
                                    $50,000
                                    $50,000
                                    $50,000
End-of-pipe treatment (reverse osmosis)[1]
                                   See note
                                   See note
                                   See note
                                   See note
Variance
                                   $180,000
                                   $300,000
                                   $426,000
                                   $180,000
Inflow and infiltration reduction ($/mile)[2]
                                    $69,000
                                    $69,000
                                    $69,000
                                   See note
Source: EPA (2008); updated to 2014 dollars using the Engineering News Record Construction cost Index for inflow and infiltration pipeline rehabilitation and the average annual Consumer Price Index for other components. Dilution study estimate based on best professional judgement using assumptions identified in the text.
mgd = million gallons per day
1. EPA did not identify a need for end-of-pipe treatment costs for municipal dischargers; for industrial end-of-pipe treatment costs, EPA derived the following linear regression equation from the data in EPA (2008) to estimate costs:
   y = [(1.1 x10[6])(x)]+(1.63x10[6])
   where:
   y = Total annual project cost ($ millions; 7% and 20 years)
   x = Facility flow (mgd)
2. Inflow and infiltration reduction is applicable to municipal dischargers only.

Extrapolation to All Major Dischargers
To extrapolate the sample facility costs, EPA added the estimated compliance costs for the facilities in the certainty sample to the sum of the estimated costs for each facility in the random sample multiplied by the facility weight from the original sampling scheme. See Appendix B for details on this extrapolation.
Minor Dischargers
Minor dischargers often do not have monitoring requirements for toxic pollutants and may not contribute significantly to instream loads even if such pollutants were present in the effluent from these facilities. Thus, the potential for minor facilities to incur costs as a result of revised human health criteria is low.