Economic Analysis for the Water Quality Standards Regulatory

Revisions (Final Rule)

July 2015

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water

Office of Science and Technology

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20460
July 2015 i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................v

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Scope of the Analysis......................................................................................................... 1-2

1.3 Organization of this Report ................................................................................................ 1-2

2. Baseline and Rule Requirements .................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Administrator’s Determinations......................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Designated Uses ................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Triennial Reviews .............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.3.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-2

2.3.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.4 Antidegradation.................................................................................................................. 2-2

2.4.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-2

2.4.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.5 WQS Variances .................................................................................................................. 2-3

2.5.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions................................................................... 2-4

2.6.1 1983 Regulation........................................................................................................ 2-4

2.6.2 Revision .................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.7 Other Changes .................................................................................................................... 2-4

3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions............................................. 3-1

3.1 Data and Methods............................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes ............................................ 3-2

3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities .............................................................................................. 3-2

3.2.2 Administrator’s Determinations ............................................................................... 3-3

3.2.3 Designated Uses........................................................................................................ 3-3

3.2.4 Triennial Reviews..................................................................................................... 3-5

3.2.5 Antidegradation ........................................................................................................ 3-7

3.2.6 WQS Variances ...................................................................................................... 3-16
July 2015 ii

3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions...................................................... 3-19

3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes............ 3-19

3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency....................................................................... 3-20

3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost........................................................................... 3-22

3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties .......................................................................................... 3-22

3.5.1 Key Assumptions.................................................................................................... 3-23

3.5.2 QA/QC Activities ................................................................................................... 3-25

4. Small Entity Analysis....................................................................................................... 4-1

5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions............................................................ 5-1

5.1 Benefits by Program Area .................................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations ............................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Designated Uses........................................................................................................ 5-2

5.1.3 Triennial Reviews..................................................................................................... 5-2

5.1.4 Antidegradation ........................................................................................................ 5-3

5.1.5 WQS Variances ........................................................................................................ 5-4

5.1.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions ......................................................... 5-5

5.2 Benefits of Improved Water Quality.................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.1 Market Benefits ........................................................................................................ 5-6

5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits.................................................................................................. 5-8

6. References ......................................................................................................................... 6-1

7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations........................... 7-1
July 2015 iii

List of Exhibits

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2013 $).................. 3-2

Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities ....... 3-3

Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated Use

Provisions ............................................................................................................................. 3-5

Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Documenting and Submitting

Explanations for Not Adopting New or Revised Criteria for Parameters for Which EPA Has

Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations .................... 3-7

Exhibit 3-5: Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with

Performing/Evaluating Additional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews................................. 3-10

Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2

Antidegradation Reviews ................................................................................................... 3-12

Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement When

Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection ........................ 3-14

Exhibit 3-8: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for

Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods.................................. 3-16

Exhibit 3-9: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional Documentation

Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions.................................................................. 3-17

Exhibit 3-10: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS Variances

............................................................................................................................................ 3-19

Exhibit 3-11: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost ................. 3-20

Exhibit 3-12: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost to the Agency

............................................................................................................................................ 3-21

Exhibit 3-13: Summary of Potential Incremental Administrative Burden and Cost to States,

Authorized Tribes, and the Agency.................................................................................... 3-22

Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis............................................................................... 3-23

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation Publication Years

.............................................................................................................................................. 7-1
July 2015 iv

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ANPRM Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CWA Clean Water Act

EA Economic Analysis

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

GS General Schedule

HAU Highest Attainable Use

ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System

IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources

MDNR Missouri Department of Natural Resources

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

ONRW Outstanding National Resources Water

RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act

SBREFA Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

States and

authorized tribes The 50 States, the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the

Northern Mariana Islands, and Indian Tribes that EPA determines to be

eligible for purposes of the water quality standards program.

TAS Treatment in Manner Similar to a State

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

UAA Use Attainability Analysis

WQBEL Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit

WQS Water Quality Standards
July 2015 v

Executive Summary

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) updates six areas of the federal water quality

standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that implements the Clean Water Act (CWA).

This update provides a better-defined pathway for states and authorized tribes to address

complex water quality challenges and protect high quality waters and it promotes more

transparent and engaged public participation.

This rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Thus, this

report describes EPA’s analysis of the potential direct costs and benefits to all 50 states, the

District of Columbia, five territories, the 40 authorized tribes with EPA-approved WQS, and to

EPA that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation. EPA acknowledges

that this rule may result in indirect costs to some regulated entities as a result of changes to WQS

that states and authorized tribes adopt based on today’s final rule. This report does not describe

the potential indirect cost and benefits that may be experienced by regulated entities. EPA

estimates the total annual cost for the final rule to range from $ 6.51 million per year to $ 24.11

million per year. Although EPA could not quantitatively estimate monetary benefits, EPA

identifies and qualitatively describes many of the expected benefits of the rule.

EPA estimates the potential incremental burden and cost of today’s final rule by identifying

elements of the rule that could potentially result in incremental administrative burden, estimating

the incremental number of labor hours states and authorized tribes may need to allocate in order

to comply with those elements of the rule, and estimating the cost associated of those additional

labor hours.
July 2015 1. Introduction 1-1

1. Introduction

EPA updates the federal water quality standards (WQS) regulation at 40 CFR Part 131 that

implements the Clean Water Act (CWA). This update provides a better-defined pathway for

states and authorized tribes to address complex water quality challenges and protect high quality

waters. It also promotes more transparent and engaged public participation. The final rule revises

six program areas: (1) Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2)

designated uses, (3) triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) permit

compliance schedule authorizing provisions. This report describes EPA’s analysis of the

potential cost and benefits that may be associated with these revisions to the federal regulation.

1.1 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)).

CWA section 303 establishes the basis for the WQS regulation. WQS reflect the CWA national

objectives for each water body. The main components of WQS are designated uses, water quality

criteria, and antidegradation requirements. Designated uses establish the environmental

objectives for a water body, and water quality criteria define the minimum conditions necessary

to achieve those environmental objectives. Antidegradation requirements complement 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) establish designated uses of waters under their jurisdiction, they must establish

water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA’s regulation at § 131.11(a)(1) provides that

water quality 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, outstanding national

resource waters, and existing uses of all waters, and identify specific methods to implement those

policies (§ 131.12).

The WQS regulation provides specific requirements to adopt, revise, and remove designated uses

(§ 131.10). A state or authorized tribe may choose to adopt a WQS variance if the use cannot be

attained immediately but the use may be attainable in the future. A WQS variance is a timelimited designated use and associated water quality criterion targeted to a specific pollutant(s),

permittee(s), and water body or waterbody segment. A WQS variance is different from a change

to the designated use and associated criterion in that it is intended as a mechanism to provide

time for states, authorized tribes and stakeholders to implement adaptive management

approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and criterion currently in

place are not being met, but still retain the designated use as a long-term goal.
July 2015 1. Introduction 1-2

The regulation requires states and authorized tribes to hold a public hearing to review applicable

WQS and solicit input from the public at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial review”).

Such hearings on WQS provide an essential opportunity for stakeholders to become involved in

setting WQS and to make concerns known to state and authorized tribal officials. In addition, the

regulation requires states and authorized tribes to consider new available data and information

and revise standards accordingly. The results of triennial reviews, regardless of whether the

review results in revisions to state or authorized tribal regulation, along with any information

supporting a WQS revision, must be submitted to EPA for review and approval.

EPA established the core of the WQS regulation in a final rule issued in 1983. In 1998, EPA

issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to discuss and invite comment on

over 130 aspects of the federal WQS regulation and program, with the goal of identifying

specific changes that might strengthen water quality protection and restoration, facilitate

watershed management initiatives, and incorporate evolving water quality criteria and

assessment science into state and authorized tribal WQS programs. Although EPA chose not to

move forward with a rulemaking after the ANRPM, as a result of the input received, EPA

identified a number of high priority issue areas for which the Agency developed guidance,

provided technical assistance, and continued further discussion and dialogue to assure more

effective program implementation. While this rule is not a direct continuation of the 1998

ANPRM, it is a part of EPA’s ongoing effort to clarify and strengthen the WQS program.

1.2 Scope of the Analysis

EPA estimated potential incremental administrative costs that may result from the regulatory

revisions (i.e., costs that are beyond those associated with implementation of the 1983 WQS

regulation). Because today’s rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to

regulated entities and because states and authorized tribes have the flexibility to develop and

implement their own WQS to meet the federal regulations in different ways, EPA focuses on the

potential impact to states and authorized tribes. In addition, EPA does not have data to estimate

any potential costs and benefits of the final rule on regulated entities. EPA acknowledges that

some of the provisions in today’s rule may lead to increased administrative costs to states and

authorized tribes. EPA also believes that improved understanding of the WQS regulation and

clarification of the requirements of certain provisions may offset some of those costs. Although

this analysis does not estimate potential offsetting reductions in administrative costs, it does

qualitatively describe some of the benefits of today’s rule.

1.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report contains the following:

 Section 2 summarizes the regulatory framework as adopted in 1983 and the

regulatory revisions in today’s rule.

 Section 3 describes the data and methods EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s

rule, and the results of the analysis.

 Section 4 discusses potential impacts to small entities.

 Section 5 qualitatively describes the benefits that may be associated with today’s rule.

 Section 6 provides references.
July 2015 1. Introduction 1-3

 Section 7 provides a listing of EPA’s CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations

and publication years EPA uses to estimate the cost of today’s rule.
July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2-1

2. Baseline and Rule Requirements

Today’s rule updates the 1983 WQS regulation in the following program areas: (1)

Administrator’s determination that new or revised WQS are necessary, (2) designated uses, (3)

triennial reviews, (4) antidegradation, (5) WQS variances, and (6) compliance schedule

authorizing provisions. This section describes the regulatory framework prior to the effective

date of today’s rule and summarizes the regulatory changes in today’s rule. For more details on

the revisions and why EPA made them, please refer to the preamble of today’s rule.

2.1 Administrator’s Determinations

2.1.1 1983 Regulation

Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine

that new or revised WQS are necessary to meet the CWA requirements, typically in those

situations where a state or tribe fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with the CWA.

The Administrator has the discretion to make such a determination after evaluating all relevant

factors. An Administrator’s determination triggers the requirement for the EPA to promptly

prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth new or revised WQS for the waters of the

United States involved, and for the EPA to promulgate such WQS unless the state or authorized

tribe adopts and the EPA approves such WQS before the EPA promulgation is finalized.

2.1.2 Revision

Today’s rule clarifies that an Administrator’s determination must be signed by the Administrator

or his or her duly authorized delegate and must include a statement that the document is a

determination for purposes of section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. EPA estimates the burden and

cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.2.

2.2 Designated Uses

2.2.1 1983 Regulation

Designated uses are defined at § 131.3(f) as the “uses specified in WQS for each water body or

segment whether or not they are being attained.” A use is a particular function of, or activity in, a

water body that requires a specific level of water quality.

States and authorized tribes have the flexibility in managing their designated uses as long as they

meet the requirements of the CWA and the WQS regulation. Specifically, the WQS regulation at

§131.10(a) requires states and authorized tribes to take into consideration the use and value of

water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife,

recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial and other purposes including navigation

when establishing designated uses. In addition, the regulation at § 131.10(j) requires states and

authorized tribes to conduct a UAA when designating uses that do not include the uses specified

in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA, when removing a designated use specified in section 101(a)(2)

of the CWA, or when adopting sub-categories of such uses which require less stringent criteria.

2.2.2 Revision

Today’s rule revises several regulatory provisions that pertain to when a UAA is or is not

required. Today’s rule also clarifies that states and authorized tribes must adopt the highest
July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2-2

attainable use as newly defined at §131.10(m) when adopting or revising a designated use based

on a required UAA. Finally, today’s rule clarifies in 131.10(k)(3) that when removing or revising

a non-101(a)(2) use as newly defined at § 131.10(q), states and authorized tribes are not required

to conduct a UAA but must submit documentation justifying how consideration of the use and

value of water for those uses listed in § 131.10(a) appropriately supports the state or authorized

tribal action. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.3

2.3 Triennial Reviews

2.3.1 1983 Regulation

CWA section 303(c)(1) and the regulation at § 131.20 requires states and authorized tribes to

hold a public hearing to review applicable WQS at least once every three years (i.e., a “triennial

review”) and, as appropriate, modify and adopt standards. States and authorized tribes must

submit the results of each triennial review to EPA whether or not it resulted in a modification to

WQS. One area that states and authorized tribes must review triennially is their applicable water

quality criteria. States and authorized tribes must adopt criteria that are scientifically defensible

and protective of the designated use. EPA has the role of publishing CWA section 304(a)

national criteria recommendations to assist states and authorized tribes in establishing water

quality criteria in their WQS to “protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of

water and serve the purposes of” the Act (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A)).

2.3.2 Revision

Today’s rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at § 131.20(a). First,

today’s rule requires that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or revised

criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a)

criteria recommendations, they must explain their decision when submitting the results of their

triennial review to EPA per CWA section 303(c)(1) and § 131.20(c). Second, today’s rule

clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that states and authorized tribes must

review triennially. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.4.

2.4 Antidegradation

2.4.1 1983 Regulation

Section 131.12 of the regulation requires states and authorized tribes to adopt antidegradation

policies to protect water quality and identify methods for implementing such policies. Generally,

states and authorized tribes establish three tiers of antidegradation protection:

 Tier 1 protects existing uses.

 Tier 2 protects water quality that is better than necessary to support CWA section

101(a)(2) goals. The regulation at § 131.12(a)(2) allows states and authorized tribes to

lower water quality in Tier 2 waters only if the lowering is “necessary to accommodate

important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.”

 Tier 3 protects water quality in Outstanding National Resources Waters (ONRWs), which

states and authorized tribes establish. The regulation at § 131.12(a)(2) requires that water

quality in ONRWs “shall be maintained and protected.”
July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2-3

States and authorized tribes adopt antidegradation policies into WQS and submit those policies

to EPA for review and approval. States and authorized tribes must also identify the methods they

will use to implement the antidegradation policy. States and authorized tribes can, but are not

required to, adopt antidegradation implementation methods as a WQS.

States and authorized tribes typically use either a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water

body-by-water body approach to identify high quality waters for Tier 2 protection

2.4.2 Revision

Today’s rule prohibits a state or authorized tribe from denying Tier 2 antidegradation protection

to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of

the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). Today’s rule also provides that before allowing a

lowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes must evaluate a range of nondegrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one such alternative for

implementation. Furthermore, today’s rule specifies that, where states and authorized tribes

identify waters to receive Tier 2 protection on a water body-by-water body basis, states and

authorized tribes must involve the public on any decisions pertaining to when they will provide

Tier 2 protection, and the factors considered in such decisions. Finally, today’s rule requires

states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation policies to be consistent with these requirements.

States’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods must be consistent with

the policy, the requirements above, and states and authorized tribes provide an opportunity for

public involvement during the development and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation

implementation methods.

EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.5.

2.5 WQS Variances

2.5.1 1983 Regulation

The nationally applicable WQS regulation only briefly mentioned WQS variances at § 131.13.

Section 131.13 indicates that states and authorized tribes may adopt general policies affecting the

application and implementation of WQS, and may include WQS variances policies in their state

or authorized tribal standards at their discretion. Although EPA has addressed WQS variances

through guidance, memoranda, and approval actions for many years, EPA has not provided

specific regulatory language pertaining to WQS variances prior to this rule.

2.5.2 Revision

Today’s rule adds a new regulatory section at § 131.14 that explicitly authorizes the use of WQS

variances when designated uses are not attainable in the near-term but may be attainable in the

future. Today’s rule: (1) defines a WQS variance; (2) describes the circumstances under which a

WQS variance is applicable; (3) describes the minimum information a state or authorized tribe

must include in the WQS variance; (4) describes the documentation that a state or authorized

tribe must provide to EPA to support a WQS variance when requesting EPA review and

approval; (5) establishes the link between WQS variances and NPDES permits, (6) requires

periodic reevaluation of a WQS variance longer than five years; (7) provides a mechanism to

ensure that any reevaluation indicating a more stringent interim requirement is attainable will be

reflected in the implementing NPDES permit, and (8) ensures an opportunity for public

participation throughout the variance term.
July 2015 2. Baseline and Rule Requirements 2-4

EPA estimates the burden and cost of these revisions in Section 3.2.6.

2.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

2.6.1 1983 Regulation

EPA’s 1983 WQS regulation (40 CFR Part 131) is silent regarding compliance schedule

authorizing provisions.

2.6.2 Revision

In 1990, the EPA Administrator concluded that before a permitting authority can include a

compliance schedule in an NPDES permit, the state or authorized tribe must affirmatively

authorize the use of compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations.1

Today’s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to adopt a permit compliance schedule

authorizing provision and for EPA to approve it under CWA section 303(c) before authorizing

the use of compliance schedules in NPDES permits. EPA estimates the burden and cost of these

revisions in Section 3.2.7.

2.7 Other Changes

Today’s rule also includes several non-substantive editorial changes that are not associated with

incremental burden or cost and thus not discussed further.

1

In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990).
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-1

3. Potential Incremental Burden and Cost of the Revisions

Today’s rule does not establish new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Thus,

this analysis focuses on the potential impact of today’s rule on the incremental administrative

burden and cost to states and authorized tribes to implement their WQS program. This section

presents the data and methods EPA uses to analyze the potential administrative burden and costs

(Section 3.1), the analysis and results for states and authorized tribes (Section 3.2), the analysis

and results for the Agency (Section 3.3), a summary of the total burden and costs (Section 3.4),

and a discussion of uncertainties associated with the estimates (Section 3.5).

3.1 Data and Methods

EPA assesses the potential incremental burden and cost associated with today’s rule by first

estimating the incremental number of labor hours potentially required by each single state or

authorized tribe to comply with each provision of the rule. EPA then calculates the total number

of labor hours associated with each provision by multiplying the estimate of labor hours for each

state or authorized tribe by the number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes. EPA

then estimates the cost of each provision by multiplying the total number of labor hours

associated with each provision of today’s rule by the average hourly wage rate of the employees

performing the activity. Because activities related to antidegradation are associated with issuance

or re-issuance of NPDES permits, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation activities

associated with the antidegradation provisions of today’s rule using a percentage of the number

of permitted dischargers in potentially affected states and authorized tribes. For these estimates,

EPA uses its Integrated Compliance Information System for the National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (ICIS-NPDES) database to calculate the number of permitted dischargers.

EPA estimated the incremental number of labor hours required to comply with the proposed rule

published on September 4, 20131using historical EPA information and data, the historical

knowledge and best professional judgment of EPA’s personnel with experience administering

the WQS program. EPA estimated the number of labor hours associated with the administrative

activities required by the proposed rule by soliciting estimates from EPA’s personnel at EPA

Headquarters and all 10 EPA Regional offices. EPA compiled and summarized the estimates of

labor hours for each required activity and developed by consensus final estimate ranges for each

activity. EPA developed the economic analysis of the rule proposed on the basis of these

estimates and solicited public comments on the analysis. After reviewing the comments received,

EPA revised the estimates of incremental labor hours and is using those updated estimates in this

economic analysis of today’s final rule.

EPA estimates the cost of labor for states and authorized tribes using data on state government

hourly wage rates obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). These data are not

available for tribes. EPA chooses Environmental Scientist, Department Manager, Environmental

Engineer, and Economist as the applicable labor categories. Exhibit 3-1 shows the 2013 labor

rates for these categories and the calculation of benefits using the BLS Employer Cost for

Employee Compensation for state and local professional government workers (33% of total

compensation is attributable to benefits). EPA uses the average wage rate of these four labor

categories because information on the allocation of labor hours by professional category states

and authorized tribes use to administer their WQS programs are not available.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-2

Exhibit 3-1: Summary of State Government Average Hourly Wage Rates (2013 $)

Category

Hourly Labor

Rate Hourly Benefits

Hourly Wage

Rate

Environmental Scientist (19-2041) $29 $14 $43

Environmental Engineer (17-2081) $35 $17 $53

Economist (19-3011) $31 $15 $46

Manager (11-9121) $37 $18 $55

Average -- -- $49

Source: BLS (2013)

3.2 Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

The sections below describes EPA’s incremental labor hour estimates associated with today’s

rule and the resulting estimated cost. The estimates include those potential burdens and costs

likely to occur only once (one-time burden and cost) and those likely to recur on a regular basis

(annual burden and cost).

3.2.1 Rulemaking Activities

Today’s rule could potentially require states and authorized tribes to perform a WQS rulemaking

for the purpose of modifying antidegradation policy, revising policies related to the issuance of

WQS variances (if the state or tribe has adopted such policies in state or tribal statute, rule, or is

otherwise legally binding), or adopting provisions authorizing the use of permit compliance

schedules. Thus, states and authorized tribes may need to initiate new rulemaking efforts or

increase the scope of other planned regulatory changes to comply with the updated federal

regulation.

The incremental labor hours required for rulemaking efforts are likely specific to each state and

authorized tribe and will depend on its existing WQS, the level of public interest, and

administrative procedures. In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the incremental labor hours

needed to perform a state or authorized tribal rulemaking to range from 100 hours for relatively

small rule changes (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial review

process) to 500 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one provision.

In response to stakeholder input, EPA revises those estimates to range from 500 hours for

relatively small rule changes (or those that may be performed in conjunction with the triennial

review process) to 1,000 hours for new or more complex rulemakings involving more than one

provision.

There are 50 states, 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPAapproved WQS. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96 states and authorized

tribes may need to take a single WQS rulemaking. Thus, EPA estimates a total of 96 (50 + 5 + 1

+ 40) potentially affected states and authorized tribes. If all 96 states and authorized tribes

undertake a rulemaking activity, the total one-time incremental labor hours required to comply

with today’s rule range from 48,000 hours (500 hours per rulemaking per state or authorized

tribe  96 states and authorized tribes) to 96,000 hours (1,000 hours per rulemaking per state or
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-3

authorized tribe  96 states and authorized tribes). Using the estimated average hourly wage rate

shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($49), EPA estimates the cost associated with state or authorized tribal

rulemaking activities to range from approximately $2,352,000 ($49 per hour  48,000 hours) to

$4,704,000 ($49 per hour 96,000 hours).

Note that EPA estimates that today’s rule will require states and authorized tribes to undertake a

WQS rulemaking only once. Thus, the estimated burden and cost associated with these activities

are one-time costs. Furthermore, these costs may be an overestimate because the WQS of some

states and authorized tribes may already be in full compliance with today’s rule.

Exhibit 3-2 summarizes the potential incremental one-time burden and cost associated with

rulemaking activities.

Exhibit 3-2: Potential One-time Burden and Cost Associated with Rulemaking Activities

Burden per

Rulemaking

(hours)1

Cost per

Rulemaking2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes3

Total Burden

(hours)4

Total Cost

(2013$;

one-time)5

Annualized

Cost

(2013$/year)6

500 – 1,000 $24,500 -

$49,000 96 48,000 –96,000

$2,352,000 -

$4,704,000

$158,100 -

$316,200

1. Reflects potential new or increased rulemaking activities to adopt provisions consistent with

today’s rule into WQS.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. Includes 50 states, five territories, the District of Columbia, and 40 authorized tribes with EPAapproved WQS.

4. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and

authorized tribes.

5. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly

wage of $49.

6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial threeyear period, it annualized total one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative

purposes.

3.2.2 Administrator’s Determinations

Today’s rule clarifies the process EPA uses to make an Administrator’s determination. EPA

estimates that such a clarification will result in no incremental burden or cost to states and

authorized tribes and may even result in burden reduction and cost savings by clarifying what

constitutes an Administrator’s determination and thus reducing litigation resulting from

regulatory uncertainty.

3.2.3 Designated Uses

Today’s rule makes clear that once a state or authorized tribe has rebutted the presumption of

attainability by demonstrating through a required UAA that a use specified in section 101(a)(2)
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-4

of the Act is not attainable, it must adopt the highest attainable use (HAU). EPA estimates that

removing a designated use requires approximately the same administrative effort as replacing an

unattainable use with an attainable use. However, today’s rule may require some states and

authorized tribes to conduct additional analysis to identify the HAU. For states and authorized

tribes that do not already identify the HAU in their UAA process, the requirement to identify the

HAU may require additional labor hours resulting in incremental cost.

For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that a single UAA that does not identify the HAU requires

approximately 100 to 500 labor hours to develop. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises

this estimate to approximately 500 to 1,000 labor hours. EPA estimates that 30% additional

effort is required to identify the HAU. Thus, EPA estimates that revising a designated use may

require an additional 150 hours (500 hours  30%) to 300 hours (1,000 hours  30%) for each

UAA if a state or authorized tribe does not already identify the HAU.

In the economic analysis of the proposed rule, EPA identified 8 states that do not consistently

identify the HAU when adopting a new or revised designated use based on a required UAA.

However, this estimate did not account for the 40 authorized tribes, 5 territories, or the District of

Columbia for which EPA has no information. In this analysis, EPA estimates an additional 7

governmental entities may not currently identify the HAU by calculating the percentage of states

that do not identify the HAU (8 states  50 total states = 16%) and applying that percentage to

the total number of authorized tribes, territories and District of Columbia (16% × (40 authorized

tribes + 5 territories + 1 District of Columbia) = 7 additional governmental entities). Thus, EPA

estimates 15 states and authorized tribes (8 states + 7 additional governmental entities) do not

consistently identify the HAU when adopting new or revised WQS based on a required UAA.

The EPA retains the estimate used for the proposed rule that states and authorized tribes conduct

on average one designated use removal or revision each year. Thus, EPA estimates the total

administrative burden associated with requiring states and authorized tribes to identify the HAU

ranges from 2,250 hours (150 hours per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authorized

tribes) to 4,500 hours (300 hours per UAA  1 UAA per year  15 states and authorized tribes)

per year. Using the hourly wage rate shown in Exhibit 3-1 ($49), EPA estimates the total

incremental cost associated with identifying the HAU could range from $111,000 (2,250 hours

 $49 per hour) to $221,000 (4,500 hours  $49 per hour) per year.

Exhibit 3-3 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost of today’s rule

associated with designated uses.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-5

Exhibit 3-3: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Revisions to Designated

Use Provisions

Burden per State

or Authorized

Tribe

(hours/year)1

Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe

(2013 $/year)2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes

Annual

Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

150 - 300 $7,400 - $14,700 15 2,250 – 4,500 $111,000 -

$221,000

1. Reflects potential incremental effort to identify the HAU when revising or removing a

designated use assuming one use removal or revision per year per state or authorized tribe.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and

authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.4 Triennial Reviews

Today’s rule includes a requirement that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new

or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section

304(a) criteria recommendations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when

reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and

§ 131.20(c). This requirement may result in incremental burden and cost.

In the proposed rule, EPA included an explicit reference to CWA section 304(a) recommended

criteria at § 131.20(a) to clarify that a state or authorized tribe shall re-examine its water quality

criteria during a triennial review to determine if any criteria should be revised in light of any new

or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations to assure that designated uses continue

to be protected. Because the proposed revision clarified an existing requirement to review

applicable standards, the EPA estimated that this revision was unlikely to result in incremental

burden and costs to states and tribes. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revised the triennial

review requirement and estimates a range of 10 to 50 labor hours per pollutant or parameter to

document why the state or authorized tribe chose not to adopt new or revised criteria for any

parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria

recommendations. This effort includes writing and reviewing a memorandum of 1-2 pages for

each pollutant or parameter, and adding the memorandum to the results of the triennial review

the state or authorized tribe submits to EPA. Since states and authorized tribes are already

required to review their applicable water quality standards, including water quality criteria, when

conducting a triennial review, there were no new costs for EPA to consider associated with such

review.

EPA estimates the number of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria a state or authorized

tribe may need to consider at each triennial review by assessing the number of CWA section

304(a) criteria recommendations that EPA has historically provided (see Appendix). EPA has
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-6

provided 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations since the enactment

of the CWA in 1972. Over the 42-year period of the CWA (2014 – 1972 = 42), EPA has

provided on average of approximately 9 new or updated recommendations per year, or 27 per 3-

year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a) recommendations  42 years × 3 years per

triennial review).

EPA does not have sufficient information to predict the proportion of new or updated

CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations that will or will not lead states and authorized

tribes to adopt new or revised criteria in a given triennial review. Some states and authorized

tribes could potentially adopt new or revised criteria for all parameters for which EPA has

published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, whereas other states

and authorized tribes could potentially adopt no criteria for any parameters for which EPA has

published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. For the purpose of this

analysis, EPA assumes that states and authorized tribes will choose to not adopt new or revised

criteria for 50% of the parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section

304(a) criteria recommendations and would need to submit documentation to EPA.

EPA estimates the labor hours required to submit documentation on why a state or authorized

tribe chooses not to adopt new or revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has

published new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations ranges from 45 hours

(10 hours per CWA section 304(a) criterion recommendation × 9 recommendations per year ×

50% no new or revised criteria adopted) to 225 hours (50 hours per one CWA section 304(a)

criterion recommendation × 9 recommendations per year × 50% no new or revised criteria

adopted) per year for each state and authorized tribe. Assuming all 96 states and authorized tribes

do not adopt new or revised criteria for parameters for 50% of EPA’s newly published new or

updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations, EPA estimates the total annual labor

hours ranges from 4,320 (45 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 96 states and

authorized tribes) to 21,600 (225 hours per year per state or authorized tribe × 96 states and

authorized tribes) total hours per year. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1),

EPA estimates the total cost to range from approximately $211,000 ($49 per hour × 4,320 hours)

to $1,056,000 ($49 per hour × 21,600 hours). Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the incremental burden

and cost associated with the requirement to submit an explanation for why the state or authorized

tribe is not adopting new or revised criteria for parameters for which EPA published new or

updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-7

Exhibit 3-4: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Documenting and

Submitting Explanations for Not Adopting New or Revised Criteria for Parameters for

Which EPA Has Published New or Updated CWA Section 304(a) Criteria

Recommendations

Burden per State

or Authorized

Tribe

(hours/year)1

Cost per State or

Authorized Tribe

(2013 $/year)2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes

Annual

Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

45-225 $2,200 - $11,000 96 4,320 – 21,600 $211,000 –

$1,056,000

1. Reflects potential incremental effort to document explanation for not adopting new or revised

criteria for 50% of approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations

per year.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and

authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5 Antidegradation

Today’s rule could potentially result in incremental administrative burden and cost associated

with the following activities related to antidegradation:

 Performing/evaluating more Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because more water bodies may

be receiving Tier 2 protection.

 Performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews because they now must

evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives and select one

such alternative for implementation.

 Involving the public when a state or authorized tribe uses the water body-by-water body

approach to identify waters receiving Tier 2 antidegradation protection.

 Involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation implementation methods.

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA classified the potential incremental burden and cost

associated with the antidegradation provisions of today’s rule into the following categories:

 Recurring burden and cost associated with an increase in the number of Tier 2

antidegradation reviews because states and authorized tribes that use the water body-bywater body approach can no longer deny Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does

not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2).

 Recurring burden and cost associated with more extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews

that now must evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-8

 One-time burden and cost associated with providing the opportunity for public involvement

when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection when using a

water body-by-water body approach.

 Recurring burden and cost associated with involving the public when developing or revising

antidegradation implementation methods.

3.2.5.1 More Antidegradation Reviews Because More Waters are Receiving Tier 2

Protection

EPA does not have data on the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each state or authorized

tribe performs or evaluates. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA estimates the number of

antidegradation reviews for potentially affected states and authorized tribes by using the ratio of

antidegradation reviews to total dischargers in two states for which EPA has information (Iowa

and Missouri). For the proposal, EPA used data from 2008 suggesting that the Missouri

Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) receives approximately 68 antidegradation reviews

each year (MDNR, 2008), and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) receives

approximately 104 to 164 antidegradation reviews each year (IDNR, 2008). More recently,

MDNR estimates it receives approximately 47 antidegradation reviews each year (MDNR,

2014), and IDNR estimates that it receives approximately 50 antidegradation reviews each year

(IDNR, 2014).

EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are 3,305 individual NPDES-permitted

dischargers for which MDNR is responsible for conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation

reviews (i.e. excluding dischargers on tribal land). Thus, the number of antidegradation reviews

performed/evaluated by the state of Missouri is approximately 1% of the total number of

NPDES-permitted dischargers each year (47 antidegradation reviews each year  3,305

individual NPDES-permitted dischargers × 100). EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that

there are 1,626 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers for which IDNR is responsible for

conducting potential Tier 2 antidegradation reviews. Thus, the number of antidegradation

reviews performed/evaluated by the state of Iowa is approximately 3% (50 antidegradation

reviews each year  1,626 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers × 100) of the total number

of NPDES-permitted dischargers. On the basis of the information available from these two

states, EPA estimates the number of antidegradation reviews each state or authorized tribe

performs/evaluates is 2% of the total NPDES permitted dischargers there.

Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA obtained sufficient information from 40 of them to

identify whether or not they use a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water

body approach. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes, EPA identifies 18 of them as currently

using a water body-by-water body approach that may exclude some waters from Tier 2

protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the

uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2).2 To estimate the number of additional Tier 2

antidegradation reviews these 18 states and authorized may need to process, EPA obtained the

number of NPDES permits issued in those states and authorized tribes. EPA’s ICIS-NPDES

database indicates that there are a total of 38,232 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers in the

2 Additional states and authorized tribes exclude waters from Tier 2 protection based on the impairment of a group of parameters.

Since EPA’s assumption applies only to states and authorized tribes that exclude waters based on a single parameter, this

assumption may underestimate burden and cost.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-9

40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to identify whether or not the state or

authorized tribe uses a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water body-by-water body

approach, and 19,594 NPDES permits in the 18 states and authorized tribes that currently use a

water body-by-water body approach that may exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection solely

because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in

CWA section 101(a)(2).

Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to identify

whether or not the state or authorized tribe uses a parameter-by-parameter approach or a water

body-by-water body approach for 56 of them (96 – 40). EPA estimates the number of additional

Tier 2 antidegradation reviews for these 56 states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of

NPDES permits in states that EPA has sufficient information to make such a conclusion. For the

40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,594 out of

38,232 NPDES permits (or 51.3% of NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that use

a water body-by-water body approach and may exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection

solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all of the uses specified

in CWA section 101(a)(2). EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database indicates that there are 12,070

individual NPDES-permitted dischargers within the 56 states and authorized tribes without

sufficient information. Assuming the same ratio of NPDES permits in these 56 states and

authorized tribes, EPA estimates that 6,186 (12,070 × 51.3%) NPDES permits are located in

states and authorized tribes without sufficient information that currently use a water body-bywater body approach and exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection. Thus, EPA estimates that

there are a total of 25,780 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers (19,594 + 6,186) in states

and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and exclude some

waters from Tier 2 protection solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to

support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2).

Some states and authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and

exclude some waters from Tier 2 protection may begin processing additional Tier 2

antidegradation reviews. Other states and authorized tribes that use the water body-by-water

body approach may choose to continue denying Tier 2 protection to waters that do not exceed

water quality levels necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) by

evaluating other factors and involving the public on such decisions. For the purposes of this

analysis, EPA assumes that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tribes will

continue excluding Tier 2 protection to certain waters after evaluating other factors and obtaining

public input on such decisions.

As discussed above, EPA estimates the annual number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews a state

or authorized tribe typically processes to be 2% of all NPDES permits there. Furthermore, EPA

estimates that there are a total of 25,780 individual NPDES-permitted dischargers in states and

authorized tribes that currently use a water body-by-water body approach and deny Tier 2

antidegradation protection to a water body solely because water quality does not exceed levels

necessary to support all of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2). Finally, EPA assumes

that approximately 50% of the time, states and authorized tribes will continue to deny Tier 2

protection to waters solely because water quality does not exceed levels necessary to support all

of the uses specified in CWA section 101(a)(2) after evaluating other factors and obtaining

public input on such decisions. Thus, EPA estimates that the potentially affected states and
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-10

authorized tribes may need to process 258 (25,780 NPDES permits × 2% of NPDES permits ×

50% requiring Tier 2 reviews) additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.

For the proposed rule, EPA estimated that a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not

perform/evaluate an alternatives analysis requires an average of approximately 100 to 150 labor

hours. On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate of the labor hours needed to

perform/evaluate a single Tier 2 antidegradation review that does not include an alternatives

analysis to a range of 100 hours to 300 hours. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA continues to

assume that a Tier 2 antidegradation review that includes analysis of pollution prevention

alternatives requires approximately 30% more time than a Tier 2 review that does not include an

analysis of pollution prevention alternatives. Thus, the incremental labor hours for each Tier 2

antidegradation review is approximately 30 hours (100 hours  30%) to 90 hours (300 hours 

30%), resulting in the incremental labor hours to process each complete additional Tier 2

antidegradation review (including an alternatives analysis) range from approximately 130 hours

(100 hours + 30 hours) to 390 hours (300 hours + 90 hours). Hence, EPA estimates that the total

incremental labor hours for all affected states and authorized tribes could range from 33,540

hours (130 hours × 258 reviews) to 100,620 hours (390 hours × 258 reviews) per year. Assuming

an estimated average hourly wage rate of $49, EPA estimates a per review cost of $6,400 ($49

per hour × 130 hours per review) to $19,100 ($49 per hour × 390 hours per review). Thus, total

incremental cost could range from approximately $1,651,000 ($6,400 per review × 258 reviews)

to $4,928,000 ($19,100 per review × 258 reviews).

Exhibit 3-5 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with

performing/evaluating additional Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.

Exhibit 3-5: Potential Incremental Annual Burden and Cost Associated with

Performing/Evaluating Additional Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews.

Number of

Dischargers1

Potential Number of

Tier 2

Antidegradation

Reviews2

Annual Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

25,780 258 33,540 - 100,620 $1,651,000 - $4,928,000

1. Based on data from EPA’s ICIS-NPDES.

2. Represents 2% of total number of dischargers multiplied by 50%.

3. Number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in each affected state and authorized tribe multiplied by

potential per review burden of 130 to 390 hours, and summing across all affected states and

authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5.2 More Extensive Tier 2 Antidegradation Reviews

For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all states and authorized tribes already

perform/evaluate Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in those waters the state or authorized tribe

deems requiring Tier 2 protection. However, today’s rule may incrementally increase the level of
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-11

effort needed to process each Tier 2 antidegradation review because the Tier 2 antidegradation

review must now evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives.

Estimating the total burden and cost associated with performing/evaluating more extensive Tier 2

antidegradation reviews requires an estimate of the total number of Tier 2 antidegradation

reviews in potentially affected states and authorized tribes. EPA estimates the number of more

extensive antidegradation reviews using the same method EPA uses to estimate the number of

Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in Section 3.2.5.1. EPA obtained sufficient information to

estimate whether or not 40 states and authorized tribes (with a total of 41,618 individual NPDESpermitted dischargers) do or do not evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading

practicable alternatives. Of these 40 states and authorized tribes, EPA estimates that 19 of them

do not evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives. These 19

states and authorized tribes have 19,059 NPDES-permitted dischargers.

Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to identify

whether or not 56 of them (96 – 40) evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading

practicable alternatives. EPA estimates the number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will

begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives in these 56

states and authorized tribes by applying the ratio of NPDES permits in states that EPA has

sufficient information to make such a conclusion. For the 40 states and authorized tribes with

sufficient information, EPA estimates that 19,059 out of 41,618 NPDES permits (or 45.8% of

NPDES permits) are in states and authorized tribes that do not evaluate a range of non-degrading

and less degrading practicable alternatives. The 56 states and authorized tribes for which EPA

does not have sufficient information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range of

non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives have 8,684 individual NPDESpermitted dischargers. Thus, in states and authorized tribes for which EPA has insufficient

information to identify if they will need to begin evaluating a range of non-degrading and less

degrading practicable alternatives, EPA estimates there are 3,977 dischargers (45.8% × 8,684

NPDES permits). Thus, EPA estimates a total of 23,036 individual NPDES-permitted

dischargers (19,059 + 3,977) in states and authorized tribes that will need to begin evaluating a

range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives.

EPA previously estimated the labor hours required to process a single Tier 2 antidegradation

review that does not include an alternatives analysis to range from 100 hours to 300 hours, and

that including an alternatives analysis could require approximately 30 to 90 additional labor

hours. Using the same ratio of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews each year to total NPDES

permitted dischargers that was used in Section 3.2.5.1 (2%), EPA estimates that states and

authorized tribes will process 461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews that will need to begin

evaluating a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives (23,036 NPDES

permits in affected states and authorized tribes × 2% of NPDES permits). EPA estimates the total

labor hours associated with this activity ranges from 13,830 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegradation

reviews per year × 30 hours per review) to 41,490 hours (461 Tier 2 antidegradation reviews per

year × 90 hours per review). Using the average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA

estimates the total incremental cost ranges from approximately $692,000 (13,830 hours × $49

per hour) to $2,028,000 (41,490 hours × $49 per hour).

Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with more

extensive Tier 2 antidegradation reviews.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-12

Exhibit 3-6: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated With More Extensive Tier 2

Antidegradation Reviews

Total Number of

Dischargers in All Affected

States and Authorized

Tribes1

Potential Number of

Tier 2

antidegradation

Reviews2

Annual Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

23,036 461 13,830 - 41,490 $692,000 - $2,028,000

1. Based on data from EPA’s ICIS-NPDES database.

2. Represents 2% of the total number of dischargers in each affected state or authorized tribe.

3. Number of Tier 2 antidegradation reviews in each affected state and tribe multiplied by potential

per review burden of 30 to 90 hours and summing across all affected states and authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.5.3 Public Involvement – Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation

Protection When Using a Water Body-By-Water Body Approach

Today’s rule specifies that where the state or authorized tribe identifies waters for

antidegradation protection on a water body-by-water body basis, the state or authorized tribe

shall provide an opportunity for public involvement on any decisions about whether Tier 2

antidegradation protections will be afforded to a water body and the factors considered when

making those decisions. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and

authorized tribes that currently identify waters for Tier 2 protection on a parameter-by-parameter

basis already fulfill the public participation requirement of today’s rule because any Tier 2

antidegradation review in those states and authorized tribes already includes a public process in

association with NPDES permit issuance or reissuance. EPA also makes the conservative

assumption (likely to overestimate costs) that states and authorized tribes that currently use a

water body-by-water body approach do not currently involve the public when deciding which

waters will receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection. EPA further assumes that such a decisionmaking process will occur as a single effort for all waters of the state or authorized tribe. Once a

state or authorized tribe designates the waters to which Tier 2 protection applies, EPA assumes

that the state or authorized tribe does not incur further incremental burden or cost associated with

revising those designations because such revisions will likely occur in association with NPDES

permit issuance or reissuance that already involves a public process.

EPA estimates the effort needed to involve the public (i.e., solicit comments, document the

comments, and review, deliberate, and respond to comments) when deciding which water bodies

receive Tier 2 antidegradation protection is approximately 30% of the effort required for a WQS

rulemaking as described in Section 3.2.1. Thus, EPA estimates the labor hours associated with

each occurrence of providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about which

water bodies receive Tier 2 antidegradation protections and the factors considered when making

those decisions range from 150 hours (500 hours × 30%) to 300 hours (1,000 hours × 30%).

After reviewing all available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and

implementation methods, EPA concludes it has sufficient information to identify whether or not
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-13

40 states and authorized tribes that use the water body-by-water body method provide an

opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2 antidegradation protection in a

manner that is consistent with today’s rule. Of those 40 states and authorized tribes, 18 of them

may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions about Tier 2

antidegradation protection.

EPA does not have sufficient information to identify whether or not 56 states and authorized

tribes may need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement (96 states and

authorized tribes – 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information). Of the 56 states

and authorized tribes without sufficient information, EPA estimates the number of them that may

need to begin providing an opportunity for public involvement by applying the ratio of the

number of states and authorized tribes with sufficient information to make such a conclusion. As

described above for the 40 states and authorized tribes with sufficient information, EPA

estimates 18 of them (45%) do not provide an opportunity for public involvement and may need

to begin doing so. Applying this ratio to the 56 states and authorized tribes without sufficient

information results in 25 additional states and authorized tribes that may not currently provide an

opportunity for public involvement and may need to begin doing so. Thus EPA estimates a total

of 43 (18 + 25) states and authorized tribes may need to begin providing an opportunity for

public involvement.

EPA estimates one-time incremental labor hours range from approximately 6,450 hours (150

hours per state or authorized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes) to 12,900 hours (300 hours

per state or authorized tribe × 43 states and authorized tribes). Using the estimated average

hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the total one-time incremental cost

associated with involving the public when deciding which waters will receive Tier 2

antidegradation protection could range from approximately $318,000 (6,450 hours × $49 per

hour) to $632,000 (12,900 hours × $49 per hour). Exhibit 3-7 summarizes the incremental

burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity for public involvement on decisions

about whether Tier 2 antidegradation protections will be afforded and the factors considered

when making those decisions.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-14

Exhibit 3-7: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement When

Deciding Which Waters Will Receive Tier 2 Antidegradation Protection

Burden per

Effort

(hours)1

Cost per

Effort2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes3

Total Burden

(hours)4

Total Cost

(2013 $; onetime)5

Annualized

Cost

(2013 $/year)6

150 - 300 $7,400 -

$14,700 43 6,450 – 12,900 $318,000 -$632,000

$21,400 -

$42,500

1. Reflects potential public involvement for determining the level of antidegradation protection

afforded to all waters.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. EPA estimates that 43 states and authorized tribes currently use the water body-by-water body

approach.

4. Burden per state or authorized tribe multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and

authorized tribes.

5. Total burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average hourly

wage of $49.

6. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur rulemaking cost over an initial threeyear period, it annualized total one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative

purposes.

3.2.5.4 Public Involvement – Developing or Revising Implementation Methods

Today’s rule could potentially lead to incremental burden and cost associated with requiring

states’ and authorized tribes’ antidegradation implementation methods (whether or not those

methods are adopted into state or tribal rule) to be consistent with their antidegradation policies

and with § 131.12(a). Burden and costs could also be associated with the requirement for states

and authorized tribes to provide an opportunity for public involvement during the development

and any subsequent revisions of antidegradation implementation methods, and to make the

methods available to the public.

If a state or authorized tribe adopts antidegradation implementation methods as part of its WQS

or other legally binding provisions, the state’s or authorized tribe’s own public participation

requirements and 40 CFR Part 25 and § 131.20(b) of the federal regulation, will satisfy this

requirement and there is no incremental burden or cost. For states and authorized tribes that do

not adopt antidegradation implementation methods as part of their WQS or other legally binding

provisions, there may be incremental burden and cost associated with providing an opportunity

for public involvement. States and authorized tribes can use various mechanisms to provide such

opportunities, including a public hearing, a public meeting, a public workshop, and different

ways of engaging the public via the Internet, such as webinars and website postings.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-15

On the basis of stakeholder input, EPA estimates that involving the public when developing or

revising antidegradation methods requires between 150 and 300 labor hours. EPA estimates that

states and authorized tribes will develop and/or revise their antidegradation implementation

methods no more often than once every ten years. Using the average hourly wage rate of $49

(Exhibit 3-1), EPA estimates the cost of involving the public for a single state or authorized tribe

that does not already adopt their implementation methods as legally binding WQS could range

from approximately $700 ($49 per hour × 150 hours per occurrence  10 years per occurrence)

to $1,500 ($49 per hour × 300 hours per occurrence  10 years per occurrence) per year.

Estimating the total incremental burden and cost for all affected states and authorized tribes

requires knowledge of the number of states and authorized tribes that do not already conduct a

public process in association with developing or revising their antidegradation implementation

methods. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that those states and authorized tribes

that do not already have antidegradation implementation methods in legally binding WQS do not

provide the opportunity for public involvement when developing or revising their

antidegradation methods.

After reviewing available state and authorized tribal antidegradation policies and implementation

methods, EPA obtained sufficient information to identify whether or not 27 states and authorized

tribes may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not

currently adopted as WQS. Of these 27 states and authorized tribes, EPA concludes that 12 of

them will likely need to develop or revise their antidegradation methods.

Of the 96 states and authorized tribes, EPA does not have sufficient information to conclude

whether or not 69 of them (96 states and authorized tribes – 27 states and authorized tribes with

sufficient information) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods

that are not currently adopted as WQS. EPA estimates the number of these states and authorized

tribes by applying the ratio of the number of states and authorized tribes with sufficient

information to make such a conclusion. As described above, EPA estimates 12 out of 27 states

and authorized tribes (44%) may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation

methods that are not currently adopted as WQS. Applying this ratio to the 69 states and

authorized tribes without sufficient information results in 31 additional states and authorized

tribes that may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not

currently adopted as WQS. Thus EPA estimates a total of 43 (12 + 31) states and authorized

tribes may need to develop or revise antidegradation implementation methods that are not

currently adopted as WQS.

EPA estimates the number of total labor hours required to involve the public in developing or

revising antidegradation implementation methods range from 645 hours (150 hours × 43 states

and authorized tribes  10 years per occurrence) to 1,290 hours (300 hours per occurrence × 43

states and authorized tribes  10 years per occurrence) per year. Using the average hourly wage

rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1), the total cost of involving the public in developing or revising

antidegradation implementation methods could range from approximately $30,000 ($49 per hour

× 645 hours) to $65,000 ($49 per hour × 1,290 hours) per year. This cost may be lower if a state

or authorized tribe decides to formally adopt implementation methods into WQS or otherwise

already complies with the public participation requirement of today’s rule. Exhibit 3-8

summarizes the incremental burden and cost associated with involving the public in developing

or revising antidegradation implementation methods.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-16

Exhibit 3-8: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Public Involvement for

Developing or Revising Antidegradation Implementation Methods

Burden per

Effort (hours)1

Annual Cost

per State or

Authorized

Tribe2

Number of Potentially

Affected States and

Authorized Tribes3

Total Annual

Burden (hours)4

Total Annual

Cost (2013

$/year)5

150-300 $700 - $1,500 43 645 – 1,290 $30,000 - $65,000

1. Reflects potential incremental effort for public involvement in developing or revising

antidegradation implementation methods.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe multiplied by average hourly wage of $49 and divided by 10

years.

3. EPA estimates that there are 43 states and authorized tribes that do not have antidegradation

implementation methods adopted into WQS.

4. Burden per effort multiplied by total number of potentially affected states and authorized tribes

and divided by 10 years.

5. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.6 WQS Variances

As discussed in 2.5.1, the previous regulation authorized states and authorized tribes to adopt

WQS variances and there are no new costs for EPA to consider associated with the adoption of a

WQS variance. However, EPA identifies two requirements in today’s rule that could potentially

result in incremental burden and cost associated with WQS variances:

 Today’s rule specifies the documentation a state or authorized tribe must submit to EPA

when requesting EPA review and approval of a WQS variance. Some states and authorized

tribes may not currently provide such documentation and may incur incremental burden and

cost associated with providing this documentation.

 Today’s rule requires a state or authorized tribe to reevaluate WQS variances with a term

longer than 5 years no less frequently than every five years. Some states and authorized tribes

may not be reevaluating WQS variances as required by today’s rule and may need to begin

doing so.

3.2.6.1 Submission Requirements

A state or authorized tribe may incur incremental burden and cost associated with developing the

required documentation for a WQS variance if it does not already do so. For the proposed rule,

EPA estimated that developing and documenting a single WQS variance previously required, on

average, 125 to 150 labor hours, and that each state or authorized tribe will adopt approximately

3 WQS variances each year. After receiving stakeholder input, EPA revises its estimate to 125 to

300 labor hours to develop and document a single WQS variance and adoption of approximately

10 WQS variances per year.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-17

EPA further estimates that if a state or authorized tribes has not fulfilled the WQS variance

documentation requirements specified in today’s rule, doing so could increase the labor hours

approximately 25%. Thus, EPA estimates the potential incremental burden associated with

fulfilling the WQS variance documentation requirements could range from approximately 31

hours (125 hours × 25%) to 75 hours (300 hours × 25%) for each WQS variance.

A state or authorized tribe typically reviews a WQS variance request, adopts the WQS variance

into their WQS, and then submits the WQS variance and supporting documentation to EPA for

review and approval or disapproval. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that all 96

states and authorized tribes currently do not fulfill all of the submission requirements specified in

today’s rule. Thus, EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours associated with the

documentation requirements for WQS variances range from 29,760 hours per year (31 additional

hours per WQS variance × 10 WQS variances per year × 96 states and authorized tribes) to

72,000 hours per year (75 additional hours per WQS variance × 10 WQS variances per year × 96

states and authorized tribes). Using EPA’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit

3-1), total incremental cost could range from $1,459,000 per year (29,760 additional hours per

year  $49 per hour) to $3,533,000 (72,000 additional hours per year  $49 per hour). Exhibit

3-9 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with additional

documentation requirements for WQS variance submissions.

Exhibit 3-9: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Additional

Documentation Requirements for WQS Variance Submissions

Burden per State

or Authorized

Tribe (hours/year)1

Cost per State or

Authorized

Tribe

(2013 $/year)2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes

Annual

Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

31 - 75 $15,200 –

$36,800 96 29,760 –72,000

$1,459,000 –

$3,533,000

1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variances per year.

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected

states and authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.6.2 Reevaluations

For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes that states and authorized tribes will reevaluate

WQS variances either every 3 years during their triennial review or every 5 years during permit

reissuance. Although EPA expects the term of WQS variances to vary widely from a few years

to significantly more than 10 years, for the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes an average

WQS variance term of 10 years. An average WQS variance term of 10 years is a reasonable

estimate because it is consistent with a log distribution of WQS variance terms reflecting the

likely scenario that most WQS variances will have relatively short terms and fewer WQS
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-18

variances will have long terms. EPA estimates the labor hours needed to reevaluate a WQS

variance is approximately 15% of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance

application that fulfills the initial submission requirements of today’s rule.

Today’s rule provides for a state or authorized tribe to specify the schedule of reevaluations so

long as they occur no less frequently than every 5 years. EPA expects some states and authorized

tribes to synchronize reevaluations to permit-reissuance while other states and authorized tribes

may synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review. EPA estimates one reevaluation per WQS

variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses to synchronize reevaluations to permit

reissuance, and 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year if a state or authorized tribe chooses

to synchronize reevaluations to the triennial review. Thus, the average number of reevaluations

for each state or authorized tribe could range from 10 reevaluations per year (1 reevaluation per

WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year) to 30 reevaluations per year (3

reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per year). Using the previous

estimates of labors hours required to process a WQS variance that does not include all

submission requirements in Section 3.2.6.1 (125 to 300 hours) and the additional labor hours

required to fulfill those submission requirements (31 to 75 hours), EPA estimates that the labor

hours to submit a complete WQS variance to EPA for review and approval or disapproval could

range from 156 hours (125 hours + 31 hours) to 375 hours (300 hours + 75 hours). EPA

estimates that the labor hours needed to conduct a reevaluation of a WQS variance are

approximately 15% of the labor hours needed to process a new WQS variance. Thus, EPA

estimates that the incremental labor hours associated with revaluating each WQS variance could

range from 23 hours (156 hours × 15%) to 56 hours (375 hours × 15%).

For the purpose of this analysis, EPA makes the conservative assumption (likely to overestimate

the cost) that all 96 states and authorized tribes will adopt and submit to EPA 10 WQS variances

each year. EPA estimates the total incremental labor hours associated with reevaluating WQS

variances ranges from approximately 22,080 hours per year (23 hours per WQS variance × 1

reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or authorized tribe per

year × 96 states and authorized tribes) to 161,280 hours per year (56 hours per WQS

variance × 3 reevaluations per WQS variance per year × 10 WQS variances per state or

authorized tribe per year × 96 states and authorized tribes). Multiplying these estimated labor

hours by EPA’s estimated average hourly wage rate of $49 (Exhibit 3-1) results in an estimated

total incremental cost of approximately $1,085,000 to $7,901,000.

Exhibit 3-10 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost associated with

today’s rule requiring reevaluation of a WQS variance with a term longer than 5 years no less

frequently than every 5 years.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-19

Exhibit 3-10: Potential Annual Burden and Cost Associated with Reevaluating WQS

Variances

Burden per State

or Authorized

Tribe (hours/year)1

Cost per State or

Authorized

Tribe

(2013 $/year)2

Number of

Potentially

Affected States

and Authorized

Tribes

Annual Burden

(hours/year)3

Annual Cost

(2013 $/year)4

230 – 1,680 $11,300 –

$82,300 96 22,080 – 161,280 $1,085,000 –$7,901,000

1. Assuming states and authorized tribes adopt 10 WQS variances per year and that states and

authorized tribes will reevaluate each WQS variance 1 to 3 times prior to expiration depending on

the reevaluation cycle (e.g., permit cycle or triennial review).

2. Hours per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by average hourly wage of $49.

3. Burden per state or authorized tribe per year multiplied by total number of potentially affected

states and authorized tribes.

4. Total annual burden for all potentially affected states and authorized tribes multiplied by average

hourly wage of $49.

3.2.7 Compliance Schedules Authorizing Provisions

Today’s rule requires that if a state or authorized tribe intends to authorize the use of compliance

schedules for WQBELs in NPDES permits, it must first adopt a permit compliance schedule

authorizing provision. The authorizing provision must be consistent with the CWA and is subject

to EPA review and approval as a WQS. Section 3.2.1 accounts for the incremental burden and

cost associated with adoption of such a provision as a part of state or authorized tribal

rulemaking burden and cost.

3.2.8 Summary of Estimated Burden and Cost to States and Authorized Tribes

Exhibit 3-11 provides a summary of the estimated national cost to all states and authorized tribes.

The cost associated with designated uses, triennial reviews, more and/or more extensive

antidegradation reviews, involving the public when developing or revising antidegradation

methods, and WQS variances are annual costs. Costs associated with WQS rulemaking activities

and public involvement when deciding which water bodies will receive Tier 2 antidegradation

protection occur once but are annualized for comparative purposes.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-20

Exhibit 3-11: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States and

Authorized Tribes

Provision

One-time Activities Annual Activities

Burden

(hours)

Total Cost

(2013$

millions)

Annualized

Cost (2013 $

million/year)1

Burden

(hours/year)

Annual Cost

(2013 $

million/year)

Rulemaking

Activities

48,000 -

96,000 $2.35 - $4.70 $0.16 - $0.32 -- --

Designated Uses -- -- -- 2,250 - 4,500 $0.11 - $0.22

Triennial Review -- -- --

4,320 –

21,600 $0.21 - $1.06

Antidegradation 6,450 -

12,900 $0.32 - $0.63 $0.02 - $0.04 48,015 -143,400 $2.37 - $7.02

WQS Variances -- -- -- 51,840 -

233,280 $2.54 - $11.43

National Total 54,450 -

108,900 $2.67 - $5.34 $0.18 - $0.36 106,425 -402,780 $5.24 - $19.73

‘--‘ = not applicable

Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding.

1. Although EPA expects the one-time rulemaking activity cost to be incurred over an initial threeyear period, it annualized the cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3.3 Estimated Burden and Cost to the Agency

In addition to the potential burden and cost to states and authorized tribes, the WQS regulation

revisions may be potentially associated with incremental burden and cost to EPA. These

incremental burden and cost to EPA are associated with the potential increase in workload to

review the additional WQS program materials submitted by states and authorized tribes because

of the WQS regulation revisions. Based on best professional judgment, EPA conservatively

estimates (likely overestimating the cost) the incremental burden and cost to EPA assuming the

cost is approximately 20% of the cost to states and authorized tribes. Thus, EPA estimates that

the one-time incremental cost to the Agency ranges from $534,000 ($2,670,000× 20%) to

$1,067,000 ($5,336,000× 20%), and estimated annual incremental cost to EPA ranges from

$1,048,000 ($5,239,000× 20%) to $3,946,000 ($19,732,000 × 20%).

EPA assumes that EPA staff reviewing WQS program materials are General Schedule (GS) 13,

Step 5 federal employees (including EPA regional staff). In 2013, the average hourly wage rate

for all federal employees at this grade and step was $47.13 per hour (U.S. Office of Personnel
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-21

Management 2013).3 Assuming that benefits and overhead are equal to 60% of the hourly wage,

the average loaded hourly wage rate for federal employees is equal to $75.41 ($47.13 per hour +

(60% × ($47.13 per hour)). Full-time equivalent (FTE) employees work 2,080 hours per year (40

hours per week × 52 weeks).

Using the average loaded wage rate and the number of hours worked per FTE, EPA estimates the

number of labor hours and EPA FTEs associated with the increased workload under the WQS

regulation revisions. Estimated one-time incremental labor hours to EPA ranges from 7,080

hours ($534,000÷ $75.41 per hour) to 14,150 hours ($1,067,000 ÷ $75.41 per hour). These onetime incremental labor hours estimates correspond to 3.4 FTEs (7,010 hours ÷ 2,080 hours

worked per FTE per year) to 6.8 FTEs (14,150 hours ÷ 2,080 hours worked per FTE per year).

Estimated annual incremental burden to EPA ranges from 13,900 hours per year

($1,048,000 ÷ $75.41 per hour) to 52,320 hours per year ($3,946,000÷ $75.41 per hour). These

annual incremental burden estimates correspond to 6.7 FTEs per year (13,880 burden hours ÷

2,080 hours worked per FTE per year) to 25.2 FTEs per year (52,310 burden hours ÷ 2,080 hours

worked per FTE per year).

Exhibit 3-12 summarizes the potential incremental annual burden and cost to the Agency

associated with the WQS regulation revisions.

Exhibit 3-12: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to the Agency

One-time Recurring

Cost to the

Agency

(2013$

million)1

Annualized

Cost to the

Agency

(2013$ million

per year)2

Burden Cost to the

Agency (2013$

million per

year)1

Burden

Hours3 FTEs4 Hours per

year3

FTEs per

year4

$0.53 - $1.07 $0.04 - $0.07 7,080 -

14,150 3.4 - 6.8 $1.05 - $3.95 13,900 -52,320 6.7 - 25.2

1. Assuming that the incremental burden and cost to EPA are equal to 20% of the burden and cost

to states and authorized tribes.

2. Although EPA expects this one-time cost to be incurred over an initial three-year period, the cost

is annualized at 3% discount rate over 20 years for comparative purposes.

3. Total cost to the Agency divided by hourly wage rate ($75.41 per hour).

4. Burden hours to the Agency divided by hours worked by full-time equivalent (FTE) employees

per year (2,080 hours per year).

3 The employees reviewing and approving WQS materials submitted by states and authorized tribes include EPA staff in the

Washington, DC area and EPA regional staff. Hence, EPA calculates the average of all locality wage rates for federal

employees at GS 13, Step 5 in 2013.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-22

3.4 Summary of Potential Burden and Cost

Exhibit 3-13 provides a summary of the estimated cost to all potentially affected states and

authorized tribes, and to EPA The cost of today’s rule is the same in each year after the first year.

Therefore, EPA chose a 20-year period because 20 years extends past the time when the cost has

reached a steady state and for which it is reasonable to project into the future. Note that this

period may result in an overestimation of the total cost because most of the one-time cost will

probably have already occurred before 20 years. Using a 20-year period of analysis and a

discount rate of 3%, the net present value of the cost associated with today’s rule ranges from

$96.78 million to $358.70 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.51 million to

$24.11 million. Using a 20-year period of analysis and a discount rate of 7%, the net present

value of the cost associated with today’s rule ranges from $69.84 million to $257.27 million,

while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.59 million to $24.28 million.

Exhibit 3-13: Summary of Potential Incremental Burden and Cost to States, Authorized

Tribes, and the Agency

One-time Activities Annual Activities

Burden

(hours)

Cost (2013$

million)

Annualized

Cost (2013$

million/year)1

Burden

(hours/year)

Annual Cost

(2013$

million/year)

States and

Authorized

Tribes

54,450 -

108,900 $2.67 - $5.34 $0.18 - $0.36 106,425 -402,780 $5.24 - $19.73

Agency 7,080 -

14,150 $0.53 - $1.07 $0.04 - $0.07 13,900 -52,320 $1.05 - $3.95

Total2,3 61,530 -

123,050 $3.20 - $6.40 $0.22 - $0.43 120,325 -455,100 $6.29 - $23.68

Note: Individual annual cost estimates do not add to total because of independent rounding.

1. Although EPA expects states and authorized tribes to incur a rulemaking cost over an initial

three-year period, it annualized the one-time cost at a 3% discount rate over 20 years for

comparative purposes.

2. The net present value of the total cost over a 20-year period using a 3% discount rate ranges

from $96.78 million to $358.70 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.51 million

to $24.11 million.

3. The net present value of the total cost over a 20-year period using a 7% discount rate ranges

from $69.84 million to $257.27 million, while the total annualized cost ranges from $6.59 million

to $24.28 million.

3.5 Limitations and Uncertainties

There are limited data available to estimate the potential burden and cost associated with the

regulatory revisions. This section discusses the quality of the data and information underlying the

estimates, limitations on the data use, and quality assurance and quality control activities that

EPA performed to support the economic analysis.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-23

3.5.1 Key Assumptions

EPA used best professional judgment to develop estimates of potential burden. As such, there is

substantial uncertainty surrounding these estimates. EPA acknowledges this uncertainty, which

could result in under or overestimates of incremental burden.

For some estimates, EPA estimated burden based on the number of permitted dischargers

reported in ICIS-NPDES. EPA designed this system for tracking permitted dischargers. As such,

the estimates from this source are the best estimates available.

EPA used federal data sources to estimate the cost of the incremental burden. The federal

agencies that develop these data do so specifically for tracking the cost of labor. As such, the

estimates from these sources are the best estimates available. Uncertainties relate to the labor

categories and mix of categories. Additionally, data are not available for tribes. EPA’s use of an

average based on four different occupation categories may over- or underestimate the actual cost.

Exhibit 3-14 documents additional assumptions that EPA made in developing the estimates,

notes the likely direction of impact of the assumption on the estimates, and provides additional

information for evaluating the strength of each assumption.

Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty

Potential Impact

on Estimated

Burden and Cost

Comment

Labor hours required to implement

various provisions based on best

professional judgment.

?

Labor hours needed depend on a

number of factors including state and

authorized tribe sizes, level of

economic activity involving

dischargers to water, as well as existing

regulatory framework and may be

higher or lower than EPA’s estimates.

The estimates do not account for

potential reductions in burden

resulting from the increased clarity

provided by today’s rule.

Number of states and authorized

tribes affected by each provision is

uncertain.

?

Actual number of states and

authorized tribes that will incur costs

could be higher or lower than EPA

estimates.

Labor cost based on state

government wage rates.

?

The mix of labor categories (e.g.,

environmental scientist, engineer, etc.)

may be different for individual states

from the mix that EPA used to

calculate a wage rate. Also, labor cost

for authorized tribes and territories

may differ from states.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-24

Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty

Potential Impact

on Estimated

Burden and Cost

Comment

EPA does not estimate a separate

category of burden and cost for

conducting a use and value

demonstration when removing or

revising a non 101(a)(2) use. EPA

assumes the burden and cost

associated with a use and value

demonstration is unlikely to be

greater than the burden and cost

associated with a UAA.

+

The costs may be overestimated

because states and authorized tribes

could conduct a UAA to remove a non

101(a)(2) use. In such a case, the UAA

is not “required” and thus our

regulations would not require the state

to identify a highest attainable use.

States and authorized tribes are not

currently documenting their reasons

for not adopting new or revised

criteria during the triennial review

process for parameters for which

EPA published new or updated

CWA section 304(a) criteria

recommendations.

+

The cost may be overestimated

because the WQS regulation already

requires states and authorized tribes to

submit the results of their triennial

review to EPA. If this submission

includes explanation as to why new or

revised criteria are not adopted for

parameters for which EPA published

new or updated CWA section 304(a)

criteria recommendations, the cost

could be lower.

States and authorized tribes do not

currently involve the public in

antidegradation determinations or in

the development of their

implementation methods.

+

The cost may be overestimated for

states and authorized tribes that

already solicit public involvement in

accordance with the WQS regulation

revisions.

States or tribes do not reevaluate

WQS variances at regular intervals. +

The costs may be overestimated for

states and authorized tribes that

reevaluate WQS variance at least every

5 years in accordance with the WQS

regulation revisions.

All states and authorized tribes

undertake a rulemaking effort in

response to today’s rule.

+

The cost may be overestimated

because states and authorized tribes

that already have policies and methods

consistent with today’s rule do not

incur an incremental cost.

The number of Tier 2

antidegradation reviews per year is

based on information from two

states (Iowa and Missouri).

?

The actual number of Tier 2

antidegradation reviews per state or

authorized tribe may be higher or

lower than EPA’s estimates.
July 2015 3. Potential Incremental Costs and Burden 3-25

Exhibit 3-14: Uncertainties in the Analysis

Key Assumption/Uncertainty

Potential Impact

on Estimated

Burden and Cost

Comment

WQS variances last for 10 years. ?

The number of reevaluations per WQS

variance depends, in part, on the

duration of the WQS variance. Shorter

WQS variance periods result in fewer

reevaluations and vice versa.

States and authorized tribes may be

required to undertake activities

related to today’s rule that EPA has

not identified in this analysis.

–

The cost may be underestimated

because EPA has not identified all the

relevant activities states and authorized

tribes may need to perform as a result

of today’s rule.

Incremental cost to the Agency are

equal to 20% of the cost to states

and authorized tribes.

+

The cost may be overestimated

because the estimated burden on the

Agency to review and approve WQS

materials submitted by states and

authorized tribe may be too high.

Key:

“+” = Burden and cost potentially overestimated

“-“ = Burden and cost potentially underestimated

“?” = Impact on burden and cost uncertain

3.5.2 QA/QC Activities

To ensure the quality of the estimates based on the data and assumptions described above, EPA

performed a variety of checks on the spreadsheet calculations and the transfer of the results into

the tables and text throughout this report. These include using best practices for developing

spreadsheets to minimize errors; verifying data inputs and transfer from the source; checking

formulas; and comparing results across formats.
July 2015 4. Small Entity Analysis 4-1

4. Small Entity Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the impact

of their regulatory proposals on small entities, to analyze alternatives that minimize those

impacts,4and to make their analyses available for public comments. The RFA addresses three

types of small entities: small businesses, small nonprofits, and small government jurisdictions.

These entities have the following definition under the RFA:

 Small business has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under

Section 3 of the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration

to define “small business” by regulations. These definitions generally categorize which

businesses are small based on the number of employees or average annual receipts;

 Small organization means any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned

and operated and is not dominant in its field; and

 Small governmental jurisdiction means governments of cities, counties, towns,

townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than

fifty thousand.

Additionally, Federal agencies may establish, with opportunity for public comment and with

publication of the alternate definition in the Federal Register that entities should qualify as small

based on additional factors.

The RFA describes the regulatory flexibility analyses and procedures that must be completed by

federal agencies unless they certify that today’s rule, if promulgated, would not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification must be

supported by a statement of factual basis, such as addressing the number of small entities

affected by the proposed action, expected cost impacts on these entities, and evaluation of the

economic impacts.

As documented in Section 3 of this report, the revisions to the WQS regulation do not establish

any new requirements directly applicable to regulated entities. Today’s rule impacts states and

authorized tribes that implement WQS in the form of administrative burden and cost, and to EPA

in the form of additional reviews of program materials submitted by states and authorized tribes.

States and tribes are not small entities under the RFA. As such, today’s rule will not result in

impacts to small entities.

4 Section 603(c) of the RFA provides examples of such alternatives as: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting

requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation,

or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under today’s rule for such small entities; (3) the use of

performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of today’s rule, or any part thereof, for such

small entities.
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-1

5. Potential Incremental Benefits of the Revisions

States and authorized tribes will benefit from today’s rule by better utilization of available

regulatory tools that allow them the flexibility to implement their WQS programs in an efficient

manner. Stakeholders and the public will benefit from greater transparency and open public

participation. Although EPA estimates the burden and cost directly associated with today’s rule,

EPA does not estimate the potential burden and costs savings associated with reducing

regulatory uncertainty and increasing overall program efficiency. Moreover, EPA does not

estimate potential indirect burden and cost associated with today’s rule because EPA cannot

reliably predict the control measures each individual state and authorized tribe is likely to

implement. Because more efficient and effective implementation of state and authorized tribal

WQS provides a variety of economic benefits associated with cleaner water, the sections below

qualitatively describe some of the benefits of today’s rule. The first section describes some of the

potential direct benefits of today’s rule. The second section describes some of the potential

indirect benefits of improving and maintaining the nation’s waters.

5.1 Benefits by Program Area

Today’s rule will increase clarity and specificity in the following key program areas: (1)

Administrator’s determinations that new or revised WQS are necessary; (2) designated uses; (3)

triennial reviews; (4) antidegradation; (5) WQS variances; and (6) compliance schedule

authorizing provisions. States and authorized tribes, other stakeholders, and the public will

benefit from clarification in these key areas by being able to better understand and make proper

use of available CWA tools and flexibilities under the conditions of open and transparent public

participation. Clear regulatory requirements and improved implementation will provide a more

transparent and well-defined pathway for maintaining and restoring the biological, chemical, and

physical integrity of the nation’s waters.

5.1.1 Administrator’s Determinations

Section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA provides the EPA Administrator with authority to determine

that new or revised WQS are necessary to meet the CWA requirements in those situations where

a state fails or is unable to act in a manner consistent with CWA provisions. An Administrator’s

determination triggers the requirement for EPA to promptly prepare and publish regulations

setting forth a revised or new WQS for the waters of the United States that are involved.

The public and stakeholders do not always clearly understand or interpret the process whereby

the Administrator determines that new or revised standards are necessary. For EPA to ensure

effective implementation of the national WQS program, provide direct, clear, and transparent

feedback on state and tribal actions, it is essential that EPA maintain an open and constructive

dialogue with states and authorized tribes and stakeholders on important water quality issues.

The revision will establish a more transparent process for the Administrator to announce any

determination made under section 303(c)(4)(B) of the CWA. This revision will allow states and

authorized tribes to develop their WQS without fear of litigation triggering a mandatory duty on

the part of EPA to develop WQS for a state or authorized tribe before it is appropriate or

necessary and before the state or authorized tribe had an opportunity to act on EPA’s comments

and guidance.
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-2

5.1.2 Designated Uses

Designated uses communicate a state’s or authorized tribe’s environmental management goals

for its waters and drive on-the-ground water quality decision-making and improvements. To

establish appropriate WQS, states and authorized tribes define the water quality goals of a water

body first by designating the use(s) and second by setting criteria necessary to protect those uses.

WQS are the foundation for other CWA requirements applicable to a water body, such as

WQBELs for point source dischargers, as well as assessment of waters and establishment of

TMDLs for waters not meeting applicable WQS.

Because designated uses play such an important role in the effective implementation of the

CWA, it is essential to provide clear and concise regulatory requirements to states and authorized

tribes for designated uses. Today’s rule provides regulatory clarifications that will prevent

conflicting interpretations which may lead to case-by-case analyses and direct resources away

from water quality restoration and maintenance efforts. When stakeholders, states and authorized

tribes collectively understand and determine the management goals for a particular water body or

water bodies, stakeholders are more likely to become involved and work closely with the states

and authorized tribes in the establishment and attainment of WQS, leading to improved

stewardship and watershed protection efforts. The clearer, more accurate, and more refined the

designated uses are in describing the state’s or tribe’s objective for a water body to support

aquatic life, human health, recreation and other uses, the more effective those use designations

can be in driving the management actions necessary to restore and protect water quality.

Under today’s rule, if a state or authorized tribe demonstrates through a defensible UAA that the

use specified in Section 101(a)(2) or a sub-category of such a use is not attainable and

subsequently removes the use, then the state or authorized tribe shall adopt as replacement

standards the highest degree of use that is attainable (i.e., the HAU). States and authorized tribes

have flexibility to adjust current designated uses through a UAA process in accordance with the

provisions of § 131.10(g). However, that flexibility is provided in the context of meeting the

overall goals of the CWA. As part of the UAA process, a state or authorized tribe may be able to

adequately demonstrate that, for example, historic mining activities in an area result in

nonattainment of applicable water quality criteria and the aquatic life use. However, if some less

sensitive aquatic organisms are able to survive at the site, the goals of the CWA are not achieved

by simply removing the aquatic life use designation and applicable criteria without considering if

existing water quality can be maintained or, where applicable, restored. Rather, the revised

provision requires that states and authorized tribes determine through the UAA the level of

aquatic life protection that is attainable, and then designate that use. This revision will ensure

that WQS reflect the greatest water quality possible, thus protecting the economic, .

5.1.3 Triennial Reviews

Today’s final rule contains two revisions to the triennial review requirements at 40 CFR

131.20(a). First, the rule requires that if states and authorized tribes choose not to adopt new or

revised criteria for any parameters for which EPA has published new or updated CWA section

304(a) criteria recommendations, states and authorized tribes must explain their decision when

reporting the results of their triennial review to EPA under CWA section 303(c)(1) and 40 CFR

131.20(c). Second, the rule clarifies what are the “applicable water quality standards” that states

and authorized tribes must review triennially. These provisions ensure that states and authorized

tribes appropriately consider any and all existing criteria established pursuant to 40 CFR 131.11
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-3

during the triennial review, including EPA’s new or updated CWA section 304(a)

recommendations.

WQS optimally protect water quality when they are based on the latest science and information.

The water quality requirements needed to support aquatic life, recreation, unique and significant

ecologies, and species habitat can change as new scientific studies establish new knowledge

about how aquatic systems operate. Achieving the water quality needed to protect designated

uses are best achieved when states and authorized tribes established and update their WQS using

the best available science and information. The triennial review provisions in today’s rule will

ensure that states and authorized tribes use the latest scientific information to provide for the

greatest water quality possible, leading to the economic, human health and ecological benefits

that derive from clean water.

5.1.4 Antidegradation

Section 101(a) of the CWA emphasizes the prevention of water pollution and expressly includes

the objective of restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of

the nation’s waters (33 U.S.C. 1251). The antidegradation requirements that EPA incorporated

by regulation in 1983 into § 131.12 implement the maintenance aspect of CWA section 101(a)

and are an essential component of the overall WQS program. Antidegradation policy plays a

critical role in allowing states and authorized tribes to maintain and protect the valuable resource

of high quality waters, and ensures that decisions to allow a lowering of water quality are made

in a public and transparent manner that serves the public good. High quality waters support

aquatic life, recreation, unique and significant ecologies, and species habitat. High quality waters

can maintain a greater diversity of biological species and a more complex community structure

than other waters. These attributes confer a special degree of resiliency and resistance to adverse

effects, particularly as the Nation’s waters face an increasing degree of stress from anthropogenic

influences.

Protection of high quality waters is supports both economic and social development. High

quality waters contribute to public health, aquatic ecosystems, drinking water supplies, and to the

welfare of families and communities. The health and growth of tourism, recreation, fishing, and

businesses and jobs they create rely on a high quality and sustainable source of water.

Degradation of water quality poses a risk to public health, harms aquatic ecosystems, and can

increase water treatment cost that must be borne by ratepayers and local governments.

Maintaining high quality waters can save time and economic resources to a community in the

long-term. If a high quality water becomes impaired, it can take significant amounts of time and

financial resources to develop a TMDL and implement activities to restore the water body.

Effectively using an antidegradation program to prevent water degradation in the first place is

very often more cost-effective and efficient. In addition, maintaining a water body in its initial

high quality state helps ensure the preservation of unique attributes that might be impossible to

fully restore. Section 5.2 of this report contains a more detailed discussion on the benefits

associated with high quality water.

5.1.4.1 Identifying High Quality Waters

Today’s rule requires states and authorized tribes to identify high quality waters on a parameterby-parameter basis or on a water body-by-water body approach, unless the state or authorized

tribe describes an alternate approach that considers the chemical, physical, and biological
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-4

integrity of the water body. In the absence of data for such holistic evaluation, the state or

authorized tribe shall apply high quality water protection per § 131.12(a)(2).

EPA expects states and authorized tribes to consider a combination of chemical, biological, and

physical characteristics, using all the relevant available data to conduct an overall holistic

assessment of one or more of these characteristics in order to determine whether a water body

receives Tier 2 protection. The approach should not simply limit the applicability of Tier 2

through a list of disqualifiers for Tier 2 protection (e.g., listing on the state’s CWA section

303(d) list) because such disqualifiers are potentially poor indicators of the overall quality of a

surface water and the value of affording it Tier 2 protection under antidegradation policy. This

revision will ensure protection of a larger number of high quality waters under antidegradation

requirements.

5.1.4.2 Alternatives Analysis

Under today’s rule, before allowing a lowering of high water quality, states and authorized tribes

must find, after an analysis of alternatives, that such a lowering is necessary to accommodate

important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. That

analysis must evaluate a range of non-degrading and less degrading practicable alternatives.

When an analysis identifies one or more such practicable alternatives, states and authorized

tribes may only find that a lowering is necessary if one such alternative is selected for

implementation.

Today’s rule ensures that, where the alternatives analysis identifies one or more feasible

alternatives to allowing the degradation, a project is modified to minimize degradation of water

quality. This balanced analysis of water quality impacts along with other holistic considerations

offers the most thorough and publicly transparent way to ensure that lower water quality is

allowed only when necessary, consistent with EPA’s regulation.

5.1.5 WQS Variances

The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological

integrity of the Nation’s waters.” However, as environmental challenges become more complex,

states and authorized tribes may require more time to determine and implement the best

strategies to improve water quality and attain applicable designated uses while striving to

achieve the CWA goal. As an alternative to a permanent use downgrade, EPA has encouraged

states and authorized tribes to utilize WQS variances as an important WQS tool to provide states

and authorized tribes time to make progress towards attaining a designated use and criteria.

EPA’s existing WQS regulation lacks explicit provisions on the issue of WQS variances. As a

result, EPA has heard from states and authorized tribes, and stakeholders that there are

confusion, inconsistency, and mixed interpretations about how, when, and where WQS variances

may be used. Today’s rule provides greater regulatory specification for implementation of a

WQS variance as a time-limited designated use and criterion. This revision will encourage

proper use of WQS variances as a tool for achieving WQS and facilitating water quality

improvements.

WQS variances are different from changes to the permanent designated use and associated

criteria in that they are intended as a mechanism to provide time for stakeholders to implement

adaptive management approaches that will improve water quality where the designated use and

criterion currently in place are not being met. EPA requires that interim limits and requirements
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-5

reflect the highest attainable condition during the term of the WQS variance. These requirements

must protect the interim designated use and be based on sound scientific rationale. This provision

is essential because it provides regulatory assurance that the WQS variance will result in more

than just maintaining the current water quality. Further, stakeholders may be less likely to

perceive WQS variances as a means of locking ambient conditions in place and delaying

environmental improvements.

WQS variances allow stakeholders to implement actions that will achieve interim uses and

criteria that are attainable when there is uncertainty as to whether the designated use and

criterion may be ultimately attainable. WQS variances are typically limited in their scope to one

pollutant. WQS variances are an environmentally preferable tool to a permanent designated use

change in that designated use protection is retained for all pollutants as they apply to all sources

with the exception of those specified in the WQS variance. When properly applied, a WQS

variance can lead to improved water quality over time, and in some cases, full attainment of

designated uses due to advances in treatment technologies, control practices, or other changes in

circumstances, thereby furthering the objectives of the CWA.

The revisions will establish a standardized set of requirements to facilitate efforts to improve

water quality by allowing stakeholders to address any challenges and uncertainties associated

with attaining the designated use and the associated criterion. The revisions ensure that states and

authorized tribes base their identification and water body assessments decisions (under CWA

sections 303(d) and 305(b)), and development of WQBELS in permits for pollutants and

dischargers not specified in the WQS variance, on the designated use and criterion, even under

the waterbody WQS variance scenario. Through reevaluations, these revisions will also ensure

that further feasible progress toward the designated use and criterion will be made during the

WQS variance period and will help meet CWA goals.

5.1.6 Compliance Schedule Authorizing Provisions

CWA section 502(17) defines “schedule of compliance” to mean “a schedule of remedial

measures including an enforceable sequence of actions or operations leading to compliance with

an effluent limitation, other limitation, prohibition, or standard.” EPA’s NPDES regulation at 40

CFR 122.2 defines a schedule of compliance as “a schedule of remedial measures included in a

‘permit,’ including an enforceable sequence of interim requirements...leading to compliance

with the CWA and regulations.” Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA specifies that there shall be

achieved “...not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary

to meet WQS, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any state

or authorized tribal law or regulations (under authority preserved by section 1370 of this title) or

any other federal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality

standard established pursuant to this chapter.”

EPA’s current WQS regulation is silent regarding compliance schedules and compliance

schedule authorizing provisions. As a result, EPA is concerned that state and tribal permitting

authorities may be including compliance schedules in permits, thus delaying compliance with a

WQBEL, even though the state or authorized tribe may not have authorized the use of such

compliance schedules in its WQS or implementing regulations. Today’s rule adds a new

regulatory provision at § 131.15 to clarify that a state or authorized tribe may only issue

compliance schedules for WQBELS in NPDES permits if the state or authorized tribe has

authorized issuance of such compliance schedules pursuant to state or authorized tribe law in its
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-6

WQS or implementing regulations. Any such compliance schedule authorizing provision is a

WQS subject to EPA’s review and approval. The provision also clarifies that individual

compliance schedules issued pursuant to such authorizing provisions are not WQS but must be

consistent with CWA section 502(17), the state or authorized tribe’s EPA-approved compliance

schedule authorizing provision, and the requirements of 40 CFR §§ 122.2 and 122.47.

Compliance schedule authorizing provisions allow the state or authorized tribe to provide a

permittee additional time to comply with a WQBEL that derives from and complies with the

applicable WQS beyond the date of permit issuance, which is the date upon which a permittee is

otherwise required to comply with its WQBEL. A compliance schedule authorizing provision

allows the state or authorized tribe to delay when it will meet the applicable WQS. By requiring

states and authorized tribes to authorize the use of compliance schedules in their WQS or

implementing regulations, EPA ensures that WQBELs subject to appropriately issued

compliance schedules are fully consistent with the requirements of WQS. Once approved

pursuant to CWA section 303(c)(3), the compliance schedule authorizing provision itself

becomes part of the applicable WQS. Therefore, any delay in compliance with a WQBEL

pursuant to that permit compliance schedule is consistent with WQS.

These revisions will ensure that permittees do not unnecessarily delay implementation of WQS

that are protective of water quality.

5.2 Benefits of Improved Water Quality

As stated above, today’s rule will improve the effectiveness of the WQS regulation in restoring

and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. Improved

water quality has many human health and ecological benefits, described below.

5.2.1 Market Benefits

The market benefits of improved water quality are reflected in its value to water supply and use,

commercial fishing, and public and private ownership.

5.2.1.1 Water Supply and Use

 Drinking Water Treatment and Household Water Use. Reducing contaminants,

nutrients, and sediment in potable water supplies lowers the cost of treating these waters,

reduces the health risk from potential exposure to contaminated drinking water, and

avoids the need to develop alternative raw water sources. Discharged pollutants worsen

water quality and require increased spending on treatment measures such as settlement

ponds, filtration, and chemical treatment. Reducing nutrient loadings to surface waters

reduces eutrophication, which is one of the main causes of taste and odor impairment in

drinking water. Taste and odor in drinking water have a major negative impact on the

public perception of drinking water safety and result in a significant increase in drinking

water treatment cost to address foul taste and odor in the source waters. If adequate water

treatment is not available, a temporary water source needs to be substituted (if available).

If an alternative water supply is not at hand, urban areas might need to be supplied with

bottled or tankered water, as has been the case in Ohio (Yeager-Kozacek, 2014). Longterm solutions might require the development of new raw water supplies, which would

involve investments for acquisition of land (if available), regulatory review and

permitting, development of infrastructure (dams, pumps, pipes), and watershed

protection.
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-7

 Agricultural Water Use. Irrigation water that contains pollutants can harm crops and

reduce agricultural productivity (Clark et al. 1985). Although elevated nutrient

concentrations in irrigation water would not adversely affect its usefulness for plants,

concerns exist for potential residual effects due to contaminants entering the food chain.

More importantly, eutrophication promotes cyanobacterial blooms that can kill livestock

and wildlife that drink the contaminated surface water. The reduction in nutrients loading,

for example due to adoption or improved implementation of WQS, can provide benefits

in increased cattle production or avoided cost due to cattle sickness or death.

 Reservoir Dredging. Water storage facilities (e.g., reservoirs) serve many functions,

including providing drinking water, flood control, hydropower supply, and recreational

opportunities. Sediment, one of the pollutants likely to be reduced by improved

implementation of WQS, can be carried from streams into reservoirs, where it can settle

and build up layers of silt over time. This increase in sedimentation rates will reduce

reservoir capacity. To replace this capacity, sediment must be dredged from reservoirs, or

new reservoirs must be constructed (Clark et al. 1985). Water quality criteria reduce the

amount of sediment entering reservoirs and, as a result, the need for sediment mitigation

measures in these reservoirs and the cost of reservoir maintenance. Because sediment

mitigation is often accomplished through dredging, which itself is environmentally

destructive, an additional benefit to reduced reservoir sediment buildup is the reduced

environmental impact of dredging sediment and disposing of it.

 Industrial Water Use. Sediment discharges may also have negative effects on industrial

water users. Suspended sediment increases the rate at which hydraulic equipment, pumps,

and other equipment wear out, causing accelerated depreciation of capital equipment.

Sediment can also clog cooling water systems at power plants and other large industrial

facilities (Clark et al. 1985). Improved water quality standard implementation will reduce

sediment concentrations in source waters and thus lengthen the useful life of industrial

equipment.

5.2.1.2 Commercial Fishing

Pollutants regulated by WQS can greatly reduce fish populations and therefore the size of

commercial harvest by inhibiting reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. These changes

negatively affect subsistence anglers, commercial anglers and fish sellers, and consumers of fish

and fish products. Improvement of water quality due to the more efficient implementation of

WQS will enhance aquatic life habitat and thus contribute to reproduction and survival of

commercially harvested species, which in turn will lead to an increase in producer and consumer

surplus.

5.2.1.3 Public and Private Property Ownership

Aesthetic degradation of land and water resources resulting from pollutant discharges (e.g.,

increased water turbidity) can reduce the market value of property and thus affect the financial

status of property owners. For example, a hedonic price study by Bejranonda et al. (1999) found

that “the rate of sediment inflow entering the lakes has a negative influence on lakeside property

rent” (p. 216). Sediment discharges also have a significant impact on stream morphology. For

example, higher coarse sediment load leads to an increase in width of the riverbed and, as a

result, bank erosion (Wheeler et al. 2003). A 1993 study of Lake Erie’s housing market found

that “erosion-prone lakeshore property will be discounted” (Kriesel et al. 1993).
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-8

Conversely, water quality improvement and protection can increase or maintain waterfront

property values. Studies suggest that waterfront property is more desirable when located near

unpolluted water, and therefore property values increase with improved water quality. Likewise,

stabilization of stream banks leads to an increase in the value of surrounding property (Streiner

and Loomis 1996).

5.2.2 Nonmarket Benefits

The nonmarket benefits of improving or protecting water quality include those associated with

human health, recreation, and nonmarket nonuse values.

5.2.2.1 Human Health Improvements

Cleaner water may lead to a reduction in illness either through reduced consumption of

contaminated seafood or through reduced exposure to infectious disease during recreation

activities in contaminated waters. Some contaminants, such as mercury, PCBs, chlordane,

dioxins, and DDT, may persist for long periods of time and bioaccumulate (e.g., they can be

found in levels several time higher than ambient water in large fish such as bass that consume

contaminated bottom dwelling animals). Eating fish contaminated with mercury or PCBs may

lead to developmental and neurological problems and is especially hazardous for children and

pregnant women. Consumption of shellfish may lead to exposure to bacteria and viruses that can

accumulate in shellfish from ambient water.

Swimmers, boaters, and other recreational water users may also suffer from gastrointestinal and

other illnesses due to ingesting, immersing, or wading in water that contains enteric pathogens

such as fecal bacteria and viruses. To the extent that today’s rule increases the nation’s water

quality by reducing current exposures and illness and preventing future exposures and illness,

society benefits. The benefits are reflected in the avoided cost of illness, including treatment cost

and lost wages, as well as in the public’s willingness-to-pay, which also includes the value of

avoided pain and suffering.

5.2.2.2 Recreational Benefits

Benefits also include the value of improved environmental goods and services used and valued

by people even if these services and goods are not traded in markets. Aesthetic degradation of

water resources can reduce owner satisfaction with the property and the residential area in

general. It can also adversely affect recreational opportunities. Improved water quality from

reducing pollutant discharges or preventing degradation may translate into two components of

recreational benefits: (1) an increase in the value of a recreational trip resulting from a more

enjoyable experience, and (2) an increase in recreational participation.

Recreational activities that may be adversely impacted by water pollution are summarized below.

 Outings. Activities that take place near water such as hiking, jogging, picnicking, and

wildlife viewing may be adversely affected by pollutant discharges into the water. While

these activities do not involve contact with the water, murky and visually unpleasant

water and odors associated with some types of pollutants may greatly detract from the

enjoyment of these activities. Decreases in fish populations may cause a reduction in

wildlife near the resource, affecting wildlife viewing. Pollutants may negatively affect

local flora and fauna, reducing the aesthetic appeal of the area near the resource and

negatively impacting wildlife viewing.
July 2015 5. Potential Incremental Benefits 5-9

 Recreational Fishing. Degraded water can reduce fish populations by inhibiting

reproduction and survival of an aquatic species. This effect may lead to fewer and smaller

fish and a reduction of the game fish population. In addition, pollutants may reduce the

aesthetics of the water body, which may reduce anglers’ utility (enjoyment) of their

fishing experience. Additionally, turbidity caused by pollutant discharges may affect

recreational anglers by reducing the distance over which fish can see lures, resulting in

lower catch rates (Clark et al. 1985).

 Boating. Polluted water greatly reduces the aesthetic appeal of recreational boating

activities. Turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutant discharges may affect the

safety of boating. Turbidity may obscure underwater obstacles, making collisions more

likely. Increased sediment concentrations may also create sandbars, increasing the

chances of running aground. Clark et al. (1985) estimated that turbidity (from all sources)

may be responsible for as many as 200 boating fatalities and many more injuries each

year. Using the value for a statistical life’s worth of risks ($7 million) and multiplying it

by the number of boating fatalities yields the value of preventing these fatalities of

$1.4 billion per year. Even if reducing discharges prevents only a small number of

fatalities and injuries each year, the expected monetary value of preventing boating

accidents can be significant.

 Swimming. Pollution of water by toxic chemicals or by fecal indicator bacteria may

cause closure of water bodies for swimming. Eutrophication caused by nutrients and

turbidity caused by sediment and other pollutants also may greatly reduce a swimmer’s

aesthetic enjoyment of a water body. Additionally, turbidity may create safety hazards for

the swimmer by reducing the ability to see underwater hazards or increasing diving

accidents by impairing the ability to gauge water depth.

 Hunting. Similar to the effect on outings, discharged pollutants may greatly detract from

the hunters’ aesthetic enjoyment of a water resource. Damage to flora and fauna may also

affect the game population, reducing the number and quality of the game available.

5.2.2.3 Nonmarket Nonuse Benefits

Even if no human activities or uses are affected by the potential positive environmental changes

caused by today’s rule, such environmental changes may still affect social welfare. For a variety

of reasons, including bequest, altruism, and existence motivations, individuals may value the

knowledge that water quality is maintained, that ecosystems are protected, and that populations

of individual species are healthy, completely independent of their use value. It is often difficult

to quantify the relationship between changes in pollutant discharges and the improvements in

societal well-being that are not associated with current use of the affected ecosystem or habitat.

That these values exist, however, is indisputable, as evidenced, for example, by society’s

willingness to contribute to organizations that purchase and preserve lands or habitats to avert

development (although some portion of these donations may be motivated by use values).

Notwithstanding challenges involved in estimation of nonuse values, there is a substantial

literature devoted to such issues (Bateman et al. 2002). This literature supports the significance

of nonmarket, nonuse values within various types of policy contexts and for various types of

resources.
July 2015 6. References 6-1

6. References

Bateman, I. J., R. T. Carson, B. Day, M.; Hanemann, N. Hanley, T. Hett, M. Jones-Lee, G.

Loomes, S. Mourato, E. Özdemiroḡlu, D. W. Pearce, R. Sugden, J. Swanson. 2002.

Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: a Manual. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bejranonda, S. F.J. Hitzhusen; and D. Hite. 1999. “Agricultural Sedimentation Impacts on

Lakeside Property Values.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 28(2): 208-18.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). 2013. May 2013 National Occupational Employment and

Wage Estimates, United States. Available at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm.

Clark, E., J.A. Haverkamp, and W. Chapman. 1985. “Eroding Soils: The Off-Farm Impacts.”

Washington, DC: The Conservation Foundation.

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). 2008. Fiscal Impact Statement Associated with

the Notice of Intended Action: Antidegradation – Water Quality Standards (Chapter 61).

Kriesel, W., A. Randall, and F. Lichtkoppler. 1993. “Estimating the Benefits of Shore Erosion

Protection in Ohio’s Lake Erie Housing Market.” Water Resources Research. 29(4). 795-801.

Missouri Department of Natural Resource (MDNR). 2008. Missouri Register: Proposed

Amendment: 10 CSR 20-7.031 Water Quality Standards. January 16, 2008.

Streiner, C.F. and Loomis, J.B. 1996. “Estimating the Benefits of Urban Stream Restoration

Using the Hedonic Price Method.” Rivers. 5(4): 267-278.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2014. National Recommended

Water Quality Criteria. Available at

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/index.cfm.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2011b. Variance Compendium.

Available at:

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/standards/docs/toxics/humanhealth/rulemaking/VarianceComp

endium110124.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. National Recommended

Water Quality Criteria. Available at

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/criteria/current/upload/nrwqc-2009.pdf.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2007. Water Quality Standards

Handbook, Second Edition. Available at:

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/handbook/index.cfm/.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2003. Revised National

Recommended Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health. December.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2002. National Recommended

Water Quality Criteria. EPA-822-R-02-047. November.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1999. National Recommended

Water Quality Criteria–Correction. EPA 822-Z-99-001. April.
July 2015 6. References 6-2

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria for Water

(Gold Book). EPA 440/5-86-001. May.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1976. Quality Criteria for Water

(Red Book). PB-263 943. June.

United States Office of Personnel Management. 2014. Salary Table 2014-GS. Available at:

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/2014/general-schedule/.

Wheeler, A.P., A.E. Keiter Rosenberger and P.L. Angermeier. 2003. Potential Impacts of I-73 on

Stream Habitat and Biota, with Emphasis on the Federally Endangered Roanoke Logperch.

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife services, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University.

Yeager-Kozacek, C. 2014. Toledo Issues Emergency ‘Do Not Drink Water’ Warning to

Residents. Available at http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2014/world/toledo-issuesemergency-warning-residents-drink-water/.
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-1

7. Appendix: EPA’s CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendations

In this analysis, EPA estimates the number of new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria a

state or authorized tribe may need to consider at each triennial review (Section 3.2.4) by

reviewing historical CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations. Exhibit 7-1 shows all

section 304(a) criteria recommendations published since enactment of the CWA in 1972.

EPA counts 371 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations (U.S. EPA 1976;

1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014). Over the 42-year period of the CWA (2014 – 1972 = 42),

this represents approximately 9 new or updated CWA section 304(a) criteria recommendations

per year, or 27 per 3-year triennial review period (371 CWA section 304(a)

recommendations  42 years × 3 years per triennial review = 27 CWA section 304(a) criteria

recommendations per triennial review).

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 2002 (1999)

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 2002 (1999)

1,1-Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999)

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)

1,2-Dichloroethane 2002 (1999, 1986)

1,2-Dichloropropane 2002 (1999, 1986)

1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 2002 (1999, 1986)

1,2-Trans-Dichloroethylene 2003 (1999)

1,3-Dichlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

1,3-Dichloropropene 2003 (1999, 1986)

1,4-Dichlorobenzene 2003 (1999)

2,3,7,8-TCDD (Dioxin) 2002 (1999)

2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986)

2,4-Dichlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986)

2,4-Dimethylphenol 2002 (1999)

2,4-Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999)

2,4-Dinitrotoluene 2002 (1999, 1986)

2-Chloronaphthalene 2002 (1999)

2-Chlorophenol 2002 (1999)

2-Methyl-4,6-Dinitrophenol 2002 (1999)

3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 2002 (1999, 1986)

4,4'-DDD 2002 (1999)
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-2

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

4,4'-DDE 2002 (1999)

4,4'-DDT 1980

4,4'-DDT 2002 (1999, 1986)

Acenaphthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Acrolein 2009

Acrolein 2009 (2002)

Acrylonitrile 2002 (1999, 1986)

Aesthetic Qualities 1986

Aldrin 1980 (1976)

Aldrin 2002 (1999, 1986)

Alkalinity 1986

alpha-BHC 2002 (1999, 1986)

alpha-Endosulfan 1980 (1976)

alpha-Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986)

Aluminum pH 6.5 – 9.0 1988

Ammonia - freshwater 2013

Ammonia - saltwater 1989

Anthracene 2002 (1999)

Antimony 2002 (1999, 1986)

Arsenic 1992 (1986)

Arsenic 1995 (1986, 1976)

Asbestos 1991 (1986)

Bacteria 1986

Barium 1986

Benzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Benzidine 2002 (1999)

Benzo(a) Anthracene 2002 (1999)

Benzo(a) Pyrene 2002 (1999)

Benzo(b) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Benzo(k) Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Beryllium 1976

beta-BHC 2002 (1999, 1986)

beta-Endosulfan 1980

beta-Endosulfan 2002 (1999, 1986)

Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986)
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-3

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) Ether 2002 (1999, 1986)

Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986)

Boron 1986

Bromoform 2002 (1999)

Butylbenzyl Phthalate 2002 (1999)

Cadmium 2001 (1986, 1976)

Carbaryl 2012

Carbon Tetrachloride 2002 (1999)

Chlordane 1980 (1976)

Chlordane 2002 (1999, 1986)

Chloride 1986

Chlorine 1986 (1976)

Chlorobenzene 2003 (1999)

Chlorodibromomethane 2002 (1999)

Chloroform 2002 (1999, 1986)

Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D) 1986

Chloropyrifos 1986

Chromium (III) 1995 (1986, 1976)

Chromium (VI) 1995 (1986)

Chrysene 2002 (1999)

Color 1986

Copper 1992 (1986, 1976)

Copper 2007 (2002)

Cyanide 1985 (1976)

Cyanide 2003 (1999, 1986)

Demeton 1985

Diazinon 2005

Dibenzo(a,h)Anthracene 2002 (1999)

Dichlorobromomethane 2002 (1999)

Dieldrin 1995 (1986)

Dieldrin 2002 (1999, 1986)

Diethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999, 1986)

Dimethyl Phthalate 2002 (1999)

Di-n-Butyl Phthalate 2002 (1999)

Dinitrophenols 2002 (1999)
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-4

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Endosulfan Sulfate 2002 (1999)

Endrin 1995 (1986, 1976)

Endrin 2003 (1999)

Endrin Aldehyde 2002 (1999)

Ether, Bis( Chloromethyl) 2002 (1999)

Ethylbenzene 2003 (1999, 1986)

Fluoranthene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Fluorene 2002 (1999)

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 1995

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 2003 (1999)

Gases, Total Dissolved 1986

Guthion 1986

Hardness 1986

Heptachlor 1980 (1976)

Heptachlor 2002 (1999, 1986)

Heptachlor Epoxide 1981

Heptachlor Epoxide 2002 (1999)

Hexachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Hexachlorobutadiene 2002 (1999)

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2003 (1999, 1986)

Hexachloroethane 2002 (1999)

Ideno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene 2002 (1999)

Iron 1986

Isophorone 2002 (1999, 1986)

Lead 1980

Malathion 1986

Mercury/Methylmercury 1995 (1986, 1976)

Methoxychlor 1986

Methoxychlor 1986

Methyl Bromide 2002 (1999)

Methylene Chloride 2002 (1999)

Methylmercury 2001

Mirex 1986

Nickel 1995 (1986, 1976)

Nickel 1998 (1986)
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-5

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Nitrates 1986

Nitrobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Nitrosamines 1980

Nitrosodibutylamine, N 2002 (1999)

Nitrosodiethylamine, N 2002 (1999)

Nitrosopyrrolidine, N 2002 (1999)

N-Nitrosodimethylamine 2002 (1999, 1986)

N-Nitrosodi-n-Propylamine 2002 (1999)

N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 2002 (1999)

Nonylphenol 2005

Oil and Grease 1986

Oxygen, Dissolved Freshwater/ Oxygen, Dissolved

Saltwater 1986

Parathion 1995 (1976)

Pathogen and Pathogen Indicators 2012

Pentachlorobenzene 2002 (1999, 1986)

Pentachlorophenol 1995 (1986)

Pentachlorophenol 2002 (1999, 1986)

pH 1986

pH 1986

Phenol 2009 (2002)

Phosphorus Elemental 1986

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) 2002 (1999, 1986)

Pyrene 2002 (1999)

Selenium 1999 (1986)

Selenium 2002 (1999, 1986)

Silver 1980

Solids Dissolved and Salinity 1986

Solids Suspended and Turbidity 1986

Sulfide-Hydrogen Sulfide 1986

Tainting Substances 1986

Temperature 1986

Tetrachlorobenzene,1,2,4,5- 2002 (1999, 1986)

Tetrachloroethylene 2002 (1999)

Thallium 2003 (1999, 1986)
July 2015 7. Appendix 7-6

Exhibit 7-1: Current and Prior CWA Section 304(a) Criteria Recommendation

Publication Years

Pollutant

Criteria Publication Year

(Prior Publication Years)

Toluene 2003 (1999, 1986)

Toxaphene 1986 (1976)

Toxaphene 2002 (1999, 1976)

Tributyltin (TBT) 2004 (1999)

Trichloroethylene 2002 (1999)

Trichlorophenol,2,4,5- 2002 (1999, 1986)

Vinyl Chloride 2003 (1999)

Zinc 1995 (1986)

Zinc 2002 (1999, 1986)

Count of CWA section 304(a) Criteria, 1972 to 2014 171 (200)

Source: U.S. EPA 1976; 1986; 1999; 2002; 2003; 2009; 2014