Title of Proposed Rulemaking

Revised Water Quality Standards for Human Health Toxic Pollutants and Revised Water Quality Standards Implementation Policies.

Proposed changes affect Divisions 41, 42, and 45.

Statutory Authority or other Legal Authority

Statutes Implemented

ORS 468B.010, ORS 468B.020, ORS 468B.035, ORS 468B.110, and ORS 468.020

ORS 468B.048

Need for the Rule(s)

DEQ’s currently effective human health toxics criteria are based on a fish consumption rate that does not provide adequate protection for the amount of fish and shellfish consumed by Oregonians. On June 1, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) disapproved human health toxics criteria that were submitted for approval in 2004 and were based on a fish consumption rate of 17.5 grams per day (g/day). EPA disapproved the human health toxics criteria because the fish consumption rate (FCR) was not considered protective of many Oregonians. DEQ is addressing EPA’s disapproval by proposing to use a higher fish consumption rate of 175 g/day to calculate more protective human health toxics criteria. If DEQ does not promulgate revised criteria, EPA must conduct rulemaking to promulgate human health toxics criteria for Oregon.

This rulemaking also proposes new rules and revisions to existing rules for various National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) implementation tools developed to assist dischargers in complying with revised standards. Further, revisions to the water quality standards and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rules are proposed to make DEQ’s rules consistent with state statutes affecting nonpoint sources of pollution and for DEQ to assign load allocations to significant land and air sources in TMDLs.

Documents Relied Upon for Rulemaking

1. Cost of Compliance with Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants for Oregon Waters , SAIC (June 2008)— The EPA contracted Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to estimate the potential incremental compliance actions and costs that may be associated with more stringent criteria based on an increased fish consumption rate. The report extrapolated compliance costs for both baseline criteria (i.e. the criteria in effect at that time: Table 20 and Table 33A) and incremental costs derived from implementation of the criteria based on various increased fish consumption rates. This report constitutes the most current and relevant source of information the department has in regards to fiscal and economic impacts. Discussions of the report’s limitations are acknowledged throughout the report.

Note that the SAIC report used the effective criteria at the time of the report to determine the base costs for compliance, which were primarily those criteria contained in Table 33A that are based upon a fish consumption rate of 17.5 g/d. Therefore, the report didn’t analyze the cost of implementing and attaining the criteria based on the criteria in effect at the time of the proposed rule, which is based on a FCR of 6.5 g/d. Although the effective toxics criteria are based on 6.5 g/day given EPA’s June 2010 disapproval of criteria based on 17.5 g/day, in the absence of more precise information, DEQ will use SAIC’s baseline cost estimates derived from criteria based on a FCR of 17.5 g/day to estimate incremental costs of complying with the proposed criteria based on a FCR of 175 g/day.

2. Fiscal Impact and Implementation Advisory Committee (FIIAC) Memo —The DEQ, EPA, and Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) convened a group of interested experts to develop feasible implementation options resulting from an increased FCR and to provide input on the impacts these options may have on a wide range of permitted dischargers, the public, and other stakeholders throughout the state. The expertise of the group ranged from backgrounds in economics, business administration, public works, public health, water quality, and engineering. The FIIAC developed a memo that provides an overview of the charge of the FIIAC, summarizes discussions around costs, benefits and implementation ideas that were considered by the group, and highlights conclusions and concerns regarding the SAIC report.

3. NPDES Implementation Issue Paper, ODEQ (December 2010)—This issue paper was developed by DEQ staff to support the human health toxics criteria rulemaking. The paper is comprised of various potential NPDES implementation tools that could be used in complying with more stringent toxics criteria. Each section describes the tool and includes information such as policy evaluations, DEQ recommendations, alternatives considered, work group discussions and views, proposed rule language and a framework for implementation. (placeholder for website here)

4. Division 41 and 42 Issue Paper, ODEQ (December 2010)—This issue paper was developed by DEQ staff to support the human health toxics criteria rulemaking. The paper discusses potential approaches to revise rules in the water quality standards provisions (Division 41) and the TMDL provisions (Division 42) to make our rules consistent with state statutes and clarify DEQ’s regulatory relationship with other state agencies to control nonpoint sources of pollution. The issue paper includes sections on policy evaluation, DEQ recommendations, workgroup discussions and views, and proposed rule language.

5. TMDL Development Issue Paper, ODEQ (December 2010)—This issue paper was developed by DEQ to support the human health toxics criteria rulemaking. The paper discusses the strategy DEQ has developed to implement TMDLs more effectively, including the pollutant source identification at smaller geographic scales, stakeholder involvement on implementation strategies, and time lines and milestones for TMDL goals and the potential to assign load allocations to significant land and air sources in TMDLs. Includes sections on policy evaluation, DEQ recommendations, workgroup discussions and views.

6. EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria Website

7. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Human Health, EPA (2000). EPA 822-B-009-004.

8. Fiscal and Economic Impact Narrative, ODEQ (December 2010)--This document was developed to support the Statement of Need and Fiscal and Economic form and is attached to this form.

These documents are available on websites or by contacting Andrea Matzke, Oregon DEQ, Water Quality Division, 811 SW Sixth Ave., Portland, OR 97204-1390, (503) 229-5384 or matzke.andrea@deq.state.or.us

Requests for Other Options

Pursuant to ORS 183.335(2)(b)(G), DEQ requests public comment on whether other options should be considered for achieving the rule’s substantive goals while reducing negative economic impact of the rule on business.

Fiscal and Economic Impact, Statement of Cost Compliance

Overview

The Clean Water Act (CWA) directs states to administer specific sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 303 of the Act requires that DEQ review Oregon’s water quality standards regularly in order to use the latest scientific information and consider the state’s current needs. Division 41 contains the rules that describe Oregon’s water quality standards. Divisions 45 and 41 contain the rules that govern Oregon’s development of NPDES permits and development of TMDLs, respectively, both of which contain provisions relating to how water quality standards are implemented in each of those CWA programs.

Oregonians may be exposed to toxic pollutants through the fish we eat and the water we drink. Oregon’s water quality standards contain human health criteria, which are designed to protect human health from toxic pollutants that may occur in surface waters and may accumulate in fish. A key component of the human health criteria is the fish consumption rate, which is intended to reflect how much fish people eat. This proposal revises the human health criteria for toxics based on a higher fish consumption rate of 175 g/day which is more protective of Oregonians. These criteria, if adopted by the EQC and approved by EPA, will be the most stringent human health criteria in the country. This rulemaking also proposes new rule language and revisions to existing rule language for various NPDES implementation tools to assist dischargers in complying with revised standards. In addition, this rulemaking includes revisions to make DEQ’s rules consistent with state statutes affecting nonpoint sources of pollution and for DEQ to assign load allocations to significant land and air sources in TMDLs. The table below summarizes the proposed rule package.

Rulemaking Element

Description

Comments

Proposed Rules Addressing NPDES Implementation

Intake credit

This tool allows a source to pass through pollutants contained in their intake water to their effluent without treatment as long as the facility does not increase either the mass or concentration of the pollutant at the point of discharge.

DEQ expects there will be few permittees that will use this provision.

Background Pollutant Allowance

New water quality standard provisions to allow a small increase in toxic pollutant load above ambient WQ conditions from a single point source, which is small enough that it is not expected to significantly affect human health risk.

Underlying water quality standards remain in effect for all other CWA purposes (e.g. other permittees, 303(d) listing and TMDL development).

Variances with Pollutant Reduction Plans

A variance is a temporary exemption from meeting certain otherwise applicable water quality standards and must be justified based on one of six reasons specified in federal and state water quality standards regulations. Pollutant reduction plans are required to reduce the pollutant of concern where possible and show reasonable progress toward meeting the underlying water quality standard.

Substantial and widespread economic and social impact is one reason a variance may be granted. Other reasons include high, naturally occurring pollutant concentrations and human-caused conditions or sources of pollution that cannot be remedied or would cause more environmental damage to correct than leave in place. EPA must approve variances.

Underlying water quality standards remain in effect for the water body and for all other CWA purposes (e.g. other permittees, 303(d) listing and TMDL development).

Proposed Rules Addressing Non-NPDES Implementation

Division 41 and 42 Amendments

The proposed rules explain and implement ORS 527 and 568, which describe the mechanisms for forestry and agricultural nonpoint sources to meet water quality criteria. The new rules clarify how nonpoint sources must meet water quality criteria and TMDL load allocations.

Although DEQ has authority to do so already, its ability to identify significant air and land sources and assign load allocations is not explicit in the existing Division 42 TMDL rule. DEQ proposes to revise this rule to clarify DEQ’s authority to assign individual load allocations to air and land sources in TMDLs.

The proposed rules clarify the roles and responsibilities of DEQ, the Departments of Forestry and Agriculture and nonpoint sources to ensure that water quality standards and load allocations for nonpoint sources are achieved.

The current rulemaking addresses only water quality regulations, but regulations governing air quality and land quality should also be reviewed in the future to ensure there are regulatory mechanisms to implement and enforce waste load allocations for land and air sources.

The general public, small and large businesses, communities, and public agencies could be impacted by the proposed criteria changes either directly and indirectly. The establishment of criteria, by themselves, has no direct impact or effect. Rather, how the department applies those criteria will affect Oregonians. Specifically, the department may impose additional monitoring and treatment requirements in wastewater discharge permits and to certifications for sediment removal and fill activities and hydroelectric operations to comply with the revised criteria. The new and revised criteria may result in more waters being listed as having impaired water quality, which in turn will trigger the requirement to develop additional TMDLs with specified waste load allocations for the pollutants of concern. In addition, the revised criteria may result in the need for altered management practices to control discharges from nonpoint sources, including those subject to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) established for water quality limited waterbodies.

The fiscal and economic impact analysis is based on a comparison of impacts between the effective human health toxics criteria, which are based on a FCR of 6.5 g/day, to the proposed toxics criteria, which are based on a FCR of 175 g/d. Therefore, the costs of complying with the existing toxics criteria will not be analyzed for this fiscal review. However, DEQ recognizes that not all CWA programs that are impacted by toxics criteria have been fully implemented at the baseline level.

It is difficult to make a direct comparison between the effective criteria and the proposed criteria and determine what the subsequent associated fiscal and economic impacts will be. Part of the complication arises from the 2004 rulemaking which segregated criteria into two groups (one group being effective for permitting purposes in advance of EPA’s action and one group not effective until EPA action). The result of the 2004 rulemaking was that dischargers were required to implement the more stringent human health criteria based on 17.5 g/day, while other CWA programs continued to implement criteria based on 6.5 g/day (e.g. section 401 certifications). EPA did not take action on DEQ’s 2004 toxics criteria until June 1, 2010, when it disapproved the majority of human health criteria based on EPA’s conclusion that the fish consumption rate used in 2004 was not protective enough. Among the criteria disapproved were criteria for approximately 44 toxic pollutants that DEQ added as part of the 2004 rulemaking. In addition, many of these new criteria values DEQ adopted in 2004 were the result of criteria changing from totals of that chemical to individual species of that chemical group (e.g. PAHs, endosulfan, dichlorobenzenes). While the majority of the revised criteria were disapproved, EPA approved the withdrawal of criteria values for eight toxic pollutants based on previous EPA recommendations. In addition, EPA took no action in 2010 on some criteria withdrawn in 2004 and consequently, values for those criteria remain. However, these pollutants no longer have EPA criteria, therefore, DEQ proposes to withdraw these criteria as part of this rulemaking. In addition, DEQ is not proposing to revise eight criteria values that do not rely on a fish consumption rate. Instead, the criteria are derived from drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The table below depicts a general comparison of current versus proposed criteria. Please refer to Table 1 in Appendix B of the fiscal narrative attachment for a comparison of the current criteria versus the proposed criteria.

Which Pollutants Have More Stringent Criteria?

Proposed vs. Current

*Number

Proposed

48

Current

4

Same

10

Mix**

6

TOTAL

68

* Analysis only includes criteria that have both current and proposed criteria and does not include criteria that were either withdrawn or added

** For example, a “water + org” proposed criterion for a chemical becomes less stringent, but then a new “org only” criterion was proposed.

Approximately 48% of the proposed human health criteria have Quantitation Limits (QLs) (i.e. levels that represent the lowest level at which a pollutant is detectible and quantifiable, using currently accepted analytical methodologies) that are higher than the criterion. For that reason, there may be pollutants in Oregon’s water bodies or in wastewater effluent that cannot be measured given limitations in analytical methods. For permitting purposes, the QL becomes the compliance point for dischargers in these circumstances. Consequently, if the criterion for a particular pollutant becomes more stringent, but the QL remains higher than the criterion, there would be no effective change in the point of compliance until and unless analytical methods improve. Historically, the pace of change in laboratory methods has not been rapid. However, when methods do improve, there will likely be additional toxics impairment listings for water bodies and more stringent water quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) for permit holders.

Identifying Pollutants Most Likely to Present Challenges for Sources

The SAIC Report

The SAIC Report identified three pollutants where additional controls may be needed to achieve compliance with lower criteria: (1) arsenic; (2) Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate; and (3) mercury. As part of the 2004 rule revision, Oregon withdrew its national CWA § 304(a) human health criterion for total mercury and replaced these criteria with a new fish tissue-based “organism only” human health criterion for methylmercury. DEQ does not currently have a criterion for methylmercury because EPA disapproved the criterion on June 1, 2010 based on a fish consumption rate that was not considered protective of human health. DEQ is proposing a replacement fish-tissue based methylmercury criterion based on 175 g/day as part of this toxics rulemaking. The SAIC Report assumed that DEQ would use EPA’s default values to convert the methylmercury fish tissue criterion into a total mercury water column criterion. However, until data on methylmercury are collected and analyzed in Oregon water bodies, it is unclear what the state of compliance will be and how relevant the results are from the SAIC Report.

DEQ proposed a revised criterion for arsenic, along with revised criteria for iron and manganese in a separate rulemaking and will not be a part of this rulemaking package. Revised criteria for iron and manganese were adopted by the EQC on December 9, 2010. A revised criterion for arsenic is anticipated to be adopted in April 2011. Because DEQ is proposing a higher criterion for arsenic than what was reflected in the SAIC report, some of the compliance issues associated with arsenic may be minimized. The economic and fiscal impact of revising criteria for iron, manganese, and arsenic will be analyzed separately and will not be addressed here.

Among the 20 facilities evaluated, SAIC found that 3 facilities could have compliance issues with Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate under a fish consumption rate of 175 g/day. It is unknown to what extent additional facilities may face compliance issues. The current QL for Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate is now higher than the proposed criteria (previously, the criterion was greater than the QL), therefore the QL will become the effective compliance point.

Listings for Pollutants and Pollutants Identified as “Potential Concern”

Water column sampling, as well as fish tissue sampling and sediment analysis have indicated the presence of toxics in Oregon’s waterbodies. Overall, the 2004/2006 Integrated Report contains a total of 249 water body segments listed for a toxic pollutant criterion.

•  27 of those (11%) are listed for mercury. (These listings are based on fish consumption advisories, which are not affected by water quality standards.)

•  107 of those (43%) are listed for arsenic, iron or manganese, and are being analyzed for compliance issues in separate rulemakings.

•  Other most commonly listed pollutants are beryllium, dieldrin, DDT, PCBs, chlorpyrifos, and copper.

Appendix C of the fiscal narrative contains a complete list of waterbodies that are contained in Oregon’s 303(d) list for exceeding criteria for certain toxic pollutants. Appendix C also includes a table depicting pollutants of potential concern.

DEQ is targeting adoption of human health criteria based on a FCR of 175 g/day by the EQC in June 2011. Consequently, the proposed criteria will not be adopted and approved by EPA in time to be evaluated as part of the 2010 Integrated Report. DEQ will incorporate the revised human health toxics criteria into the Integrated Report as soon as feasible. Depending upon the timing of EPA approval, DEQ may be able to incorporate the revised criteria into the Integrated Report as soon as the 2012 Integrated Report. Depending on monitoring results and the ability to quantify low concentrations of toxic pollutants, there may be additional listings for toxics in the 2012 Integrated Report or reports thereafter. For some toxic pollutants, DEQ anticipates removing waterbodies in future 303(d) lists based on: (1) criteria that were recently approved by EPA in June 2010 that DEQ withdrew as water quality standards (i.e. beryllium, cadmium, chromium III and VI, lead, mercury, silver, and trichloroethane 1,1,1,) and (2) criteria changes to arsenic, iron, and manganese as proposed in separate rulemakings. It is difficult for DEQ to predict which other toxics could pose potential compliance issues in the future, given the generally small amount of ambient and effluent monitoring data that is available.

Likely Industrial Sectors Discharging Pollutants

Of the 19 facilities covered by major industrial NPDES permits, approximately nine are pulp and paper industries. Of the remaining 10 facilities, there are several smelting or refining industries, electronics and chemical manufacturing, and food processors. In a summary review of these 19 permits, DEQ has established effluent limits for several toxics, as well as additional monitoring requirements for selected toxics. The table below contains a summary of current toxics effluent limits and requirements for monitoring for a selection of major industrials. Based on a review of available information, DEQ has not established toxic pollutant effluent limits in food processing permits.

Category

Toxic Effluent Limits

Additional Toxics Monitoring

Pulp & Paper Industry

-arsenic (total), adsorbable organic halides (AOX), 2,3,7,8-TCDD, lead, and zinc

-Whole Effluent Toxicity, metals (including total arsenic), inorganic arsenic, cyanide, total phenols, volatile compounds, acidextractable compounds, and pesticides

- Priority Pollutant Scan - metals, cyanide, and total phenols

-Priority Pollutant Scan - organic toxic pollutants

Primary Smeltering and/or Refining

-benzo (a) pyrene, antimony, nickel, aluminum, free cyanide

PCBs

Electronics

-total chromium, total toxics organics (sum of the concentrations for approximately 30 toxic organic compounds)

Applicability and Potential Effect of Rulemaking Associated with NPDES Permits and §401 Water Quality Certifications

Generally, the proposed human health criteria for toxics are applicable to all individual and general permits. The degree to which these permits are in fact affected by the new and revised criteria will be determined by an analysis of ambient and effluent data. Analysis of monitoring data may indicate the need for WQBELs. Dischargers with WQBELs for toxic pollutants could have varying costs, ranging from minimal staff time involvement (e.g. employing intake credits) to installing various capital improvement measures to meet WQBELs.

Adoption and approval of new criteria will not affect NPDES permits until permits are renewed. DEQ will not modify existing permits in effect to incorporate the new criteria at the time of EPA approval if that approval occurs during their permit cycle. At the time of permit renewal, DEQ will evaluate whether new WQBELs need to be developed to meet revised water quality criteria.

The SAIC report indicated that some dischargers will have issues associated with complying with the existing criteria. The table below represents potential annual compliance costs extrapolated from a sample representing both major municipals and industrials, and indicates that the greatest proportional cost would be attributed to complying with the baseline standard (i.e. 17.5 g/day), rather than the incremental costs associated with a higher fish consumption rate. The highlighted cost range below indicates the incremental costs of complying with a FCR of 175 g/day, not taking into account inflow and infiltration (I&I) of arsenic, which is not relevant for this analysis since arsenic is not being addressed by this proposed rulemaking. For more detailed information on this table, including estimated costs for individual facilities in the sample selection, please see Appendix F in the SAIC Report.

Although there are estimates available for annual compliance costs from the SAIC Report, specific costs for any one facility will vary on a case-by-case basis and will depend on variables such as pollutants present, availability of treatment technologies able to treat to specified levels, and compliance options available to facilities (e.g. intake credits vs. end of pipe treatment technologies vs. variances).

Applicability and Potential Effect of Rulemaking Associated with Stormwater Permits

DEQ issues three different types of stormwater permits: individual Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits, construction stormwater permits, and industrial stormwater permits. Because stormwater discharges are intermittent, DEQ does not apply the human health criteria (which are generally based on a 70 year exposure) to permits for these discharges and instead, uses the aquatic life criteria as the basis for stormwater permit requirements. This approach is consistent with EPA’s approach for stormwater permits. However, in the industrial stormwater permit currently under development (expected to be issued in August 2011), it is likely that sources who discharge to waterbodies that are listed as impaired for any criteria will have to monitor for these pollutants. Therefore, there could be sampling and analysis costs to industrial stormwater permit holders once the permit is finalized and additional impaired waters have been identified based on the revised human health criteria. As a result, there will likely be additional costs to these dischargers who exceed these criteria and are required to develop BMPs to reduce the pollutant of concern. The table below describes the number of facilities with industrial stormwater permits.

Industrial Stormwater Permit

Description

No. of Facilities*

1200-COLS

Facilities located in the Columbia Slough watershed

138

1200-Z

All other industrial facilities in the state

770

Total

908

* As of September 2010

Applicability and Potential Effect of Rulemaking Associated With General Permits for Activities Other than Stormwater

The 1500A permit for petroleum hydrocarbon cleanup from groundwater or surface water is currently the only general permit with requirements for human health criteria. When this permit is renewed, these criteria will need to be addressed. Twenty facilities are registered to the permit. There is an effluent limit for BETX, which is quantified based on an EPA approved test method to determine the total amount for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene and xylene. The current permit establishes a 10:1 dilution. With a dilution of 10 and a revised criterion of 0.44 ug/L for benzene, the effluent limit at the end of pipe for benzene would be 4.4 ug/L. These effluent limits are met at the end of pipe by treating contaminated water with air stripping and/or activated carbon adsorption. It is not known whether technology can consistently meet a lower effluent limit. This work would be completed as part of the general permit renewal.

Applicability and Potential Effect of Rulemaking Associated With 401 Certifications

The majority of activities for which DEQ issues Clean Water Act section 401 certifications would not be impacted by the proposed changes to the water quality criteria since the parameters of interest are typically conventional pollutants (e.g., dissolved oxygen, turbidity, temperature, etc.). However, there may be an impact to applicants (e.g. U.S. Corps of Engineers, Port of Portland) who propose sediment removal and fill projects, since some toxic pollutants that may be contained in the sediments can be released into waterbodies through movement of soil. Additional testing of the sediment may be required to assure that projects do not exceed water quality criteria for toxics and, if needed, mitigation measures may be required to reduce the impact of project.

Monitoring Costs

Generally, the costs of monitoring for dischargers could increase. If there is reasonable potential for a discharge to cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable water quality criteria, more discharge monitoring may be needed which would increase analytical costs. Additionally, there could be a slight increase in the number of monitoring sites and/or frequency of sampling due to the implementation tools(e.g. to sufficiently characterize ambient conditions for variances, or monitoring data needed to meet a background allowance provision). Other potential analytical costs related to new QLs, analyzing individual species of pollutants, and costs for methyl mercury analysis are discussed under Fiscal and Economic Impacts to DEQ (See section III). Analytical costs described there would also be similar to costs incurred by dischargers.

With more stringent toxics criteria, there will likely be additional waterbodies listed as impaired for toxic pollutants and an increase in the subsequent number of TMDLs developed to meet toxics load allocations. Designated Management Agencies that may be identified as part of the TMDL include Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), municipalities, and irrigation districts and they may need additional resources in order to conduct additional monitoring for TMDL implementation tracking and BMP effectiveness monitoring. These monitoring costs may not be realized until sometime after the approval of the next Integrated Report, which would reflect any new listings based on the proposed toxics criteria.

Effect of Using Different Implementation Tools

Some situations may occur where limits or requirements based on the proposed criteria cannot be met. Contamination of a facility’s intake water by background pollutants (or in the case of municipal wastewater treatment facilities, some contaminants may be present in the drinking water) may result in high wastewater effluent concentrations that can’t be feasibly treated or result in undesirable environmental tradeoffs to achieve. These pollutants may occur naturally or result from a variety of human activities. Intake credits, background pollutant allowances, and variances are implementation tools that can be used to address background contaminants and would potentially offset some of the impact of the revised criteria.

Some of the potential costs incurred by sources may be as the result of installing additional treatment technologies to reduce toxic pollutants in wastewater effluents. Some of these technologies are proven and are commonly used. Other technologies may be able to remove toxics to lower levels, but are not yet proven for wide-scale use, are not capable of treating down to the necessary levels, or present other limitations such as hazardous byproducts or prohibitive cost, thereby limiting the feasibility of their use for certain dischargers. For more information on specific treatment technologies, including advantages, disadvantages, and some limited costs, please refer to Appendix C in the SAIC Report.

Because there may not be feasible treatment technologies to remove low concentrations of toxic pollutants or other concerns regarding residual management from certain treatment technologies, some dischargers may pursue other implementation tools to comply with requirements based on the revised criteria. Some of the following tools are new (or revised), while other tools already exist in DEQ regulations. Generally, these tools provide a means to comply with and ensure progress toward meeting water quality standards and implementing regulations while ensuring protection of human health and the environment. Where meeting requirements to meet the revised criteria are infeasible, use of one of the approaches described below in appropriate circumstances can provide a lower cost means to comply with water quality standards than costs associated with removal technologies.

o  Variances with pollution reduction plan

DEQ is proposing to revise its current water quality standards regulation to include variances with a pollution reduction plan as an implementation pathway. Variances provide a mechanism for achieving water quality improvements when underlying water quality standards cannot be met in the short term. This provision would be allowed under limited circumstances. Variances are applicable to all types of pollutants and NPDES point sources, although DEQ anticipates that variances for toxic pollutants will be the majority of variance requests and approvals.

If a discharger is unable to comply with a water quality criterion because, for example, there are no feasible or affordable treatment technologies available, variances could be pursued as a lower cost alternative, while complying with permit requirements and making water quality improvements. Despite lower anticipated net costs, there would still be incremental costs associated with variance requests and approvals for dischargers using this implementation tool. Potential costs include costs to sources to prepare and support an application (e.g. collecting water quality data, conducting an economic analysis, literature review for feasible pollutant removal technologies, etc); developing a pollution reduction plan, including potential strategies and implementing actions contained in the plan.

Impacts associated with this rulemaking focus on the incremental costs of complying with a fish consumption rate of 175 g/day, as opposed to costs associated with the current or baseline criteria. The SAIC Report estimates that one-time expenditures associated with variance applications could range from $1.43 M to $7.05 M (total statewide) with a FCR based on 17.5 g/day; incremental variance-related expenditures could range from $0.59 million to $2.68 million (total statewide) under revised criteria (highlighted in table below). The table below further shows a breakdown of costs between major municipal and industrial facilities. The average one-time cost per major municipality ranges from $8,000 to $44,000 under revised criteria, while the average one-time cost per major industrial ranges from $9,000 to $25,000. Costs for arsenic variances are included in these estimates and could not be apportioned out. However, proposed rulemaking to revise criteria for arsenic (i.e. become less stringent based on natural background concentrations) may reduce the need for facilities to use variances as a tool to comply with arsenic. Therefore, the variance cost estimates could be lower than what is reflected in this table.

DEQ anticipates that first-time variance costs would be greater than subsequent requests to renew variances. Discharger costs associated with a renewal of a variance could be less, as most of the information required for a request would be an update of existing information gathered from the initial request. Each renewal request would need to be approved by both DEQ and EPA.

o  Intake credits

Intake credits will be implemented at the time DEQ’s permit writer is determining whether a particular facility has the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the water quality criteria. Where the conditions meet the requirements in the regulation, the permit writer would conclude that the facility does not need a water quality based requirement in their limit for that pollutant or that the limit is based upon the concentration in the intake water. Without this provision the facility could have incurred the associated costs with meeting effluent limits or other requirements. As a result, where this implementation tool could be employed, the facility would avoid significant costs that would otherwise be incurred. DEQ expects that minimal input (in the form of additional monitoring data, etc.) would be needed from dischargers to facilitate the use of this tool. Given the limitations of this tool (i.e. facilities that have discharge pollutants originating from their intake water and a requirement that the mass and concentration of discharge cannot exceed that of intake water), DEQ estimates that few dischargers will be able to employ intake credits based on pollutants already present in their intake water.

o  Background pollutant allowance

The background pollutant allowance allows a discharger to discharge effluent that is up to 3% higher than the background pollutant concentration of a water body that approaches or exceeds an applicable human health criterion (mass cannot be increased). The availability of this tool would very likely offset costs that would be incurred by dischargers if they were required to install expensive treatment technologies to reduce pollutant.

DEQ anticipates that some dischargers may need to adjust treatment processes to keep the mass of pollutant at or below upstream mass. Costs for this adjustment would vary depending on the process needed. Dischargers may also need to adjust treatment processes to keep pollutant concentration to no greater than 3% of upstream concentration.

Based upon a review of current industrial permits, DEQ estimates that 32 minor and four major facilities have the potential to be impacted by background pollutants if present at high levels upstream of their facilities. These facilities typically employ significant quantities of surface water in their processes that result in evaporative loss and an increase in pollutant concentration.

BENEFITS

DEQ did not have the financial resources to conduct a quantitative analysis of the direct and indirect potential benefits associated with an increased fish consumption rate, however, the FIIAC committee members along with representatives from the Oregon Environmental Council and CTUIR agreed that while economic benefits can be difficult to analyze, it is important to describe potential benefits, at the very least, in a qualitative manner. A key outcome of revised water quality standards based on a higher fish consumption rate would not only benefit consumers of fish, but also achieve more stringent water quality criteria by reducing toxic contamination in waterways. The level of benefits achieved will depend on the degree to which pollution reduction is accomplished. Table 2 and the following table below is an excerpt from the FIIAC memo and describe benefits associated with this rulemaking.

Table 2: Potential Benefits of Raising the Fish Consumption Rate and Meeting the Standards

Benefit

Examples

Human Health

-safe drinking water;

-avoided costs from environmentally attributable diseases;

-reduced risk for those who do eat fish;

-recreational – reduced risk from water contact

Environmental

-water reuse opportunities from cleaner effluent;

-business—cleaner intake water for downstream industries;

-ecosystem health;

- tourism;

-amenity/aesthetic/property values;

-avoided costs to industries and utilities;

-fewer contaminants;

-fishing – tribal, commercial, recreational and subsistence;

-improve other species in the food chain: birds, etc.;

-higher quality water supply

Cultural

-enable religious/ceremonial activities;

-children;

-healthy fish – icon of the Northwest

-local, and sustainable food options

Potential Benefits of Specific Implementation Strategies

Strategy

Potential Benefit

Toxic Reductions

-Reduced human health impacts;

-innovative possibilities used to reach more efficient systems when not fearful of litigation stemming from strict liability regulatory framework;

-costs of litigation reduced;

-reduced O&M;

-reduced hazardous waste removal costs;

Stormwater Control

-Co-benefits for toxics reductions and control of other important stressors that affect fish health such as sedimentation and warm water temperatures

Infiltration and Inflow (I&I)*

-Reduce quantity of water and toxics entering plant, reducing operating costs

(* It should be noted that ACWA agencies are already engaged in I&I programs and do not agree that an incremental increase in I&I will result in toxics reduction and question the efficacy of additional increases in I&I rehab work since 100% I&I removal is currently not possible.)

Impacts on the General Public

As a result of this rulemaking there will be direct and indirect costs to the general public. DEQ does not have enough information to determine how significant these will be; however, the description in this section qualitatively describes the types of impacts that could be experienced by the general public. The SAIC Report estimated that proposing a fish consumption rate of 175 g/day could result in annual facility costs of $0.35 to $0.45 million (see Exhibit ES-1 on page 9). Some of these costs could be passed on to the general public.

Direct Impacts

o  Agricultural activities are already subject to Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Plans and Rules that prohibit pollution. Because these plans and rules already require and provide the mechanism for agriculture to meet the water quality standards and TMDL load allocations, DEQ has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not have direct fiscal impacts or effects on small businesses and general public. If AgWQM Area Rules need to be revised in order to comply with the proposed toxics WQS, there could be increased costs for some private landowners to comply with the rules including one-time costs for capital improvements. These changes, however, will take years to be implemented.

o  In terms of benefits, the objective of this rulemaking is to provide clean water for consumers of fish, shellfish, and drinking water. Depending on the level of toxics reduced into Oregon’s water bodies, Oregonians would have access to safer drinking water and fish for consumption. Other parallel benefits as discussed in the overview section would be seen.

Indirect impacts:

o  Indirect impacts to the general consumer may involve rate increases to water and sewer bills to offset compliance strategies, monitoring, etc. utilized by POTWs. Depending on the costs of the compliance strategies, rate adjustments would vary.

o  For consumers of industrial goods, various compliance strategy costs to produce goods could be passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices. In some cases, products may no longer be available depending on a facility’s ability to absorb additional costs.

Impacts to Small Business

(50 or fewer employees –ORS183.310(10))

Generally, DEQ does not track small business status as part of its recordkeeping, so limited information was available to determine: 1) whether or not the potentially affected entity was a small business, or (2) if it was a small business, what specific impacts could be attributed to this rulemaking. An inquiry to the Oregon Employment Department indicated that providing small business status information to DEQ was considered confidential information.

Similar to the range of costs associated with large businesses, compliance costs for small businesses will vary widely depending on the compliance strategy of the affected entity (e.g. increased treatment, optimization of treatment process, pollutant reduction strategies/best management practices, additional monitoring, implementation tools). The SAIC Report estimated that proposing a fish consumption rate of 175 g/day could result in annual facility costs of $0.35 to $0.45 million (see Exhibit ES-1 on page 9). Some of these costs could be passed on to small businesses.

Cost of Compliance on Small Business (50 or fewer employees –ORS183.310(10))

a) Estimated number of small businesses subject to the proposed rule

Small Business Impacts to Industrial Dischargers

Limited DEQ research suggests that none of the 19 major industrials are small businesses (i.e. 50 or fewer employees). DEQ is unaware of how many of the 130 minor industrial permit holders are small businesses, since DEQ does not track this type of information.

Facility Type

No.

Major Industrial

19

Minor Industrial

130

Total

149

Small Business Impacts to Entities Covered Under Industrial Stormwater Permits

It is unknown how many of the 908 facilities holding industrial stormwater permits are small businesses. DEQ does not track this kind of information.

Small Business Impacts to Entities Covered Under General Permits

There are various categories of general permits (totaling approximately 1828 permits statewide) that are regulated by DEQ. The 1500A permit for petroleum hydrocarbon cleanup from groundwater or surface water is currently the only general permit with requirements for human health criteria. When this permit is renewed, these criteria will need to be addressed. It is unknown how many of the 20 facilities holding 1500A permits are small businesses. DEQ does not track this kind of information.

Small Business Impacts to Indirect Dischargers

DEQ surveyed the five largest pretreatment programs and determined that out of a total number of 285 significant industrial users, approximately 130 users were small businesses. DEQ does not have any data that would lead to any conclusions about how many of these businesses would likely be impacted by the proposed revised criteria.

Small Business Impacts to Farms and Ranches

According to the Oregon Farm Bureau, 97% of Oregon farms and ranches fall under the category of small businesses based on the definition of small businesses being 50 or fewer employees.

Agricultural activities are already subject to Agricultural Water Quality Management (AgWQM) Area Plans and Rules that prohibit pollution. Because these plans and rules already require and provide the mechanism for agriculture to meet the water quality standards and TMDL load allocations, DEQ has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not have direct fiscal impacts or effects on small businesses and general public. However, if additional practices must be developed or requirements otherwise increase or are better defined, there may be increased costs of production or land management to farmers and landowners on rural lands who operate as small businesses.

Small Business Impacts to Forestry

Forest activities are subject to Forest Practices Act and rules in order to meet water quality standards and TMDL load allocations. Because of the requirements that are currently in place, DEQ has determined that this proposed rulemaking does not have direct fiscal impacts or effects on small businesses and general public. If FPA Rules need to be revised in order to comply with the proposed changes to the toxics water quality standards, and if those changes result in restrictions to timber harvest or other forest management activities that reduce growth and yield, there could be, in some cases, increased costs for private landowners to comply with the rules. The outcomes of these rule changes are difficult to predict and also will take years to be implemented.

Oregon Small Woodlands Association (OSWA)

According to information provided by OSWA, there are over 100,000 small businesses that own forest land in Oregon. Approximately 70,000 families own 10 to 5,000 acres and these ownerships are organized in various small business structures. In addition, there are 70,000 more families that own between two to ten acres of forestlands and some of these fall under the small business category.

Non-Permitted Urban Sources

For non-MS4 communities and facilities without NPDES requirements, TMDLs are the main driver for developing water quality management plans. Since TMDLs already require local governments and counties as designated management agencies to develop and implement TMDL implementation plans, the agency does not expect significant fiscal or economic impacts for urban sources as a result of this rulemaking process.

If new ordinances and codes are required in order to meet TMDL load allocations that are based on the proposed revised toxics water quality standards, there could be an indirect fiscal impact to all small businesses that are within the boundary of the TMDLs.

b) Types of businesses and industries with small businesses subject to the proposed rule

The types of businesses/industries holding wastewater permits include, but are not limited to: food processors, smelting/refining operations, timber processing, wood products manufacturing, pulp and paper, retail operations, seafood processors, seasonal fresh pack operations, and petroleum hydrocarbon clean-up operations.

Other types of businesses that could be subject to this rulemaking include nurseries, dairy and beef producers, fruit growers, and other food producers, industrial, and small forest land owners.

Although the businesses above are subject to the proposed rule, they will not necessarily be impacted by the rule.

c) Projected reporting, recordkeeping and other administrative activities required by small businesses for compliance with the proposed rule, including costs of professional services

For facilities that are small businesses that discharge directly to a water body, facility staff time and contractor fees would be incurred where it was determined that the rules required additional action or compliance strategies by the business. Impacts could be seen in association with reporting, and various recordkeeping requirements associated with compliance strategies, such as a variance request or using a background pollutant allowance.

For small businesses that discharge to a POTW with a pretreatment program, there would likely be increased indirect costs associated with recordkeeping and other administrative activities to evaluate pollutant reduction options to meet pretreatment requirements where those requirements are imposed by POTWs.

d) The equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administration required by small businesses for compliance with the proposed rule

For facilities that are small businesses that discharge the pollutants addressed by this proposed rulemaking directly to a water body, costs associated with treatment or treatment optimization to comply with new criteria could be substantial, depending on the treatment technology used and wastes generated.

For small businesses that discharge to a POTW with a pretreatment program, there would likely be increased costs associated with any treatment technology/optimization required to reduce the pollutant of concern to within POTW acceptable limits for indirect discharge. In some cases, small businesses which are indirect dischargers to a POTW may need to treat wastes onsite if they are unable to meet sufficient effluent limits established by a POTW.

e) A description of the manner in which DEQ involved small businesses in the development of this rulemaking

The Rulemaking Work Groups have several members representing small business interests: 1) Associated Oregon Industries (AOI), 2) Oregon Small Woodlands Association, 3) Oregon Forests Industry Council, and 4) Oregon Farm Bureau. The AOI member also participated as a member of the FIIAC committee. DEQ discussed the fiscal impact form and solicited input from these members during two work group meetings in August and October 2010. This input was incorporated into DEQ’s analysis.

Impacts on Large Business

(all businesses that are not “small businesses” under ORS183.310(10))

Industrial Permits

Facility Type

No.

Major Industrial

19

Minor Industrial

130

Total

149

Industrial permits have a complex process to determine monitoring requirements based on the industrial category and the potential for toxicity in the receiving waterbody. The monitoring requirements at a specific facility are determined based upon factors such as industrial category, pre-existing permit status, hazardous material present, new source performance standards or permit writer discretion. The discharger may also be required to conduct additional monitoring that is tied to the pollutants identified in a pretreatment program, 303(d) listed waters or ambient waters.

Of the 19 facilities covered by major industrial NPDES permits, approximately nine are pulp and paper industries. Of the remaining 10 facilities, there are several smelting or refining industries, electronics and chemical manufacturing, and food processors. A limited review of these 19 major industrials indicated that all 19 facilities are large businesses.

Potential costs will vary depending on what pollutants are discharged by the facility, as well as the compliance strategy a facility follows. For example, installation of new treatment technologies could be costly, while other compliance strategies, such as using intake credits would be relatively inexpensive. It is unknown how many facilities would have a need for and be eligible to use the relatively inexpensive compliance strategies. As a result, conclusions about whether or not an industrial facility will likely be impacted by more stringent water quality standards are a site-specific analysis, and broad conclusions are difficult to reach.

Impacts on Local Government

Domestic Permits/Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)

Facility Type

No.

Major Domestic

49

Minor Domestic

154

Total

203

The proposed toxics rulemaking would directly impact all major domestic facilities (i.e. POTWs) that monitor for toxics. Generally, minor domestic sources (average dry weather design flow of less than one million gallons per day (MGD)) have much reduced monitoring and permitting requirements than major domestic sources. The permit writer must conduct a Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for toxic pollutants for major domestic sources (i.e. average dry weather design flow of at least 1 MGD). For minor sources, a permit writer may conduct a RPA for all 303(d) listed toxic pollutants if there is a potential of water quality degradation due to non-typical factors such as significant industrial discharges.

However, both major and minor sources could be impacted if a Total Maximum Daily Load establishes a waste load allocation for their discharge. For example, if during the development of a TMDL the minor is identified as a source of the toxic pollutant, it could be given a waste load allocation. Alternatively, if a minor source is not identified during the TMDL process, but later becomes known as a source of a toxic pollutant, it may be able to access reserve capacity in the TMDL, if available and accessible to that source. Sometimes dischargers may be allocated their unquantifiable ‘current loading’ if they are not considered a significant source.

Consequently, majors will generally be more impacted by revisions to the human health toxics criteria than minors. Minors may be impacted as well in situations where discharges are to impaired waters where waste load allocations have been established. A range of costs are possible depending on the compliance tools available for each individual circumstance. Variances may be available to POTWs that cannot meet effluent limits for toxics criteria. Cost estimates for variances can be found in the Overview section.

Potential Indirect Effects Associated with Municipalities

Pretreatment

Some businesses do not directly discharge to a water body but rather discharge to a municipal collection system under a municipality’s pretreatment program. These businesses may be subject to additional requirements from the municipality. Currently, 23 POTWs have pretreatment programs that place requirements upon businesses discharging to their collection systems. All 23 POTWs have set local limits for metals with only one pretreatment POTW having additional limits for: pentachlorophenol, chlorobenzene, chloroform, trichloroethylene, acrylontrile, 1,2-dichloroethane, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, nitrobenzene, and chlordane.

It is possible that POTWs unable to meet effluent limits contained in the NPDES permit may explore pretreatment requirements for indirect dischargers with known pollutants of concern. However, it is unknown whether POTWs in addition to the 23 with existing pretreatment programs will develop their own pretreatment programs or set local limits for additional toxic pollutants based on more stringent criteria. It is also unknown what the associated costs could be for the indirect discharger with pretreatment requirements. For example, a POTW may not be able to accommodate business or industrial waste streams given new effluent limits for toxic pollutants. Consequently, some businesses and industries may need to disconnect from the sewer system and manage their wastewater on site. The types of businesses that would likely be most affected by local limits imposed by the municipality would be high tech producers, platers, dental offices, and photo processors (ACWA Memo, March 4, 2008).

Other Local Government

For non-MS4 communities and facilities without NPDES requirements, TMDLs are the main driver for developing water quality management plans. Since TMDLs already require local governments and counties as designated management agencies to develop and implement TMDL implementation plans, the agency does not expect the fiscal or economic impacts to be significant for urban sources as a result of this rulemaking process.

Impacts on State Agencies other than DEQ

For activities related to NPDES implementation, DEQ does not anticipate fiscal or economic impacts to other state agencies with this rulemaking. DEQ is the primary state agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the NPDES program. However, there may be impacts to other state agencies (e.g. ODA and ODF) depending on various circumstances. For example, DEQ anticipates additional 303(d) listings for toxics may result depending on monitoring results. To address impairments, TMDLs will be developed and implementation plans designed to reduce loadings from these sources. ODA and ODF are the Designated Management Agencies responsible for implementing and reducing loads from agricultural and forestry sources, so therefore could expend FTE and resources to address load reductions. Information below is from ODA and ODF staff.

From Oregon Department of Agriculture:

Existing Agricultural Water Quality Management Area Plans and Rules are expected to be adequate to achieve TMDL load allocations and meet water quality standards on agricultural lands. The plans rely on both voluntary and regulatory approaches to implement management measures that prevent pollution by controlling upland erosion and sediment transport, restoring and maintaining riparian vegetation, appropriately utilizing nutrients, and addressing other agricultural activities as needed to protect surface and ground waters. The plans rely on, and the rules are generally limited to, available and technically feasible conservation practices. The costs of these practices were considered in adopting current area plans and rules.

Oregon Department of Forestry

Forest activities are subject to Forest Practices Act and rules to meet the water quality standards and TMDL load allocations. Because these rules already require and provide the mechanism for forestry to meet the water quality standards and TMDL load allocations, the Department of Forestry does not expect significant fiscal or economic impacts on forest lands.

Impacts on DEQ

The following table summarizes potential fiscal and economic impacts to DEQ programs, staff, and resources. DEQ does not anticipate funding additional staff positions in response to this rulemaking. Consequently, staff time spent on implementing more stringent human health toxics criteria may impact other priorities of the department. DEQ may also receive additional requests to conduct Use Attainability Analyses or develop site specific criteria as a way of addressing compliance issues identified in conjunction with implementing the more stringent toxics criteria, if appropriate. These rules do not generate revenue for DEQ. To estimate dollar amounts below, DEQ assumed a staff Natural Resource Specialist 4 position, Step 7, at $63/hr.

DEQ Regional Staff

Headquarters/Lab/Administrative Staff

Permitting

Monitoring

- Estimate 4 – 16 additional hrs per permit ($252 - $1008) needed for staff to determine monitoring requirements for permits subject to this rulemaking. For this rulemaking, average review per permit could slightly increase depending on individual circumstances and compliance tools used.

-Staff and lab time needed for periodic revisions of quantitation limits (QLs)

-Generally, costs increase when criteria for toxic pollutants change from totals of a chemical family to individual chemical species. Costs also generally increase to achieve lower QLs.

-The criteria for total mercury will be replaced by a tissue based methyl mercury criteria. Generally, cost for methyl mercury analysis is 2-3 times higher than for total mercury.

-Some of the monitoring and analysis costs have already been absorbed given DEQ’s investment in toxics monitoring for SB737, the Pesticide Stewardship Program and the toxics monitoring program.

WQBELs and/or other WQ Limits

-Regional staff will need to do more WQBEL assessments if RPA indicates that more dischargers will have reasonable potential. Estimate an additional 8 hrs/parameter/permit ($504) to establish QBELs where they are identified as needed.

-Intake Credits: The RPA IMD would include calculations for intake credits and wouldn’t require additional staff time.

-Periodic revisions of RPA IMD may be required to account for intake credits

-Increased data input into the Discharge Monitoring System (DMS) which stores information on permit features, schedules, permit limits, required monitoring and discharge monitoring report data for individually permitted facilities.

-Because stormwater discharges are intermittent, DEQ does not apply the human health criteria (which are generally based on a 70 year exposure) to permits for these discharges. Therefore, there will not be any anticipated fiscal impact to DEQ related to stormwater permits. However, the industrial stormwater permit is currently being revised. In the current proposal, it is likely that sources which discharge to waterbodies that are listed as impaired for the human health criteria will have to monitor for these pollutants and develop BMPs if criteria are exceeded. In these cases, DEQ staff will need to oversee and review monitoring and associated BMPs as needed.

- The only general permit with toxics that would require additional work to modify based on revised human health criteria is the 1500A. The 1500A permit covers petroleum hydrocarbon cleanup from groundwater or surface water. DEQ will need to incorporate the new permit limits as part of the general permit renewal.

Background Pollutant Allowance

-More staff time needed to review applicability of a background allowance request. DEQ estimates an additional 60 hrs./permit ($3780) where this tool is used. However, time spent in this analysis could be less than developing other “site specific solutions” if this provision was not available.

-HQ collaboration may be needed in the short term to provide regional consistency in evaluating background pollutant allowances.

-Staff time needed for periodic revisions of IMD.

-Do not anticipate greater regional or HQ FTE, so less technical assistance may be available for other issues/projects,

Variances

- Regional permit writers will be interfacing with discharger to evaluate data and information needed for variance request and to incorporate permit conditions based on the variance request. In some cases, significant staff time could be spent gathering this information, possibly conducting literature reviews for treatment technology removal capabilities, and/or reviewing fiscal and economic data from discharger. Variances also require a yearly review of the pollutant reduction plan to be conducted by DEQ staff. DEQ estimates approximately 160 hrs./variance request ($10,080).

-Time spent in this analysis could be less than developing other “site specific solutions” if this provision was not available.

- Since DEQ has yet to receive a variance request, the department is unable to specify costs based on past experience, therefore costs and/or resources described here are estimates.

-DEQ anticipates that HQ WQS staff will review variance requests submitted by the permitee and permit writer.

- Estimate 0.75 FTE (Standards 0.56 FTE and Permitting 0.19 FTE) to review variance requests and pollutant reduction plans, and coordinate DEQ/EQC/EPA approval.

-SAIC extrapolated the potential number of variance applications for the sample facilities and found that DEQ would need to review approximately 40 requests under the baseline criteria (FCR of 17.5 g/day) and an additional 16 under the revised criteria. Assuming a cost of $3,900 per review, baseline costs could be approximately $159,000 with incremental costs of approximately $65,000 under the revised criteria.

-DEQ anticipates ongoing costs to review variances depending on the ability of dischargers to meet effluent limits.

-Most likely, staff time in reviewing variances could decrease as the process becomes more efficient. In addition, variance renewals should be less resource intensive.

-Staff time needed for periodic revisions of variance IMD and associated staff training.

-Do not anticipate availability of additional FTE, so less HQ technical assistance available for other issues/projects.

Compliance Schedules

-Regional permit writers may need to develop additional compliance schedules for permittees given more stringent toxics criteria.

-Use of compliance schedules would depend on if the discharger could ultimately meet discharge limits within a specified amount of time.

- DEQ estimates approximately 40 hrs./compliance schedule development ($2520).

-Generally, more complex permits (e.g. those including compliance schedules) require additional oversight and communication with permittees.

-HQ permitting staff may assist regional permit writers in developing compliance schedules depending on backlog and permitting priorities.

Non-Permitting

More Stringent Criteria

TMDL monitoring

-Regional staff may be involved in both developing a sampling and analysis plan and collection of samples needed for development of TMDLs to address waterbodies listed for toxics.

-Lab FTE to develop sampling and analysis plans, collect and analyze data, and develop reports. Will depend on the quality and quantity of data needed for the TMDL and availability of existing data from other sources (e.g. USGS, FWS, BLM, USFS, etc.).

-DEQ does not anticipate additional FTE, therefore, costs may be similar to that incurred under the current toxics criteria. However, there may be a backlog of TMDL development due to lack of DEQ monitoring resources.

TMDL Development

-Regional staff members lead TMDL development by coordinating with HQ and Lab staff and working with local advisory group.

- There may also be an additional backlog of TMDL development if there are additional 303(d) listings as anticipated.

- Since DEQ will not seek additional FTE for the TMDL program, DEQ expects to issue TMDLs at a slower rate.

-HQ supports TMDL development by providing modeling and programmatic support.

- Since DEQ will not seek additional FTE for the TMDL program, DEQ expect to issue TMDLs at a slower rate.

-Additional resources maybe needed for Lab in order to support the development of monitoring strategies for Implementation-Ready TMDLs.

- There may also be an additional backlog of TMDL development if there are additional 303(d) listings as anticipated.

TMDL Development

1. TMDLs: Clarifying EQC and DEQ’s authorities in Divisions 41 and 42

- The resource needs are expected to double for TMDLs compared to current subbasin level TMDLs.

-TMDL development phase, additional resources should not be required for implementation. (It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

- The resource needs are expected to double for TMDLs compared to current subbasin level TMDLs.

- Toxics TMDLS have roughly cost between 50,000 to 1,000,000 to develop depending on the extent of listings within a basin.

-According to the SAIC Report, additional technical assistance may be needed in order for the dischargers to meet TMDL waste load allocations. Requests for pursuing variances by facilities may increase, for example.

2. Addressing air sources in TMDLs: Clarifying EQC and DEQ’s authorities to regulate air sources to meet TMDL goals in Division 42

-No significant increase in resource needs for the regional staff members are expected.

-If air depositional load is determined to be significant through TMDL source analysis, resource needs for Air Quality Division may increase to work with facilities and coordinate with Water Quality Division.

-No significant increase in resource needs for the HQ and Lab staff members are expected.

-If air depositional load is determined to be significant through TMDL source analysis, resource needs for Air Quality Division may increase for rulemaking and coordination with Water Quality Division.

TMDL Implementation

-Regional staff members are central to coordinate implementation efforts and monitoring efforts in their region. Since more work will be done during TMDL development phase, additional resources should not be required for implementation. (It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

-HQ and Lab provide technical and programmatic support to the region for TMDL implementation.

-Additional resources maybe needed for HQ to provide modeling and analyses associated with TMDLs.

(It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

401 Certifications

- Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that any federal license or permit to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States must first receive a water quality certification from the state in which the activity will occur. These discharges must meet any new water quality toxics criteria for human health.

-DEQ does not anticipate additional FTE or resources needed as part of this rulemaking since new processes or approaches are not anticipated being needed and toxic pollutants are not routinely significant pollutants of concern for these activities.

Integrated Report

-Potential of additional toxics listings

- Data evaluation tools and database systems used to prepare the Integrated Report will need to be revised.

-For the 2010 Integrated Report, it required 2 FTE (1 programmer and 1 standards specialist) for 6 months (approximately $40,000) to evaluate toxics data in LASAR using Table 20 criteria. A similar level of effort is likely needed to revise the data systems to incorporate new criteria. Additional effort will be needed to revise and update the assessment of water bodies done prior to date of EPA approval of new toxic substance criteria.

-Water body analytical data in DEQ’s LASAR data system may need to be synchronized/correlated to include metadata needed to apply new criteria (e.g. CAS numbers, total forms vs. individual species forms). This analysis is needed to correlate data collected in LASAR to Integrated Report analysis and listing status of that pollutant.

Land Quality

DEQ’s cost to implement the new human health criteria into clean-up standards would be minimal. Work involves substituting lower risk numbers at sites where surface-water discharge is the pathway of concern.

Assumptions

DEQ assumes that the best available information which DEQ has relied on to make these proposed rule revisions, is reasonably true and accurate.

DEQ assumes that is it in the interest of the public to expend public and private resources on actions that will result in measurable environmental benefits.

Housing Costs

DEQ has determined that this proposed rulemaking will have no effect on the cost of development of a 6,000 square foot parcel and the construction of a 1,200 square foot detached single family dwelling on that parcel.

Administrative Rule Advisory Committee

DEQ assembled a Toxics Water Quality Standards Rulemaking Workgroup to assist the department in developing and evaluating the proposed rule. There were two workgroups which focused on specific rulemaking items. The Rulemaking Work Group (RWG) focused on NPDES implementation tools to comply with revised toxics criteria, while the Non-NPDES Work Group, focused on rulemaking items associated with nonpoint sources of pollution contributing to toxics pollution, and pretreatment options for indirect dischargers to POTWs. These groups met on a monthly basis from January 2009 until September of 2010. Materials developed for these work group meetings can be found here.

The process to develop and recommend a fish consumption rate occurred earlier from 2006 – 2008. In August and September 2010, DEQ discussed this fiscal analysis with the workgroup and solicited input. DEQ received information from ODA, ODF, Oregon Small Woodlots Association, the Oregon Farm Bureau and the Oregon Association of Clean Water Agencies. The work group consists of the following members:

Rulemaking Work Group Members

Organization

Representative

CTUIR

Ryan Sudbury/Rick George

EPA

Jannine Jennings

ACWA

Dave Kliewer

League of Oregon Cities

Peter Ruffier

Northwest Pulp and Paper

Kathryn Van Natta

Industrial Dischargers

Michael Campbell

Associated Oregon Industries

Rich Garber or alternate Myron Burr

Northwest Environmental Advocates

Nina Bell

Oregon Environmental Council

Andrew Hawley*

Columbia Riverkeeper

Lauren Goldberg

*Andrew did not participate after the first several meetings

Non-NPDES Work Group Members

Organization

Representative

CTUIR

Ryan Sudbury/Rick George

EPA

Jannine Jennings/Mary Lou Soscia

Department of Forestry

Peter Daugherty

Department of Agriculture

Dave Wilkinson/Ellen Hammond

ACWA

Dave Kliewer

League of Oregon Cities

Peter Ruffier

Northwest Pulp and Paper

Kathryn Van Natta

Industrial Dischargers

Michael Campbell

Associated Oregon Industries

Rich Garber or alternate Myron Burr

Northwest Environmental Advocates

Nina Bell

Oregon Environmental Council

Andrew Hawley*

Columbia Riverkeeper

Lauren Goldberg

Oregonians for Food and Shelter

Terry Witt

Oregon Farm Bureau

Jennifer Shmikler

Oregon Forest Industries Council

Chris Jarmer

Association of Oregon Counties

Emily Ackland

Oregon Small Woodlands Association

David Ford

*Andrew did not participate after the first several meetings

The FIIAC met six times from January to June in 2008. Its membership consisted of the following members:

Fiscal Impacts and Implementation Advisory Committee

Organization

Representative

OR Dept. of Human Services

Deanna Conners

CTUIR

Kathleen Feehan

Associated Oregon Industries

Rich Garber

Ecotrust

Sarah Kruse

ECONorthwest

Kristin Lee

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde

Eric Scott*

Association of Clean Water Agencies

Susie Smith

League of Oregon Cities

Willie Tiffany

*Eric participated in the first four FIIAC meetings and was not able to remain on the committee through the completion of the process. Therefore he did not provide input to the FIIAC memo.

Facility Type

No.

Major Industrial

19

Minor Industrial

130

Total

149

Facility Type

No.

Major Domestic

49

Minor Domestic

154

Total

203

DEQ Regional Staff

Headquarters/Lab/Administrative Staff

Permitting

Monitoring

- Estimate 4 – 16 additional hrs per permit ($252 - $1008) needed for staff to determine monitoring requirements for permits subject to this rulemaking. For this rulemaking, average review per permit could slightly increase depending on individual circumstances and compliance tools used.

-Staff and lab time needed for periodic revisions of quantitation limits (QLs)

-Generally, costs increase when criteria for toxic pollutants change from totals of a chemical family to individual chemical species. Costs also generally increase to achieve lower QLs.

-The criteria for total mercury will be replaced by a tissue based methyl mercury criteria. Generally, cost for methyl mercury analysis is 2-3 times higher than for total mercury.

-Some of the monitoring and analysis costs have already been absorbed given DEQ’s investment in toxics monitoring for SB737, the Pesticide Stewardship Program and the toxics monitoring program.

WQBELs and/or other WQ Limits

-Regional staff will need to do more WQBEL assessments if RPA indicates that more dischargers will have reasonable potential. Estimate an additional 8 hrs/parameter/permit ($504) to establish QBELs where they are identified as needed.

-Intake Credits: The RPA IMD would include calculations for intake credits and wouldn’t require additional staff time.

-Periodic revisions of RPA IMD may be required to account for intake credits

-Increased data input into the Discharge Monitoring System (DMS) which stores information on permit features, schedules, permit limits, required monitoring and discharge monitoring report data for individually permitted facilities.

-Because stormwater discharges are intermittent, DEQ does not apply the human health criteria (which are generally based on a 70 year exposure) to permits for these discharges. Therefore, there will not be any anticipated fiscal impact to DEQ related to stormwater permits. However, the industrial stormwater permit is currently being revised. In the current proposal, it is likely that sources which discharge to waterbodies that are listed as impaired for the human health criteria will have to monitor for these pollutants and develop BMPs if criteria are exceeded. In these cases, DEQ staff will need to oversee and review monitoring and associated BMPs as needed.

- The only general permit with toxics that would require additional work to modify based on revised human health criteria is the 1500A. The 1500A permit covers petroleum hydrocarbon cleanup from groundwater or surface water. DEQ will need to incorporate the new permit limits as part of the general permit renewal.

Background Pollutant Allowance

-More staff time needed to review applicability of a background allowance request. DEQ estimates an additional 60 hrs./permit ($3780) where this tool is used. However, time spent in this analysis could be less than developing other “site specific solutions” if this provision was not available.

-HQ collaboration may be needed in the short term to provide regional consistency in evaluating background pollutant allowances.

-Staff time needed for periodic revisions of IMD.

-Do not anticipate greater regional or HQ FTE, so less technical assistance may be available for other issues/projects,

Variances

- Regional permit writers will be interfacing with discharger to evaluate data and information needed for variance request and to incorporate permit conditions based on the variance request. In some cases, significant staff time could be spent gathering this information, possibly conducting literature reviews for treatment technology removal capabilities, and/or reviewing fiscal and economic data from discharger. Variances also require a yearly review of the pollutant reduction plan to be conducted by DEQ staff. DEQ estimates approximately 160 hrs./variance request ($10,080).

-Time spent in this analysis could be less than developing other “site specific solutions” if this provision was not available.

- Since DEQ has yet to receive a variance request, the department is unable to specify costs based on past experience, therefore costs and/or resources described here are estimates.

-DEQ anticipates that HQ WQS staff will review variance requests submitted by the permitee and permit writer.

- Estimate 0.75 FTE (Standards 0.56 FTE and Permitting 0.19 FTE) to review variance requests and pollutant reduction plans, and coordinate DEQ/EQC/EPA approval.

-SAIC extrapolated the potential number of variance applications for the sample facilities and found that DEQ would need to review approximately 40 requests under the baseline criteria (FCR of 17.5 g/day) and an additional 16 under the revised criteria. Assuming a cost of $3,900 per review, baseline costs could be approximately $159,000 with incremental costs of approximately $65,000 under the revised criteria.

-DEQ anticipates ongoing costs to review variances depending on the ability of dischargers to meet effluent limits.

-Most likely, staff time in reviewing variances could decrease as the process becomes more efficient. In addition, variance renewals should be less resource intensive.

-Staff time needed for periodic revisions of variance IMD and associated staff training.

-Do not anticipate availability of additional FTE, so less HQ technical assistance available for other issues/projects.

Compliance Schedules

-Regional permit writers may need to develop additional compliance schedules for permittees given more stringent toxics criteria.

-Use of compliance schedules would depend on if the discharger could ultimately meet discharge limits within a specified amount of time.

- DEQ estimates approximately 40 hrs./compliance schedule development ($2520).

-Generally, more complex permits (e.g. those including compliance schedules) require additional oversight and communication with permittees.

-HQ permitting staff may assist regional permit writers in developing compliance schedules depending on backlog and permitting priorities.

Non-Permitting

More Stringent Criteria

TMDL monitoring

-Regional staff may be involved in both developing a sampling and analysis plan and collection of samples needed for development of TMDLs to address waterbodies listed for toxics.

-Lab FTE to develop sampling and analysis plans, collect and analyze data, and develop reports. Will depend on the quality and quantity of data needed for the TMDL and availability of existing data from other sources (e.g. USGS, FWS, BLM, USFS, etc.).

-DEQ does not anticipate additional FTE, therefore, costs may be similar to that incurred under the current toxics criteria. However, there may be a backlog of TMDL development due to lack of DEQ monitoring resources.

TMDL Development

-Regional staff members lead TMDL development by coordinating with HQ and Lab staff and working with local advisory group.

- There may also be an additional backlog of TMDL development if there are additional 303(d) listings as anticipated.

- Since DEQ will not seek additional FTE for the TMDL program, DEQ expects to issue TMDLs at a slower rate.

-HQ supports TMDL development by providing modeling and programmatic support.

- Since DEQ will not seek additional FTE for the TMDL program, DEQ expect to issue TMDLs at a slower rate.

-Additional resources maybe needed for Lab in order to support the development of monitoring strategies for Implementation-Ready TMDLs.

- There may also be an additional backlog of TMDL development if there are additional 303(d) listings as anticipated.

TMDL Development

1. TMDLs: Clarifying EQC and DEQ’s authorities in Divisions 41 and 42

- The resource needs are expected to double for TMDLs compared to current subbasin level TMDLs.

-TMDL development phase, additional resources should not be required for implementation. (It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

- The resource needs are expected to double for TMDLs compared to current subbasin level TMDLs.

- Toxics TMDLS have roughly cost between 50,000 to 1,000,000 to develop depending on the extent of listings within a basin.

-According to the SAIC Report, additional technical assistance may be needed in order for the dischargers to meet TMDL waste load allocations. Requests for pursuing variances by facilities may increase, for example.

2. Addressing air sources in TMDLs: Clarifying EQC and DEQ’s authorities to regulate air sources to meet TMDL goals in Division 42

-No significant increase in resource needs for the regional staff members are expected.

-If air depositional load is determined to be significant through TMDL source analysis, resource needs for Air Quality Division may increase to work with facilities and coordinate with Water Quality Division.

-No significant increase in resource needs for the HQ and Lab staff members are expected.

-If air depositional load is determined to be significant through TMDL source analysis, resource needs for Air Quality Division may increase for rulemaking and coordination with Water Quality Division.

TMDL Implementation

-Regional staff members are central to coordinate implementation efforts and monitoring efforts in their region. Since more work will be done during TMDL development phase, additional resources should not be required for implementation. (It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

-HQ and Lab provide technical and programmatic support to the region for TMDL implementation.

-Additional resources maybe needed for HQ to provide modeling and analyses associated with TMDLs.

(It should be noted that there currently is a shortage of staff resources to support implementation of TMDLs that are in place. The need for additional resources to implement TMDLs already exists.)

401 Certifications

- Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act requires that any federal license or permit to conduct an activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States must first receive a water quality certification from the state in which the activity will occur. These discharges must meet any new water quality toxics criteria for human health.

-DEQ does not anticipate additional FTE or resources needed as part of this rulemaking since new processes or approaches are not anticipated being needed and toxic pollutants are not routinely significant pollutants of concern for these activities.

Integrated Report

-Potential of additional toxics listings

- Data evaluation tools and database systems used to prepare the Integrated Report will need to be revised.

-For the 2010 Integrated Report, it required 2 FTE (1 programmer and 1 standards specialist) for 6 months (approximately $40,000) to evaluate toxics data in LASAR using Table 20 criteria. A similar level of effort is likely needed to revise the data systems to incorporate new criteria. Additional effort will be needed to revise and update the assessment of water bodies done prior to date of EPA approval of new toxic substance criteria.

-Water body analytical data in DEQ’s LASAR data system may need to be synchronized/correlated to include metadata needed to apply new criteria (e.g. CAS numbers, total forms vs. individual species forms). This analysis is needed to correlate data collected in LASAR to Integrated Report analysis and listing status of that pollutant.

Land Quality

DEQ’s cost to implement the new human health criteria into clean-up standards would be minimal. Work involves substituting lower risk numbers at sites where surface-water discharge is the pathway of concern.

Pollutant

CAS number

Agriculture (Legacy)

Agriculture (Current Use)

Forestry (Historic or current)

Urban Stormwater

Air Deposition (widespread)

Naturally Occurring

1

Acenaphthene

83329

y

2

Acrolein

107028

y

y

3

Acrylonitrile

107131

y

4

Aldrin

309002

y

5

Anthracene

120127

y

y

6

Antimony

7440360

y

y

y

7

Arsenic

7440382

y

y

y

8

Asbestos

1332214

y

9

Benzene [represents range]

71432

y

10

Benzene

71432

y

11

Benzidine

92875

y

12

Benzo(a)anthracene

56553

y

y

13

Benzo(a)pyrene

50328

y

y

14

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 3,4

205992

y

y

15

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

207089

y

y

16

BHC Alpha

319846

y

17

BHC Beta

319857

y

18

BHC Gamma (Lindane)

58899

y

19

Bromoform

75252

20

Butylbenzyl Phthalate

85687

y

y

21

Carbon Tetrachloride

56235

22

Chlordane

57749

y

y

23

Chlorinated benzenes

Pollutant

CAS number

Agriculture (Legacy)

Agriculture (Current Use)

Forestry (Historic or current)

Urban Stormwater

Air Deposition (widespread)

Naturally Occurring

24

Chlorobenzene

108907

25

Chlorodibromomethane

124481

26

Chloroethyl Ether bis 2

111444

27

Chloroform

67663

28

Chloroisopropyl Ether bis 2

108601

29

Chloromethyl ether, bis

542881

30

Chloroethyl Ether bis 2

91587

31

Chlorophenol 2

95578

y

32

Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4,5,-TP)

93721

y

y

y

33

Chlorophenoxy Herbicide (2,4-D)

94757

y

y

y

34

Chrysene

218019

y

y

35

Copper

7440508

y

y

y

y

36

Cyanide

57125

37

DDD 4,4'

72548

y

38

DDE 4,4'

72559

y

39

DDT 4,4'

50293

y

40

Di-2-ethylhexyl Phthalate

y

y

41

Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene

53703

y

y

42

Dibutylphthalate

84742

y

y

43

Dichlorobenzene(m) 1,3

541731

44

Dichlorobenzene(o) 1,2

95501

45

Dichlorobenzene(p) 1,4

106467

46

Dichlorobenzenes

47

Dichlorobenzidine 3,3'

91941

48

Dichlorobromomethane

124481

49

Dichloroethane 1,2

107062

50

Dichloroethylene 1,1

75354

Pollutant

CAS number

Agriculture (Legacy)

Agriculture (Current Use)

Forestry (Historic or current)

Urban Stormwater

Air Deposition (widespread)

Naturally Occurring

51

Dichloroethylene trans 1,2

156605

52

Dichloroethylenes

53

Dichlorophenol 2,4

120832

54

Dichloropropane 1,2

78875

55

Dichloropropene 1,3

542756

56

Dieldrin

60571

y

57

Diethyl Phthalate

84662

58

Dimethyl Phthalate

131113

59

Dimethylphenol 2,4

105679

60

Di-n-butyl Phthalate

84742

61

Dinitrophenol 2,4

51285

62

Dinitrophenols

25550587

63

Dinitrotoluene 2,4

121142

64

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

1746016

y

y

65

Diphenylhydrazine

66

Diphenylhydrazine 1,2

122667

67

Endosulfan

y

68

Endosulfan Alpha

959988

y

69

Endosulfan Beta

33213659

y

70

Endosulfan Sulfate

1031078

y

71

Endrin

72208

y

72

Endrin Aldehyde

7421934

y

73

Ethylbenzene

100414

y

74

Ethylhexyl Phthalate bis 2

117817

y

y

75

Fluoranthene

206440

y

y

76

Fluorene

86737

y

y

77

Heptachlor

76448

y

Pollutant

CAS number

Agriculture (Legacy)

Agriculture (Current Use)

Forestry (Historic or current)

Urban Stormwater

Air Deposition (widespread)

Naturally Occurring

78

Heptachlor Epoxide

1024573

y

79

Hexachlorobenzene

118741

y

80

Hexachlorobutadiene

87683

81

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

77474

82

Hexachloroethane

67721

y

83

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene

193395

y

y

84

Isophorone

78591

85

Manganese

7439965

y

y

y

86

Methoxychlor

72435

y

87

Methyl Bromide

74839

y

88

Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol 2

534521

89

Methylene Chloride

75092

90

Methylmercury (mg/kg)

22967926

y

y

y

91

Nickel

7440020

y

y

y

92

Nitrates

14797558

y

93

Nitrobenzene

98953

94

Nitrosodibutylamine, N

924163

95

Nitrosodimethylamine, N

62759

96

Nitrosodi-n-propylamine, N

621647

97

Nitrosodiphenylamine, N

86306

98

Nitrosopyrrolidine, N

930552

99

Pentachlorobenzene

608935

100

Pentachlorophenol

87865

y

101

Phenol*

108952

102

Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)

y

y

103

Pyrene

129000

y

y

104

Selenium

7782492

y

y

y

Pollutant

CAS number

Agriculture (Legacy)

Agriculture (Current Use)

Forestry (Historic or current)

Urban Stormwater

Air Deposition (widespread)

Naturally Occurring

105

Tetrachlorobenzene, 1,2,4,5-

95943

106

Tetrachloroethane 1,1,2,2

79345

107

Tetrachloroethylene

127184

108

Thallium

7440280

y

109

Toluene

108883

110

Toxaphene

8001352

y

111

Trichlorobenzene 1,2,4

120821

112

Trichloroethane 1,1,2

79005

113

Trichloroethylene

79016

114

Trichlorophenol 2,4,6

88062

115

Trichlorophenol, 2, 4, 5-

95954

y

116

Vinyl Chloride

75014

117

Zinc

7440666

y

y

y

Compound Name or Class [Table 40 Name, if different]

*Criteria denoted in red indicate proposed additions to the human health criteria*

Priority Pollutant

Carcinogen

Quantitation Limit

(µg/L)

Concentration in Units Per Liter for Protection of Human Health

CURRENT

Concentration in Units Per Liter for Protection of Human Health

PROPOSED TABLE 40

Water and Fish Ingestion

(µg/L)

Fish Consumption Only

(µg/L)

Water and Fish Ingestion (µg/L)

Fish Consumption Only

(µg/L)

ACENAPTHENE

Y

N

1*

--

--

95

99

ACROLEIN

Y

N

5

320

780

0.88

0.93

ACRYLONITRILE

Y

Y

5

0.058

0.65

0.018

0.025

ALDRIN

Y

Y

0.01

0.000074

0.000079

0.0000050

0.0000050

ANTHRACENE

N

N

1*

--

--

2900

4000

ANTIMONY

Y

N

0.1

146

45,000

5.1

64

ARSENIC

Y

Y

0.5

2.1

2.1(freshwater)

1.0 (saltwater)

2.1

2.1(freshwater)

1.0 (saltwater)

ASBESTOS

Y

Y

7,000,000 fibers/L

--

7,000,000 fibers/L

--

BARIUM

N

N

0.1

1000

--

1000

--

BENZENE

N

Y

0.5

0.66

40

0.44

1.4

BENZIDINE

N

Y

10

0.00012

0.00053

0.000018

0.000020

BENZ(A) ANTHRACENE

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

BENZO(A)PYRENE

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

BENZO(B)FLUORANTHENE 3,4

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

BENZO(K)FLUORANTHENE

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

BROMOFORM

N

Y

0.5

--

--

3.3

14

BUTYLBENZYL PHTHALATE

N

N

1

--

--

190

190

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE

Y

Y

0.5

0.4

6.94

0.10

0.16

CHLORDANE

Y

Y

0.1

0.00046

0.00048

0.000081

0.000081

CHLORINATED BENZENES [CHLOROBENZENE]

Y

N

0.5

488

--

74

160

CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE

N

Y

0.5

--

--

0.31

1.3

CHLOROETHYL ETHER (BIS-2)

Y

Y

2

0.03

1.36

0.020

0.05

CHLOROFORM

Y

N

0.5

0.19

15.7

260

1100

CHLOROISOPROPYL ETHER (BIS-2)

Y

N

2

34.7

4360

1200

6500

CHLOROMETHYL ETHER (BIS)

N

Y

Contact DEQ Lab

0.00000376

0.00184

0.000024

0.000029

CHLORONAPHTHALENE 2

N

N

1

--

--

150

160

CHLOROPHENOL 2

Y

N

1

--

--

14

15

CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES (2,4,5,-TP)

N

N

1

10

--

10

--

CHLOROPHENOXY HERBICIDES (2,4-D)

N

N

1

100

--

100

--

CHRYSENE

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

COPPER

Y

N

10

1300

--

1300

--

CYANIDE

Y

N

5

200

--

130

130

DDT [DDT 4,4’]

Y

Y

0.01

0.000024

0.000024

0.000022

0.000022

DDD 4, 4’

Y

Y

0.01

--

--

0.000031

0.000031

DDE 4, 4’

Y

Y

0.01

--

--

0.000022

0.000022

DIBENZO(A,H)ANTHRACENE

N

Y

1*

--

--

0.0013

0.0018

DIBUTYLPHTHALATE [DI-N-BUTYL PHTHALATE]

Y

N

1

35,000

154,000

400

450

DICHLOROBENZENES [DICHLOROBENZENE(O)1,2]

Y

N

0.5

400

2,600

110

130

DICHLOROBENZENE(P) 1,4

N

N

0.5

--

--

16

19

DICHLOROBENZIDINE [DICHLOROBENZIDINE 3,3']

Y

Y

1

0.01

0.020

0.0027

0.0028

DICHLOROBROMOMETHANE

N

Y

0.5

--

--

0.42

1.7

DICHLOROETHANE 1,2

Y

Y

0.5

0.94

243

0.35

3.7

DICHLOROETHYLENES [DICHLOROETHYLENE 1,1]

Y

N

0.5

0.033

1.85

230

710

DICHLOROETHYLENE TRANS 1,2

N

N

0.5

--

--

120

1000

DICHLOROPHENOL 2,4

N

N

1

3,090

--

23

29

DICHLOROPROPANE [DICHLOROPROPANE 1,2]

Y

Y

0.5

--

--

0.38

1.5

DICHLOROPROPENE [DICHLOROPROPENE 1,3]

Y

Y

0.5

87

14,100

0.30

2.1

DIELDRIN

Y

Y

0.01

0.000071

0.000076

0.0000053

0.0000054

DIETHYLPHTHALATE

Y

N

1

350,000

1,800,000

3800

4400

DIMETHYL PHENOL 2,4

Y

N

2

--

--

76

85

DIMETHYL PHTHALATE

Y

N

1

313,000

2,900,000

84,000

110,000

DINITROPHENOL 2,4

Y

N

5

--

--

62

530

DINITROPHENOLS

Y

N

Contact DEQ Lab

--

--

62

530