The department’s initial rule revision proposal included creation of a minimum twice-a-week monitoring requirement for all facilities. However, after review of comments on the original Economic Impact Assessment, review of current code, and consultations with department wastewater staff, it was determined that current regulations provide sufficient flexibility for facilities to select a monitoring frequency that reflects variability in their samples. Removing this requirement greatly reduced the anticipated fiscal burden for most facilities and in particular small facilities, some of which may be small businesses.
Facilities that may experience an increased cost associated with the revisions to this rule are those that are currently monitoring for fecal coliform and will be required to switch to monitoring for E. coli. Facilities may also incur increased costs associated with purchasing equipment to analyze E. coli samples using a defined substrate method if they choose to use that analytical technique. To estimate costs associated with this rule, the department looked both at costs for facilities to send samples to an external certified lab for analysis, and at an alternative of conducting analysis in-house if the facility has a certified lab.
The department obtained quotes from several commercial labs in the state for both fecal coliform and E. coli monitoring (per sample, E. coli: $25; fecal coliform: $19). This information, along with monitoring requirements in current permits, was used to estimate facilities’ current cost of monitoring. Projected costs were then calculated assuming facilities will monitor for only E. coli at their current monitoring frequency from May 1 through September 30, and send samples to an external lab for analysis (Table 1). For facilities currently monitoring for a longer time frame, the same monitoring time frame currently being used by the facility was used in the analysis.
Table 1. Cost Estimates Due to Changes in Monitoring and Analysis: Using External Lab |
Proposed Change | Number of Facilities | Estimated Annual Change per Facility ($) | Total Annual Costs ($) |
Switch indicator from fecal coliform to E. coli; External lab analysis | 336 | 158 | 52,986 |
Facilities with a certified lab in-house can determine whether it is more cost-effective for them to send their samples to an external lab or do the analysis in-house. If doing in-house analysis, facilities may use membrane filtration methods or defined substrate methods. Most facilities are already doing membrane filtration for fecal coliform. If they continue with membrane filtration for E. coli, cost per sample would be generally equivalent. Some facilities may wish to instead purchase equipment to convert to defined substrate analysis, which can save staff time and may be more efficient in the long-term. The department obtained cost estimates from a defined substrate test manufacturer (IDEXX) for upfront capital costs as well as ongoing annual costs for facilities that choose to begin analyzing E. coli using a defined substrate method rather than a membrane filtration method (Table 2). Costs shown in Table 2 are optional and would be in place of costs from Table 1 for facilities selecting this option.
Table 2. Cost Estimates Due to Changes in Monitoring and Analysis: In-house Lab Analysis with Defined Substrate Methods |
Proposed Change | Number of Facilities | Estimated Annual Change per Facility ($) | Total Annual Costs
over 10 years ($) |
Switch indicator from fecal coliform to E. coli; Purchase defined substrate analytical equipment (optional) | 102* | First year** | 5000 | 51,000 |
| | Subsequent years** | 140 | 14,280 |
* represents 50% of facilities that have a laboratory certification ** first year costs represent basic equipment; subsequent year costs represent UV bulb replacement |
For some facilities, changes to the monitoring requirements will reduce costs. There are 20 municipal wastewater treatment facilities that are monitoring for both fecal coliform and E. coli. These facilities may see an economic benefit from this rule as they will no longer have to monitor for fecal coliform (Table 3). Each of these 20 facilities is estimated to save $1,610 annually, for a total of $32,193 combined annual savings.
Table 3. Savings Estimates Due to Changes in Monitoring Requirements | |
Proposed Change | Number of Facilities | Estimated Annual Change per Facility ($) | Total Annual Savings ($) |
Drop fecal coliform indicator; continue monitoring E. coli | 20 | -1,610 | -32,193 |
Revisions to the water quality criteria and effluent limits are likely to lead to improved water quality and reduced risk of illness in people recreating in Wisconsin’s waters. While these benefits are hard to quantify, they are likely to result in an overall benefit to the citizens of Wisconsin.
10. Effect on Small Business (initial regulatory flexibility analysis):
Seven of the identified facilities may be small businesses, such as mobile home parks or nursing homes. Costs for small businesses were estimated in the same way as described above, but using just the subset of these seven facilities. Annual costs for switching from monitoring wastewater for fecal coliform to monitoring E. coli are projected to be approximately $132 per facility. Total costs for these seven facilities combined are estimated at $924 annually.
11. Agency Contact Person: Kristi Minahan, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Quality WY/3, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921;
12. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
Written comments may be submitted at the public hearings, by regular mail or email to:
Kristi Minahan
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Bureau of Water Quality WY/3
101 S. Webster St.
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Section 1 NR 102.03 (6) is renumbered NR 210.03 (10m).
Section 2. NR 102.03 (9) is created to read:
NR 102.03 (9) “U.S. EPA” means the United States environmental protection agency.
Section 3. NR 102.04 (5) (a) is amended to read:
NR 102.04 (5) (a) General. All surface waters shall be suitable for supporting recreational use and shall meet the criteria specified in sub. (6). A sanitary survey or evaluation, or both to assure protection from fecal contamination is the chief criterion for determining the suitability of a water for recreational use.
Section 4. NR 102.04 (6) is repealed and recreated to read:
NR 102.04 (6) Criteria for recreational use. Bacteria criteria are established as follows to protect humans from illness caused by fecal contamination due to recreational contact with surface water:
(a) Escherichia coli (E. coli) criteria. All of the Escherichia coli (E. coli) criteria in Table A apply from May 1 to September 30 unless bacteria site-specific criteria have been adopted pursuant to par. (b).
E. coli (counts1 per 100 mL) |
Geometric Mean2 | Statistical Threshold Value3 |
1. For determining attainment or compliance, counts are considered equivalent to either colony forming units or most probable number. 2. The geometric mean shall not be exceeded in any 90-day period from May 1 to September 30. 2. The statistical threshold value shall not be exceeded more than 10 percent of the time during any 90-day period from May 1 to September 30. |
Note: The department developed the E. coli criteria in this section based on criteria developed by U.S. EPA. U.S. EPA developed the E. coli criteria using membrane filtration methods to count E. coli colony forming units.
(b) Bacteria site-specific criteria. 1. The department may establish bacteria site-specific criteria by rule to protect a waterbody’s recreational use when it is determined that the statewide E. coli criteria under par. (a) are inappropriate due to site-specific conditions. Once bacteria site-specific criteria are adopted in a rule and approved by U.S. EPA, those criteria supersede the statewide E. coli criteria under par. (a) for that waterbody.
2. Any interested party may submit proposed bacteria site-specific criteria for a waterbody to the department. Any request for bacteria site-specific criteria must include a demonstration that the proposed site-specific criteria were developed using a U.S. EPA approved method, procedure, or test, are based on sound scientific rationale, and are as protective of the recreational use as the statewide E. coli criteria in par. (a). A request for a less-stringent site-specific criteria must also demonstrate that the predominant source of the bacteria is non-human or non-fecal.
Section 5. NR 104.06 (2) (a) (intro.) and (b) (intro.) are amended to read:
NR 104.06 (2) (a) The following surface waters in the southeast district shall meet the standards for fish and aquatic life except that the dissolved oxygen shall not be lowered to less than 2 mg/L at any time, nor shall the membrane filter fecal coliform count exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 samples per month nor exceed 2,000 per 100 ml in more than 10% of all samples during any month:
(b) The following surface waters in the southeast district shall meet the standards for fish and aquatic life except that the dissolved oxygen may not be lowered to less than 2 mg/L at any time, nor may the membrane filter fecal coliform count exceed 1,000 per 100 mL as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 samples per month nor may the ambient water temperature exceed 89ºF at any time at the edge of the mixing zones established by the department under s. NR 102.05 (3): Section 6. NR 104.20 (7) is amended to read:
NR 104.20 (7) The sector of Honey Creek above the Clarno-Cadiz town line shall meet the standards for fish and aquatic life except that the dissolved oxygen shall not be lowered to less than 2 mg/L at any time. The membrane filter fecal coliform count in this sector shall not exceed 1,000 per 100 ml as a monthly geometric mean based on not less than 5 samples per month, nor exceed 2,000 per ml in more than 10% of all samples during any month.
Section 7. NR 210.03 (10m) is created to read:
NR 210.03 (10m) “Sanitary survey” means a thorough investigation and evaluation of a surface water including bacteriological sampling to determine the extent and cause of any bacterial contamination.
Section 8. NR 210.06 (1) (title) is created to read:
NR 210.06 (1) (title) Disinfection requirements.
Section 9. NR 210.06 (1) (b) is amended to read:
NR 210.06 (1) (b) Year-round to protect public drinking water supplies, for dischargers with a wastewater outfall within a radius of 5 miles from a drinking water intake in a lake or reservoir or within 20 miles upstream of a drinking water intake on a flowing surface water.
Section 10. NR 210.06 (2) (title) is created to read:
NR 210.06 (2) (title) Effluent limitations.
Section 11. NR 210.06 (2) (a) is repealed and recreated to read:
