20 facilities are already meeting TMDL derived effluent limits under both the current criteria and recommended SSC, so the SSC will have no economic impact.
32 facilities have no change in TMDL derived effluent limits, so the SSC will have no economic impact.
16 facilities will have similar treatment options under both the current criteria and recommended SSC such that it is unlikely the recommended SSC will shift compliance costs much in either direction. For the remaining 36 wastewater treatment facilities, 29 of the facilities are municipal wastewater treatment plants and 7 are industrial facilities. None of the industrial facilities meets the definition of a small business. The economic impact for these 36 facilities is summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Wastewater Compliance Costs
| # of Facilities | Total Present Worth Cost ($) (20 years) | Annual Cost ($) (20 years) |
Reduced Costs | 19 | 93,617,625 | 5,593,602 |
Increased Costs | 10 | 8,951,719 | 534,860 |
Reduced Costs | 5 | 86,115,333 | 5,895,862 |
Increased Costs | 2 | 7,554,925 | 517,245 |
This equates to an estimated annual cost savings of almost $5.5 million for industries with five facilities facing reduced compliance costs under the recommended SSC and two facilities looking at increased compliance costs.
The compliance cost estimates assume compliance via treatment plant upgrade and are based on the incremental difference between the capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs needed to achieve the two TMDL-based limitations: the limit based on the current criteria and the limit resulting from the recommended SSC. (NOTE: Compliance costs could be lower than these estimates if an affected facility chooses to comply with TMDL-based effluent limits through adaptive management or water quality trading or seeks a variance.) These assumptions were based on the cost curves developed by Arcadis as part of the Economic Impact Analysis Supporting Report developed for the Department of Administration in support of Wisconsin's phosphorus multi-discharger variance (MDV) determination. The Arcadis work developed cost curves based on the following assumptions:
The assumed treatment process to achieve >0.5 to 1 mg/L TP was multi-point chemical precipitation of phosphorus with alum and with clarification. To achieve >0.1 to 0.5 mg/L TP, it was assumed that multi-point chemical precipitation with clarification and sand filtration was required. Multi-point chemical precipitation with clarification and dual-stage sand filtration are the processes required to achieve TP less than or equal to 0.1 mg/L.
Arcadis developed cost curves (capital and O&M) for 755 municipal and industrial facilities across the state for the three levels of treatment technologies outlined above.
To determine the impact of the SSC, the estimated capital and O&M costs were tallied and compared for the individual facilities. Of these facilities, it was determined that an additional seven municipal lagoon and recirculating sand filter facilities would have similar treatment costs with or without SSC. For the remaining facilities, present worth was calculated based on a 20-year period and a discount rate of 3.20% for industries and 1.76% for municipalities.
10. Effect on Small Business (initial regulatory flexibility analysis): The Department has determined the rule will have no direct effect on small business. The fiscal impacts from the proposed rules will affect WPDES permitted municipalities and industries (with phosphorus discharges to surface waters) that are not considered small businesses. There may be an indirect effect on small businesses that discharge to municipal wastewater treatment plants, but this impact is difficult to estimate because user fees are set by the municipality. The rule does not create any reporting, bookkeeping or other compliance procedures for any regulated facilities.
This rule will not impose additional pollution reduction requirements for nonpoint sources and CAFOs as the establishment of the recommended SSC itself does not invoke any new regulatory requirements for nonpoint sources or CAFOs.
For Lake Wisconsin, the recommended SSC allows TMDL allocations to be assigned such that water quality and the designated uses can be attained for the lake. Attainment of the designated uses is anticipated to have economic benefits for recreational activities such as boating and fishing, small business involved in the service and tourism industry, and increased property values due to improved water quality.
11. Agency Contact Person: Marcia Willhite, Chief, Water Evaluation Section, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921; 608-267-7425; Marcia.Willhite@wisconsin.gov 12. Place where comments are to be submitted and deadline for submission:
A public hearing was held on August 13, 2019. Written comments were accepted at the public hearing, by regular mail and by email. The deadline for submitting public comments was August 20, 2019.
Section 1 NR 102.06 (4) (intro.) is amended to read:
NR 102.06 (4) Reservoirs and lakes. Except as provided in sub. (1)subs. (6) and (7), to protect fish and aquatic life uses established in s. NR 102.04 (3) and recreational uses established in s. NR 102.04 (5), total phosphorus criteria are established for reservoirs and lakes as follows: Section 2 NR 102.06 (7) is renumbered NR 102.06 (7) (a).
Section 3. NR 102.06 (7) (b) is created to read:
NR 102.06 (7) (b) Site specific criteria apply to the following waterbodies to protect fish and aquatic life uses and recreational uses:
1. For Castle Rock Lake, the total phosphorus criterion is 55 ug/L.
2. For Petenwell Lake, the total phosphorus criterion is 53 ug/L.
3. For Lake Wisconsin, the total phosphorus criterion is 47 ug/L.
Section 4. Effective Date. This rule takes effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats. Section 5. Board adoption. This rule was approved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on October 23, 2019.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin _____________________________.
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BY ______________________________________
Preston D. Cole, Secretary
