Sercw
of
wnraixi. DC 20440
W
STATUS REPORT:
i
State Compliance with
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
as of February 4,, 1990
\_
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This report focuses on State efforts to comply with Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 303 (c.) (2) (B) , which requires adoption of
water_quality standards for priority pollutants. The report
identifies .the States that are compliant as of February 4 1990
summarizes the status of State actions to adopt standards'for
priority pollutants, and briefly outlines EPA "3 plans to
federally promulgate standards for noncompliant States.
METHOD
i
In preparing this report, EPA evaluated State compliance
with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2}(B). EPA defines
full compliance as State adoption and EPA approval of water
quality standards effective under State law and consistent with
one of three options including, at a minimum, appropriate human
health and aquatic life criteria for all .priority pollutants
which can reasonably be expected to interfere with designated
uses. EPA also compiled information on ongoing/completed State
actions to adopt water quality standards for priority pollutants
For example, EPA identified the priority pollutants for which
State criteria are adopted or expected in four use categories-
(1) fresh water aquatic life, (2) marine aquatic life, (3). human
health, and (4) other uses. Pollutants for which criteria are
adopted or expected for only a limited area were included
FINDINGS IN BRIEF ! "
i
Substantial progress has been achieved since 1986 in
establishing numerical water quality criteria for priority
pollutants. For freshwater aquatic life uses, the average number
of toxics with criteria adopted has tripled from 10 per State (in
April 1986) to 30 per State (in February 1990). Adoption of
expected criteria would further increase this average to 41 per
State. For human health, the number of priority pollutants with
criteria now averages 35 per State, and would nearly double to 67
per State if expected criteria are adopted.
Despite the substantial' progress which has been achieved
most States are not yet in full compliance with CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). As of February 4, 1990, six of the fifty-seven
States and Territories were fully compliant. However, most of
the States and Territories not in full compliance are in the
process of revising their standards to achieve compliance. These
actions are in varying stages of development (e.g., some States
have submitted completed actions to EPA for review and
approval/disapproval, other States are still in the initial
stages). By September 30, 1990 (the end of the federal fiscal
year) EPA projects that 42 States will be in full compliance.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
I INTRODUCTION 3
11 METHOD 7
III NATIONAL SUMMARY OF CRITERIA ADOPTED/EXPECTED 10
What is EPA's Assessment of Compliance
with CWA Section 303 (c) (2) (B)?. . . 10
What Progress Has Been Achieved? 31
How Many Priority Pollutants are Regulated? 33
Which Priority Pollutants? ' 35
What Carcinogenic Risk Level? 36
What Exposure Pathway Assumptions? . . 37
What Options Are States Choosing? 38
What States are Adopting an Option 3 Translator? 39
What is the Status of Criteria Adoption.
for Marine Waters? 40
IV DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA ADOPTED/EXPECTED
Region I . . 42
Region II 45
Region III 49
Region IV 52
Region V , 56
Region VI 60
Region VII , 63
Region VIII 66
Region IX 69
Region X 73
V APPENDICES '
Appendix 1 - CWA Section 303 (c) (2) (B) 77
Appendix 2 - List of 126 Priority Pollutants 78
Appendix 3 - State Selected Risk Levels 81
Appendix 4 - Exposure Pathway Assumptions Used
in Setting Human Health Criteria 83
Appendix 5 - State Options for Compliance 85
-------
I - INTRODUCTION
I
One of the nation's most serious 'environmental/public health
problems is the presence of toxic pollutants in surface waters.
i
Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) adopted in 1987
recognized this problem and set forth ambitious goals for
State/EPA control of toxic pollutants. The Act's requirement'-s
place emphasis on controlling the CWA Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants .
The principal objective of this report is to characterize
State efforts to adopt numerical water quality criteria for CWA
Section 307(a) pollutants2. Such efforts are required by CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B) (see Appendix 1), which w!as added as part of
the CWA amendments of 1987. The information presented in this
report is current as of February 4, 1990. Since many States are
still in the process of addressing this requirement, the
information should be considered a "snap shot"' of ongoing State
activities. This report updates and replaces the report "State
j
Numerical Water Quality Criteria for Toxics as: of August, 1989."
In preparing this report, emphasis has been placed on:
1. The CWA Section 307(a) list contains 65 compounds and
families of compounds, which potentially include thousands
of specific compounds. EPA has identified 126 priority
pollutants (see list in Appendix 2) from this larger group
which it is using to represent the Section 307(a) list for
regulatory purposes.
i
2. For purposes of this report, the terms "toxics," "priority
pollutants," and "307(a) pollutants" are used
interchangeably and mean the list of 1'26 priority pollutants
listed at Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 423.
-------
(1) preparing a. preliminary assessment of State compliance
with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B), and
(2) characterizing the status of all criteria "expected" to
be adopted during the current review cycle.
This report provides information about the current status of
State compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirements. For
most States, such compliance was required by'February 4, 1990.
For States that were close to completing a triennial review at
the time the 1987 CWA amendments were passed, such compliance may
not be required until September 30, 1990.
Because a number of States have failed to fully satisfy the
requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) (as of February 4,
1990), EPA is developing a proposed rule to Federally promulgate
State criteria for toxic pollutants in surface waters. The
proposed rulemaking would federally promulgate criteria for each
State that fails to achieve full compliance with CWA Section
303(c)(2)(B). This report presents EPA's preliminary assessment
of the States that are noneompliant (as of February 4, 1990) and
subject to inclusion in the federal rule.
3.
EPA defines full compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) as
State adoption and EPA approval, pursuant to 40 CFR 131, of
WQS effective under State law and consistent with one of the
three options described in the December 1988 toxics guidance
document including appropriate human health and aquatic life
criteria for all priority pollutants which can reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated uses. At a minimum,
such pollutants include those'associated with CWA Section
304(1) short list waters, but may include other priority
pollutants based on an analysis of available data at the
time of the triennial review.
-------
At present, it is expected that this federal proposed rule
would include criteria for all toxics for which EPA has issued
CWA Section 304(a) criteria guidance. Criteria would be
l
promulgated as necessary to protect designated uses. It is
expected that criteria for carcinogens would be proposed at a
10~ incremental cancer risk level. EPA would update, as
appropriate, the criteria recommendations for Ihuman health to
reflect the most .recent reference dose levels and cancer potency
factors formally established by the Agency.
I
The proposed rule will not include criteria for any priority
pollutants for which an acceptable array of State criteria have
already been adopted by the State. For ex-ample, a State has
established fully acceptable aquatic life criteria for all
j
priority pollutants for which EPA has issued CWA 'Section 304(a)
criteria guidance, but has not established any human health
criteria for priority pollutants. In this case EPA would not
promulgate any aquatic life criteria, but would promulgate, for
appropriate water uses, the Agency's CWA Section 304(a) human
health recommendations. '
i
Any State that comes into compliance during the regulation
development process will be removed from the proposal. Even
after the final rulemaking is completed, EPA will withdraw the
portion of the rule applicable to a State whic
to achieve compliance with the statute.
In December 1988, EPA issued final guidarce
States meet the Section 303(c)(2)(B) requirem€
h adopts criteria
intended to help
nts. This guidance
-------
discusses three options available to States for complying with
this requirement. The three options available are as follows:
OPTION 1: Adopt Statewide numeric water quality standards for all
Section 307(a) toxic pollutants for which EPA has
issued CWA Section 304(a) criteria guidance regardless
of whether the pollutants are known to be present;
OPTION 2: Adopt specific numeric water quality standards for
Section 307(a) toxic pollutants (for which EPA has
issued CWA Section 304(a) guidance) as necessary to
support designated uses where such pollutants could
reasonably be expected to interfere with designated
uses;
OPTION 3: Adopt a procedure to be applied to a narrative water
quality criterion. This procedure shall be used by the
State in calculating derived numeric criteria, which
shall be used for all purposes of water quality
criteria under Section 303(c) of the CWA. Such
criteria need to be developed for Section 307(a) toxic
pollutants, as necessary to support designated uses,
where these pollutants could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated uses.
I
EPA believes that the CWA requirement can be met by any of
the above options (or a combination). For a more detailed
discussion of the above options, refer to EPA's final guidance on
implementing CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). This report will present
the status of State efforts under all three options.
-------
II - METHOD
In preparing this report, EPA: (1) developed a preliminary
assessment of State compliance with the requirements of CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B), and (2) compiled information on the
priority pollutants in each State for which numeric criteria are
adopted or expected. i
i
Compliance Determinations
In making compliance determinations, as discussed in Chapter
I, EPA evaluated whether each State fully complied with the
requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). EPA defines full
I
compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) as State adoption and
i
EPA approval, pursuant to 40 CFR 131, of water quality standards
effective under State law and consistent with one of the three
•
options described in the December 1988 toxics!guidance document
including, at a minimum, appropriate human health and aquatic
i
life criteria for all priority pollutants which can reasonably be
expected to interfere with designated uses. ••
EPA notes that the total numbers of polliitants with State
criteria for each use was not used as a basis'for evaluating
compliance. Such totals were developed to represent the array of
State criteria adopted/expected to date. ;
l
Compilation of Information on Standards for Toxics
I
Information was compiled for each of four use categories:
i
Fresh water aquatic life. .
-------
Marine aquatic life.
Human health (water consumption or fish consumption or
both).
Other uses.
Names of pollutants and sequence of pollutants were taken
from the list published in the Code of Federal Regulations (see
40 CFR 423.17(d)(l) - Appendix A). Only the pollutants on the
list of 126 priority pollutants were included. '
"Expected" criteria were defined as those criteria which EPA
projects will be adopted in the current round of standards
revisions (most are scheduled for completion in FY 1990). In
many cases, expected criteria are included in either proposed
revisions or in draft revisions. In other cases, criteria were
judged by EPA to be expected (e.g., because the pollutant has
been identified on the State's 304(1) short list).
Other assumptions included the following:
o In counting the number of pollutants with criteria
adopted/expected, pollutants for which criteria are
adopted/expected for only a limited area were included.
This means that not all pollutants credited to a State are
regulated Statewide. For example, if a criterion was
adopted for only one waterbody, it was counted. Or, where a
State adopted human health criteria for a different set of
pollutants for marine waters than for fresh waters, one
combined list of pollutants with criteria was developed and
8
-------
counted.
Where a generic pollutant name was used in a criterion
(e.g., endosulfan, PCBs), it was assumed! (where the State
standards were not clear) that the criterion was for a total
measurement of all isomers and metabolites of that
pollutant, and the State was credited with establishing
criteria for all isomers and.metabolites, included on the
list of 126 priority pollutants. For example, where
"endosulfan" was listed, it was often assumed, consistent
with EPA Section 304(a) criteria guidance, that the State
adopted a criterion for a total measurement of endosulfan
including alpha-endosulfan, beta-endosulfan.•and endosulfan
sulfate, each of which is a priority pollutant. Therefore,
the totals reflected in this report may not accurately
represent the number of criteria each State adopted, but do
represent the total number of priority pollutants 'covered'
with State criteria. '
Human health criteria were considered to include MCLs, EPA
304(a) recommendations, or other health-based criteria
approved by EPA.
-------
Ill - NATIONAL SUMMARY OF CRITERIA ADOPTED/EXPECTED
What i's EPA's Current Assessment of Compliance
with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)?
Full Compliance
Of the fifty-seven States and Territories, a total of six
were preliminarily judged by EPA to be in full compliance with
CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) as of February 4, 1990. Table 1
summarizes the status of each State by indicating: (1) whether
the State was in full compliance as of February 4, 1990, (2)
whether the deficiency was related to criteria to support aquatic
life, human health, or both, (3) the number of toxics with
numeric criteria adopted for freshwater aquatic life and human
health, and (4) whether EPA expects the State to achieve
compliance during FY 1990 (a prediction by EPA based on current
schedules and other available information). Unless the
deficiencies in their toxics criteria are corrected, those States
listed as non-compliant will be included in the proposed
rulemaking to Federally promulgate State criteria for toxics.
EPA anticipates that as many as 42 of the 57 States and
Territories may achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
1. See discussion of compliance and EPA's plan to federally
promulgate toxics criteria on pp. 4 - 5.
10
-------
Table 1
Status of Compliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B)
as of February 4, 1990
Fully No. Toxics w/
- Compliant Crit. Adopted
State on 2/4/90? Deficiency FW AQ. HH
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois (3)
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine (3)
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan (3)
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina (3)
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania (3)
Rhode Island (3)
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Saaoa
N. Mariana Islands
Dist. of Columbia
Guam
Puerto Rico
Tr. Territories
Virgin Islands
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
• MO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
TBS
NO
NO
YES
AQ & HH
I& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
& HH
N/A
HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ
AQ & HH
AC & HH
AC & HH
AQ & HH
N/A
N/A
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
N/A
AQ & HH
AQ & HH
HH
HH
N/A
AQ & HH
HH
N/A
li?'
(la)
(la)
(la) .
(lb)
(Ic )
(la)
(la)
(la)
(la)
(lb)
(la)
(la)
(la)
(la, 2)
(la)
29
32
26
26
18
64
0
34
43
30
75
0
12
32
10
21
21
44
32
13
0
0
4
1
39
32
103
35
0
19
0
49
27
31
74
32
105
95
32
0
32
0
30
31
0
41
31
68
25
0
0
31
123
32
12
37
0
16
108
• ' 26
0
19
! 61
0
92
43
90
77
15
0
103
11
0
6
46
108
1.4
0
0
0
9
70
108
• 36
30
0
8
7
43
35
• 15
105
20
100
107
0
0
108
10
0
10
0
I 13
0
! 63
100
0
0
i 0
110
108
a
0
0
Compliance
Expected
by 9/30/90?
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
TOTALS
42
NOTESi (1) The State has adopted criteria or a translator and such standards
either: (a) have not yet been fully approved, (b) have not been
submitted to EPA, or (c) were approved after 2/4/90. (2) The State has adopted
all EPA criteria by reference but is not in compliance (e.g., because a risk
level was not specified in the standards). (3) The State has adopted an option
3 translator procedure.
11
-------
Aquatic Life Uses
As shown in Figure 1, 15 of the 57 States and Territories
are judged by EPA to be in compliance (as of February 4, 1990)
with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) for aquatic
life uses. An additional 33 States are expected to achieve
compliance by the end of FY 1990. For States not currently in
compliance, EPA has initiated development of a proposed
rulemaking to establish appropriate federal water quality
standards.
Figure 1
AQUATIC LIFE COMPLIANCE
FEB. 4 1990
END FY '90
15 States
48 States
COMPLIANT
NOT COMPLIANT
12
-------
Human Health
. As shown in Figure 2, 7 of the 57 States and Territories
are judged by EPA to be in compliance (as of' February 4, 1990)
with the requirements of CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) for human
health. An additional 36 States are expected to achieve
compliance by the end of FY 1990. For States not currently in
compliance, EPA has initiated development of
rulemaking to establish appropriate federal water quality
standards.
' Figure 2
a proposed
HUMAN HEALTH COMPLIANCE
FEB. 4 1990
END FY '90
7 States
43 States
• COMPLIANT
NOT COMPLIANT
13
-------
State-by-State Findings
Alabama used a combination of Options 2 arid 3 in adopting revised
standards on January 24, 1990. However, while the criteria are
still under review it appears that: (1) an insufficient number of
numeric criteria were adopted, and (2) the translator procedure
for human health is not adequate to meet the requirements of CWA
Section 303(c)(2)(B) via option 3. The State has given no
indication to EPA that changes will be made. The State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria,for 29 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 16 priority pollutants. The State is
not expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Alaska has adopted federal criteria by reference. Because the
reference does not specify a risk level for carcinogens, the
State is not considered to be compliant for human health at
present. Specification of a risk level and other revisions are
expected during FY 1990. The State is expected to achieve full
compliance during FY 1990. The State has freshwater aquatic.life
criteria for 32 priority pollutants and human health criteria for
108 priority pollutants.
Arizona is expected to adopt additional criteria by the end of FY
1990, but is not expected to submit such criteria for EPA
approval until early FY 1991. The State currently has freshwater
aquatic life and human health criteria,for 26 priority
pollutants.
Arkansas is noncompliant for aquatic life due to insufficient
criteria for metals, and noncompliant for human health due to
14
-------
lack of criteria for dioxin, PCBs, and pesticides. The State has
adopted freshwater aquatic life criteria for 26 priority
pollutants and has not adopted any human health criteria for
priority pollutants. The State is not expected to achieve,full
compliance during FY 1990.
California is on schedule to adopt, additional criteria by July,
1990, but is not expected to comply for either aquatic life or
I
human health due to insufficient parametric coverage. The State
has adopted freshwater aquatic life criteria for 18 priority
pollutants and human health criteria for 19 priority pollutants.
Colorado intends to meet the full compliance requirements via
option 2. The State has adopted freshwater aquatic life criteria
for 64 priority pollutants and human health criteria for 61
priority pollutants. These adopted standards have been submitted
for review, and EPA expects to take action on the toxics portion
*
of the WQS in the spring of 1990. The State needs to: (1)
complete a data evaluation to identify pollutants which can
reasonably be expected to be interfering with designated uses,
i
and (2) adopt appropriate criteria based on the results of the
data evaluation. The State has indicated to EPA that it will
reject any application of health-based standards (i.e., criteria
* I
which assume human exposure via consumption of contaminated
aquatic organsims) to aquatic life classified segments. This
approach will probably not result in Section 303(c)(2)(B)
compliance for human health. Final resolution of this issue will
depend, in part, on the results of the data evaluation.
15
-------
Connecticut has not yet adopted any water quality criteria for
priority pollutants, nor has the State demonstrated that criteria
are not required. EPA expects the State to develop and adopt
numeric criteria and achieve full compliance using an Option 1
approach during FY 1990.
Delaware adopted revised WQS which were received by EPA on
February 7, 1990. These standards are now under review by EPA.
The State has taken an option 2 approach (i.e., the State adopted
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 34 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 92 priority pollutants). The State is
expected to achieve full compliance during FY.1990.
Florida has not completed adoption proceedings. The current
proposal reflects an option 2 approach. For aquatic life, EPA
has approved criteria previously, but these criteria need to be
updated using current (i.e., post 1985) information. The State
is expected to adopt revised standards in June of 1990.
Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic life and human health
criteria for 43 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Georgia adopted revised criteria on December 6, 1989. However,
the State has not finalized -formal adoption for PCBs or dioxin
health-based criteria. These criteria are still under review by
EPA. The State has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 30
priority pollutants and human health criteria for 90 priority
pollutants. The State is not expected to achieve full compliance
during FY 1990.
16
-------
Hawaii adopted revised criteria for aquatic life and human health
on January 18, 1990. Additional criteria will probably be
required to comply for human health. It is expected that Hawaii
will adopt such criteria or submit an acceptable rationale for
not doing so during FY 1990. Currently, the'state has freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 75 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 77 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Idaho has adopted human health criteria for is priority
i
pollutants, applicable to drinking water only. Dioxin is not
included but is identified on the State's Section 304(1) list.
The State is not expected to achieve full compliance during FY
1990. |
Illinois adopted narrative criteria and a translator'procedure on
January 31, 1990. As of February 4, 1990, EPA had not yet
approved the standards, hence the State was nbt fully compliant
as of that date. The State achieved full compliance on February
15, 1990 when EPA approved the standards. ',
Indiana ad°Pted water quality standards which;were designed to
satisfy CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B) on December 13, 1989. These
I
were signed by the Governor on January 31, 1990 and became
effective on March 3, 1990. The State is exp«cted to submit
these standards to EPA for review and approval in the near
future. The State adopted freshwater aquatic!life criteria for
32 priority pollutants and human health criteria for 103 priority
pollutants. The State is expected to achieve full compliance
17
-------
during FY 1990.
Iowa has not adopted sufficient aquatic life or human health
criteria. However, the State plans adoption in the spring of
1990 of a number of additional aquatic life criteria and is
expected to supply information documenting that more criteria are
not required (option 2). The State has a workplan to evaluate
the need for more human health criteria and has indicated it will
adopt necessary additional human health criteria by the end of
the Fiscal Year. Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic
life criteria for 10 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 11 priority'pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Kansas has drafted an extensive revision of both aquatic life and
human health criteria that will undergo the State adoption ,
process over the next three months. Basically the revisions
follow an option 1 approach. Currently, the State has freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 21 priority pollutants and no human
health criteria for priority pollutants. The State is expected
to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Kentucky has not yet completed adoption proceedings. The present
proposal reflects an option 1 approach, and EPA expects adoption
in July of 1990. Currently, the State has in effect freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 21 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 6 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Louisiana's principal deficiencies are no dioxin criteria, and
18
-------
few metals criteria. The State adopted standards state-wide for
the parameters which they found could reasonably be expected to
interfere with designated uses, and plans to adopt metals
criteria by the end of the year. The State has freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 44 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 46 priority pollutants. The State is not expected
to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Maine has adopted all EPA Section 304(a) criteria guidance via an
option 1 approach, but EPA has not yet approved the standards
i
(approval has been withheld due to problems with the State's
antidegradation policy). EPA action on the Maine standards is, •
expected in the spring of 1990. The State, has freshwater aquatic
I
life criteria for 32 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 108 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990. !
_
Maryland chose an option 2 approach and held public hearings in
November 1989. The State is now considering changes and may have.
to hold additional public hearings. A final adoption date has
i
not been determined. Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic
life criteria for 13 priority pollutants and human health
I
criteria for 14 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
I
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
i
Massachusetts has not yet adopted any water quality criteria for
priority pollutants, nor has the State demonstrated that criteria
are not required. Draft WQS revisions have been prepared but
i
I
have not yet been formally proposed.. The State is expected to
19 !
-------
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Michigan Rule 57 meets the option 3 technical requirements but
not the administrative requirements. The State has drafted
changes. The State has been granted an extension to August, 1990
based upon completion of the previous triennial review in August
of 1987. The State is expected to achieve full compliance during
FY 1990.
Minnesota has initiated public hearings for water quality
standards that should comply with Section 303(c)(2)(B). The
State expects to have these standards in effect by June 1990.
Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 4
priority pollutants but no human health criteria for priority
pollutants. The State is expected to achieve full compliance
during FY 1990.
Mississippi has not completed adoption proceedings. The current
proposal reflects a combination of options 2 & 3, and EPA expects
adoption in the spring of 1990. Currently, the State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 1 priority pollutant and
human health criteria for 9 priority pollutants. The State is
expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Missouri adopted aquatic life protection criteria for all
priority pollutants for which EPA has criteria in December, 1987.
The State also adopted a large number of human health criteria at
that time but some only applied to drinking water supply
segments. The State has not supplied documentation on why other
20
-------
criteria are not required for fish consumption protection or
drinking water supply protection.:,:; The State plans to add new
human health criteria during FY 1990 or supply the documentation
on why additional criteria are not required (option 2).
Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 39
priority pollutants and human health criteria for 70 priority
pollutants. The State is expected to achieve Ifull compliance
during FY 1990.
Montana has achieved full compliance by adopting all EPA criteria
guidance by reference (i.e., an option 1 approach). EPA approved
the Montana toxics criteria on March 8, 1989, The State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 32 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 108 priority pollutants.
Nebraska adopted all of EPA's aquatic life criteria in August
1988 (option 1). As of February 4, 1990, the State had
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 103 priority
pollutants and human health criteria for 36 priority pollutants.
i
On February 16, 1990, the State adopted additional .human health
criteria, and is expected to submit these criteria to EPA by
April 1990. The State is expected to achieve full compliance
during FY 1990. |
i
Nevada proposes to adopt aquatic life criteria and some human
health criteria in the spring of 1990. It is expected that the
Nevada standards will not fully comply due to insufficient human
health coverage. Currently, the State has freshwater aquatic
life criteria for 35 priority pollutants and human health
21
-------
criteria for 30 priority pollutants. The State is not expected
to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
New Hampshire has not yet adopted any water quality criteria for
priority pollutants, nor has the State demonstrated that criteria
are not required. New Hampshire DES held a hearing in November
1989 on its proposed WQS. The State is on a schedule to adopt
numeric criteria in the spring of 1990. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
New Jersey has adopted numeric criteria for a limited number of
priority pollutants. To achieve compliance, the State will be
required to adopt additional human health criteria for 14 organic
substances due to expected presence and potential impact on
designated uses. In addition, the Section 304(1) assessment
identified the need for additional aquatic life criteria (for
metals) in fresh and marine waters. Required criteria are
expected to be adopted during FY 1990. Currently, the State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 19 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 8 priority pollutants. The State is
expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
New Mexico is compliant for human health due to the apparent
absence of toxics at levels which could reasonably be expected to
pose health problems. The State still needs to adopt criteria
for metals to achieve compliance for aquatic life, and is
expected to do so during FY 1990. Currently, the State has no
freshwater aquatic life criteria for priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 7 priority pollutants.
22
-------
New York has adopted criteria for 95 substances and classes of
substances (not all of which are priority pollutants). However,
EPA expects the 304(1) assessment will identify the need for
toxic criteria for metals that are priority pollutants in certain
classes of marine waters (such criteria are already adopted for
some classes of marine waters). The State is expected to achieve
full compliance during FY 1990. Currently, the State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 49 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 43 priority pollutants.
North Carolina used a combination of options 2 & 3 in adopting
toxics criteria. Numeric criteria for selected carcinogens were
adopted at a 10-6 risk level. In addition, the State adopted a
translator mechanism (EPA's criteria equations) for other
carcinogens and threshold chemicals which incorporate EPA's
Section 304(a) criteria asssumptions. Such human health criteria
have not yet been approved by EPA. Metals criteria for
protection of aquatic life are also still under review by EPA.
The State adopted freshwater aquatic life criteria for 27
priority pollutants and human health criteria for 35 priority
pollutants. The State is not expected to achieve full compliance
during FY 1990.
North Dakota intends to comply via option 1. North Dakota
originally elected an option 2 approach based on recommendations
in EPA-s December 1988 toxics guidance and other EPA guidance.
Based, in part, on the Agency's announced intent to promulgate an
option 1 approach and a reconsideration of the|limitations of an
23
-------
option 2 approach, North Dakota is now proposing to achieve
compliance via option 1. The State needs to modify their
standards to: (1) include EPA Section 304(a) criteria not already
adopted, and (2) specify the information needed to apply the
criteria (e.g., risk level). Currently, the State has freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 31 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 15 priority pollutants. The State is expected to
achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Ohio adopted water quality criteria for toxics on February 1,
1990. These standards will become effective on May 1, 1990.
While the standards are still under review, EPA has reservations
concerning a provision which places greater emphasis on
biological measures over numerical and whole-effluent measures of
water quality. The State adopted freshwater aquatic life
criteria for 74 priority pollutants and human health criteria for
105 priority pollutants. The State is expected to achieve full
compliance during FY 1990.
Oklahoma is fully compliant. The State used option I for aquatic
life criteria and adopted human health criteria for all
pollutants on 304(1) short list and several others. EPA approved
the State's toxics criteria in January of 1990. The State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 32 priority pollutants and
human health criteria for 20 priority pollutants.
Oregon is fully compliant via an option 1 approach (adoption of
criteria for all priority pollutants for which EPA has issued
Section 304(a) guidance). EPA approved Oregon's toxics criteria
24
-------
on March 9, 1988. . .
Pennsylvania chose to adopt.toxics procedures:by reference in the
State WQS. EPA conditionally approved the procedures due to
concerns regarding public participation and enforceability. The
State has responded to EPA's conditions and an Agency action is
expected in the spring of 1990. The State is expected to achieve
full compliance during FY 1990.
Rhode Island has not yet adopted any human health water quality
criteria for priority pollutants, nor has the ^State demonstrated
that such criteria are not required. EPA expects that the State
will achieve full compliance via an option 1 approach during FY
1990. The State has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 32
i
priority pollutants. ,
South Carolina-s State Board adopted revisions' to water quality
standards which included all of EPA's aquatic life criteria in
January of 1989. However the State Legislature did not act on
the Bill containing these revisions and, therefore, the revised
water quality standards did not become effective. The State's
schedule for adoption will probably not result!in effective
standards for human health in FY 1990. Currently, the State has
no water quality criteria for priority pollutants. The State is
not expected to achieve full compliance during•FY 1990.
I
South Dakota is expected to meet the full compliance requirements
by way of option 1 during FY 1990. The State has adopted
standards using an option 1 approach by referencing the Gold
Book. EPA expects to. take action on the toxics; portion of the
25
-------
State's WQS in March 1990. EPA action has been delayed pending
completion of the following items: (1) confirmation of specific
values, and (2) specification of information needed to apply the
criteria (e.g., risk level). The State has freshwater aquatic
life criteria for 32 priority pollutants and human health
criteria for 108 priority pollutants.
Tennessee has not completed adoption proceedings. The current
proposal reflects an option 2 approach. The State has not
provided an adequate documentation explaining why other criteria
were not proposed. Also, the rationale supporting the proposed
dioxin criteria remains in question. EPA expects State adoption
in April of 1990. Currently, the State has human health criteria
for 10 priority pollutants. The State is not expected to achieve
full compliance during FY 1990.
Texas is compliant for aquatic life. The State is non-compliant
for human health due to lack of criteria for dioxin, PGBs,
pesticides, and organics. The State is expected to correct these
deficiencies during FY 1990. The State has adopted freshwater
aquatic life criteria for 30 priority pollutants, but has not yet
adopted any human health criteria for priority pollutants. The
State is expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
Utah is expected to achieve full compliance via option 1 during
FY 1990. The State originally elected an option 2 approach based
on recommendations in EPA's December 1988 toxics guidance and
other EPA guidance. Based, in part, on the Agency's announced
intent to promulgate an option 1 approach and a reconsideration
26
-------
of the limitations of an option '2 approach, Utah is now proposing
to achieve compliance via option I. The State needs to modify
their standards to: (1) include EPA Section 304(a) criteria not
already adopted, and (2) specify the information needed to apply
the criteria (e.g., risk level). Currently, the State has
freshwater aquatic life criteria for 31 priority pollutants and '
human health criteria for 10 priority pollutants.
yermont has not vet adopted any water quality Criteria for
priority pollutants, nor has the State demonstrated that criteria
are not required. EPA is encouraging the State to proceed using
an Option 1 approach, and expects the State to achieve full
compliance during FY 1990.
Virginia's triennial review will be completed in September which
will allow for EPA action around December. The option to be used
by the State and other details pertaining to the criteria
revision have not yet been made available to EPA. Currently, the
State has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 41 priority
pollutants and human health criteria for 13 priority pollutants.
The State is not expected to achieve full compliance during FY
1990. !
i
I
Washington has adopted aquatic life criteria for 31 priority
pollutants. No human health criteria are adopted. The State has
provided written rationale for the'31 identified priority
pollutants. Adoption of additional criteria is now scheduled for
completion in June of 1991. The State is not expected to achieve
full compliance during FY 1990. \
27
-------
West Virginia has chosen option 2. EPA has disapproved the
State's WQS since criteria for seven priority pollutants were
judged insufficiently protective by EPA. The State .has agreed to
do an emergency rulemaking in FY 1990 to adopt EPA's criteria for
these pollutants. The State has freshwater aquatic life criteria
for 68 priority pollutants and human health criteria for 63
priority pollutants. The State is expected to achieve full
compliance during FY 1990.
Wisconsin has fully complied with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). The
standards were approved by EPA on May 15, 1989. The State
adopted freshwater aquatic life criteria for 25 priority
pollutants and human health criteria for 100 priority pollutants.
Wyoming intends to achieve full compliance by way of option 1.
Wyoming has proposed specific numerical standards for all of the
priority pollutants for which EPA has published criteria (with
the exception of several pollutants for whichvlisted human health
criteria are based solely on organoleptic effects). The Wyoming
proposal has been through several public meetings with the final
rulemaking hearing now scheduled for May 22, 1990. Currently,
Wyoming has no criteria for priority pollutants. The State is
expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
American Samoa proposes to adopt toxics criteria in April, 1990.
Currently, American Sam'oa has no criteria for priority
pollutants. American Samoa is expected to achieve full
compliance during FY 1990.
28
-------
The Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands and Trust
Territories are expected to adopt additional criteria for aquatic
life and human health and achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
The District of Columbia adopted aquatic life !and human health
criteria for toxics in 1985. However, the human health criteria
were for water ingestion only. The District has not adopted any
criteria assuming a fish consumption exposure pathway, and has
proposed to drop the human health criteria based on water
consumption. Apparently the one waterbody designated for public
water supply has never been used as -one. For |aquatic life, the
District has some criteria for priority pollutants which are
outdated. However, the District has agreed to adopt updated
aquatic life criteria during FY 1990. Currently, the District
has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 123 priority pollutants
and human health criteria for 110 priority pollutants. The
District is not expected to achieve full compliance during FY
1990. \
Guam has fully complied via an option 1 approach (adoption of all
EPA criteria by reference). EPA approved the standards on
j
September 30, 1987.
i
i
Puerto Rico has submitted dr-aft water quality standards revisions
(including numeric criteria for eight toxics). In addition, the
304(1) assessment identified the need for aquatic life-based
criteria for seven metals in fresh waters, and a human health-
based criterion for one priority pollutant. These criteria are
expected to be adopted during FY 1990.. Currently, Puerto Rico
29 !
-------
has freshwater aquatic life criteria for 12 priority pollutants
and human health criteria for 8 priority pollutants. The State
is expected to achieve full compliance during FY 1990.
The Virgin Islands has complied due to absence of pollutants at
levels of concern. There are no perennial streams or surface
water impoundments, and relatively few point source discharges.
Information collected on levels of toxic substances in the
coastal waters failed to document any priority pollutant at
levels of concern.
30
-------
What Progress Has Been Achieved?
Freshwater Aquatic Life Uses
To measure progress in State adoption of toxics criteria,
available data from April, 1986 on State toxics criteria were
compared to criteria adopted as of February 4, 1990. The data
supported a comparison for freshwater aquatic life protection
uses only. The comparison showed substantial progress in both
I
the number of States and the number of Section 307(a) priority
pollutants with criteria adopted.
o The number of States
and Territories
that have adopted
toxics criteria
INCREASED from 33
(in 1986) to 45 (in
Feb. 1990) - Figure 3.
o The average number
of 307(a) toxics with
criteria INCREASED
from 10 per State
(in 1986) to 30 per
State (in Feb. 1990) -
Figure 4.
Figure 3
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE USES
STATES WITH CRITERIA ADOPTED
33 States
States
1986
1990
Figure 4
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE
CRITERIA ADOPTED
1986
1990
31
-------
-------
o The number of States
with criteria for
'more than 20
priority pollutants
INCREASED from 10
(in 1986) to 37 (in
Feb. 1990) - see
Figure 5.
Figure 5
ADOPTED FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
1990
Human Health
i
States have also made substantial progress in adopting-
toxics criteria for protection of human health. Prior to 1986,
human health criteria were adopted primarily for protection of
public water supplies. These criteria "were:applicable to a
relatively small percentage of all State waters, however, and the
primary route of exposure considered was consumption of water.
As of February 4, 1990, 39 States have adopted toxics
criteria for protection of human health. Most of these criteria
apply in-stream and were derived assuming wsiter consumption, fish
consumption, and (in a few States) incidenteil ingestion while
recreating as routes of exposure. "Fish consumption" criteria
generally apply on all reaches designated for aquatic life
protection (most State waters), while "water and fish"
consumption criteria generally apply on reaches designated as
i
public water supplies.
32
-------
How Many Priority Pollutants Are Regulated?
Freshwater Aquatic Life Uses
As shown in Figure 6, 45 of 57 States and Territories have
adopted numerical toxics criteria for freshwater aquatic life
uses. Of the 45 States, 8 have adopted criteria covering 1 to
20 pollutants, 29 have adopted criteria covering 21 to 50
pollutants, and 8 have adopted.criteria covering more than 50
pollutants. A total of 12 States and Territories have not yet
adopted numerical toxics criteria for freshwater aquatic life.
One of these States (Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that no
such criteria are required. Another State (Michigan) has adopted
translator procedures for derivation of aquatic life criteria.
Of the-remaining 10, EPA currently expects at least 9 States to
adopt criteria during the current review cycle (Idaho is
currently not expected to adopt criteria for aquatic life).
Figure 6
FRESHWATER AQUATIC LIFE USES
35-,
CD
u_
O
12
••NIMIWMP
8
•••MMM
29
mmmmm
-i?
s
8
0 1 - 20 21 - 50 > 50
NO. OF TOXICS W/CRITER1A ADOPTED
33
-------
Human Health '
As shown in Figure 7, 39 of 57 States and Territories have
adopted numerical toxics criteria for protection of human health.
Of the 39 States, 15 have adopted criteria covering 1 to 20
pollutants, 7 have adopted criteria covering 21 to 50 pollutants,
and 17 have adopted criteria covering more than '50 pollutants. A
total of 18 States and Territories have not yet adopted human
health numerical toxics criteria. One of these States (i.e.,
Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that .no such criteria are
required. Another two States (i.e., Illinois, Michigan) have
adopted a translator procedure with which h'uman health criteria
may be derived. Of the remaining 15 States, EPA currently
expects at least 14 States to adopt numeric criteria during the
current review cycle (Arkansas is currently not expected to adopt
criteria for human health).
Figure 7
HUMAN HEALTH
35-|
30-
25-
20-
5-
0
18
15
17
0 1-20 21-50 > 50
NO. OF TOXICS W/CRITERIA ADOPTED
34
-------
Which Priority Pollutants?
•The 126 priority pollutants are listed in Appendix 2. For
each pollutant, Appendix 2 identifies the total number of States
Where numeric criteria have been adopted .r are expected (for
protection of any designated use). Below, Table 2 lists the 27
priority pollutants for which numeric criteria are adopted in 35
or more States.
Table 2
Priority Pollutant
# States w/Criterion Adopted
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4,4-DDT
Alpha-Endosulfan
Beta-Endosulfan
Endrin
Heptachlor
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
PCBs (7 priority pollutants)
Toxaphene
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
40
39
38
37
36
36
41
37
38
40
41
42
43
45
39
42
43
43
45
44
40
35
-------
What Risk Level Are States Choosing '
for Carcinogens?
. As shown in Figure 8, 48 States and Territories have
selected (or are expected to select) a risk1level for
carcinogens. A total of 36 of these States'have selected (or are
expected to select) a risk level of ICT6, while 12 have selected
(or are expected to select) a risk level of^10~5. At present,
EPA has no information or expectations regarding the risk levels
to be selected by the remaining 9 States and Territories. See
Appendix 3 for a listing of State-selected risk levels.
i
Figure 8
STATE SELECTED RISK LEVELS
FOR CARCINOGENS
9 States
(Unaeciaea)
12 States
(10-5)
36 States
(IO-6)
10-6 ADOPTED OR EXPECTED
'0-5 ADOPTED OR EXPECTED
NOTE:
Some States have adopted criteria baaed on MCLs or
National Primary or Secondary Drinikirig Water
Regulations. These criteria, developed by EPA, were
developed using assumed risk levels. Such risk levels
are not included in this discussion because they are
risk levels selected by EPA, not the States.
36
-------
What Exposure Pathway Assumptions are States Making
in Setting Toxics Criteria for Human Health?
In setting human health criteria for toxic pollutants,
States must make assumptions regarding pathways of human
exposure. Three routes of exposure have been used by States to
date (though not all States use all three): (1) exposure through .
water consumption, (2) exposure through consumption of
contaminated aquatic organisms (i.e., fish flesh), and (3)
exposure through incidental ingestion of water while recreating.
For water consumption, all States which have adopted human health
criteria have assumed consumption of 2 liters per person per day.
For fish consumption, most States have assumed 6.5 grams per
person per day, which is the nation*! average that EPA recommends
(those that did not are listed in Table 3). For incidental
ingestion, 1 State has assumed 89 ml per person per day and 6
States have assumed 10 ml per person per day. Refer to Appendix
4 for a detailed list of State human health criteria exposure
assumptions.
Table 3 - Alternate Fish Consumption Rates
STATE ADOPTED EXPECTED
New York 33 g/day.
Delaware 5.2 g/day (freshwater)
37 g/day (saltwater)
Illinois 20 g/day.
Minnesota 30 g/d
Wisconsin 20 g/day.
Louisiana 20 g/day.
California 23 g/day.
Hawaii 19.9 g/day.
37
-------
What Compliance Option(s) Are States Choosing?
i
For a full.discussion/description of the options available
to States for complying with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B), see EPA's
December 1988 toxics guidance. Briefly, these options are:
(1) adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for which EPA has
issued Section 304(a) criteria guidance,
(2) adopt numeric criteria for all pollutants for which EPA has
issued Section 304(a) criteria guidance and the pollutant
can reasonably be expected to interfere with uses, and
(3) adopt a translator procedure which can be used to derive
numeric criteria on an "as needed" basis.
•
As shown in Figure 9, most States are jexpected to use
options 1 and 2. Of the fifty-seven States and Territories, 45
will use options 1 or 2, 10 will use a combination of options 1
or 2 with option 3, 1 will use option 3 exclusively, and 1 is
undecided (see Appendix 5 for a list of State options).
Figure 9
STATE OPTIONS
Option 2/3
Option 1/3
(7 States)
Option 3
(1 State)
Undtcidtd
(1 State)
Option 1
(22 States)
Option 2
(23 States)
* Each wedge represents the total number of States which have
sc'cc'crf or are expected to select the option indicated
38
-------
What States are Adopting Option 3
Translator Procedures?
.A total of six States (i.e., Maine, Rhode Island,
Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Illinois, Michigan) have adopted
translator procedures for derivation of either aquatic life or
human health criteria. An additional five States are'expected to
adopt (i.e., Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Mississippi) or will'
be encouraged to adopt (i.e., Connecticut, Vermont') translator
procedures during the current review cycle. Note that Michigan
is the only State relying solely on an Option 3 translator
approach.
Table 3
States with Translator Procedures Adopted/Expected
REGION
I
III
IV
V
. _
STATE
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
Pennsylvania
Mississippi (1)
North Carolina (2)
Illinois
Michigan
ADOPTED
Aq. Life HH
X
X
X X
x x
X X
x x
EXPECTED
Aq. Life
x
x
HH '
(1) The State is using mostly Option 1 - for pollutants where no
craterza are adopted, the State is expected to adopt a
translator procedure.
(2) ate is u;!ing Costly Option 2 - for pollutants where no
ad°pted' the State has adopted a translator
39
-------
What is the Status of Criteria Adoption for Marine Waters?
For marine waters, as shown in Figure 10, 22 of the 29
coastal States and Territories have adopted numerical toxics
criteria for protection of marine aquatic li'fe. Many of these
States have also adopted human health criteria assuming •
consumption of contaminated marine fish and shellfish. If
expected criteria are adopted, 28 of the 29 coastal States and
Territories would have numerical toxics criteria for protection
of marine aquatic life. The one Territory that would not have
criteria (the Virgin Islands) has demonstrated that criteria are
not required based on currently available information.
l
Figure 10
MARINE AQUATIC LIFE USES
Feb. 4 1990 If Expected Criteria are Adopted
22 States ^"\ \ *\ 28 States
» Pies Represent Totai of
29 Coastal States
and Territories
# States with Criteria
* States w/o Criteria
40
-------
IV DESCRIPTION OF CRITERIA ADOPTED/EXPECTED
BY EPA REGION
41
-------
Region I
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region i States
Totaj ^ev:sions/Aaditicns ' Total
ADOPTED | EXPECTED | ADOPTED/EXPEC~E:
CT
ME
MA
NH
Rl
VT
FRSH MAR
: o
32 32
3 0
o -- o
32 32
0 0
HH
0
'08
0
j
0
0 .
OTH
0
0
0
o
0
0
FRSH
32
0
- —
32
0
32
MAR
32
0
32
32
0
0
HH
108
0
108
108
108
108
OTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRSH
32
32
32;
32
32
32:
MAR
32
32
32
32
32
0
HH
108
108
^08
108
108
108
OTH
>G
0
G
w
Q
c
* An States aiso ha\ e translator procedures
adoptee or expected
03
O
CO
g
x
O
Region i
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
CT ME MA NH RI VT
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
42
-------
-------
Region I
Human Health Criteria
CD
CO
g
x
O
. 120
100
30
60
20
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
CT ME MA NH Rl VT
ADOPTED
Region I Notes
Connecticut
No numeric criteria have been adopted. It is expected that the
State will use EPA Section 304(a) criteria and methods, though
preliminary decisions regarding risk level, exposure routes or
consumption rates have not yet been made. Connecticut has
received the results of effluent toxicity tests from all of its
industrial direct dischargers and is prepared to use these
results and the EPA criteria as the basis for numeric criteria.
DEP is not yet certain which chemicals will have criteria, though
an option 1-type approach is expected. ,
Maine
Maine has adopted all EPA Section 304(a) guidance. EPA expects
to approve these criteria in March of 1990. The human health
criteria are applied at 10-6 risk level in permits. The human
health criteria are applicable to all waters assuming exposure
through fish consumption except in those limited cases where
surface waters are used as a drinking water supply. To date
there has been no modification of fish consumption rates but the
Maine health department is looking into local consumption rates.
43
-------
-------
Massachusetts
changing fis esr
Internal legal review of the draft
revisions has contributed
cl average.
<3uality standards
New Hampshire
s:
water consumption
304
°n fish and
•numeric criteria, by March 31, 199
Rhode Island
ss?.'
Vermont
wi
44
-------
Region II
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region II States
Total . Revisions/Additions
ADOPTED I EXPECTED
"otal
I ACO=TED/EXP£C~ED
NJ
NY
PR
VI
FRSH
•Q
49
'2
O
MAR
•9
33
20
D
HH
8
43
3
->
O
OTH
0
•3
0
0
FRSH
6
!
7
0
MAR
8.
1
0
0
HH
14
1
9
0
OTH
0
0
0
0
FRSH
25
50
19
0
MAR
27
34
20
0
HH
22
44
17
0
OTH
0
'3
0
V
03
O
en
O
"x
O
H-
Region II
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
45
-------
c
o
oo
o
X
O
Region II
Human Health Criteria
NJ
NY
PR
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region II Notes
New Jersey
n healt based «^eria development policy,
°f critic«l issues «uch as
46
-------
New York
The State has indicated that a limited number of numeric criteria
for priority pollutants will be included in a WQS proposal from
the review/revision currently underway (and approaching
completion) to supplement the existing criteria for 95 substances
and classes of substances (not all 95 substances are priority
pollutants). The Region expects criteria for these substances to
be adopted during Federal Fiscal Year 1990. In addition, the
Region expects the Section 304(1) Assessment will identify the •
need for toxic criteria for metals that are priority pollutants
in certain classes of marine waters. However, criteria for these
metals may already be included in other classes.of marine waters.
Water quality criteria in New York State always consider and are
often^based on USEPA water quality criteria recommendations. The
State's procedures for deriving human health based water quality
criteria are specified in the New York State Water Quality
Standards Regulation. For carcinogens, the basis for the water
quality criterion is the dose corresponding to an excess lifetime
cancer risk of one in one million and an average 70 kilogram
adult consuming 2 liters of water a day for 70 years. A water
quality criterion based on bioaccumulation and human consumption
of fish is determined using a consumption rate of 33 grams of
fish per day. The presently adopted toxics criteria were last
approved by EPA on September 26, 1985.
Puerto Rico
The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has submitted a draft of proposed
WQS revisions, including human health-based criteria for 8
priority pollutants. In addition, the Section 304(1) Assessment
identified the need for aquatic life-based criteria for seven
metals that are priority pollutants in fresh waters, and a human
health-based criterion for one priority pollutant. The Region
expects criteria for these substances to be adopted during
Federal Fiscal Year 1990.
There is little documentation readily available on the basis for
adoption of human health based criteria for toxic substances.
Fresh water criteria for 8 priority pollutants are generally
equal to USEPA MCLs. 'Criteria for some pesticides specified in
the Water Quality Standards Regulation applicable to fresh and
marine waters are equally or more stringent than USEPA Clean
Water Act Section 304(a) criteria (at the 1 in 100,000 risk
level for carcinogens), although it appears that the criteria
were adopted based on the protection of aquatic life. Currently
adopted toxics criteria were last approved by EPA on June 9,
1983.
47
-------
U.S. Virgin Islands
priority pollutant at levels of cSnJJrn Th? d°cu^ent any
approved by EPA on May 21? 1985. standards were last
48
-------
Region III
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region III States
Tota1
Pevsions/Accitions . Tota1
EXPECTED. j ADGPTED/E.«
FRSH
DE 24
DC 1 '22
MD
PA
VA
WV
'-
55
-•
63
MAR
34
0
"3
3
41
0
HH
92
•10
'4
'C7
•3
63
OTH
0
0
0
0
0
1S
FRSH MAR
3 0
0 0
13 ^3 .
-0 0
3 3
0 0
HH
0
-110
14
0
3
1
OTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
FRSH
34
•23
25
95
44
63
MAR
34
-\
yj
25
^
44
0
HH
32
Z
23
•r-
16
54
OTH
j
j
3
j '
j
'3
« =A -as adopted a !ransiator
o<"OC9Curs for Aquatic Life and Human Health
03
O
CO
g
'x
o
Region III
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
49
-------
Region III
Human Health Criteria
CO
O
X
O
DE DC MD PA VA WV
—, 12C
100
so
50
20
0
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region III Notes
Delaware
Delaware adopted human health criteria on February 2 1990 for
toxics based on EPA Section 304(a) criteria and methods with
revised freshwater and saltwater fish consumption rates,
information in IRIS, and MCLs. EPA is currently reviewing the
adopted criteria.
.
Delaware assumes fish ingestion rates of 5.2 g/day for freshwater
and 37 g/day for saltwater. The State has selected a risk level
of 10-6. The fish consumption only criteria, are applicable
Statewide, whereas the water and fish consumption criteria are
applicable only on public water supplies.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia has adopted human health criteria based
on EPA Section 304(a) criteria and methods. These criteria were
approved by EPA on October 31, 1985. The District uses a risk
level of 10-6 and assumes exposure through water consumption.
The criteria are applicable only on public water supplies.
The District has not adopted criteria assuming fish consumption
as an exposure pathway. In addition, the District is proposing
to remove the only public water supply designation within the
District. Consequently, human health criteria will not be
50
-------
applicable within the District. Public hearings were held in
July 1989. but a final adoption date has not been specified.
Maryland
Maryland has proposed human health criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) criteria for fish consumption and MCLs for drinking water
A fish consumption rate of 6.5 g/day and a 10-5 risk level for
carcinogens are being used. Public hearings were held in
November and December 1989, but a final adoption date has not
been specified.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania has adopted a procedure to develop criteria for
toxics. The State has derived human health criteria for 107
toxics. EPA conditionally approved the procedure on September
29, 1989. Final approval is expected in the spring of 1990.
The State's human health criteria are based on EPA Section 304(a)
criteria and methods, information in IRIS, and MCLs. The State
has selected a risk level of 10-6 and assumes exposure through
water and fish consumption. The criteria are applicable
statewide. Pennsylvania uses EPA fish and water consumption
rates. •
Virginia
Virginia had previously adopted human health criteria to protect
drinking water and is expected to adopt additional criteria for
fish consumption and drinking water by September 30, 1990. At
this time, it is not known what the basis or assumptions of the
revised criteria will be.
West Virginia
West Virginia has adopted criteria based on EPA Section 304(a)
criteria and methods, information in IRIS, and MCLs. EPA
disapproved the standards on September 29, 1989. The .State is
expected to conduct an emergency rulemaking during FY 1990 to
revise the disapproved criteria.
The State has selected a risk level of 10-6. The fish
consumption only criteria are applicable on waters designated for
trout or warm water aquatic life. The water consumption criteria
apply on public water supplies only.
51
-------
Region IV
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region IV States
I
Revisions/Additions
EXPECTED I
rotai
AL
1
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
FRSH
2S
43
, 30
21
i
c '
-\
0
MAR
29
35
30
-'
3
25
3
0
HH
•6
43
90
5
S
35
0
!0
OTH
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
FRSH
0
31
0
36
30
0 '
' 23
27
MAR
0
25
0
0
' 30
0
23
0
HH
0
63
0
S3
31
0
3
54
OTH
0
0
0
0
0
0
•u
0
FRSH
29
44
30
36
30
27 '
28
27
MAR
29
•36
30
0
30
25
23
0
HH
16
78
SO
98
31
35.
3
54
OTH
•. Q
3
0
;,
0
o
3
C
NC has adoDted. and MS is expected to aaopt.
transistor proceau'es for aquatic i.fe and human health
03
(D
o
CO
g
x
o
Region IV
Aquatic Life Criteria
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
ADOPTED
52
-------
Region IV
Human Health Criteria
eg
JD
o
en
g
x
o
1 1 1 1
AL FL GA KY MS NC SC TN
'OPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region IV Notes
Alabama
Alabama adopted human health criteria based on EPA 304(a)
criteria and methods for selected pollutants on January 24, 1990.
EPA is currently reviewing these adopted, criteria. The State
used a risk level of 10-5 and assumed exposure through fish
consumption. The fish consumption criteria are applicable
Statewide. The State used EPA's fish ingestion rate of 6 5
g/day.
jTlorida
With two exceptions (antimony and selenium), the criteria values
listed for the Potable Water Supply (PWS) classification are
equal to the criteria for the freshwater classification of
Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a Healthy, Weil-
Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife. An antimony criterion
is not listed in the PWS class and the Selenium PWS criterion is
more stringent. Although some of the remaining PWS criteria are
based on aquatic life considerations, all have been counted as
human health criteria. No consistent risk level is recognized in
the State's standards. Water consumption is the only route of
exposure considered. The State uses EPA's water-consumption rate
of 2 I/day. The currently adopted toxics criteria were last
approved by EPA on September 24, 1987.
53
-------
The 'expected' .criteria have been formally proposed for
'srz^ sss^s
n^JS'&S: 199°-
Georgia
Kentucky
Kentucky's 'expected' criteria are in the initial
tW° s^^^ittees of the S?ate
e St
July of 1996. atS 1S °n a schedule: for adoption in
Mississippi ;
The State has adopted human health criteria based on MCLs and i
e ™ '
acreandth
st»i! H« ™ J 2 ? methods, and current IRIS information. The
State is expected to select a risk level of 10-6 for carcinoaens
exnecteSm!i:hP°SUre ^r°Ugh Water and fish consumption ^
expected fish consumption criteria will apply to all State
waters The expected criteria based on water and fish
°nly to waters classified as
H SUpPlies' ?** sta*e is expected to use EPA s
w™ TO ? 1Sh co^sumPtion rates. The current toxics criteria
were last approved by EPA on October 11, 1985. Criteria
oh ^riteria have been discussed at a public hearing
S. ™!H? lal review' which was held on February 12, 1990
The public comment period ended on the same date The State is
on a schedule for adoption in the spring of 1? S
54
-------
North Carolina
The State has adopted human health criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) criteria and methods and information in IRIS (as of July,
1989). These criteria are under review by EPA. The State
selected a risk level of 10-6 and assumed exposure through water
and fish consumption. The fish consumption criteria apply to all
State waters, while the water and fish consumption criteria apply
only to waters classified as drinking water supplies. The State
used EPA's water and fish 'consumption rates.
South Carolina
The State is expected to adopt three human health criteria based
on MCLs. Risk level is not to be considered. The proposed
criteria will be applicable to all State waters. The route of
exposure is expected to be water consumption, and the State is
expected to use EPA's water consumption rate of 2 I/day.
The State has stated an intention to include human health
criteria in the water quality standards proposal to be considered
for adoption by the Department of Health .and Environmental
Control Board. In January of 1989, the Board adopted revisions
to water quality standards which included all'of EPA's aquatic
life criteria. However the State Legislature did not act on the
Bill containing these revisions and, therefore, the revised water
quality standards did not become effective. The State's schedule
for adoption is not known at this time.
Tennessee
The State has adopted human health criteria (based on MCLs) and
is expected to adopt additional criteria based on MCLs, EPA's
Section 304(a) criteria and methods, and current IRIS
information. The State is expected to select a risk level of
10-6. For the criteria based on MCLs, the State assumed exposure
through water consumption. For the criteria based on EPA Section
304(a) guidance, the State assumed exposure through fish
consumption. The MCL-based criteria apply only to drinking water
supplies, while the EPA Section 304(a) criteria apply to all
waters. The State is expected to use EPA's water and fish
consumption rates. A public hearing was held on the draft
criteria on December 15, 1989. Current toxics criteria were last
approved by EPA on June 26, 1987.
55
-------
Region V
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region V States
Tctai
ADOPTED
.
I
ce>. sens/ -idc:;. ens
EAPECTED
-CC
etai
'=XFE:
IL
IN
Ml
MN
OH
W!
FRSH
•2
32
0
4.
74
25
MAR
0
0
3
0
0
0
HH
' 0
'03
. 0
0
•05
'00
OTH
0
0
0
0
19
24
FRSH
0
0
0
53
0
0
MAR
0
0
0
0
0
0 '
HH
0
• 0
0-
106
0
0
OTH
0
0
0'
0
0
0
FRSH
'2
32
0
53
74
25
'MAR
0
0
0
0
0
0
HH
0
•03
n
•06
105
ICO
OTH
"i
J
0
~;
0
19
2*
Michigan and Illinois adopted Option 3 translator procedures
03
O
GO
o
X
o
Region V
Aquatic Life Criteria
I/EXPECTED
IL
IN
Ml MN OH Wl
A1DOPTZO
56
-------
Region V
Human Health Criteria
o
o
X
o
120
SO
c. J
IL
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region V Notes
Illinois
adop.ted a translator procedure to augment existing
Cjlt6r^a /or aquatic life protection. The package alsS
translator procedures for human health criteria for
S£ '., recreational, and consumption of fish exposure
; The..rules c°ntain a 20 gram Per day fish consumption
rate assumption and a 10-6 risk level. The 10-6 risk level
S^i®3 fc° in?ivf<*ual carcinogens, but the rules provide for
S^iSr J31^1^ ^ a given discharge of all carcinogens
present up to 10-5. The rules also include procedures to
generate criteria for parameters which do not meet the minimum
database requirements. The comprehensive package was adopted by
8 * " 199° "^
Indiana
The State adopted criteria for all 307(a) pollutants with 304(a)
criteria consistent with Option 1 of the Section 303 (c)(2)(B)
™?anCH °^anuarY 3L 19^0- These standards are now under
review by EPA. The standards package includes a 10-5 risk
level, 6.5 grams per day fish consumption and restricted use of
mixing zones. The last general approval of State standards
occurred on November 1, 1984
57
-------
Michigan
Michigan has proposed adoption of current
e
approved on August 4, 1987! Michigan standards were last
Minnesota
The State has proposed adoption of all TDA/^N •
recalculated based upon, for ^pi ^"state-specif e
consumption rate (30 g/day) risk lev^i /in *Peci5lc
Ohio
protetion
.
Wisconsin
d
?iri?^ri^\2;0^'fieS;:^i^5r:5s-st
* ™" ~~f ***• v sawAi *«W i tS\-
agreed to amend by May 15, 199CL
All States
warerbodies, and have derived criteria reflecting characteristics
58
-------
of these use designations (e.g., fish lipid content and species
composition, human water consumption rates, etc.).
59
-------
Region VI
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region VI States
Total , Revisions/Additions
ADOPTED I EXPECTED
I , Tctai
I ADO=~ED/EXr
AR
LA
NM
OK
TX
PRSH
25
4-i
-,
\j
32
30
MAR
0
40
^t
j
30
HH
0
46
i
20
0
OTH
Q
0
.j
15
o
FRSH
0
•^
O
0
0
0
MAR
0
0
0
0
0
HH
0
0
0
0
0
OTH
0
• 0
0
0
0
FRSH
26
44
0
32 i
30 !
MAR
0
40
0 ••
0
30
HH
0
46
7
20
0
OTH
3
\j
~\
^
• c
^
-J
03
CJ
CO
g
x
o
Region VI
Aquatic Life Criteria
EC
100
80
60
40
20
Aoorra/EXPECTco
60
-------
-------
Region VI
Human Health Criteria
CJ
GO
g
X
o.
AR
LA
'20
100
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
Region VI Notes
Arkansas
No human health criteria are adopted or expected at present. The
State has not demonstrated that human health criteriJ are not
i'££ifeV?der C?A Section 303(c) (2) (B). Currently adopted
aquatic life criteria were last approved by ;EPA on May 6, 1988.
Louisiana
A few of Louisiana's criteria are based on MCLs or taste and
odor considerations. The majority, however, are derived
considering fish consumption, incidental ingestion and, where
designated as a public water supply, water ingestion. The latest
RfDs and cancer potency slopes from IRIS were used where
™?ii"5i!i'i*.Wh*rV10? aYailable' th«s« values were extracted from
£nh?f T* } y*friteria documents and applied to the equations
published in the November 1980 Federal Register notice.
Louisiana has selected a risk level of 10-6 for carcinogens
Louisiana uses a two number approach for human health criteria:
(1) criteria for waters designated fishable/swimmable (this is
essentially all State waters), and (2) criteria with the
additional designated use of public water supply. Louisiana
assumed exposure through fish consumption (20 g/day) and water
consumption (2 I/ water consumption, 89 ml/day incidental
ingestion). Currently adopted criteria were last approved by EPA
on December 19, 1989.
61
-------
-------
New Mexico
New Mexico's human health criteria, only
segments designated as public water supply^
MCLs and apply to raw water. No state-sele
derived using the
to stream
-
Oklahoma
The criteria are MCLs or MCL-based.
No risk level is specified
Texas
s regarding the State proposal are not available
criteria were last approved by EPA on April 29 1988
62
-------
Region VII
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region VII States
Total
Revisions/Additions Total
I EXPECTED I ADOPTED/EX:
IA
KS
MO
NE
FRSH
1C
2'.
39
103
MAR
0
0
0
0
HH
11
0
70
36
OTH
0
8
6
0
PRSH
34
74.
23
'2
MAR
0
0
0
0
HH
22
1C5
28
75
OTH
0
2
0
0
FRSH
35
89
67
105
MAR
0
0
0
0
HH
33
1G5
70
100
OTH
0
10
6
-
03
o
cb
o
X
o
Region VII
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
IA
KS
MO
NE
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
63
-------
Region VII
Human Health Criteria
CJ
CO
O
X
o
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
Region VII Notes
Iowa
Iowa's present human health criteria are generally based on
National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations for
inorganics and MCLs for organics and apply to the point of
withdrawal at designated water supply segments. Existing
criteria were last approved by EPA in August of 1985.
Iowa has proposed additional criteria (34 pollutants for aquatic
life and 22 for human health). Of the 22 pollutants with
proposed human health criteria, 7 cover just drinking water
protection while 15 cover fish consumption protection. These are
based on EPA's Gold Book values for 10-6 risk level for fish
consumption and MCLs for drinking water protection. The State is
still evaluating the need for additional human health criteria.
Kansas
|
On January 22, 1990, Kansas submitted to EPA a draft of extensive
criteria revisions covering nearly all of tile 307(a) priority
pollutants for which EPA has criteria (74 pollutants with aquatic
life and 105 pollutants with human health). The proposed human
health criteria were based on EPA's Gold Book fish consumption
and/or water and fish consumption values at a 10-6 risk level.
These human health criteria cover 105 of the 126 priority
pollutants (basically, option 1) and the State will demonstrate
64
-------
no human health issues exist for the small number of parameters
for which no criteria were proposed. Kansas will start a formal
State adoption process in February and has a schedule leading to
adopted revisions and submittal to EPA by June 1990. Existing
criteria were last approved by EPA on June 19, 1986.
Missouri
In_December 1987, Missouri adopted human health criteria for 69
priority pollutants using EPA Gold Book 10-6 risk levels and
exposure factors or MCLs in the case of drinking water only
values. EPA last approved these on October 13, 1989, following
minor revisions. '
The State is still evaluating the addition of more criteria and
submitted a preliminary draft of 28 additional criteria in
January 1990.
Nebraska
In January 1990, EPA received a submittal from Nebraska
containing a very extensive set of proposed human health criteria
providing protection for fish consumption at a 10-5 risk level
using EPA Gold Book exposure factors (option 1 approach) The
State Environmental Control Commission adopted these criteria (2
pollutants with aquatic life and 75 with human health) on
February 16, 1990, and official submittal to EPA is expected by
April 1990. Nebraska has already adopted drinking water supply
criteria for 22 priority pollutants using EPA's MCL or Gold Book
V^ nooo Existing criteria were last approved by EPA in October
Of 1988.
65
-------
Region VIII
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region Vlii States
Total
ADCPTE
FRSH MAR t
CO 64 0
. MT 32 0
NO 31 0
SO 32 0 ',(
;UT 31 o
WY 0 0
03
03
— '
i —
J
1 rn
o
X
O
4
\ i
CO
Revisions/Additions T^at
;0 EXPECTED 1 '•AQCPTCPI'/CXPC-- =-
64- 0 61 9
38 0 CO O'O 32 0 1C8 0
'5020 108' 0 33 0 109 0
38 0 00 0- 0 :32 0 108 0
'06 20 108 0 33 0 108 6
0 0 33 0 105 0 33 0 105 0
Region VIII
Aquatic Life Criteria
*%$%,
£%
J'^^^^^^^^frY-^^^y^
: ' ". ;gE^£F- .w^^yww ^
~ '. • " ™ • ~x ' ^ - " ~ "^^ ^fmanmw ^^^AIV^TB
^ : ^ • j> -" : ^ _r-: ^^^^^^—^f^ *DO^Te
1 i i I r ADOPTED
MT NO SO UT WY ^^
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
»•
3 /EXPECTED
66
-------
Region VIII
Human Health Criteria
D
o
en
O
x
O
ADOPTED
Region VIII Notes
Colorado
Colorado's current human health standards were adopted August 7,
1989. The State has adopted acute and chronic numerical aquatic
life standards for 64 pollutants, including all 32 pollutants for
which EPA has published criteria. The State has also adopted
health-based criteria for 61 priority pollutants. Colorado's
standards are currently under review by EPA.
Colorado has two categories of human health criteria -
carcinogens and non-carcinogens. For carcinogens, standards are
based on MCLs where EPA has developed such limits. Where there
are no MCLs, values are based on a calculated 10-6 risk level
using information in IRIS. For non-carcinogens, standards are
based on MCLs where EPA has adopted MCLs, or lifetime exposure
levels derived from reference dose information in IRIS or
lifetime drinking water health advisories. The human health
criteria apply only to waters classified for water supply uses.
Since data for values other than MCLs were calculated based on
IRIS data, no special assumptions were made about rates of water
consumption. Colorado did not consider the fish consumption
exposure pathway in any of their human health criteria.
Montana
Montana has adopted the Gold Book by reference. Although not
specifically spelled out in their standards, the hearing record
67
-------
notes that the carcinogenic risk level adopted is 10-6
^ made
North Dakota '
criteria for 31 substances for which EPA his
South Dakota
South Dakota adopted the Gold Book by reference Tho *+a * x
do not spGc ifv3fisltl^\7^i fr\ "** -^1™ o u 3110.3, irds
Utah j •
Wyoming
68
-------
-------
Region IX
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region IX States j
AZ !
I
•AS;
CAi
GU
HI .'
NV 1
CM!
jTTj
FRSH MAR HH
2~* 3 ~K
'-' 3 3
•3 30 -9
:2 22 T3
~ ^ ^i ** ~*
35 j 33
j> 5' :
3 7 37 3
OTH
ri
'j
0
n
I
0
0
1 £ '.=5<
FRSH MAR
-->
— *- J
32 32
33 34
o :
.
-1 "
3-1 3
i A
3 3
,,__^
HH
"w3
•C5
'C3
0
_
^
0
•cs
•C8
—
ADCPT=;V=. ==--=-
OTH FRSiH WAR HH OTH
V JC C '^-
2 32 32 •:= ; ;
0 35 39 i;-4 ;
0 32 22 •:= - :
-
7= 5' " ; •
j i1 3 3;
0 3C ~S •-£ - ;
™* ^ i
CO
g
x
o
_ k 4 Region IX
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
AZ AS CA GU HI NV CM TT
_y'ADOPTED/EXPECTED
ADOPTED
69
-------
Region IX
Human Health Criteria
/ ADOPTED/EXPECTED
AZ AS CA GU HI NV CM TT
ADOPTED
Region IX Notes
Arizona
American
Sam°a 1S
to adopt these criteria
in Aprl
California
California is on a Schedul« to adopt toxics criteria in July of
TPI
-------
,.£,_.._... wtij.y J.OJT inarin
ingestion for fresh waters u
and a fish consumption level
risk level for ocean waters
10-6 for fresh and estuarine
Hawaii
2
uater and £lsh
They propose a 10-6
"*«*•<* *» — 10-5 or
t
submitted to EPA for review Hawai? i= ! nOt yet been
consumption level of
provisions.
Nevada
ad 10
supply
discharge prohibition
EPA drinking watcriria
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
based on
already adopted
is
consumption only for
risk level
cr;teria win be
resh wat(irs and fish
3°4(a) crit«-a and 10-6
Territory*
25 2=2
SSSS
71
-------
WQS have been submitted to EPA for review and comment.
criteria based on water and
™,,/Wa S and fish consumption only for
., 3O4(a) criteria and 10-6 risk ]ov*i f^v
carcinogena. risx. level for
Guam
have proposed3 ^ ardS VSry SImilar to what the other Territories
72
-------
Region X
Number of Toxics with Criteria Adopted
for Region X States
FRSH MAR HH OTH FRSH MAR HH OTH FRSH MAR HH OTH
AK : : = 32 -C3 J
ID ; : : -5 :
OR . '_- •" ;";
W A i : ' 5 ' 3 j
^3
^
-\
-\
>^
"3 j
C i
-
-
C 32
•C5 102 •: =
o o: : •=
- .-- -y^
"^ '--
~ 3I: 3< 32
-
.
-
-
CO
O
X
O
. Region X
Freshwater Aquatic Life Criteria
j . 120
ADOPTED/EXPECTED
73
-------
Region X
Human Health Criteria
AK
ID
OR
AOOPTED/E =CTED
ADOPTED
Region X Notes
Alaska
Idaho
CWA
health
for
water MCLs for
74
-------
only to domestic water supplies. The Snake/Clearwater Rive-
" Cted *° bS baSed °" "A
Oreq-on
Oregon has adopted most of the EPA 304(a) water and fish
h^nTtl0^Critria' aS Wel1 " *d^nking water MCLs . Such
human, he a, th criteria are applicable to all basins. The human
health criteria for carcinogens (which are bas-d on ^PA 304?a?
guidance) are based on a risk level of 10-6. .xisting crite* a
were last approved by £=A on March 9, 1988. cr.te^a
Washington
Human Health criteria are expected to be adopted for all
pollutants for which aquatic life criteria have already been
adopted Adoption is hoped for in the triennial review due fo-
completion in FY 1991 (now scheduled for June, 1991) A dioxin
criterion is expected because it was identified on State 304U*
Washington has not yet adopted any human health based criteria '
for priority pollutants, but is expected to adopt some criteria
based on EPA 304(a) water and fish consumption criteria The
carcinogens are expected to be based on a risk level
EPAon
75
-------
V - APPENDICES
76
-------
Appendix 1
CWA Section 303 (c ) (2 ) (13)
"Whenever a State reviews water quality standards pursuant to
paragraph (1) of this subsection, or revises or adopts new
standards pursuant to this paragraph, suchistate shall adopt '
criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to section
307(a)(l) of this Act for which criteria have been published
under section 304(a). the discharge or presence of which in the
affected waters could reasonably be expected to interfere with '
those designated uses adopted by the State, as necessary to
support such designated uses. Such criteria shall be specific "
numerical criteria for such toxic pollutants. Where such
numerical criteria are not available, whenever a State reviews
water quality standards pursuant to paragraph (1), or revises or
adopts new standards pursuant to this paragraph, such State shall
adopt criteria based on biological monitoring or assessment
methods consistent with information published pursuant to.section
304(a)(8). Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit
or delay the use of effluent limitations or! other permit
conditions based upon or involving biological monitoring or
assessment methods or previously adopted numerical criteria."
77
-------
Appendix 2
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutant
No. States
w/Criteria
Adopted
No. States.
w/Criteria
Adopted/Expected
Acenapthene
Acrolein
Acrylonitrile
Benzene
Benzidine
Carbon Tetrachloride
Cholorbenzene
1 , 2 , 4-trichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1, 1-trichlo roe thane
Hexachlorethane
1, 1-dichlorethane
1, 1,2-trichlorethane
1, 1,2,2 -tetrachlorethane
chloroethane
Bis (2-chloroethyl) ether
2-chloroethyl vinyl ether
2-chloronapthalene
2,4, 6-trichlorophenol
Parachlorometa cresol
Chloroform
2-chlorophenol
1 , 2-dichlorobenzene
1, 3-dichlorobenzene
1 , 4-dichlorobenzene
3 , 3-dichlorobenzidine
1, 1-dichloroethylene
1,2-trans-dichloroethylene
2 , 4-dichlorophenol
1 , 2 -dichloropropane
1 , 2-dichloropropylene
2 , 4-dimethylphenol
2 , 4-dinitrotoluene
2 , 6 -dinitro toluene
1 , 2 -diphenylhydrazine
Ethylbenzene
Fluoranthene
4-chlorophenyl phenyl ether
4-bromophenyl phenyl ether
Bis (2-chloroisopropyl) ether
Bis (2-chloroethoxy) methane
Methylene chloride
Methyl chloride
• — .
T C
15
17
1 "7
17
21
23
?n
/>u
1 Q
18
8"
1 Q
19
•5 n
^!U
1 Q
iy
T -7
17
1 fl
10
19
17
•
19
T £
ID
22
on
/U
1 O
iy
T a
lo
1 Q
J. :7
T c
lo
19
9
20
6
17
14
i ft
10
•7
/
16
1 O
18
•^ T
17
3
15
3
1 7
X /
16
31
34
33
44
38 '
41
36 '
11
35
40
41
. 33
2
35
36
1
33
8
5
35
30
39
34,
35
35
38
31
41
14
36
8
32
28
33
8
32
35
34
5
31
9
36
33
-------
Appendix 2
(continued)
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutant
No. States.
w/Criteria'
Adopted
No. States,
w/Criteria1
Adopted/Expected
Methyl bromide
Bromof orm
D ichlo rob romome thane
Chlorodibromome thane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Isophorone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
2-nitrophenol
4-nitrophenol
2 , 4-dinitrophenol
4, 6-dinitro-o-cresol
N-nitrosodimethylamine
N-nitrosodiphenylamine
N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate'
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Diethyi phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
1, 2-benzanthracene
Benzo (a) pyrene
3,4-benzofluoranthene .
11, 12-benzofluoranthene
Chrysene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
1,12 benzopyrylene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
1,2,5, 6-dibenzanthracene
Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene
Pyrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl chloride
Aldrin
1 C
J. O
-t f*L
19
1 Q
-L 77
1 7
.1. 1
on
£* W
18
-L %J
1 1
-L /
T O
lo
f.
O
7
/
1 7
j. /
1 A
-L Tf
16
15
^ •— '
O7
^ /
33
23
1 ?
•"••^
77
4 £
i n
J. w
? 1 i
^ «L
?9
£• &
1 C
1 fi
X w
1 ^
.1. W i
T c
x ^ i
1 C
ID
1 ^
j.'*
•^ c
15
15
X ^/ 1
1 /I i
14
1 C '
15
1 fi
X W i
15 :
T C
15
20 '
M Mb
20
20
At W
1 Q
iy
40
32
37
37
3p
5
3—*
7
T >*
34
3«^
3
10 ,
34
8
9
1 O
33
32
32
T T
3 1
14
1
46
43
T O
38 •
T ^
13
« M
37
1 O
12
M A
34
*? ^
36
34
*9 /"
36
*^ A
34
A y|
34
34
M M
33
34
^ >i
34
33
34
O C
35
34
34
40
38
A O
4Z
39
51
-------
Appendix 2
(continued)
List of 126 Priority Pollutants
Priority Pollutant
No. States,
w/Criteria"1-
Adopted
No. States.,
w/Criteria""
Adopted/Expected
Dieldrin
Chlordane
4.4-DDT
4,4-DDE
4,4-DDD
Alpha-endosulfan
Beta-endosulfan
Endosulfan sulfate
Endrin
Endrin aldehyde
Heptachlor
Heptachlor epoxide
Alpha-BHC
Beta-BHC
Gamma-BHC (lindane)
Delta-BHC
PCS- 1242
PCB-1254
PCB-1221
PCB-1232
PC3-1248
PCB-1260
PCB-1016
Toxaphene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Dioxin (2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD)
T f^
39
"3 O
38
T "7
37
1 "7
17
1 rt
18 ,
-i e.
o o
3/-
b
^o
41
13
3-7
/
16
1 Q
J. y
* n
19
T Q
O O
/• /-«
40
40
40
A f\
40
40
^^^
A /™\
40
1 Q
1. 7
42
9
24
43
45
lo
42
43
43
34
45
44
19
40
19
51
50
51
33 '
34
48
49
33
.52
25
49
30
35
36
51
10
51
51
51
' 51
51
51
51
. 52
*S P
35
53
24
39
53
54
50
52
53
53
50
54
53
37
51
42
(1)
State has numeric criteria for one or more u3es.
-------
Appendix 3
Risk Levels For Carcinogens Selected by States
Region
I
II
III
IV
V
State
CT
ME
MA
NH
RI
VT
NJ
NY
PR
VI
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA
WV '
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
Risk Risk
Level Level
Adopted Expected
-fi
10 -6
10-6
10 6
10'6
10 3
fi
*°~6 -5
6 • 10
10"6
-f>
10 b
_
— A
, 10 6
10 U)io-6
-6 10 (2)
10
IO"6 (o)
10l| (4)
10-5
10
5 IO"5
10 I
10"5
Risk Risk
i Level Level '
Region State Adopted Expected
VI AR
LA 10"6
,NM
OK 10"!
'TX 10"3
VII IA lo~6
IKS i0-6
MO 10 b
NE 10" 5
VIII CO 10~6
. MT IO"6 (5)
iND io"-6
SD 10~5 (6)
UT 10~6
WY. 10~6
IX A2 io"5
AS in ~6
'CA 10-5/10'6
GU 10~J
HI ' 10"b
NV 10" f
CM IO"6
TT IO"6
X AK 10"6 (7)
ID lO'6
OR 10~°
WA 10~5
81
-------
Appendix 3
(continued)
Risk Levels For Carcinogens Selected by States
NOTES:
(1)
P«n>ort.d to be at a
(2) Except for dioxin, which has a risk level of 10-5
(4) Illinois adopted a risk level of 10~6 for individual
<5>
(6) WQS6do not identify risk level; State staff intend to use
(?) el° 10"6'
n°W — d, with the States
-------
Appendix 4
Exposure Assumptions Used by States in Setting.
Human Health Criteria
Region
III
IV
V
VI
State
DE
DC
MD
PA
VA.
WV
AL
FL
GA
KY
MS
NC
SC
TN
IL
IN
MI
MM
OH
WI
LA
NM
OK
ARE WQS
'EXPECTED
OR ADOPTED?
WATER
CONSUMPTION
RATE
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
UNKNOWN
2 I/day
2.01 1/day^
2.01 I/day;
2.01 I/day,
2.01 I/day"*
2 I/day
2.01 1/day^
2.089 l/day:
2 I/day
2 I/day
ORGANISM
CONSUMPTION
RATE
I
II
ME
NH
NJ
NY
PR
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
2
2
2
2
2
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
I/day
6.5
6.5
33
g/day
g/day
g/day
Freshwater
=5.2 g/day
Saltwater -
=37 g/day
6. 5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
UNKNOWN,
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
UNKNOWN
6.5 g/day
20 g/day .
6.5 g/day|
6.5 g/day
30 g/day .
6.5 g/day1
20 g/day
20 g/day
83
-------
Region
Appendix 4
Exposure Assumptions Used by States in Setting
Human Health Criteria e^ln9
(continued)
State
ARE WQS
EXPECTED
OR ADOPTED?
WATER
CONSUMPTION
RATE
ORGANISM
CONSUMPTION
RATE
VII
VIII
IX
X
NOTES;
(1)
(2)
IA
KS
MO
NE
CO
MT
ND
SD
•JT
WY
A2
AS
CA
GU
HI
NV
CM
TT
AK
ID
OR
WA
ADOPTED
A/ :PTE:D.
ADOPTE:D
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
EXPECTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
ADOPTED
EXPECTED
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
2 I/day
stata
6.5 g/day
6-5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6-5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
='. 5 g/day
23 g/day
6.5 g/day
19-9 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
6.5 g/day
is
- was an aaai^ionai 89 ml/day For
ml/day. ' assumption was an additional 10
(3) Current Kansas criteria are for non-307(a) pollutants.
-------
Appendix 5
State Selected Options1 to Comply with CWAlSection 303{c)(2)(3,
Region Sta
I CT
ME
MA
NH
• RI
VT
II NJ
NY
PR
VI
III DE
• DC
MD
PA
VA
wv
IV AL
FL
GA
. KY
MS
NC
sc
TN
V IL
IN
MI
MN
OH
WI
te Option
1 & 3'
1 & 3
I & 3
1 & 3
1 & 3
1 & 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 & 3
2
2
2
1
1
2 & 3
2 & 3
2
2
2 & 3
1
3
1
1
2
Region State
VI ' AR
LA
MM
: OK
; TX
VII IA
! KS
i • •
MO
: NE
viii ; co
MT
: ND
SD
UT
WY
•
IX i AZ
. -.
AS
CA
GU
HI
:CM
TT
x ;AK
ID
OR
WA
•Option
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
Notes;
December 1988 EPA Toxics
85
-------
------- |