United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4301)
March 1995
EPA-820-F-95-001
FACT SHEET
FINAL GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE CRITICAL PROVISIONS
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards
PROGRAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GREAT LAKES WATER
QUALITY GUI DANCE
FINAL WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE
FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM
I. Chemicals of Focus
•All pollutants, data gathering for 138 toxic
pollutants
•28 Bioaccumulative Pollutants of Concern
(BCCs)
•List of 16 excluded pollutants
II. Bioaccumulation Factors
• Same as proposal
•22 BCCs
•Removed hydrogen sulfide and sulfide from list
of excluded pollutants
1. Bioaccumulation Factors 'Human health and wildlife criteria derived
(BAFs) vs. Bioconcentration using measured or predicted BAPs
Factors (BCFs)
2. BAF Hierarchy
3. Food Chain Multiplier
(FCM) Model
4. BCC Definition
111. Additivity
1. Carcinogens
2. Toxicity Equivalency
Factors (TEFs)
•Data preference:
- Field measured BAF
- Lab measured BCF*FCM
- Predicted BCF*FCM
• Same as proposal
•Data preference:
- Field measured BAP
- Biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAP)
- Lab measured BCF*FCM
- Predicted BCF*FCM
'Used model developed by Thomann, 1989 »Uses model developed by Gobas, 1993
•Chemicals with BAFs greater than 1000
1 Did not include regulatory text. Preamble
presented two approaches (criteria-based vs.
limit-based). Both approaches set risk level
at 10-5.
•Preamble suggested use of TEFs for 17
dioxins/furans
•Same, but chemicals must also be persistent and
toxic and be based on field data
•Requires states and tribes to adopt an additivity
provision applied to effluents, but provides flexi-
bility on how to implement the provision
'Use of TEFs for 17 dioxins/furans
-------
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards (Continued)
PROGRAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE
IV. Aquatic Lite
1. General
2. Total vs. Dissolved
V. Human Health
1. General
2. Fish Consumption Rates
3. Lipid Content
VI. Wildlife
•Criteria methodology similar to national cri- • Same as proposal
teria
• 16 (Criteria proposed • 15 criteria
• Added Tier n methodology to translate nar- • Allows flexibility to use either Tier n methodolo-
rative criteria gy/values or indicator parameters, where appropri-
ate and justified, consistent with national program
• Exj>ressed metals criteria as total recoverable • Expresses metals criteria as dissolved
• Similar to national criteria methodology • Same as proposal
•20 criteria proposed • 18 criteria
• Added Tier II methodology to translate nar- • Same as proposal
rative criteria
•Used 15 grams/day consumption rate to
protect sport fisherman
•Used 5% for humans
•Same as proposal
•Uses 1.82% for tropic level 3 fish consumed and
3.10% for tropic level 4 fish consumed
1. Scope of Methodology
•Proposed methodology to derive Tier I cri- »Tier I methodology limited to 22 BCCs with suf-
teria ficient data
2. Mercury Criterion
VII. Aiiticlegniciaf ion
1. Tier I Waters
(Protection of Uses)
2. Tier II Waters (High
Quality Waters)
a. General
•Proposed 4 Tier I criteria for DDT, mer-
cury, PCBs, and TCDD
•Tier n methodology proposed
•0.18 parts per trillion
•Same as national program but clarifies that
states and tribes must add designated uses
•Same as national program but:
- Defined high quality waters on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis
- I*rovided tests to determine the need for
lowering water quality (institutionalizes
pollution prevention)
- Specified criteria for social and
economic demonstrations
'Same as proposal
•Tier I beyond 22 BCCs and Tier H will be guid-
ance
•1.3 parts per trillion
•Provisions same as proposal; however, only
applies to BCCs. National program governs for
non BCCs)
• Same as proposal: however, only applies to
BCCs. National program governs for non BCCs
- Provides an off-ramp provision to exclude
waters of no ecological, recreational, or
aesthetic significance
- Requires tests; however, the detailed
procedures in the proposal will be examples
in the preamble
- Criteria required; however, specific criteria in
proposal will be examples in the preamble
-------
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards (Continued)
PROGRAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE
b. Triggers for Review
3. Tier m Waters
(Outstanding National
Resource Waters-ONRW)
•Placed specific emphasis on persistent
BCCs. Trigger for antidegradation evalu-
ation based on existing effluent quality
(EEQ) as opposed to increases in permit
limits above de minimis for non-BCCs.
• Same as national program and contained
specific provision for Lake Superior
ONRW
VIII. Whole Effluent Toxtcitv (WET)
1. Acute Mixing Zones
•Must meet 1.0 TUa (Toxic Unit acute) at
end of pipe and 1.0 TUc (Toxic Unit
chronic) at edge of chronic mixing zone.
IX. Variances
1. Duration
• Proposed a maximum three year limit on
the duration of variances, subject to possi-
ble renewal
\. Site Specific Modifications
•Antidegradation reviews will be triggered by
engaging in a deliberate action which causes an
increase in the discharge of BCCs. Allowable de
minimis increases for non-BCCs are guidance.
•Same as proposal
• Allows an acute mixing zone; must meet 0.3TUa
at edge of acute mixing zone and 1.0 TUc at the
edge of chronic mixing zone.
•Allows variances to be granted for 5 years to cor-
respond to the life of the NPDES permit with a
specific reopener clause. Review of variance
every three years as part of ongoing triennial
review
•Allowed only more stringent modifica-
tions for human health, wildlife, B AFs,
and more or less stringent modifications
for aquatic life
•Allows for both more or less stringent modifica-
tions for human health, wildlife, B AFs and
aquatic life. Requires more stringent modifica-
tions to protect endangered species.
//. Implementation/Permits
I. Intake Credits
• No water quality based effluent limits
(WQBELs) for outfalls that qualify for
simple pass through
• Same as proposal, but in addition allows
WQBELs up to background for non-simple pass
through situations in non-attained same body of
water for 2 years, and requires criteria end-of-
pipe for non-attained different body of water.
Criteria end-of-pipe as guidance in preamble for
situations that do not qualify for intake credits.
After 12 years, TMDLs or comparable control
strategies govern for non-simple pass through sit-
uations
-------
//. Implementation/Permits (Continued)
P ROC RAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE
II. Reasonable Potential
1. Determination
•Evaluation and many specifics are
required by regulation (based on the exist-
ing National Guidance)
IV. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMfMU
• Requires evaluation and only some specifics
required by regulation (based on the existing
National Guidance)
1. Duration for Existing
Dischargers
•Provided up to three years or the length
of the permit, whichever is less.
Provided up to two years from permit
issuance for completion of additional
studies to develop a Tier I criteria or
modify a Tier II value.
III. Compliance Schedules
1. Development
2. Data Collection
3. Implementation
4. Mixing Zones
• Required as part of permit issuance.
Approval required under 130.7
•Regulation specifies implementation pro-
cedures for calculating background con-
centrations (e.g., use offish tissue data,
non-detects, etc.)
•Implementation procedures required in
regulation under procedures A or B
•No mixing zones for acute criteria
•All mixing zones for BCCs eliminated
within 10 years
V. Permit Conditions for WQBEI ,s Below
the Level of'Quantification
-------
FINAL ORE AT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE CRITICAL PROVISIONS
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards
PROGRAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GREAT LAKES WATER
QUALITY GUIDANCE
FINAL WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE
FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM
1. t'ht'ink'ute of Focus
•All pollutants, data gathering for 138 toxic
pollutants
•28 Bioaccumulative Pollutants of Concern
(BC'Cs)
•List of 16 excluded pollutants
II. Bioacctittiukitmri Factors
1. Bioaccumulation Factors •Hurnan health and wildlife criteria derived
(BAFs) vs. Bioconcentration using measured or predicted B AFs
Factors (BCFs)
2. BAF Hierarchy
3. Food Chain Multiplier
(FCM) Model
4. BCC Definition
ML Adilitnttv
1. Carcinogens
2. Toxicity Equivalency
Factors (TEFs)
•Data preference:
- Field measured BAF
- Lab measured BCF*FCM
- Predicted BCF*FCM
•Used model developed by Thomann, 1989
•Chemicals with BAFs greater than 1000
• Same as proposal
•22BCCs
•Removed hydrogen sulfide and sulfide from list
of excluded pollutants
• Same as proposal
•Data preference:
- Field measured BAF
- Biota-sediment accumulation factor (BSAF)
- Lab measured BCF*FCM
- Predicted BCF*FCM
•Uses model developed by Gobas, 1993
1 Same, but chemicals must also be persistent and
toxic and be based on field data
•Did not include regulatory text. Preamble • Requires states and tribes to adopt an additivity
presented two approaches (criteria-based vs. provision applied to effluents, but provides flexi-
limit-based). Both approaches set risk level bility on how to implement the provision
at 10-5.
•Preamble suggested use of TEFs for 17
dioxins/furans
•Use of TEFs for 17 dioxins/furans
-------
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards (Continued)
P ROC RAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE
IV. Aquatic Ijre
1. General
2. Total vs. Dissolved
•Criteria methodology similar to national cri- • Same as proposal
teria
• 16 criteria proposed • 15 criteria
• Added Tier n methodology to translate nar- • Allows flexibility to use either Tier n methodolo-
rati ve criteria gy/values or indicator parameters, where appropri-
ate and justified, consistent with national program
• Expressed metals criteria as total recoverable • Expresses metals criteria as dissolved
V. Human Health
1. General
• S imilar to national criteria methodology • Same as proposal
• 20 criteria proposed • 18 criteria
•Added Tier II methodology to translate nar- • Same as proposal
ratiive criteria
2. Fish Consumption Rates
3. Lipid Content
•Used 15 grams/day consumption rate to
protect sport fisherman
•Used 5% for humans
• Same as proposal
•Uses 1.82% for tropic level 3 fish consumed and
3.10% for tropic level 4 fish consumed
VI. Wildlife
1. Scope of Methodology
»Proposed methodology to derive Tier I cri- »Tier I methodology limited to 22 BCCs with suf-
teria ficient data
2. Mercury Criterion
•Proposed 4 Tier I criteria for DDT, mer-
cury, PCBs, and TCDD
•Tier n methodology proposed
•0.18 parts per trillion
• Same as proposal
•Tier I beyond 22 BCCs and Tier H will be guid-
ance
• 1.3 parts per trillion
VII.Aiilidegnidattoii
1. Tier I Waters
(Protection of Uses)
2. Tier n Waters (High
Quality Waters)
a. General
•Same as national program but clarifies that 'Provisions same as proposal; however, only
'states and tribes must add designated uses applies to BCCs. National program governs for
non BCCs)
•Same as national program but:
- IDefmed high quality waters on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis
- Provided tests to determine the need for
lowering water quality (institutionalizes
pollution prevention)
- Specified criteria for social and
-------
/. Water Quality Criteria and Standards (Continued)
P ROC RAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED CUIPANCE
FINAL CUIDANCE
b. Triggers for Review
3. Tier m Waters
(Outstanding National
Resource Waters-ONRW)
• Placed specific emphasis on persistent
BCCs. Trigger for antidegradation evalu-
ation based on existing effluent quality
(I:EQ) as opposed to increases in permit
limits above de minimis for non-BCCs.
• Same as national program and contained
specific provision for Lake Superior
ONRW
Mil. Whole Effluent Toxicitv (WrT)
1. Acute Mixing Zones
•Must meet 1.0 TUa (Toxic Unit acute) at
end of pipe and 1.0 TUc (Toxic Unit
clironic) at edge of chronic mixing zone.
IX. Variances
1. Duration
• Proposed a maximum three year limit on
the duration of variances, subject to possi-
ble renewal
\. Site Specific Modifications
•Allowed only more stringent modifica-
tions for human health, wildlife, BAFs,
and more or less stringent modifications
for aquatic life
'Antidegradation reviews will be triggered by
engaging in a deliberate action which causes an
increase in the discharge of BCCs. Allowable de
minimis increases for non-BCCs are guidance.
•Same as proposal
•Allows an acute mixing zone; must meet 0.3TUa
at edge of acute mixing zone and 1.0 TUc at the
edge of chronic mixing zone.
• Allows variances to be granted for 5 years to cor-
respond to the life of the NPDES permit with a
specific reopener clause. Review of variance
every three years as part of ongoing triennial
review
• Allows for both more or less stringent modifica-
tions for human health, wildlife, BAFs and
aquatic life. Requires more stringent modifica-
tions to protect endangered species.
II. Implementation/Permits
1. Intake Credits
•No water quality based effluent limits
(WQBELs) for outfalls that qualify for
simple pass through
• Same as proposal, but in addition allows
WQBFJLs up to background for non-simple pass
through situations in non-attained same body of
water for 2 years, and requires criteria end-of-
pipe for non-attained different body of water.
Criteria end-of-pipe as guidance in preamble for
situations that do not qualify for intake credits.
After 12 years, TMDLs or comparable control
strategies govern for non-simple pass through sit-
uations
-------
//. Implementation/Permits (Continued)
PROGRAM
COMPONENT
PROPOSED GUIDANCE
FINAL GUIDANCE
II. Reasonable Potential
1. Determination
•Evaluation and many specifics are
required by regulation (based on the exist-
ing National Guidance)
IV. Total Maximum Daily Koad {TMl>I,>
1. Duration for Existing
Dischargers
•I*rovided up to three years or the length
of the permit, whichever is less.
ftovided up to two years from permit
issuance for completion of additional
studies to develop a Tier I criteria or
modify a Tier II value.
HI. Compliance Schedules
1. Development
2. Data Collection
3. Implementation
4. Mixing Zones
•Required as part of permit issuance.
Approval required under 130.7
• Regulation specifies implementation pro-
cedures for calculating background con-
centrations (e.g., use offish tissue data,
non-detects, etc.)
• Implementation procedures required in
regulation under procedures A or B
•No mixing zones for acute criteria
•All mixing zones for BCCs eliminated
within 10 years
V. Permit Conditions for WQBFJ ,s Below
Hie Level of Quantification (I.OQ)
1. Pollution Minimization
Plans
2. Bio-uptake Studies for
BCCs
'Required a pollution minimization plan
with:
• Annual review and semi-annual
monitoring of sources of pollutant
• Quarterly monitoring of influent to
wastewater treatment facility
• Submittal of a control strategy for
controlling pollutant below LOQ
Implementation of control strategy
Annual status report
•Required some type of bio-uptake moni-
iXHing and provide examples
1 Requires evaluation and only some specifics
required by regulation (based on the existing
National Guidance)
• Provides up to 5 years, and may extend beyond
term of the permit when justified. Still provides
two additional years for completion of addition-
al studies.
• Required for WQ limited waters. Approval
allowed under 130.6 or 130.7.
• Same as proposal, except default values for non-
detects are guidance
•Only critical elements required in regulation
(e.g., mixing zone specifications, design flows).
•For non-BCCs, same as proposal but allows an
acute mixing zone for acute criteria
•For BCCs, same as proposal but allows for
exceptions based on technical/economic
considerations
•Same as proposal
•No special requirements for BCCs
------- |