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

-------