United States Office of Science and 823 R 92 009
f/EPA Environmental Protection Technology {WH-551)
Agency Washington, DC 20460 December 1992
"Water ^ ^ ~~
Water Quality Standards for
the 21st Century
Proceedings of the Third National
Conference
Las Vegas, Nevada
August 31-September 3, 1992
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
DEC 23 1912
OFFICE OF
WATER
l,
Dear Colleague;
I am pleased to be sending you the Proceedings of the
Las Vegas Conference on Water Quality Standards for the
21st Century.
With such a large number of ideas and suggestions being
raised in forums such as this along with the time it takes to
•implement changes in programs, it is sometimes difficult to judge
how effective such conferences are. We believe such conferences
are valuable and directly impact our work in both water quality
criteria and standards. While we would like to be able to
implement every suggestion and every new program, that is
unrealistic. However, our programs are influenced by meetings
such as this conference.
As a result of the third conference, we'll make some changes
in specific activities and in broad program priorities. This
results from^detailed suggestions and from responses to our
Strategic Planning Survey.
You can expect to see a greatly expanded effort in the
coming year on the question of how to control metals in ambient
water. Through a continuing series of meetings, we will focus on
the scientific, technical, and policy issues, determine what near
and long term actions can be taken, and move towards either a
resolution of the issue or identify practical means for program
implementation based on available information and procedures.
The methodologies used to derive both human health and
aquatic life criteria are being reviewed and revisions suggested.
Subsequent to the conference, we have had meetings on both
methodologies. The revisions, which will be made available for
peer and public review and comment, will reflect suggestions made
at the conference.
You may also expect to see more attention to guidance,
technical training, and assistance that focuses on the
implementation of standards. This will be especially the case
as the program solidifies its scientific basis for sediment
criteria and biological criteria—areas, of future priority for
standards development.
t - $$ Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
. -.Numerous improvements or clarifications in the water quality
standards program operating regulation, suggested or based on
ideas debated at the conference, will be presented to the public
for consideration through preparation of an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. The result of that public review may lead
to a major effort to revise the existing standards regulation,,
, The meeting evaluation forms were overwhelmingly favorable
on the substance and format of the conference. They also
included valuable suggestions that we will consider for the next
National Conference in fiscal year 1994.
We appreciate very much the contributions made by all the
panel participants, at the conference/ and by the audience in the
question and answer sessions. We hope the overall experience at
the conference was satisfying and we look forward to continuing
to work together to preserve, protect, and enhance water quality
in the United States.
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Office of Science and Technology
Enclosure
-------
Prepared by Dynamac Corporation under Contract No, 68-C0-0070 for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Project Manager: Michele A. Vuotto
Editor: Karen Swetlow
Production Manager: Diane R. Kelly
To obtain copies, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
ii
-------
CONTENTS
. Page
WELCOME
Welcome . . . . .1
TudorBayies ... ,
APPLYING EPA'S RISK-BASED APPROACH AND COMMITMENT
TO SOUND SCIENCE TO WQC/WQS PRIORITY SETTING
EPA's Commitment to Sound Science and Water Quality Standards 7
LaJuana S. Wilcher
LIFE AFTER TOXICS; WHAT DIRECTION NOW?
Life After Toxics: What Direction Now? National Consistency vs. Geographic
Flexibility & the Role of Risk in Priority Setting . . . ... 15
William R. Diamond (Moderator)
A State View on the Need for National Consistency: Discussion Paper . 21
Lydia Taylor
Life After Toxics. What Direction Now? 25
Roger Dolan
BIOLOGICAL MEASURES: CAN AND SHOULD THEY BE
IMPLEMENTED?
Applications of Biomeasures to Basin Water Quality Studies in Oregon
and Idaho 33
Robert Baumgartner
Concerns from the Perspective of the Regulated Community 45
Warren C. Harper
Slide Presentation 47
Evan Hornig
iii
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
• Page
CSOs/WET WEATHER: ARE TODAY'S WQC RELEVANT?
CSOs/Wet Weather: Are Today's WQC Relevant? 49
Richard Kuhlman (Moderator)
Combined Sewer Overflow Controls: The Michigan Approach . 55
Paul D. Zugger
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control Combined Sewer
Overflow Policy . . . 61
Warren Kimball
Applying Water Quality Standards to Combined Sewer Overflows 67
Michele M. Pla J
Combined Sewer Overflows and the Clean Water Act: Promise Unfulfilled ......... 83
David S. Bailey „
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Whole Effluent Toxicity: The Basis for EPA's Regulatory Control Program . 91
Cynthia C. Dougherty (Moderator)
Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing: An Effective Water Quality Regulatory Tool -
The North Carolina Experience .95
Ken W. Eagleson and Larry W. Ausley
Wet Control: Square Pegs Do Not Fit in. Round Holes 103
Mark T. Pifher, Esq. and James T. Egan, P.E.
The Status of the Science Relative to the Use of Whole Effluent Toxicity
Testing in Water Quality Standards J . . . . 123
Philip B. Dom ,
RE-EXAMING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY
Re-Examining Independent Applicability: Agency Policy and Current Issues 135
Susan Jackson (Moderator)
iv
-------
CONTENTS (cont.) .
Page
Re-Examining Independent Applicability: Regulatory Policy Should Reflect a
Weight-of-Evidence Approach . . 139
Peter J, Ruffier
Re-Examining Independent Applicability 149
Donald R. Schregardus
Water Quality Protection Requires Independent Application of Criteria 157
Wayne A. Schmidt
HUMAN HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT: WHO SHOULD WE PROTECT?
Human Health Risk Management: Who Should We Protect? What is an
Adequate Level of Protection? 165
Clyde Houseknecht, Ph.D., MPH (Moderator)
"Fish Consumption" and National Water Quality Criteria 169
Daniel C. Picard
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY DECISIONS
EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy 175
Elizabeth Southerland (Moderator)
/ -
Regulatory Uses of Sediment Quality Criteria in Washington State 181
Keith Phillips
i
Sediment Criteria: Needs and Uses . 191
Glenda L. Daniel
Approaches to Managing Contamined Sediments Without Sediment
Quality Criteria 199
William R. Gala, Ph.D.
Effects-Based Testing and Sediment Quality Criteria for Dredged Material 207
Thomas D. Wright, Robert M. Engler, and Jan G. Miller
v
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
' ! : Page
ADVOCATES FORUM
Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions 219
Allan Stokes
Advocates Forum Responses 221
Robert Berger
Advocates Forum . 225
Robert J. Overly
Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions 229
Terry Williams •
, »•
Advocates Forum: Response to General Questions 231
Roberta (Robbi) Savage
Advocates Forum 233
Peter L. deFur
' ECOLOGICAL SlBk ASSESSMENT
Slide Presentation 235
Spyros Pavlou
Treatment of Uncertainty in Ecological Risk Assessment: Be Careful What
You Wish For 239
Joshua Lipton, Ph.D., and Hector Galbraith, Ph.D.
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REVIEWING EPA GUIDELINES
Human Health Risk Assessment: Revising the EPA Guidelines for Deriving
Human Health Criteria 249
Margaret Stasikowski (Moderator)
!
Hunum Health Risk Assessment: Revising the EPA Guidelines for Deriving
Human Health Criteria for Ambient" Water. The Methodology is
Overconservative 251
Paul Anderson
vi
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
Opportunities for Updating the Methods for the Derivation of Health-Based
Water Quality Criteria . . . 259
Rolf Haitung; Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Public Water Supply As An Intended Protected Use of Water Resources:
Implications for Revising the EPA Guidelines for Deriving Human Health
Criteria 269
Tom Schaeffer
Human Health Risk Assessment and Water Quality Criteria for Toxic
Pollutants 277
Jeffeiy A. Foran, Ph.D.
WQS FOR EPHEMERAL AND EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS
Water Quality Standards for Ephemeral and Effluent-Dependent Streams 293
Harry Seraydarian (Moderator)
Special Water Quality Criteria and Standards Are Needed for Arid Areas 297
George A. Brinsko, P.E. DEE
More Time is Needed to Appropriately Balance Water Quality Protection
and Reclamation . 307
Mary Jane Forster
)
Zero Discharge, Anti-Degradation, and Source Reduction: Replacing the
Failed Assimilative Capacity Model With Effective Surface Water Quality
Standards for the 21st Century and Beyond 313
Michael Gregory
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Ecological Risk Assessment Comments ... 319
Mary Ellen Harris ¦
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Attendees List
Appendix B: National Meeting Evaluation Summary
vii
-------
Welcome
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN.THE 21 Bt CENTURY: 1-6
WELCOME
Tudor Davies
Director .
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
Good morning, my name is Tudor Davies, Director of the Office of Science and
Technology, Office of Water, EPA. I am sure of this because it says so right here in my notes.
Apparently my staff felt I would need this reminder after a night or two on the town.
Welcome to Las Vegas and the Third National Conference on Water Quality Criteria and ,
Standards. We selected Las Vegas as an optional means of financing water pollution control
programs—we figured we had about as much chance at the slot machines as we had with
Congress or OMB.
m
We are pleased to see so many people representing all the regulated community. We
have people here today from industry, environmental groups, academia, technical consultants,
Native Americans, municipal governments, interregional organizations, other Federal agencies,
and of course, the States. This is good. Protecting the quality of water and the public health
requires all of our best efforts. As we share ideas, as we begin to understand the needs and
views of all the different people and groups involved in this great challenge, we can implement
better programs.
The question is . . . why have we asked *ou to come?
This is a good time to have a national discussion of the Criteria and Standards Program..
We have essentially completed meeting the statutory requirements placed on us by Congress to
adopt standards for toxic pollutants. We are on the verge of being ready with the scientific basis
for the development of sediment criteria and biological criteria. Reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act will be occupying the attention of Congress next year. A number of ideas will be
discussed. One of these ideas is to change the fundamental basis of the program to place more
specific limits or requirements on the States as to what standards they need to adopt and within
what time frame. The concepts embodied in the guidance implementing the Great Lakes Critical
1
-------
T. DA VIES
Programs Act could potentially be applied to the standards program nationally. Ideas are being
formulated on how to implement antidegradation, how to derive criteria without a full database,
concepts of developing and implementing criteria to protect wildlife Very specific requirements
are being proposed for granting variances, and for specifying uniform permit limits impacting
a single water system. Are any of these appropriate for national application?
Also, the Criteria and Standards Program continues to evolve into a much broader and
different entity than what it dealt with in the early years. It's been a long time since our most
serious debate was whether the dissolved oxygen criterion should be 4.5 or 5. Now we are
dealing with toxic pollutants on the order of parts per quadrillion. There are new scientific
advances in the form of new types of water quality criteria. Statutory requirements have
changed-eourt decisions have affected the program. We understand the nature of water quality
Impairments better, and you, our customers, have increased and different demands. Most
important of all, I believe, is that the public is demanding more from us in the way of protecting
and enhancing water quality.
Probably the most important reason we are glad you are here is that the States are usually
the innovators in our programs. This is true in many areas, not just in water pollution control.
We need your ideas, your suggestions, your expertise on where the program should be headed
in the upcoming years. What have you been experimenting with in criteria development or in
implementing standards? What have you learned? What seems to have worked? What failed?
What are you doing that could be applied on a national or at least regional scale?
It is impossible for us to do everything everybody would like, and you can't do it either.
So, what do we need to do the most? You will help us answer that question.
The focus of this year's national conference is to help us in EPA, specifically the Office
of Science and Technology, in determining how best to meet these changing demands.
My philosophy is straightforward--I want the Office of Science and Technology to do the
right things, and I want to do them the right way. Unfortunately, not everybody agrees on what
the right things are or how they should be done. But, if we have a focused,effort among all of
us involved in improving water quality, we can and will overcome very difficult challenges.
Without a focused effort, we'll be lucky to make any real progress at all.
Our central goal for the conference is to solicit a broad range of perspectives on each of
the agenda topics and debate the merits of alternative approaches. If you would prefer to argue
rather than debate, that is alright, too. I hope each session will bring into sharper focus the
policy, legal, scientific, and program choices facing us. Each of us brings a bias to this
conference based on our training and the job we now hold. For most of us, this means program
decisions seem to be clear. The problem comes when people from other disciplines and having
a different set of responsibilities get involved and mess things up. Well, I hope we mess things
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 1-6
up a bit during our discussions. I hope we can discuss why what appears to be good policy
founders because there is not legal or scientific basis and vice versa. To the senior managers
at EPA, this is important because we rarely ever get to make a decision based on one discipline.
Policy, legal, technical, economic, scientific issues all become part of the decision making
process.
These discussions are important. Hey will be used in making far-reaching decisions on
what program areas will become our priorities for the coming fiscal years and where we can best
expend our limited resources. These decisions will then directly affect what we will expect from
the States in their, role as the primary implementors of the Criteria and Standards Program.
What we hear at meetings such as this will also help frame EPA's position on Clean Water Act
Reauthorization proposals.
Y OUR ROLE IN THE MEETING
I mentioned earlier that you are going to help us decide what the program should do in
the future. Specifically, we are going to do this in three ways.
First, the number of formal speakers has been reduced from previous years. With the
help of the moderators, we have planned that at least half of the allotted time for each panel will
be available for audience participation. We want to hear from you folks what your ideas are.
We encourage youito actively participate. We know you have ideas and concerns. Please get
them on the table. The panel members have been directed to focus on specific aspects of the
topic to encourage debate from the audience.
Second, you will find, in your registration packet, a priorities survey. We want you to
complete these surveys. We will combine your views with similar surveys we took at several
Criteria and Standards workshops earlier this summer as another vehicle to help us select
national program priorities, based on what vou think and not iust what we in EPA might believe
ought to be done. Read the directions for this survey carefully. You will not be able to make
everything a priority—you will have to pick and choose carefully, just as we do at EPA. As you
make your choices, think about what could result in the largest risk reduction or program
benefit. In the upcoming elections, you get to vote only once (at least that's the way it's done
in most places). Our survey allows you multiple votes, but you have to decide what program
areas to use them on. The results of these surveys and the discussions at this conference will
be examined along with any statutory or judicial requirements mandated for the Agency to
establish future national program priorities. Please complete and return these surveys at the
registration table by noon tomorrow.
Third, on Wednesday afternoon, there is an agenda item called "Advocates Forum."
This is where we at EPA, along with you in the audience, get to ask some hard questions to the
3
-------
T.DAVIES
advocates of various interest groups. In your registration packet, you will see a card on which
we ask you to write the question you would like to see directed to one or more of , the advocacy
group representatives. We'll collate them and get as many of them on the floor as we can.
Turnabout is fair play—you get to ask the EPA senior managers anything you want on Thursday.
TBDE AGENDA
• I want to spend a few minutes describing the agenda and some of the underlying
questions we hope to discuss over the next 3 days.
The topics selected for discussion at this conference were chosen from suggestions
offered by cities, States, and others in the regulated community. We believe they are the ones
dominating most of the current discussions on criteria and standards.
Let's take a look at the agenda.
We've just gone through a major effort to establish criteria for toxic pollutants. What
now? We have issues of national consistency versus geographical flexibility, of the potential to
change the roles of EPA and the States. Congress seems to be moving toward being more
specific in its directives on criteria and standards. Does this help, or does this make it more
difficult for us to set risk-based priorities? Do we need fundamental changes in the act, or
should we not tamper with provisions that are at the cord of the statute and have resulted in
relative success?
We will be discussing human health risk management and human health risk assessment.
The questions to be debated include: (1) Who should we protect? (2) What is an adequate level
of protection? (3) Is our methodology for deriving human health criteria too conservative? (4)
Should States be given more or less flexibility in risk assessment and management decisions?
What are we going to do about two of the major activities identified in previous national
meetings—the application of biological and sediment criteria? Can and should these types of
criteria be implemented? Are the resources available to implement these types of criteria? How
can they be used in a regulatory context? Is their scientific support solid enough to support
regulatory programs? Are we going to be able to set priorities for issuing sediment-based permit
limits? I expect answers to these questions in the next 5 minutes.
EPA has established a policy of independent applicability of chemical-by-chemical
criteria, whole-effluent toxicity testing, and biological measures.. Does that policy make sense?
Some States flatly oppose it. Do we know enough about any of these measures to allow one to
override another? Can we establish a balance among these different tools?
4
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN TH£21st CENTURY: 1-6
.Some of our time will be spent on ecological risk assessment. Can. we actually make
ecological risk assessments, and how could we implement such assessments in terms of
regulatory programs?
Forty-three million people in the United States are served by 1,200 combined sewer
systems, mostly in the northeast part of the country. There are a whole host of issues to be
considered by the Criteria and Standards Program, not the. least of which are the relative risks
of wet weather events compared to other threats, and the characteristics of wet weather
discharges that pose the greatest risk to human health. In what area of the criteria-to-standards-
to-permit process should EPA focus its efforts?
While the easterners among us can debate that topic, the people from the arid west will
be talking about how to apply standards to ephemeral- and effluent-dominated streams. The
question raised by interested groups is whether some different interpretation and application of
the Clean Water Act is more appropriate for the arid west. Alternatively, is there sufficient
flexibility in the current program regulation and policies to cover such situations?
In all of these areas, an underlying question is do we need statutory or regulatory changes
to accomplish the desired objective?
As we identify the national program priorities for the coming years, I think it is important
to maintain a focus on the reality of getting things done, all the way from the basic scientific
research through setting the enforceable water quality standards, having available implementation
procedures, and being able to reflect the requirements in permits.
LOGISTICS
As the first speaker, I get the honor of making all the miscellaneous announcements
required at the beginning of a meeting. So, here goes.
Outside this main meeting room, you will find copies of many EPA publications. We
invite you to look them over and order those you feel can be useful to you.
We also will be showing a number of videotapes on the Criteria and Standards Program
at the breaks. These tapes are available free for your use. Order forms are available.
In addition, please use your time here to meet with the EPA staff, get to know each
other, and share ideas.
If there is anything we can help you with at the meeting, please go the registration desk
and we'll help you out.
-------
T. DAVEES
I want to thank AMSA for taking the time and trouble for putting together yesterday's
field trip. It always helps to get into the field and see what the environmental problem or
challenge is.
We appreciate your being here, and I hope you will be able to say it was time well spent
at the end of the conference.
To get us started, I would like to introduce the Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Water, LaJuana Wilcher.
6
-------
Applying EPA's
Risk-Based
Approach and
Commitment to
Sound Science to
WQC/WQS
Priority Setting
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 7-13
EPA'S COMMITMENT TO SOUND SCIENCE AND WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
Lajuana S. Wilcher
Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency . r
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
INTRODUCTION
Good morning. It's a pleasure to join you at the Third National Meeting on Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century. Although it is mid-morning, this is probably pretty early
for some of you—that field trip to the effluent-dominated stream yesterday must have been pretty
exhausting. Either that, or some of you have made field trips to the casino floor. I know
you've just gone;to assess the risks, though, in the name of science.
<*
If you've found significant risks at the tables, you'll agree with the Greek philosopher,
Petronius, who called gaming:
. . . that direst felon of the breast
[which] Steals more than fortune from its wretched thrall, *
Spreads o'er the soul the inert devouring pest
And gnaws, and rots, and taints, and ruins all. (Gaius Petronius, 66 A.D., 3,500 Good
Quotes for Speakers)
I mention that not only in sympathy to some, but also as a service to others who might
have thought of playing "hooky" from today's meetings. See how much better off you are in
here! ,
STATE ACHIEVEMENTS THROUGH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
\
Numbers take on extra importance, in Las Vegas. Today, I like the number 42. Lucky
42 is a winner because that is the number of States and territories which have
7
-------
L.S. WILCHER
adopted and received EPA approval for numeric criteria for toxic pollutants. These 42
jurisdictions have met the objective that Congress established in 1987.
Those of us in EPA's Office of Water know that it wasn't easy. Eveiy one of those
States had to face challenges to get the job done in a timely manner-challenges from many
interest groups, from legislatures, and even from us at EPA. There have been challenges on the
need for criteria, challenges on their scientific bases, and challenges on the costs of adopting
them. Yet, 42 States and territories persevered, made the tough choices, and adopted clear
standards which will form the basis for sound environmental control programs for years to come.
All of that tough work has paid off. We've been cleaning up the water. The most recent
data compiled by the States indicate that 63 percent of assessed river miles, 44 percent of
assessed lake acres, and 56 percent of estuarine square miles support their designated uses.
In the Water Quality Standards Program, there are 57 different jurisdictions working to
implement the requirements of the Clean Water Act. While all of their programs contain the
same basic elements, there are many differences. Innovative States have taken the lead in
implementing advanced concepts such as biological criteria, and ecoregional studies and controls.
Sediment criteria have been examined for application to the Puget Sound. Multi-regional efforts
to set common standards are under way for the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and Gulf of
Mexico. In a variety of ways, States are working to give real regulatory meaning to narrative
standards so that permits can be written to meet standards. States are trying different ways of
implementing antidegradation. State standards serve as benchmarks for effective pollution
prevention programs.
DELAYS MAY BRING MANDATES
But not every State has adopted all the standards necessary to control toxic pollutants.
The delays from some States have made their environmental problems worse, which reflects on
all of us and keeps us from folly enjoying our successes. EPA is also behind now in
promulgating toxic pollutant criteria for those 15 jurisdictions that did not folly comply with the
congressional directive. Congress did not envision so much foot-dragging on this issue.
It is unlikely that we will see reauthorization of the Clean Water Act before this Congress
adjourns. But as the 103rd Congress takes up reauthorization next year, some members will be
absolutely ready to mandate standards, such as those which the Great Lakes Critical Programs
Act specifies, along with timetables for State and EPA action. All this year, EPA has been
urging Congress not to change a law that is largely working well. But standards are the
foundation of the Clean Water Act, and State failures to adopt them weakens our ability to
intercede with Congress. ,
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 7-13
ADVANCING SCIENCE
During this conference, we will examine the future of pur water environment, new forms
of water quality standards, priorities based on risk assessment, and the continuous striving for
the strongest scientific basis possible for criteria and standards.
It is a fascinating agenda. We know that the future of our water environment will depend
upon sound science; upon our ability to measure ecosystem effects in the field as well as
individual effects in the laboratory.. The kind of good science we need is no ; longer just a
scholarly convenience; it has become absolutely necessary to defend sound environmental
regulation.
Two years ago this month, EPA's independent Science Advisoiy Board issued a landmark
report calling for more and better data of all kinds, especially relating to human health risks; and
better methodologies for assessing and comparing risks.
EPA's Administrator, Bill Reilly, took that recommendation to heart. Just last March,
Bill accepted the recommendations of an expert panel to change the way the Agency does
research and uses scientific information. One of its principal recommendations is to ensure:
... that all relevant scientific information . . . [including that] from outside the
Agency, is brought into the decision-making process. {Safeguarding the Future:
Credible Science, Credible Decisions, The Expert Panel on the Role of Science
at EPA, March 1992)
Another important panel recommendation is that EPA "... improve communications
with the scientific community . . . ."
Bill Reilly is establishing a team of world-class scientists to advise him and the Agency,
and he is setting up a peer-review system. We want to be absolutely certain that the regulations
we set are grounded in scientific fact.
Good science fosters good public policy. Think how far our science has brought us!
Original basic water quality criteria such as dissolved oxygen have become more precise, and
we are able to measure and include many more pollutants in State standards than we could even
a few years ago. We can now recognize differences in water chemistry and the adaptability of
aquatic life, and develop criteria to apply to a specific site. State water quality standards
programs have been completely restructured, and some are already making extensive use of
biological criteria.
9
-------
L,S, WILCHER
OUTERIA MEASURE-VALUE
Hie wider focus on ecosystem approaches and biological criteria is useful because
problems in natural ecosystems often serve as early warning signs of problems. When humble
species like cave crayfish and microscopic water animals begin to suffer, we know the
environment is suffering, too. We know that a damaged environment leads to human health
problems. We know also that a healthy environment is essential to long-term economic growth.
Wild plants and animals have proven their economic value as sources of food and medicine, and
as sources of valuable domesticated species. Healthy wetlands prevent floods and treat water
pollution efficiently and with little or no cost. The list of benefits goes on and on.
Understanding the need for healthy ecosystems, the report of the Science Advisory Board
identified two of the highest environmental risks as:
• Habitat alteration and destruction, and
• Species extinction and loss of biological diversity. \
To address these issues, EPA has set priorities for the development of wildlife; criteria,
biological criteria, and sedimentary toxics criteria.
Wildlife Criteria
EPA's authority*to develop and set wildlife criteria is contained in section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act. But because we lacked data, we have delayed in setting those criteria. Some
of the Earth's finest creatures have paid the price of that delay. The Florida panther is
endangered—threatened not only by shrinking habitat, but by mercury contamination in the food
chain. In the Great Lakes, species including bald eagles, cormorants, and other shore birds
carry PCBs and other toxic pollutants which interfere with their reproduction.
Instead of waiting for wildlife to become sick or die, EPA wants to provide States with
the tools they need to evaluate water with wildlife health in mind. We want to determine the
extent of the problem. We are developing a national methodology that will:
• Accommodate site-specific situations identifying chemicals of concern and species
at risk;
• Identify and evaluate the best, most scientifically sound methods for developing
wildlife criteria; and
• Incorporate proven criteria into our regulations.
10
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lst CENTURY: 7-13
But we don't want this to be a top-down effort. We want to work in all phases as partners with
scientists, the Department of the Interior, and States.
This past April, just such a group of partners convened in Charlottesville, Virginia, for
a national meeting on wildlife criteria. One approach the group discussed is the one taken in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative. The findings of the conference will be published later
this year.
EPA and its partners are developing a database of all available mammalian, avian,
reptilian, and amphibian data to help us develop sound, inclusive wildlife methodologies and
criteria. The database, called Wildlife Assessment for Residues and Toxicity—WART for short-
will be incoiporated into the Agency's database of ecotoxicological information, or ECOTOX,
and will be available to all States and territories.
We hope that States will see these efforts as a foundation on which they can build strong
programs to protect wildlife from toxic pollutants.
Biological Criteria
Biological criteria present an even more difficult challenge, but they are a tantalizing
goal. More than anything else, biological criteria will make it possible to directly measure the
health of the ecosystem by measuring the structure and functions of aquatic communities. Since
resident plants and animals continually monitor environmental quality, they can help detect
spills, dumping, treatment plant malfunctions, and nonpoint source pollution, which may not be
happening when we take samples. They can also help us measure sedimentation from
stormwater runoff, and habitat alterations from dredging, filling, or channelization. Biological
criteria will make possible more holistic, integrated, and complete evaluations of water quality.
States are eager to integrate biological assessments and criteria into water quality
management programs. More than 20 States use some form of standardized biological
assessments in their waters now. Several States, including Ohio, Florida, Maine, and North
Carolina, use biological criteria in establishing aquatic life use classifications and in enforcing
water quality standards. These States have an eye on the future.
But .biological assessments cannot forecast problems, and they require difficult
measurement and careful data interpretation. Biological criteria may never supplant chemical
and toxicological methods, but they will complement other surface water quality criteria.
11
-------
L.S. WILCHER
Sedimentary Criteria
Even where water column levels meet criteria, toxic sediments in lakes, rivers, wetlands,
and coastal waters keep alive the potential for continued environmental degradation. Studies
show us that human health, aquatic life, and even wildlife are at risk from toxic sediments.
Field studies find that contaminants leaching from sediments over time can produce fish tumors
and fin rot, and diseases which can wipe out entire aquatic communities. As you know, several
States have closed water supplies and have put up seafood warnings and swimming bans where
sediments have become contaminated.
In some places where waterfowl eat fish contaminated by toxics from sediments, the
waterfowl have problems breeding, and their young do not develop properly. People who hunt
ducks in parts of Wisconsin are warned by the State not to eat them because the ducks consume
food contaminated by Great Lakes sediments. That's a danger signal to us, like a dying canary
in a coal mine. We need sediment quality criteria to assess contamination and to stop it.
Various Federal agencies work with contaminated sediments, so we're working on a
combination solution, likely a tiered approach that would require more testing at increasing
contaminant thresholds or when toxics show synergistic, antagonistic, or additive effects. We
have already held one workshop, including our partners from States, other agencies,
environmental groups, industry, EPA Laboratory, the Science Advisory Board, contractors, and
university scientists. They have identified a model that may meet all of our needs. Later this
year, we expect to issue for public comment a criteria development methodology for endrin,
phenanthiiene, fluoranthene, acenaphthene, and dieldrin. Next year, we intend to present to the
Science Advisory Board a methodology for developing sediment criteria for metal contaminants.
HOLISTIC MANAGEMENT AND WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICIT Y
Two words—complementary and holistic—point the way to our water quality standards
future. We see that we cannot control water pollution with chemicals alone. Studies from the
Ohio State EPA show that the chemical approach for protecting aquatic life failed in more than
a third (36 percent) of their (431) sites. We must do better than that. To do better, we need
complementary, holistic tools, which we find in Whole Effluent Toxicity testing. These tests
allow us to measure the total toxic effect of an effluent through a biological test, without
identifying specific toxicants. It is the best way we have found to replicate the actual
environmental exposure of aquatic life to effluent toxicants. One EPA study shows that 89
percent of the Whole Effluent Toxicity tests accurately predict toxicity effects. An independent
analysis of several studies parallels our findings, showing 90 percent accuracy in these tests.
12
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 7-13
• Those are the kinds of results we need at a time when advancing science and economic
development keep moving environmental quality goal posts farther and farther away. As we ask
citizens to spend their tax dollars on increasingly complicated and expensive control measures,
we are responsible for ensuring that they are buying the best, most comprehensive, and cost-
effective safeguards possible. We must see that their money is spent on the highest risks first.
JEPA's Science Advisory Board has called on the Agency and the Nation to do a better
job of setting environmental risk priorities. The SAB report says;
. . . there are heavy costs involved if society fails to set environmental priorities
based on risk. If finite resources are expended on lower priority problems at the
expense of high priority risks, then society will face needlessly high risk.
EPA recognizes that we must provide more guidance to States and other Federal agencies
on high-priority risks, and we are working to do that.
CONCLUSION
It always seems to come back to risk here in Glitter City. We all want to minimize it
and not end up feeling like poor Petronius did. We in this room have a duty to minimize risk
on behalf of the Americans who trust us. Working together, using good science, we can stack
the deck in their favor. Playwright Damon Runyan once said:
It may be that the race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong—but
that's the way to bet. (Damon Runyan, quoted in -Friendly Advice, by Ion
Winokur)
In the race to improve environmental quality using sound science and effective controls,
EPA is betting on you.
Thank you.
13
-------
T {ft, A ^ 1 ^AVlfiC
What Direction
Now?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE.21srt CENTURY: 15-19
LIFE AFTER TOXICS: WHAT DIRECTION NOW?
NATIONAL CONSISTENCY VS. GEOGRAPHIC FLEXIBILITY &
THE ROLE OF RISK IN PRIORITY gETTING
William R. Diamond (Moderator)
Director
Standards & Applied Science Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
The first two speakers described the puipose of this Conference In terms of debating the
future direction, priorities and pressing issues of the water quality standards program. This initial
session focuses on two cross-cutting issues that are central to that debate:
1. What approach should be taken to water quality criteria development and water
quality standards State adoption and Federal approval—
• Emphasizing national consistency, or
• Maximizing geographic flexibility?
2. What is the appropriate role of risk in priority setting?
The provisions of the Clean Water Act strike a balance between some degree of national
consistency (i.e., national water quality criteria guidance under section 304; national policies and
regulations; and EPA oversight, review, and approval of States standards) andj permissible
flexibility to adapt national guidance to local circumstances (i.e., State primacy, and site-specific
criteria). This approach worked well for the initial development and adoption of simple water
quality criteria and standards. However, recently a number of events have brought this balance
under scrutiny, and there have been calls to alter this fundamental Clean Water Act principle.
These events include the following:
• As States have adopted water quality standards for toxic pollutants, some have
questioned the disparity among States in the risk levels and exposure assumptions
relative to protection of human health. They have argued that at a minimum
there should be consistency among the States in human health risk levels.
15
-------
W.R. DIAMOND
'¦* Others assert that advances in science allow more accurate tailoring of standards
to local and regional conditions. They claim it runs counter to good science to
establish nationally consistent water quality standards that are more stringent (and
more expensive) than is necessary to protect the ecology.
• Some congressional actions, such as the Great. Lakes Critical Programs Act,
indicate a preference for greater consistency in water quality standards and
implementation practices across States and water bodies.
• Some recent EPA actions, such as the Watershed Initiative, are moving the
Agency toward a water body focus and greater flexibility for criteria and
standards.
• Major bills pending for Clean Water Act reauthorization (e.g., Senate 1081)
include provisions that move strongly in the direction of uniformity in water
quality criteria and standards. Proponents assert such provisions assure greater
equity among dischargers in different States and speed the cleanup of distressed
waters by avoiding the long delays that have become the norm in State adoption
of water quality standards.
• Actions to address concerns about "environmental equity" could take the form of
either greater national consistency (setting criteria and standards to protect highly
exposed populations through stringent assumptions on risk levels and consumption
parameters) or increased use of site-specific standards (based on local information
on consumption patterns and highly exposed subpopulations).
The CWhas traditionally included broad program mandates that leave EPA with
flexibility to decide the specifics of implementation. However, the trend of recent amendments
has been toward greater statutory specificity. This limits the ability to set priorities based upon
risk at a time when there is increased ability to set risk-based priorities and more calls to rely
on risk-based decision-making.
These issues raise several questions for the future of the program. The fundamental ones
are obvious:
• Should the water quality program be geared to greater national consistency or
increased geographical flexibility and tailoring?
• Does the answer vary depending on the type of criteria (chemical-specific numeric
vs. biological vs. whole effluent vs. wildlife)?
16
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21»t CENTURY: 15-19
• Should a distinction be made between standards to protect human health vs.
. ecological standards?
• What should be the role of risk in setting program priorities? Are risk assessment
and risk management sufficiently developed to rely upon for this type of
decision-making?
Is a statutory change necessary or desirable to address these issues? If so, what
form should it take?
• Are sufficient data available to decide these issues at this time?
Related issues can also influence decisions on this subject:
•• Are these issues impacted if there is a requirement to move aggressively toward
the Clean Water Act goal of zero discharge?
• Should EPA alter its allocation of scientific and research resources away from
development of methodologies and criteria documents and toward assistance at the
local level to speed tailoring of criteria and implementation?
• Given the relative success of the Clean Water Act programs, should we tamper
with provisions that are at the core of the statute?
These issues require close examination and lengthy debate much more than can be
accomplished in the short time allowed us in this session. However, today's presentations will
enhance that debate by presenting the perspectives of three speakers with strong experience and
diverse backgrounds in this area. Each has recently given these issues extensive consideration
through a variety of activities or forums.
17
-------
W.R. DIAMOND
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
Slide 2
Life After Toxics: What
Direction Now?
National Consistency vs. Geographic Flexibility
• &
The Rot* o) Risk In Priority Setting
1
Water Quality Standards (or the 21st Century
Program Direction & Issue Decisions
August 31 - September 3,1992
Clean Water Act
Chemical Integrity
protect
HEALTH
t
ENVIRONMENT
Biological
Integrity
Physical
Integrity
Slide 3
CWA Criteria & Standards
Timing Scheme
CPA
ecmots
woe
woe woe woe woe woe
OuMmm* QtAteKw Quldano* GiMmi GttMane*
DvoanMrtt D*cunMte Documents DocutMnts DocumMs
VTATZS
AOOfT
TrtonnU
n 73 uts mm
¦1 UO MUM
Slide 4
Actual Evolution
of the
Water Quality
Criteria and
' Standards
Program
ma 1972 1377 mm 19BZ ma iim „
°C=i>
SlideS
Slide 6
CWA Scheme-
'Consistency vs. Flexibility'
FIMWMnMM
QMla
Public
•ianMWos Participation
rwmi FnxnotyHco Requirement
NATIONAL
CONSISTENCY
. SttttMmacy
t>»OMign*tiona
SH* SpccHto Ctttarta
Rliklliraowiwnl
OlicnMon
GEOGRAPHIC
FLEXIBILITY
Consistency vs. Flexibility
Actual Implementation
zx
EM
VCtoNrahMt
. Mattm
K.TXTA,
GEOORMHC
rUEXWUTY
18
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 15-19
Slide 7
New Considerations in
WQC/WQS Decision-Making
Risk
• What is Remaining Risk?
• What is Relative
Importance of
Remaining Risk?
•What is
- Acceptable Risk?
Slide 8
Consistency/Stringency Matrix
"Loom" WQC
National
Consistency
c
. 'E
A
F
D
D
Geographic
Ftostottty
"Conssrvrtvs" WOC
AaNaUOfMlTMfcsRute D«SM*WQS-Ok>xfa
BaGrsst LakM Crttfctl Programs Act E«fik>tog>ca1 Criteria
CtRah Conoumptlon Assumptions F^Smste 6111081
Slide 9
The New Paradigm?
Consistency/Stringency/Relative Risk Matrix
"Loom" WQC.
' National
"ConMmthm"Wac Consl«t«icv * * Raill
HighRMc yy 7 /v / j j y j
Geographic
k RsxIMlty
/ // // // / y
19
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; ,21-24
A STATE VIEW ON THE NEED FOR NATIONAL CONSISTENCY:
DISCUSSION PAPER
Lydia Taylor
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Portland, Oregon
The puipose of this paper is to bring up for discussion issues resulting from a lack of
consistency in EPA-approved water quality standards among States and territories, and to suggest
alternatives for consideration.
Many of the waters in the United States cross State boundaries or are, in fact, the borders
between States. When there is no national consistency on standards, it presents several
problems.
In Arkansas, a lawsuit was filed by a downriver State, Oklahoma, which felt "its" water
quality standards weren't being met because of dischargers upriver in another State operating
under a different water quality standard (See Arkansas v. Oklahoma article attached.) The
Supreme Court held that EPA has the authority to require that point sources in upstream States
not cause violation of water quality standards in downstream States. The Court declined,
however, to decide whether the Clean Water Act required EPA to do so. The unfortunate point
here is that one State has to sue another State, or EPA, expending resources, and straining
relationships in an attempt to attain approved water quality standards. The standards in
Oklahoma and Arkansas are both approved by EPA.
In many States, the environmental community holds up as "good" programs that have
stringent numeric standards, using those "good" States as examples to pressure other States to
follow suit. Industry, on the other hand, uses the States that are "reasonable" as examples to
pressure other States that have tighter standards and are therefore considered "unreasonable."
They cite the need for a level playing field and "good" science. States are constantly played off
one against the other. The weapon of inconsistency extends to legal actions and formal
testimony in both administrative and court cases initiated by both industry and environmental
groups. States end up being the playing field upon which this battle is fought.
Of the States and territories, 42 have adopted numeric standards for toxics and 15 have
not. EPA's statutory deadline to adopt these criteria for States not having standards is long past,
21
-------
L. TAYLOR
and no one knows when the final rules will
be issued. This adds to the problems of
inconsistency. By reporting the status of the
quality of water under section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act, States with standards are
disadvantaged. EPA and the media are quick
to point out where water in one State doesn't
meet standards compared to all other States,
including those which don't have numeric
limits.
States devote a great deal of money
and usually a good deal of stressful effort,
State by State, to develop and review
scientific and technical information and adopt
standards. Then they are increasingly put in
the position of legally or legislatively
defending those standards, State by State.
In Oregon, we have a numeric
instream water quality standard for dioxin
(2,3,7,8-TCDD). The States that share with
Oregon the Columbia River (see map) are
Washington, which has a narrative standard
on toxics; and Idaho (a non-delegated State)
which operates under EPA criteria. Each has bleached kraft pulp mills discharging to the
Columbia River or one of its major tributaries.
SUPREME COURT REACHES DECISION IN ARKANSAS
V OKLAHOMA
Oil February 28, 1992, the Supreme Court urunimousiy ruled in
EPA's favor in Arkansas v, Oklahoma, a case challenging
.EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit to "«i publicly owned
* treatment plant in Fayetteville, Arkansas, for a discharge into a
river flowing into Oklahoma. 'In an opinion emphasizing EPA's
discretion. Justice Stevens held that the Clean Water Act clearly
authorized EPA to require that point sources in upstream States
not violate water quality standards in downstream States, and
that EPA's interpretation of those standard)! governed. "The
opinion also held that the Act did not mandate a categorical ban
" on discharges to a water body that is in violation of standards.
The Court declined to decide the question of whether the Act
itself mandates EPA, in drafting and issuing a permit to a point
source in one State, to apply the water quality standards of
downstream States. The Court found the EPA clearly had the
statutory authority to do so. and that its regulations imposing
such requirements constitute a reasonable exercise of.the.
Agency's statutory authority. State water quality standards
approved by EPA are part of the Federal law of water pollution
control, and EPA's reasonable, consistently held interpretation
of those standards is entitled to substantial deference.
Additional details are available for the Office of General Counsel
in Washington, D.C. 20460, Catherine Winer, and also through
the EPA regional offices, particularly die Office of Regional
Counsels.
The quantity of dioxin being discharged into the Columbia caused it to be listed in both
Oregon and Washington as not meeting water quality standards. Oregon and Washington asked
EPA to develop a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for the Columbia River for dioxin,
which EPA did.
i
Washington was subsequently sued when it placed waste load allocation numbers in pulp
mill permits based on this TMDL and lost the appeal because it did not have a numeric standard
on which to base its permits. Washington, in an attempt to settle the lawsuit, might agree to a
discharge compliance number which in Oregon's view will,neither meet the requirements of the
TMDL nor allow the Columbia River to meet Oregon's water quality standards for dioxin.
What should Oregon do? We don't know. Will EPA require Washington to adopt a
numeric limit for toxics? We don't know. What if Washington adopts a less stringent standard
for dioxin in the near future? Will EPA approve it? Probably, The Agency has approved a
22
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; "21-24
i *
variety of dioxin standards
across the country ranging
from 0,013 ppq to 1.2
ppq. Then what will
Oregon do about the
Columbia River? Will we
be put in the position of
jeopardizing our excellent
working relationship with
the State of Washington
over the issue. Will we be
put in the position of suing
EPA?
The lack of
consistency by EPA in
either requiring that
standards be adopted, or in approving State standards at different levels, is causing major public
policy problems.
Industries are not treated equally across the United States, and this is a valid concern on
the part of business. Individual citizens perceive that they are not protected at the same risk
level from State to State.
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?
Standards could be developed on a regional basis, proving consistency on regional waters.
Unless a formal regional or interstate water pollution control authority is formed, the burden of,
coordinating such an approach would invariably fall to EPA. It isn't likely, with EPA's present
staffing levels, that they should embrace such an effort. Standards might be developed under
this scheme which achieve the lowest common denominator in order to reach consensus. Since
most of the major rivers in the continental United States cross State boundaries, this approach
could leave very little to each individual State's discretion.
Another approach might be to develop some mechanism (a trigger) that would cause a
coordinated standards development effort to occur. For example, when a river exceeds the water
quality standard of one of the States on an interstate water body, it could trigger a coordinate
effort to establish a uniform standard for that river or river basin. This would mean that
coordinated efforts wouldn't occur until waters didn't meet standard, contrary to a preference
for preventing water from exceeding standards. It would have the benefit of limiting such
efforts to areas where they were really necessary.
IVEYSUUBUISIt
(L—
BCX38CA9GADB
(W«Doh)
WA
LONOVCVVat
rg»*TAXJKrr
(Bain?)
OR
* Bleached Kxsft Pulp Mill
23
-------
L. TAYLOR
• - Uniform standards could be developed and adopted at the national level. This solution
gives States great pause. First, EPA timelines to meet statutory goals often lag far behind
expectations. States could wait a long while to see new or revised standards developed.
Second, the amount of weight given to States' technical or scientific concerns might be
insufficient in developing standards. On the other hand, this solution would offer a reduction
In conflict between States on interstate waters. It would also move the debate between States,
industries, environmental groups, and the EPA to the national level. This would result in the
debate being resolved once, uniformly, rather than 57 times inconsistently. It would also relieve
pressure from State .agencies who frequently face State legislatures asking questions about
whether standards are more stringent than elsewhere in the country or more stringent than the
EPA would require. It would provide a level playing field for industry across the country.
Although none of the alternatives offered is completely palatable, maintaining the current
status will become increasingly difficult and litigious. States should take a serious look at
uniform national standards being developed by EPA.
24
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 25-31
LIFE AFTER TOXICS: WHAT DIRECTION NOW?
Roger Dolan
President
Water Environment Federation
Martinez, California
INTRODUCTION
I appreciate having the opportunity to be with you today. Our topic covers national
consistency versus geographical flexibility and the role of risk in priority setting. My comments
will address these two topic areas as they are impacted by policy on toxicity, biological
monitoring, and watershed management. In this context, I'll also share some ideas on pollution
prevention, nonpoint pollution, tod CSOs.
MANAGEMENT OF TOXIC POLLUTION
*
I think that the legislative/regulatory train has been chugging down a conceptual track that
may benefit from some rethought and redirection. The current conceptual track goes something
like this: For eons plant and animal life existed in a .natural dynamic balance with the forces
of nature, such as nutrients, moisture, sunlight, oxygen, grazing and predation. Then, man's
ingenuity produced industrial activities which have created a new deadly factor—toxicity. By
controlling the impact of industry, which is insinuated throughout human activity, we can bring
toxicity under control
It is understandable that this concept would find acceptance, given the long history of
man's accidentally generated poisons, including lead and mercury, and the 20th century advances
in the development of poisonous organic chemicals.
What's wrong with the concept? Well, it seems that as we have developed more and
more precise toxicity tests aimed at identifying the concentration at which toxic effects can be
discerned in the most sensitiVe organism, we are discovering that toxicity is everywhere.
Samples of natural earth can't pass the leachate toxicity tests. Pristine water samples don't
comply with EPAs toxicity criteria. There are two possible explanations. First, maybe the
25
-------
R.DOLAN
toxicity-testing protocols need some improvement. Second, maybe our original conceptual
model, based on industrial toxins, needs some rethinking. I think both explanations are true.
I'm beginning to think we left something out of the list of natural forces that control the
balance of nature-namely, geologically and biologically produced toxins. On the strength of
what we are now learning, some people are concluding that one species' mieronutrient is another
species' toxic metal. Plants and plant eaters, bacteria and molds, predators and prey, and plants
and animals competing for an ecological niche of their own have evolved the production and use
of organic toxins that provide them with competitive advantages. Similarly, organisms have
evolved mechanisms to resist both biologically and geologically produced toxins. Under this
new understanding, the dream of a toxics-free environment begins to look quite naive.
Without belaboring this point, I suspect that when our understanding of the ecology of
toxins is clearer, we will begin to look at water quality objectives somewhat differently. _
Chemical-specific criteria should diminish in importance, to be replaced by an increased
emphasis on ecological and human health criteria. Of course; we will have to control real and
measurable toxicity to indigenous species introduced into the natural receiving water as a result
of human activity. We need to adjust our thinking, however, when we apply imputed effects
to the most sensitive, often non-native, species caused by toxins that may be in nonrepresentative
chemical states.
Ideally, the water environment management objective should be the establishment of a
healthy, balanced ecosystem. The abundance, balance, and diversity of indigenous species
should be our goal. Measurements of and criteria for instream toxicity, eutrophication, toxic
tissue burden, and reproductive success might be examples of more suitable criteria that need
to be developed. It is obviously not a simple task. When developed, these ecological criteria
could, perhaps, be applied nationally. In addition to these ecological objectives, the health
effects on people who may be exposed to the natural food web would be the basis of our
regulatory approach. To do this correctly, we also need to improve the approach we use jto
estimate small risks to human populations. Such an approach would appear to provide a better
fit with the national goal of swimmable and fishable waters.
It is often exceedingly difficult to have newer, better knowledge reflected in changed
regulations. In a way bound to make any seeker of the most intelligent solution shudder, some
would use the ill-advised language of the anti-backsliding clause to prevent future permit
requirements from reflecting improved knowledge. Nevertheless, if we are able to change in
response to new information on this subject, I expect that we will someday look on our 1992
understanding of toxicity and current regulatory approach as a good, but very primitive
beginning.
26
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 25-31
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
I think that the role for biomonitoring as a water quality management tool should grow.
I think that biological indicators, should play a primary role, both in measuring receiving water
quality and in predicting the effect of contaminant discharges. The biggest obstacle to having
this happen is complacency with the current state of. the tests. They are just not good enough.
The Whole-Effluent Toxicity Test is represented as a regulatory safety net, catching the
subtle effects of synergism and antagonism among contaminants and, thus, acting as a better
predictor of the discharge's effect on the receiving water biota. For this to be true, local species
should be used. For purposes of compliance monitoring, we will have to continue to use
synthetic dilution water. But for overall watershed planning and management, it would be good
to see protocols developed to determine the toxic effects of effluents blended with receiving
water.
The statistical procedures need to be improved to weed out erratic results due to inter-
and intra-test variability (including species variability), and by doing so, to give a higher level
of confidence in the results. The PQL Methodology can be adapted from chemical analysis to
assure a 90 percent or 95 percent confidence to the results.
Furthermore, we need better ways to learn what the lethal pollutant was that caused the
measured effect in the test organisms. The very expensive TRE/TTE can be helpful, but often
serves as no mojjp than an educated guess. I'd like to see EPA fund a study to produce a table*
of predictable histological effects that result from exposure to the 10 or 12 most probable toxins.
If we were trying to figure out what poison killed a person, we wouldn't use a HE procedure.
We would look at muscle/reflex reaction, skin or eye color, or other presumptive indicators,
which would be confirmed by autopsy. Often, by the time you realize you have a toxic effect,
the effluent and the sample have changed. The only thing you can turn to is an affected test
organism.
WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
The Federation has been encouraging our Federal legislators to require that future water
quality standards be determined through detailed watershed-specific plans, and that local citizens
have a say in setting priorities. At this point our feeling is that the legislators and their staffs,
as a whole, are unconvinced. The specter of a hodgepodge of standards and the possible loss
of control of the standard-setting process are understandably unsettling.
I think that their concerns are not well founded. We have actually had watershed water
quality management for years. There already is a hodgepodge of requirements for nutrient
-------
R. DO LAN
removal across the United States. Through decentralization and distribution of authority, the
system works. As to the loss of control, welcome to the democratic process. EPA is getting
good experience in managing public processes in their Bays and Estuaries program. At least in
California (Region 9), they have done a respectable job. EPA and the States have got to retain
final authority. What we are asking for is not local control, but local involvement in deciding
which local water quality problems to tackle firs't and how much can be done in the near term.
- These same legislators, who are not so sure the public should be brought in to water
environment priority setting, blessed us all with public involvement through NEPA and its State-
level analogues. These laws did not create public participation-they just democratized it,
providing the opportunity for influencing public policy to the average citizen—not just the rich
and powerful. Tliis lias, of course, made NIMBY control a major element of modern public
works management. But, at least, after the public has their say, there is a greater understanding
when the bills have to be paid.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Like just about everyone I know, I am a strong supporter of pollution prevention. We
have applied this approach to many substances from DDT to asbestos to mercury and lead over
the past two decades, and we need to extend it more broadly.
My principal concern with the current rhetoric on pollution prevention is that I sense that
many believe we can achieve full control of toxins through pollution prevention. I believe that
this is unrealistic. There will be very few substances that we can ban across the board, as we
did with DDT in 1972. Yet, we are still seeing DDT/DDE concentrations in the water
environment, comparable to levels which were detected in the late 1970s. We are seeing some
real improvement in copper and lead resulting from water system corrosion control. However,
as long as copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead remain in plumbing systems, elevated levels of these
metals will continue to be found in treatment plant influents. Several so-called toxic metals are
valued as minerals in the food we eat. Where do you think that stuff ends up?
The plant effluent concentrations may not actually be toxic to indigenous species in the
receiving water, but chances are that the EPA chemical-specific criteria will not be met by a
great many dischargers.
This is where our current optimism over pollution prevention can be a problem. If the
chemical-specific criteria remain unchanged, even with the maximum practical level of pollution
prevention, we will be confronted with increased treatment requirements. I have seen little
evidenceofaffordabletreatmenttechnology, specifically aimed at toxics removal, being developed.
28
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 25-31
TOXICS TREATMENT
When we consider processes for the removal of trace metals, we turn to reverse osmosis
and lime precipitation, both of which must be questioned because of their resource demands and
residuals disposal problems.
We have to remember that toxics are toxic because of their biological reactivity. I would
like to see researchers investigate biological processes for the removal of toxins, preferably by
process improvements in existing plants. Biological processes already remove substantial
amounts of toxins. What will it take to remove more?
Of course, jacking up the toxics removal performance of existing plants does not touch
urban and agricultural runoff, the major sources of toxins in the, water environment. Here again,
biological processes may be used. But, I'd like to have us find the right way to develop
wetlands to ensure that after a couple of decades of accumulating toxics, we haven't created tens
or hundreds of thousands of acres of new RCRA sites. By the way, many natural wetlands have
been receiving storm runoff for decades. I wonder if anyone has ever done a comprehensive
survey of existing urban wetlands to confirm that we are using the right approach.
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
CSOs are an inextricable part of the watershed management issue. We firmly believe
that best professional judgment must be relied upon to develop CSO solutions to meet water
quality goals. National technology-based controls are not only guaranteed not to fit all
situations, but also will be a gigantic wet blanket to innovation and creativity. Allowing
flexibility will permit some mistakes to be made, but mandating a confining national program
is likely to force a second best option on a large number of local agencies. Given that the cost
of full and immediate CSO control is unaffordable, we should be doing everything possible to
help stimulate creative solutions, and we also should be providing compliance time schedules that
will soften the economic impact on the public. Perhaps our regulatory people should throw
some of their weight behind a program to develop a national infrastructure policy, including a
sound funding base. If we do this, and add a training program for unskilled workers, we may
have a tool to solve problems such as CSOs and to strengthen our economy at the same time.
A brief aside on nonpoint source contamination—I would be cautious of the data you will
be getting on storm and agricultural discharges. I suspect that not enough care has gone into
sampling techniques. Take it from one who has been dealing with the problems of getting a
representative sample in wastewater for years; it is not easy. In open channel flow, it is best
29
-------
R.DOLAN
to gather the sample at a point of free fall where the bed load of sediments and the surface
accumulation are all mixed into the flow. Simply scooping a sample out of a flowing stream
won't give you the right answer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. EPA should undertake the development of ecological criteria which can be applied
nationally and by which we can establish the biological health of the water
environment.
2. EPA should continue improving the methodology for setting human health
criteria.
3. Chemical-specific criteria should be recognized for what they are, a surrogate
indicator, and should be of value only until reliable ecological criteria are
developed. After this occurs, the Gold Book will serve to help solve water
quality puzzles but will not serve as a national standard.
4. Eliminate the anti-backsliding language from the Clean Water Act, EPA
regulations, and analogous State laws and regulations.
5. Reopen the Biomonitoring Protocols for further improvement.
Broaden the number of permitted species, and require that indigenous
species be used.
Develop protocols for measuring the toxicity in blends of effluent and
receiving water.
Apply the same statistical concept used in chemical determinations to
develop the practical quantitation limits. Set the confidence limits at 90
percent or 95 percent.
Develop information on observable symptoms of the toxic effects of a
limited number of common effluent toxins in the most common test
organisms.
The new Clean Water Act should establish a new basis for national water
environment standards. Permit requirements should be established by the
adoption of watershed plans. These plans, which would be subject to public
30
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 25-31
involvement, would evaluate specific water quality needs and. set priorities for
correction..
Continue to support the-development of treatment technology for toxics, in
POTWs and industrial plants, and also for agricultural and urban runoff.
Encourage innovation and the use of local discretion in the solution of CSO
problems. Maximize the exchange of knowledge between regulators and
professionals regarding workable solutions to stimulate farther creativity.
Review the urban runoff sampling procedures to be sure that the data you are
receiving give an accurate picture of the actual water quality impacts.
31
-------
Biological
Measures: Can
an.d Should They
Be Implemented?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21« CENTURY: 33-43
APPLICATION OF BIOMEASURES TO BASIN WATER QUALITY
STUDIES IN OREGON AND IDAHO
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Portland, Oregon ^
INTRODUCTION
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, is to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's water (Public Law 100-
4). Oregon's monitoring efforts and water quality criteria have been, and are presently, centered
on the chemical measurement of water quality. An example of the success of this approach is
the Willamette River (Gleeson, 1972), where significant improvements have been made in what
was once a seriously degraded stream. Thete is increasing concern, however, that reliance upon
conventional pollutant standards alone may not fully protect instream beneficial uses (Karr,
1991; U.S. EPA, 1990).
An integrated approach to beneficial use protection should include biological as well
as chemical and physical measurements. Biological measures may be more sensitive to changes
in water quality and may provide a.more direct indicator of beneficial use protection than
conventional parameters. The question is not so much whether to use biological measures, but
how best to utilize them.
USE OF BIOMEASURES—CASE STUDIES IN OREGON AND IDAHO
Narrative biocriteria are included in Oregon's water quality standards but are not widely
used for enforcement purposes. The principal use of biomeasures in Oregon has been as
background information and as supportive evidence of water quality conditions. Biological
measurements are also being used as tools to aid in developing pollution control strategies and
in monitoring the effectiveness of those strategies.
The following case studies discuss Oregon's use of biological indicators in pollution
control efforts on the Grande Ronde River and the Willamette River, and Idaho's plans for the
33
-------
R, BAUMOARTNER
Upper South Fork of the Salmon River. In all three cases, Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) are required for the water quality limited streams; the TMDL studies provide the basis
for the pollution control strategies.
The Salmon River TMDL provides an example of a phased approach to the use of
biocriteria in setting regulatoiy goals. Oregon is using a similar phased approach to help define
water quality management objectives for streams in the State. The phased approach allows goals
and criteria to be set and reviewed as information is developed; biological trends can be used
as a frame of reference for evaluating biocriteria and determining the effectiveness of Best
Management Practices.
Case Study: Grande Ronde River, Oregon
Background: The Grande Ronde River in northeastern Oregon has been identified as
water quality limited due to violations of the pH standard resulting from periphytoii growth;
suspected sources include municipal and industrial discharges. The key problem, however, is
a decline in the population of Spring Chinook salmon over the past several decades (Figure 1).
Historical returns, or escapement, of Spring Chinook to the upper Grande Ronde River have
been variously estimated at greater than 12,200 (Anderson et al., 1992) and at approximately
20,000 (State Water Resources Board, 1960). Spring Chinook salmon adult populations have
dropped to an estimated 24 fish in 1991 (Boehne, 1991). This decline has been attributed to
passage problems at Columbia and Snake River dams (Anderson et al., 1992); however, habitat
and water quality degradation also reduce the fisheries potential of the Grande Ronde.
Although preliminary point source biomonitoring data from the summer of 1992 indicate
that point source discharges are degrading water quality in the Grande Ronde, the impacts on
fisheries are more directly related to nonpoint source activities. Several agencies have
recognized that temperature problems and habitat degradation are critical factors contributing to
impacts on beneficial uses: The State Water Resources Board (1960) noted concerns that poor
land-use management was degrading the fisheries resource; several agencies have documented
severe impairment of water quality due to sedimentation and thermal problems (Anderson et al.,
1992); and riparian habitat is in a moderate to severely degraded state throughout the watershed
(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1988). In the Grande Ronde, these problems
have not been, and likely could not be, resolved using a conventional point-source pollution
reduction effort. Nonpoint sources must be addressed to reduce the impacts on fisheries
resources.
Efforts to improve water quality and fisheries habitat in the Grande Ronde will affect
both public and private lands. A local steering committee has been established and partially
funded by the State to coordinate the efforts in the Grande Ronde. Effective coordinating efforts
34
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: '33-43
between agencies and cooperative landowners will be important for implementing voluntary
compliance efforts.
Current Studies: The U.S. Forest Service and the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ), along with several other agencies, are currently involved in water quality
monitoring efforts in the Grande Ronde. DEQ's efforts focus on several areas:
Collecting synoptic data for water chemistry and continuously monitoring for
river flow and temperature; the data will be used to support conventional water
quality models.
"• Conducting intensive diurnal studies on selected reaches to measure in situ levels
' of periphyton production and diurnal changes in pH, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and nutrients.
• Biomonitoring for abundance of periphyton, macroinvertebrates, and fish at
selected locations.
i . -
• Long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates and fish at selected locations prior
to, during, and after implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Monitored BMPs on private lands are implemented through voluntary efforts
partially supported by a grant from EPA.
Strategy: The strategy for the Grande Ronde River Basin TMDL is to integrate
information on water quality parameters with indices of biological integrity. Information on the
life history of the Spring Chinook, their occurrence in the basin, and their thermal requirements
will be used to help establish water quality goals. Methods and strategies for attaining criteria,
such as riparian protection or minimum stream flows, will be based upon data developed
specifically for the basin. The effectiveness of management strategies will be evaluated using
both conventional and biological measures. Ultimately, effectiveness will be determined by the
response of the fisheries resource.
Case Study: Willamette River, Oregon
Background: The Willamette River provides an example of significant improvement in
water quality resulting from pollution control efforts focused on conventional parameters.
However, limited biological data indicate that impacts to beneficial uses may be occurring that
are not apparent through monitoring of conventional pollutants.
The Willamette River in western Oregon receives wastewater from a large percentage
of the State's population. For nearly half a century, the Willamette River experienced severe
35
-------
R. BAUMQARTNER . '
oxygen depletion resulting from large loads of organically rich municipal and industrial
wastewater (Hines et al., 1977). In 1945, Dimmick and Merryfield noted that pollution had
caused decreases in productivity in portions of the river, and tributaries were seriously degraded
as measured by fish and invertebrate populations. Since then, the level of oxygen in the
mainstem Willamette River has improved-current levels of dissolved oxygen are above 85
percent of saturation. By the 1970s, the Willamette was recognized as the largest river with
# restored water quality (Huff and Klingeman, 1976). .
Although dramatic improvements In water quality in the Willamette River have been
achieved through the use of conventional monitoring, biological measurements have shown that
water quality degradation is still occurring in the Willamette Basin. Hughes and Gammon
(1987) conducted a survey in 1983 to evaluate the effects of Improved water quality on
longitudinal changes in fish assemblages in the mainstem Willamette River and to evaluate the
usefulness of two indices of fish assemblages. The report concluded that there has been marked
improvement in fish communities since 1945; fish assemblages showed a gradual and expected
decline from the upper to the lower river, with only small changes near major point sources of
pollution (Figure 2.1). The analysis noted a decrease in the modified index of biological
integrity at two locations (river kilometers 232 and 93), indicating a lower quality biological
community. Hie marked increase in disease and morphological anomalies and the marked
decrease in biomass at kilometers 35 and 77 (Figure 2.2) suggested increased levels of sublethal
stress (Hughes and Gammon, 1987). A study conducted for DEQ (Curtis et al., 1991) found
that indicators of biological stress (EROD and cytochrome P-450 1A1) were strongly induced
in fish from the Portland Harbor (river kilometer 11) but not from other locations.
Current Studv: Monitoring was initiated in the summer of 1992 for DEQ's current study
of the mainstem Willamette River. The study is a multiyear, cooperative effort that will be
integrated with an upcoming U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) basin study.
The study calls for data collection to support a conventional water quality model, limited
data collection to support a screening model for toxics, and collection of biological and
ecological data. Biological monitoring provides a direct measurement of the resources which
the pollution control strategies are attempting to protect, and should provide insight as to
whether current strategies are working.
The biological monitoring plan incorporates evaluation of several indices of the biological
community, including abundance and diversity of periphyton algae; fish-community health (TBI);
fish health assessments; invertebrate abundance and diversity; and juvenile-fish skeletal
abnormalities at selected locations. In selecting sites, it was assumed that different biological
communities would occupy specific areas in the river, based on the predominant physical habitat
36
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21« CENTURY: 33-43
s - . -
of a given reach, and that the communities would respond to different "stressors," such as
pollution sources, within these reaches. A single biomonitoring effort will be conducted
coincident with a conventional synoptic survey. Although the data will reflect seasonal and long-
term variation, it should provide an overview of the ecological health of the main stem.
The relative costs of the conventional and biological monitoring efforts for the Willamette
mainstem are summarized in Table 1. However, conventional and biological costs may not be
directly comparable because they provide different types of information, and each has different
advantages:
* . ,
* Although synoptic data for both biomeasures and conventional parameters can be
thought of as "snapshots," biological indicators provide a more integrated picture
over time and may be more sensitive.
* Data generated through biological and ecological monitoring are of less certain
utility than the conventional pollutant data collected for model calibration, but
many of the pollution problems associated with the conventional pollutants have
already been addressed.
* He biological data will provide a measure of the effectiveness of existing
pollution control strategies which were previously developed using conventional
monitoring.
* Biomonitoring data will also provide guidance for directing future efforts in the
basin, particularly as programs shift to address toxics and nonpoint source
pollution.
Case Study: South Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho
Background: The South Fork of the Salmon River in central Idaho provides an example
of the use of biological criteria in the stream recovery (TMDL) process (U.S. EPA, 1992). The
TMDL identifies fine sediments as the pollutant of concern and salmonid spawning as the related
beneficial use. Highly erodible sediments are washed into the river and its tributaries from
nonpoint sources; the sediments have contributed to the degradation of spawning and rearing
habitat for Chinook salmon and Steelhead trout, whose numbers have declined in recent years.
The TMDL establishes goals, monitoring requirements, and review schedules. Uncertainty in
predictions of the effectiveness of nonpoint source controls and biological criteria is addressed
through phased implementation.
TMDL Assessment: TMDL provisions and a water quality assessment were developed
jointly by the U.S. Forest Service, EPA, and the State of Idaho. With the aid of computer
37
-------
R. baumoartner
models, it was estimated that 85 percent of the sediment yield from the drainage basin was due
to natural causes and 15 percent was due to anthropogenic causes.. A goal of 25 percent
reduction in the sediment loads from anthropogenic causes was established, along with plans for
road reconstruction and related sediment-yield reduction projects. >
Hie effectiveness of the sediment reduction efforts will be monitored by measuring
changes in sediment yield, habitat, and spawning activity. A 10-year timeframe has been
established to implement controls, evaluate effectiveness, and monitor trends. If Chinook and
Steelhead spawning capability does not increase, additional sediment recovery projects will be
required and the attainability of the criteria will be reviewed. This phased approach is being
used because of the difficulties in addressing nonpoint source pollution problems.
DISCUSSION
As the emphasis of water quality programs shifts from point source control and
conventional pollutants toward nonpoint source problems and nonconventional pollutants, the
complexity and diversity of dilemmas facing resource managers will grow, along with demands
for increased monitoring of nonconventional pollutants. It will be increasingly important that
the most effective and efficient methods are used for measuring water quality impacts and
protecting resources. As indicated by the Oregon and Idaho case studies, a single approach is
not applicable to all pollution problems. It appears, however, that an integrated approach which
utilizes both conventional (chemical and physical) and biological measures may prove to be an
effective tool for assessing and correcting many water quality problems.
While the inherent degree of uncertainty that exists with biological measures and with
the types of assessments in which they are used, such as for toxics and for nonpoint sources,
must be recognized, so must their value. Bioindicators and biocriteria can be used: to indicate
where changes in water quality are occurring that might not be evident from conventional
measurements alone; to evaluate the combined effects of numerous chemical and physical
pollutants over time; to directly monitor impacts on beneficial uses; as a reference for
establishing objectives; and as a reference for evaluating the effectiveness of pollution control
strategies and compliance with resource management objectives. A phased implementation that
allows both the objectives and management strategies to be evaluated as new information is
generated is a particularly useful approach for application of biocriteria in a regulatory setting.
Additional research is warranted for a better understanding of biological measures.
Equally important is the need to link biological measures to resource management strategies and
to the protection of beneficial uses. The coordinated efforts of the various Federal and State
agencies, particularly the land-use management agencies such as the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management, will be necessary for establishing and achieving biological criteria.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN TOE 21st CENTURY: 33-43
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, additional research on the use of biological indicators should be a high
priority for both State and Federal agencies. In conjunction with conventional pollutant
measurements, the use of bioindicators should provide a useful tool for protecting beneficial
uses. Oregon plans to continue to integrate the use of bioindicators and biocriteria into its
established program for water quality protection.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J.W., and Upper Grande Ronde River Technical Work Group. 1992. Upper Grande
Ronde River anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration and monitoring plan, Wallowa-
Whitman National Forest.
Bengtsson, B.E. 1988. Effects of pulp mill effluent on skeletel parameters in fish~A progress
report. Wat. Sci. Tech. 20:87-94.
Boehne, P. 1991. Personal communication. Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.
Curtis, L.R., M.L. Deinzer, D.E. Williams, and O.R. Hedstrom. 1991. Toxicity arid
longitudinal distribution of persistent organochlorines in the Willamette River. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, Oregon.
Dimihick, R.E. and F. Merryfeild. 1945. The fishes of the Willamette River system in relation
to pollution. Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State College, Bulletin Series No. 20,
Gleeson, G.W. 1972. The return of a river: The Willamette River, Oregon. Water Resources
Research Institute, Oregon State University, No. 13.
\
Goede, R.W. 1988. Fish health/condition assessment procedures. Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources, Fisheries Experimental Station. Logan, Utah. 28 pp.
Hines, W.G., S.W. McKenzie, D.A. Rickert, and F.A. Rindella. 1977. Dissolved-oxygen
regimen of the Willamette River, Oregon, under conditions of basinwide secondary treatment.
U.S. Geological Survey Circular No. 715-1.
Hughes, R.M. and J.R. Gammon. 1987. Longitudinal changes in fish assemblages and water
quality in the Willamette River, Oregon. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 116:196-209.
39
-------
R. BAUMOARTNER * .
Huff, E.S. and P,C. Kllngeman. 1976. Restoring the Willamette River: Cost and impacts of
water quality control. J. Wat. Poll. Control Fed. 48:2410-2415.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long neglected aspect of water resource management.
. Ecol. Applic. 1(1).
DEQ. 1992. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Oregon. nonpoint source
monitoring protocols and stream bioassessment field manual for macroinvertebrates and habitat
assessment. Draft report.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 1988. Water quality status assessment of
nonpoint sources of water pollution. Portland, Oregon.
Public Law 100-4. 1987. The Clean Water Act as Amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987.
State Water Resources Board. 1960. State of Oregon. Grande Ronde River Basin.
U.S. EPA. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Biological criteria: National program guidance for surface waters. Washington,
DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. TMDL case
studies: South Fork of the Salmon River, Idaho. Draft Report. Washington DC: U.S. EPA.
40
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21«t CENTURY.1 33-43
/ ¦ •
Table 1. Estimated Monitoring Costs for Data Collection and Laboratory Analysis:
Willamette River Synoptic Surveys, 1992
Monitoring Category
#
Cost
, Data Type
CONVENTIONAL QUALITY AND LOADS
Ambient—Consultants
14
$38,000
Grab with selected diurnal parameters
(DO, temperature, pH)
Ambient~DEQ
10
$3,000
Grab
Point Source-Local
10
$10,000
Multiple grab samples throughout
diurnal sampling period
Total: $51,000
Synoptic data set for conventional
water quality model
BIOLOGICAL MEASURES
Invertebrates
33
$46,500
Kick-net and sediment samples keyed
to lowest practical taxonoinic level
(DEQ, 1992)
Fish Community
19
Electroshocking, identified to species,
length-weight, and external anomalies.
Fish Health
7
External anomalies, internal organs,
and blood samples (Goede 1988)
Skeletal Abnormalities
(Bengtsson 1988)
4
Seining to capture juveniles, fixed and
stained, observations made on skeletal
condition
Periphyton
Abundance/Diversity
46
$8,000
Abundance and diversity as keyed to
lowest practical taxonomic level
Periphyton Productivity
8
In-situ and laboratory respirometer
used to determine dissolved oxygen
production
Total: $54,500
Synoptic data set describing community
health
41
-------
Figure 1
Spring Chinook Escapement
Upper Grande Ronde River, OR.
Number
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Sources:
ODFW In Anderson et. al. 1992
Boehne (1992) Pers. Comm.
_ *.
Data for 1964 - 1988 are 5 year averages
Data for 1989 - 1991 Is a three year average
-
Data for 1991 Is the latest estimated return
- .
• *•.
-
-
i i it "%¦¥&
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 33-43"
I ' . -
Figure 2.1 .
Quality of Willamette Fish Assemblages
Modification of Karr's IB!
ModlfM IBI
80
60
40
80 -
SO -
10
- 250
• 100
60
In Hughes and Gammon (1987)
Figure 2JZ
Quality of Willamette Fish Assemblages
Mean No. Species and % with Anomalies
Mean Nuntbw of SpaelM
* with AnemailM
128
12
i 10
20
1#
Mma He. 3p*oU« l
Pwecnt AnomdlM
10
4 -
'SKF
Rlvtr Kllomatwr
In Hugh** and Qammon <1«87>
43
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
I
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN .THE 21st CENTURY: 45
i
CONCERNS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE REGULATED
COMMUNITY
Warren C. Harper
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Washington, D.C.
Measurements of biological parameters hold some promise for evaluating the effects of
various land management activities on water quality and identified beneficial uses of water. It
cannot be assumed, however, that such measurements will provide all the answers necessary for
development of effective land management programs, or the information necessary for an
enforceable control program needed by regulatory agencies. In developing management
programs to reduce sediment production from land management practices, it is important to
consider changes in the physical characteristics of stream channels and stream systems. Such
measurements are practical as a field-applied technology, will provide information relative to
changes over temporal and spatial scales, and can assist in cumulative effect analyses.
45
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 47-48
SLIDE PRESENTATION
Evan Hornig
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Dallas, Texas
In lieu of a paper, the slide presentation is as follows:
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
Slide 2
Bioassessments
Time and Cost Considerations
•> Conducting Biosurveys
~ Using Bioassessments
»¦ Biocriteria Development
Widespread Surveillance
2-8 Hours/Site
Minimal Equipment Costs
Use of other Agencies/Citizens
47
-------
E. H0RN1C3
Slide 3
State Ambient Network*
Chemistry Biology
No. Sites/yr 22 100
Cost/Site $3000 $840
Total Cost $66,000 $84,000
•Appnsdmat* cods Mfimdad from Nabmska mourcm
Slide 4
Distribution of State Resources
Ambient Fixed Networks
J 15
s
•s10
<5
as 5
15-
10
17
1Q0°/./0% 90%/10% 75%/25% 50%/50%
1888 Survey of 43 Slates
Slide 5
Slide 6
Sit© Specific Costs j
Ctarfc&y
Toxicity Biosuvey 1
Cost/Site V&l
1000-2000
1000-2000 1500-3000 I
firsqutnqfyr
4
4 2 I
Cod/Year
4000-12000
4000-12000 3000-€000 I
X 1
Biocritena Implementation
Tasks Involved
Reference Site Selection
Collection of Data
Metric Development
Slide 7
Slide 8
Biocritena Implementation
Resources Needed
3-5years
$50,000 -100,000 /year
Acquiring Resources
¦ Restructure Monitoring Programs
¦ Obtain State/EPA Management Commitment
Demonstrate Use of Biosuivey Data
EPA Provide Regulatory/Policy Support
States Adopt Narrative Biocritena _
¦ Coordinate Reference Database with
Neighboring States; Region/ORD support
48
-------
C SOs/Wet
Weather: Are
Today s WQC
Relevant?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 49-53
CSOs/WET WEATHER: ARE TODAY'S WQC RELEVANT?
Richard Kuhlman (Moderator)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance
Washington, D.C.
BACKGROUND
Approximately 1,200 combined sewer systems in the United States serve a population of
43 million. Almost 85 percent of the systems are located in 11 States in the Northeast and Great
Lakes (Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio). Such systems are prevalent in smaller communities—
approximately 62 percent of combined sewer systems serve 10,000 people or fewer. Only 7
percent of the systems serve populations greater than 100,000, but these systems account for 70
percent of the people served by combined sewers.
Combined Sfewer overflows (CSOs) consist of untreated mixtures of sanitary sewage,
industrial wastewater, and storm water runoff. CSO discharges may contain high levels of
suspended solids, bacteria, heavy metals, floatables, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic
compounds, oil and grease, and other pollutants. Discharges of these pollutants in high volumes
over a short time can cause exceedances of applicable State numeric and narrative water quality
standards. Such exceedances may pose risks to human health, threaten aquatic life and their
habitat, and impair the use and enjoyment of receiving waters. Stormwater and urban runoff
can cause similar problems. In the 1990 National Water Quality Inventory, States identified
urban runoff, stormwater runoff, and CSOs as the sources of impairment, where the sources
were identified, for 13 percent of the river miles, 31 percent of lake acres, 14 percent of the
Great Lakes shore miles, 38 percent of estuarine square miles, and 40 percent of ocean shore
miles.
PROGRAM STATUS
On August 10, 1989, EPA issued the National Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy. The
strategy reaffirmed that CSOs are point sources subject to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, including both technology- and water quality-
49
-------
R. KUHLMAN
based requirements of the Clean Water Aet (CWA). The strategy recommended that all CSOs
be identified and categories developed according to their status of compliance with .the
technology- and water quality-based requirements of the CWA. The strategy requested that
States develop a statewide permitting strategy by January 15, 1990, for the development and
implementation of measures to reduce pollutant discharges from CSOs.
In August 1991, the Office of Water (OW) initiated an Expedited Plan to accelerate the
implementation of the strategy. OW established work groups to:
*
• Evaluate how States can use their water quality standards development and
Implementation procedures to prepare permits for CSOs that meet water quality
standards (standards-to-permits); and
• Develop permitting and enforcement policies to expedite compliance with the
1989 National Strategy and CWA.
STANDARDS-TO-PERMITS REVIEW
The Office of Science and Technology (OST), in the Office of Water, is leading the
effort to examine the appropriateness of the decision factors and assumptions used in the water
quality criteria development, water quality standards adoption, waste load allocation, and
permitting processes for wet weather discharges. The effort is intended to examine the
contention that existing water quality criteria and standards development and implementation
processes need to be modified to more accurately reflect the characteristics and environmental
concerns of wet weather events. Where presently used assumptions are appropriate for wet
weather discharges, their scientific defensibility will be affirmed.. Where presently used
assumptions are not appropriate, or where additional guidance is needed, recommendations will
be made to enhance the applicability of the standards-to-permits processes to wet weather events.
Analysis
We are analyzing the following:
• The relative risks urban wet weather events pose to human health and the
environment compared to other discharges to surface waters and the relative risk
among categories of urban wet weather events—CSOs, urban runoff, stormwater
discharges.
50
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 49-53
• The characteristics of wet weather discharges that pose the greatest risk to human
health and aquatic life, e.g., toxic chemicals, floatables/solids, dissolved oxygen
sags, physical flow.
• The chemical, physical, hydrologic, and biological characteristics of wet weather
events that affect the assumptions used in the water quality criteria development,
water quality standards adoption, total maximum daily load/waste load allocation,
and permitting processes.
Some of the decision factors within the standards-to-permit processes under examination
include the following:
• Use of fecal coliform, Escherichia coli, or enterococci as indicator organisms for
criteria;
• Procedure to correlate the bioavailable or toxic portion of a metal to the
measurable portion;
• Refinement of uses, designation of seasonal/partial uses;
Variances for water bodies impacted by CSOs;
• Modeling approaches to determine pollutant loading rates for CSOs;
• The TMDL allocation to point and nonpoint sources;
• Probability bases for permit limits; and
• Compliance schedules.
PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
The Office of Wastewater Enforcement and Compliance (OWEC) is coordinating the
overall CSO effort, including leading the development of permitting and enforcement policies
to expedite compliance with the 1989 National Strategy and the CWA.
51
-------
R.KUHLMAN .
Permitting Policy
Current activities in developing the permitting policy include negotiating with
representatives from 14 organizations to develop a consensus on how to establish NPDES permit
requirements for sewer systems with CSOs.
Negotiated Policy Dialogue Work Group Members include the following:
• Environmental Protection Agency;
•" Management Advisory Group;
• CSO Partnership; ' jt '
• Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators;
• Water Environment Federation;
• National League of Cities;
• American Public Works Association;
• Natural Resources Defense Council;
• Sewage Treatment Out of the Park (Atlanta, Georgia);
• Environmental Defense Fund;
• Center for Marine Conservation;
• Lower James River Association (Richmond, Virginia);
• Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies; and
• National Association of Flood and Storm water Management Agencies.
Objective of the Work Group is as follows:
• Develop consensus on a consistent set of criteria with an adequate degree of
specificity to be used in determining long-term CSO control programs
implemented through NPDES permits.
Work Group discussions include having CSO communities:
• Examine complete rainfall record, and monitor and characterize response of the
sewerage system to a range of events and the impacts on receiving waters and
their designated uses;
• Identify national targets for limiting the number of overflows or establishing
percentages of overflows to be captured by volume or pollutant mass;
• Demonstrate compliance with water quality standards and protection of existing
and potential uses, including monitoring requirements;
• . Prohibit overflows into sensitive use areas;
52
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2ist CENTURY:• 49-53
• Develop implementation procedures that allow limited exceedances of numeric
WQC as long as existing and designated uses are protected; and
• Provide communities time to plan, design, and implement solutions, including
phasing and consideration of previous efforts to comply, and financial conditions.
'• EPA is currently developing a consolidated framework which, in EPA's opinion,
represents the concerns/opinions expressed by the work group. The framework will be used to
further negotiate the outstanding issues pertaining to establishment of a consistent set of criteria
for developing CSO permit requirements. The final work group meeting is scheduled for
September 8-9, 1992.
Enforcement Policy
Current activities in developing the enforcement policy include the following:
• Requirement that all communities not in compliance with appropriate permit
requirements be placed on enforceable schedules;
• Establishment of compliance dates;
• Use of enforcement tools, administrative orders for schedules within compliance
dates, and civil referrals for extended schedules; and
• Use of penalties if schedules are not complied with.
Development of the enforcement policy will be coordinated with the permitting policy
to ensure efficient implementation of the CSO program.
53
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 55-60
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW CONTROLS: THE MICHIGAN
APPROACH
Paul D. Zugger
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division
Lansing, Michigan
Under Michigan Act 245 of 1929, as amended, the Water Resources Commission Act,
the discharge of raw sewage is prima facia evidence of a violation of the Act. That is, a
showing of damage or injury, or exceedance of water quality standards, is not necessary. The
very act of discharging raw sewage is a violation of Act 245. Michigan's CSO program is based
on this premise.
In 1986, Michigan's Water Quality Standards were awarded to protect waters for total
body contact (bathing) recreation. The discharge pf raw sewerage through combined sewer
overflows had to be controlled for that use to be protected. Discharge permits issued since 1987 •
have been requiring CSO communities to address CSOs through a phased approach. Phase I
requires the current system to be properly operated and maintained (no dry weather bypasses,
maximize in-system storage, monitoring, etc.). Phase I also requires communities to develop
a final combined sewer overflow control program, including an implementation plan, which will
result in the elimination or adequate treatment of combined sewer discharges containing raw
sewage, to comply with water quality standards at times of discharge. The control program shall
evaluate financing mechanisms and contain fixed date milestones that result in maximum
progress feasible, talcing into account site-specific economic and technical constraints. The
permittee shall actively involve the affected public in the development of the program and
document the steps taken in this regard. The control program shall be submitted to the
appropriate District Office of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources by a date
established in the permit. The approved control program, including the milestone dates for
completion, is subsequently adopted into the permit through permit modification or at reissuance.
The first permits issued with language requiring final CSO control programs to provide
adequate treatment were contested by the permittees on the grounds that the requirements were
too vague. In response to that concern, the Agency defined a level of treatment which the
Agency would accept as meeting the permit requirements for adequate treatment. This approach
established a "default" definition for adequate treatment, that is, a level of control which the
55
-------
P.O. ZUGOER
State would accept, but which Is not binding. This, or other demonstrated adequate treatment,
would satisfy the statutory prohibition against raw sewage discharge. ,
If a permittee prefers the permit not contain the default definition of adequate treatment,
it is not included. Otherwise, the permit would contain the following language:
The following would constitute adequate treatment of combined sewage discharges
to meet water quality standards at times of discharge:
retention for transportation and treatment at the wastewater treatment plant, of
combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the one-year, one-hour
storm;,
primary treatment of combined sewage flows generated during storms up to the
10-year, one-hour storm (30 minutes detention or equivalent for settling,
skimming and disinfection), and
treatment of combined sewage flows generated in storms in excess of the 10-year,
one-hour storm to the extent possible with facilities designed for lesser flows.
These rainfall events were selected because there was some experience with them and
they had been historically applied with reasonably good results. The one-year/one-hour storm
had been used as a retention basin design criterion for wet weather retention facilities in the
1970s. The 10-year/one-hour criterion was selected because it was often used as the design
carrying capacity criterion for separate storm sewers and therefore would reflect the maximum
flows that will be delivered to a storage/treatment facility.
The 30-minute detention for settling, skimming, and disinfection is a professional
judgment value which Agency staff engineers believe would provide sufficient solids removal
to allow effective disinfection without excessive chlorine dosage and also would assure removal
of floating and settleable solids.
A key assumption in the Michigan approach is that the Industrial Pretreatment Program
would be the vehicle to address nondomestic pollutants that may impact the receiving stream.
These pollutants are to be addressed through a monitoring program to identify significant
industrial inputs to the sewer upstream of combined sewer overflows and to assess their impact.
Potential water quality violations would be addressed through subsequent imposition of industrial
pretreatment requirements at the source.
Since 1987, Michigan has been reissuing combined sewer overflow permits based on the
above approach. To date, 64 of the 75 combined sewer overflow communities in Michigan have
updated permits. The approach allows permit requirements to be tailored to specific situations,
56
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE,21st CENTURY: 55-60
and a range of combined sewer overflow control programs is being pursued. A number of
communities had already initiated the corrective programs. In those situations, the permit would
establish deadlines for those programs and require a final program be developed if necessary to
achieve water quality standards. For communities that are not so far along, any feasible short-
range improvements would be required while the community develops and implements its long-
range program. *
Many communities are choosing to separate their sewers to address their combined sewer
overflow problems. Since separation eliminates raw sewage discharges, it is an acceptable
approach under the Michigan strategy. There are some good arguments to separate sewers. The
most obvious is that the sewage and industrial wastes carried by sanitary sewers are completely
removed from the storm water flows and delivered to the wastewater treatment plant for full
treatment prior to discharge. ¦ Even during major storm events, no sewage Is discharged to the
receiving stream. The program is relatively simple in concept and not subject to subsequent
reevaluation or retrofitting should combined sewer overflow treatment requirements change in
the future. It is certain and final.
However, there are some serious drawbacks to sewer separation that are often not fully
appreciated. The separate storm water discharges can represent a significant pollutant load.
There is no first-flush capture; everything in the storm sewer is discharged. The National Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) study conducted between 1978 and 1984 found the pollutant loadings
from separate storm sewers to be very significant. A community may find that it has spent
millions of dollars to separate its sewers, yet the receiving stream remains heavily impacted by .
wet weather discharges to the point where valuable beneficial uses are still prohibited;
Accidental spills previously caught and treated through a combined sewer system now would
flow to separate storm sewers and would be discharged directly untreated to the receiving
waterway.
Separate storm water discharges must be addressed under the 1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act.. Although small communities were exempted until 1992 (and it is likely that
date will be extended), all municipalities will probably have to eventually deal with separate
storm water discharges through the NPDES permit program. Hopefully, end-of-pipe treatment
will not be needed in most cases, but it certainly is a major "unknown" that municipalities face,
if they choose to separate their sewers.
Separate storm sewers are also vulnerable to illegal discharges. If a community builds
new sanitary sewers and leaves the existing combined sewers to serve as the separate storm
sewer system, great care must be taken to assure all non-storm water inputs are removed from
the old combined sewer. Car washes, floor drains, industrial yard drainage, etc., previously
discharged to combined sewers, must be rerouted to the new sanitary sewers. This is difficult
to accomplish.
57
-------
P.D. ZUQOER
, If the community builds new storm sewers and leaves the old combined sewers to
function as separate sanitary sewers, all significant inflow and infiltration sources of storm water
and ground water must be removed or significant wet weather event will cause sewage backups
in basements. This has happened more than once in Michigan. One can imagine the intensity
of anger from the citizens in communities that have spent millions of dollars on a new sewer
project and have sewage in their basements for the first time because of the new project.
Separating sewers is generally more disruptive than storage/treatment projects, since
virtually the whole sewerage area has to be excavated and new sewers installed. Nevertheless,
a number of communities are choosing to separate their sewers rather than construct retention
treatment capability. From a straight cost basis, it is often less expensive to separate sewers if
a large part of the city is already separated, especially if future costs for storm water treatment
are not factored in. The finality of the separation, i.e., "the community that separates its sewers
is no longer a combined sewer community," is very attractive. We should be cautious, however,
in assuming that separation is the best environmental alternative.
In some situations, separation is not feasible. Older cities or portions of cities that have
completely combined areas usually have only the option of storage and treatment. In Michigan,
this was the case in central Grand Rapids and Saginaw. Also, most of the southeast Michigan
combined sewer systems are likely to be corrected through storage and treatment.
In the case of Grand Rapids, the city constructed a retention basin to meet the criteria
set forth above. The basin went on line this spring and, to date, has functioned very well.
Michigan has experienced a very wet year so far, and the basin has either fully contained the
storm flows or provided sufficient treatment such that the discharge was of a visually higher
quality than the stonn-impacted receiving stream. Prior to the basin going on line, a number
of advisories issued throughout the recreational season advised the public not to use the river for
recreational purposes. No health advisories have been issued in the Grand Rapids area this year.
The new Saginaw system is a combination of basins that are somewhat smaller than the
Grand Rapids design, but include additional treatment technology steps such as swirl
concentrators and rapid mix chlorination. Also, the ratio of Saginaw River flows to the
combined sewer flows is considerably larger than in the Grand Rapids situation. The Saginaw
program was judged by staff to represent adequate treatment, but the permit requires an
evaluation/assessment period following construction. The basin structures were designed to be
retrofitted if additional detention capacity is needed. Other options would include additional
sewer separation, which would reduce the flow volumes to be stored. It is not anticipated that
subsequent construction will be necessary, however.
A third example is the project at the Milk River in Wayne County, Michigan. The Milk
River project, being undertaken by the Wayne County/Macomb County Intercounty Drainage
Board, also involves a storage/treatment basin designed to criteria different than the Agency
58
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 55-60 '
criteria. The basin was sized through use of a wet weather water quality model, which predicted
that receiving stream quality standards would be met. Postconstruction monitoring will be
conducted to verify the model predictions.
Probably Michigan's biggest challenge is the Rouge River in metropolitan Detroit. The
Rouge Basin is a large, relatively flat watershed consisting of a number of small tributaries
flowing through urban and rural areas. The basin has been subject to an intense planning
process since 1985. Wayne County, Oakland County, and Detroit played leadership roles in
working with the Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in developing the
remedial action plan (RAP) for the Rouge River.
The RAP identifies CSOs as the primary source of pollution in the Rouge, and calls for
the elimination of raw sewage discharges and protection of public health over a 20-year period
at an estimated cost of over $500 million.
A national demonstration project grant of $46 million is being awarded to Wayne County
to oversee commencement of work on the first phase of CSO retention basins. The basins are
being constructed to provide a range of levels of retention and treatment. The performance will
be assessed and the results utilized in the next round of design and construction. The first group
of basins will be completed in 1997 in accordance with requirements contained in the NPDES
permits for these basins. Following a 2-year evaluation period, the remainder of the basins or
other corrective actions will be taken such that the goals of the RAP are accomplished by 2005.
Subsequently, another assessment will be made of the whole system to determine if further
action is needed.
•t
These examples demonstrate the wide range of corrective programs being pursued under
the Michigan approach. The key to the Michigan program is to assure that adequate controls
are brought on line as quickly as possible, which will eliminate raw sewage discharges and
accomplish water quality standards at times of discharge.
In summary, Michigan uses a phased approach to address combined sewer overflows.
Phase I will ensure the current system is properly operating and will develop the long-term
control program. Under Phase II, the long-term program Will be designed and constructed. The
Michigan approach provides flexibility with guidance. The staff criteria for adequate treatment,
based on historical design criteria used in Michigan, are acceptable but not mandated. Other
levels of control are also acceptable, provided it can be demonstrated that water quality standards
will be met at times of discharges. Construction schedules for the long-term program must
ensure maximum feasible progress. The overall presumption of the program is that water quality
standards will be met and the industrial pretreatment program will address nondomestic
pollutants. Subsequent assessments and evaluation will assure these assumptions are valid. If
subsequent controls are necessary, it is understood these will be required.
59
-------
P.D. ZUOGER
Michigan has proceeded to correct combined sewer overflows and has. not waited for the
establishment of a national specific uniform level of control. In any national policy, it is
extremely important that flexibility be maintained to take into consideration site-specific concerns
and to avoid retrofitting of adequate control facilities that have been or are now being
constructed. •
i
60
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2lot CENTURY: 61-65 '
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW POLICY
Warren Kimball
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
Boston/ Massachusetts .
POSITION
1. Untreated overflows from CSOs violate the fishable/swimmable goal. Where
CSOs are not eliminated, waters must be reclassified.
2. Where the impairment to use is short term and infrequent, a "partial use"
designation is appropriate, .
3. Elimination of receiving water impacts is the goal of abatement actions rather
than uniform treatment requirements. Engineering targets are useful, but
economics and common sense often dictate a "bubble concept" where CSOs
causing overlapping receiving water effects are considered a single source of
pollution.
LOGIC
Combined Sewer Overflows
Untreated overflows from CSOs violate the fishable/swimmable goal. Since there is no
finite limit to the magnitude and duration of a precipitation event, any control strategy for CSOs
can only lower the probability of untreated overflows, not eliminate them entirely. Therefore,
to meet the goal at all times, CSOs must be eliminated by sewer separation. The impacts on any
particular segment may be eliminated by relocating a CSO to another (less sensitive) segment.
Alternatively, the Division's regulations allow for the designation of a partial use
subcategory for waters impacted by CSOs. This is appropriate when it is not feasible to
eliminate CSO discharges. To demonstrate that the sewer separation is not feasible, the
61
-------
W. KIMBALL
CSO POLICY
permittee must show that the cost of
separation will cause substantial and
widespread economic and social impact.
This may consist of documentation that
the costs are excessive when compared to
the benefits to be achieved. When
determining the benefits to be achieved,
potential interactive/overlapping pollution
sources such as discharges from the storm
drain system after separation may be
taken into account. Once it has been
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the
Division that elimination of CSO
discharges is not feasible, the relocation
of CSOs should be evaluated. Relocating
alternatives must be examined on a
systemwide basis so that the maximum
recovery of water uses is achieved,
including the protection of critical uses.
When it is not feasible to eliminate the
CSOs by separation or eliminate the
impacts by relocation, the impacted
segment may be assigned a partial use
subcategory.
The community sewer system
response to precipitation events and the
assimilative capacity of water bodies
throughout the State are highly variable in nature. Therefore, variations in water quality caused
by CSOs will vary greatly from segment to segment. However, it is appropriate that the
Division set an engineering target for the achievement of designated uses to the maximum extent
feasible in partial use segments. The Division has determined that a reasonable target is to
protect the use during precipitation events that occur no more often than once in 3 months. This
will result in untreated overflows on an average of four times a year. If the average duration
of receiving water impacts is estimated at 4 days, then the target translates into achieving full
use greater than 95 percent of the time. In some cases, further protection may be reasonable.
^ SEWER ^
SEPARATION
Yn
No'
MITIGATE
(RELOCATE)
CRITICAL
USES
Yaa
No
No1
/DESIGN TO
w TARGET
\sTORMx
IMPLEMENT PLAN
RECLASSIFY TO
PARTIAL USE
ID CSO IMPACTED
SEGMENTS
CONDUCT FACILITIES
PLAN
DESIGNATE AS "CSO"
IN WQ STANDARDS
The Division shall use information developed in a uniform evaluation procedure and other
information that may be available to determine whether the target provides adequate protection
of uses. Site-specific factors, such as the presence or absence of critical uses and the duration
and area of impact, may influence this decision. Where the cost-benefit analysis and availability
of technology so indicate, the Division may require more stringent protection than the statewide
62
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21$t CENTURY: 61-65
target. Where these same factors, as well as other economic and environmental factors, result
in the permittee requesting less stringent control than the 3-month storm technology, the
permittee shall be responsible for providing documentation that compliance with the target will
result in substantial and widespread economic and social impacts.
- y
PARTIAL USE
To designate a partial use subcategory the water quality standards must be amended. The
process starts when the permittee petitions the Division for a change in regulations. The
permittee must provide adequate documentation in its petition to prove that controls necessary
to meet current water quality standards would result in widespread economic and social impacts
(40 CFR 131.10 (g)(6)). The permittee must also provide a CSO facilities plan that shows
compliance with the Division's 3-month storm technology-based effluent limitation and that
demonstrates that further controls are not cost effective.
When making partial use designations, certain uses may be deemed critical in that no
untreated overflows are desirable. These include the following:
1. Public Water Supply Intakes. In no case will the Division approve a new or
relocated CSO where the impacts are anticipated to encompass an intake for an
existing or proposed Public Water Supply. The Division shall hot approve an
existing CSO upstream of an existing or proposed intake, or water supply wells
that are hydraulically connected to the subject water body, without the written
concurrence of the Department of Environmental Protection's Division of Water
Supply.
2. Shellfish Harvest Waters. CSO discharges to shellfishing areas shall not be
approved without consultation with the Department of Public Health and the
concurrence of the Department of Fisheries, Wildlife and Environmental Law
Enforcement's Division of Marine Fisheries.
3. Public bathing beaches, other recreation areas, wildlife refuges, and areas of
ecologic or economic concern may be identified as critical uses through the
facilities planning and public participation process. In each case, the goal shall
be to eliminate the CSOs in these areas and where this is infeasible, to minimize
their impacts.
When a partial use is designated, the receiving water criteria shall be site-specific.
To the maximum extent, feasible, they shall conform to the criteria assigned to the
Class. Where CSOs are the reason for the designation, criteria may depart from
the criteria assigned to the Class only to the extent necessary to accommodate the
63
-------
W, KIMBALL
technology-based treatment limitations of the CSO discharge. Regarding other
discharges to these segments, nothing in this policy should be construed as reason
not to apply any technology, process, or best management practice that has been
demonstrated to be achievable in the judgment of the Division and consistent with
fully supporting the uses assigned to the Class.
ABA'pBMENT MEASURES
Abatement plans may involve phased work plans with the most cost effective control, or
control providing the most benefit, given the highest priority. All abatement programs will
proceed with a uniform analysis methodology and opportunity for public comment.
Based on this policy's allowable frequency of untreated overflows, the most severe
hydrologic condition for which abatement measures must be provided will be determined. In
complex situations the abatement plan will identify the sequence of efforts that should be
followed to gain the most improvement in water quality. This may involve implementing a
phased work plan.
Each plan will be required initially to minimize discharges from CSQs and their resultant
impacts on water quality by improved system management. Permittees will be required to
develop and institute a regular maintenance program, including sewer inspection; sewer, catch
basin, and regulator cleaning: sewer replacement where necessary; and disconnection of
connections not authorized by the Sewer Use Ordinance. The goals will be to maintain system
integrity and minimize infiltration. Permittees will be required to regularly monitor the flow of
major CSOs.
Abatement measures will be implemented to meet water quality standards and support
designated uses. CSO effluent limitations will be developed under a '/bubble concept." This
means that all CSOs with overlapping instream effects will be considered as a single discharge.
All individual discharges need not be eliminated or treated to the same degree as long as the total
load of pollutants is reduced to meet water quality standards. This allows greater flexibility to
produce alternatives and the possibility of more cost-effective abatement measures based on an
optimal mix of structural and on-structural solutions.
Effluent limitations for specific discharges will be developed by the Division and
delineated in the NPDES Permits. Compliance with standards will be determined through the
use of mandatory monitoring by the applicant at the discharge site(s). Specific reporting and
notification procedures will be incorporated into all CSO program approvals. Written
notifications will be supplemented by telephone notifications where impacts to water supplies or
shellfish growing areas are predicted.
64
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 61-65
PROBLEMS/CONCERNS
The major problem with the policy lies in public perception. In many cases, the public
will be asked to expend a great deal of money to implement abatement measures, and at the
same time water quality standards will be lowered. Public education is the only immediate
answer. -
65
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:• *67-82
APPLYING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO COMBINED
SEWER OVERFLOWS
MicheleM. Pla
Department of Public Works
City and County of San Francisco
San Francisco', California
INTRODUCTION
Combined sewer overflows: CSOs. There is no doubt that uncontrolled combined sewer
overflows can cause water quality degradation. The impact depends on the location, duration,
and frequency of occurrence. All uncontrolled combined sewer overflows carry at least a high
level of bacterial contamination. And, since most combined sewers are located in dense urban '
areas, they will also carry other contaminants such as heavy metals and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs). However, not all uncontrolled CSOs will have the same impacts or
present the same risks.
In 1989, EPA published the National GSO Strategy. The Strategy established six
minimum technology standards to control CSOs. Under consideration now are three additional
"technology" standards. With one exception, these standards can be implemented in just a few
years to reduce and control the impact of CSOs on a receiving water. But, the National CSO
Strategy additionally states that the CSO discharges must also comply with "applicable water
quality standards." Since 1972, section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act has required
compliance with water quality standards. In the past, however, most cities, States, and certainly
the EPA have not focused attention on what these requirements mean for urban runoff and CSO
discharges. So the questions before us today are "what does it mean to comply with applicable
water quality standards?" and "how do we measure compliance with water quality standards for
wet weather events such as CSO and storm water discharges?" -
!
As we have implemented the Clean Water Act over the past 20 years, those of us
managing municipal discharges have generally focused on complying with technology-based
controls. Our goal was to implement the secondary treatment standards, and we assumed that
compliance with water quality standards would be more or less automatic. In some cases, water
quality needs required additional treatment such as nutrient control, but for the most part our
goal was to meet the technology-based secondary standards. Compliance for technology-based
67
-------
M.M. FLA
standards is relatively easy to determine. We measure the constituents in the pipe prior to
discharge.
In 1987, the emphasis began to shift away from technology-based standards toward water
quality. Bioassays are now used routinely to determine directly the potential impact of a
discharge on aquatic organisms. And, more significantly, under the National Toxics Rule, we
„ „ now have the expanded list of chemical criteria being implemented by the States. This shift in
emphasis has abruptly changed our expectations. Many municipalities are still struggling to
implement our pre-1987 goals of secondary treatment. These communities are now faced with
new, more difficult, goals. Communities that have met the technology-based standards now face
noncompliance and unexpected additional expenditures on wastewater facilities. The new
emphasis on water quality standards will probably have the greatest impact on discharges of
storm flows, whether from CSOs or from separate systems. The available data suggest that all
these discharges will have serious compliance problems if measured against the new water,
quality criteria.
How do we face this challenge? I prefer to look at the glass as half full. Our post-1987
expectations are based, or most certainly should be based, on risk and protection of beneficial
uses. I believe that if we start with beneficial uses, and carefully determine the site-specific
risks from CSOs or storm water, we can arrive at an appropriate control strategy.
It is timely that this meeting focuses on the issues of the appropriateness and
implementation of water quality standards. We are at a critical juncture in our urban areas.
CSO control can be very expensive, and new standards, new policies, and an urban economic
crisis have all converged to make this exercise particularly important.
This paper will present several suggestions for implementing water quality standards for
storm flows. First, however, as a foundation, I will explain how San Francisco used water
quality standards as the basis for planning CSO controls. The San Francisco program can also
provide a useful guidepost to what is achievable in controlling CSOs.
SAN FRANCISCO'S WASTEWATER CONTROL FACILITIES
In 1996, after more than 20 years of work and $1.4 billion dollars in construction costs,
San Francisco will complete its wastewater facility improvement program. This program
implements the Wastewater Master Plan and has been managed by the City's Department of
Public Works. When completed, the program will represent an expenditure of nearly $1,900
for every person in the City. This per capita expenditure for controlling water pollution is
among the highest of any city in the United States.
68
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 67-82
San Francisco has combined sewers for nearly 100 percent of the service area. Figure
1 is a schematic drawing of the wastewater facilities. The long box-like structures are
underground storage/transport tunnels which ring the City like a moat. During rain storms, the
storage/transports hold combined sewer flows for later treatment. Two-thirds of the
storage/transport capacity is now in place and operational. The remainder is under construction.
The Southeast secondary-level treatment plant has been operational since 1982. The North Point
wet weather plant (primary-level) is also operational. This plant is not regulated as a publicly
owned treatment works (POTW) but instead must meet BAT/BCT limits. The Oceanside
secondary plant is under construction and will be completed in 1993. The cross-town tunnel
shown on the figure is under study. This tunnel would move the current bay discharge to the
ocean outfall.
* 'Ou-
North Shore
Station
North Shcre
Outfalls
Consolidation
Ncrth
Point
Treatment
Rant
Channel Outfalls
Consolidation
San Hanasco Bay
Richmond
Transsart
Channel Pump Station
MaripoEa Facilities 10
le-lais Creek Transport/Storage
RiehmoncMSuneet
"Treatment Plant
Croestown Tunrtet
(proposed)
Southeast
Treatment
Plant
Qiffftn Pump Station
Hunters
Yoeemite
Facilities
Facilities
Ocean Side Drainage /
Ocean side j>
"Itoatment
Plant
Bay Side Drainage
Southwest
Ocean
Outfall
%
Sunnydale
Facilities
Lake Merced
Transport
Figure 1. Permitted shoreline discharge frequencies. Figures indicate the number of
overflows allowed per zone annually.
69
-------
M.M. FLA
• The numbers shown around the periphery of the City indicate the acceptable CSO
overflow frequencies as specified in NPDES permits. As discussed later, these frequencies were
arrived at by determining the cost-effectiveness of attaining beneficial uses.
Most of the expense of San Francisco's program, more than $1 billion, is devoted to
facilities needed to control CSOs. Prior to the program, even a mild rain would overload the
system and cause the discharge of untreated sewage and storm water at the City's shoreline. At
program completion, all of these overflows will be captured by the storage/transports and receive
some level of treatment. Figure 2 shows one of these facilities as filled by a major rain storm.
Although limited shoreline discharge still occurs, the settleable material and floatables are
retained in the storage/transport along with most of the combined flows and held for later
treatment at the wastewater treatment plant.
It is worth noting what will not be accomplished by the control system when it is
completed. Wet weather flows are discharged at the shoreline if they exceed the capacity of the
treatment plants and also exceed the storage capacity of the storage/transports. These remaining
shoreline discharges will have received flow-through treatment within the storage/transports or,
in the Northshore area, primaiy-level treatment at the North Point wet weather plant. The
flow-through treatment and the primal-level treatment do not achieve pollutant removals
equivalent to secondary-level treatment. These discharges would not comply if required to meet
the numerical water quality criteria. This potential noncompliance does not mean, however, that
these discharges are not treated or that they do not have effluent limitations. The NPDES
permits that govern the discharges have directed that the majority of the wet weather combined
sewer flows receive treatment to secondary standards. This occurs because the
storage/transports will be able to hold most of the flow for later treatment at the secondary-level
plants. As discussed later, the frequency of the allowed discharges (overflows) is based on the
beneficial uses included in the water quality standards.
The shoreline discharges constitute about 34 percent of the total wet weather flows.
Capturing this remaining 34 percent and treating it to the secondary level would be difficult and
expensive because this flow results from a few large and intense storms.
SAN FRANCISCO'S PLAN FOR CONTROLLING COMBINED SEWER
FLOWS
The City had three major options for handling the wet weather flows: provide immediate
treatment (i.e., build treatment plants to handle all wet weather flow when it occurs), store the
excess flows for later treatment (with limited additional capacity), or separate the sewers. The
City selected a combination of additional treatment plant capacity and large volume storage.
Sewer separation was rejected because it was too costly and would not have solved the water
70
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 67-82
Shoreline Discharg
The storage/transports reduce the
llpll; number erf shoreline discharges.
Discharges that do occur, receive
flow-through treatment consisting
$t$lf settling and faffting to remove
solids and floatables.
Figure 2. Storage/Transport cross-section.
pollution problems caused by the storm water. In addition, to separate the sewers, the City
would have had to excavate every street.
The decisions on the acceptable frequency of shoreline discharges were made during the
planning phase in th^l970s. Cost-effective protection of beneficial uses was the basis for the
decision-making. At that time, it was necessary to determine to what lower frequency the
shoreline discharges could be economically reduced. The City also had to determine how to
treat the discharges that did occur. EPA guidance proposed a balancing of facility costs and
water quality benefits. In Program Guidance Memorandum-61, EPA required as a condition of
project approval that "the marginal costs are not substantial compared to the marginal benefits."
* ' ,
The San Francisco Bay Area Basin Plan contains the State water quality standards. These
standards identify the potential beneficial uses around the periphery of the City. These beneficial
uses range from shellfish harvesting to maritime (shipping) uses. In 1975, the Basin Plan
recommended the City complete cost-benefit analyses for each shoreline zone to determine the
appropriate shoreline discharge frequency. Using State and EPA guidance, San Francisco
completed cost-benefit assessments for each zone, comparing shoreline discharge frequencies
from 16 per year to one per year. As an example, Figure 3 summarizes a part of the
cost-benefit analysis for the Westside area. Each bar in the figure shows the incremental costs
of going to the next lower shoreline discharge frequency. The costs are based on beach user-
days, which are considered the primary beneficial use of this zone. In other words, the
, incremental costs are divided by the number of beach users and the number of additional days
% ' <¦ ¦ ¦ • —
71
-------
M M. PLA
" 250-r
8. 100
mmmm
JwWWXwt-X
/IvvWyXvXv.-
Wm®«
Example: to go from
4 overflows per year
to 1 would require an
additional cost of $220
per user per extra day
that the beach was
useable.
Shoreline Overflows Per Year
Figure 3. Westside cost-benefit analysis (shows incremental costs per additional beneficiary).
they could use the beach. As shown in the figure, overflow reductions to less than eight per
year are incrementally very expensive.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board prepares the Basin Plan and
implements it by issuing NPDES permits. The Board initially proposed that the City reduce
CSO discharges to one per year. However, when faced with the cost, time to implement, and
associated impacts of the one/year limit, the Board decided to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
the various discharge frequencies. The Board determined that the potential risks to beneficial
uses did not necessitate a uniform one/year overflow limit, which would require massive and
very expensive control facilities.
On the basis of the cost-effectiveness analyses, the Board tentatively selected the
appropriate shoreline discharge frequencies. Depending on the zone, these varied from one per
year to ten per year. Receiving waters with shellfish beds have the fewest overflows. Maritime
(shipping) areas have the highest. On the ocean side, the large Westside Storage/Transport
discharges storm flows direct to the 4.5-mile-long ocean outfall an average of 26 times per year.
The discharge or overflow frequencies were incorporated into NPDES permits.
72
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN TtfE21st CENTURY: 67-82
The permits also required the City to design the storage/transports to provide
flow-through treatment for the remaining shoreline discharges and for the direct ocean outfall
discharge. As mentioned earlier, flow-through treatment consists of settling and skimming, and
is equivalent to low-level primary. The removed solids are flushed to the treatment plant after
the storm.
Once the discharge frequencies were set, the City was able to determine the size of the
storage/transports and proceed with design and construction.
Wet Weather System Performance
Figure 4 shows the level of treatment planned for combined sewage flows City-wide.
During rainy weather, approximately 66 percent of the flows will be held for secondary-level
treatment at the Southeast and Ocean side treatment plants. The remaining 34 percent will
receive flow-through treatment within the storage/transports or primary treatment and
disinfection at the North Point plant.
Northshorc Wet-Weather
Plant (11%)
Southeast arid Oceanside
Treatment Plants to
Bay and Ocean Outfalls
(66%)
Flow-Through
Treatment
Storage/Transport to
Ocean Outfall (Decant)
^ (H%)
Storage/Transport
to Shoreline (12%)
Figure 4. Treatment for wet weather flows.'
Another way of looking at program accomplishments is to compare the decrease in
volume of shoreline discharges. When construction is complete in 1996, the City will have
reduced the volume of shoreline discharges by 80 percent; and, unlike the previous combined
73
-------
M.M. PLA
sewer overflows, these discharges will receive flow-through treatment. . These remaining
overflows will not be "raw" and will not carry the unsightly floatables associated with storm
water and CSO discharges.
Performance can also be assessed by comparing San Francisco with a hypothetical
"standard" city of the same size with a separated sewer system. (See Figure 5.) Both provide
a high level of treatment to their sewage. San Francisco, however, also provides significant
treatment to the storm water (as part of the combined sewage flow). In Figure 5 (Figure
missing), solids removal from the wastewater is used as a measure of pollutant control since
toxicants and bacteria are generally associated with solids.
Cities with separate sewer systems will soon be required to have permits for their storm
water discharges. If EPA intends to implement its programs equitably, the performance required
of combined sewer cities should also be required of cities with separated sewer systems.
Program Costs
At a total capital cost of $1.4 billion through 1996, the San Francisco program Will
represent an expenditure of nearly $1,900 per resident. (Per capita costs are about $1,300
through 1991.) These expenditures greatly exceed those of most other communities. Figure
6 compares San Francisco's per person costs with other California urban areas. San Francisco's
expenditures are high because of the extra expense of controlling storm flows in a combined
system. Sacramento has also built storage and treatment facilities for the portion of its system
served by combined sewers and thus also has higher costs. The other municipalities on the chart
have separate sewer systems.
For those who want to estimate the costs for their own storm flow systems, San
Francisco construction costs are currently about $4 to $6 per gallon of storage capacity.
Just under half of the capital costs for the wastewater construction program came from
Federal or State grants. The remainder is being paid for by City bonds or by loans.
APPLYING THE NEW WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TO SAN
FRANCISCO'S WET WEATHER FLOWS
In the past, EPA and the States regulated storm discharges (CSOs and storm water),
differently from continuous discharges. Water quality standards, and in particular, numerical
criteria, were not generally applied to these intermittent flows. Now, as the problems caused
by these discharges become more evident, we have an emerging policy of using water quality
standards as the means of control. San Francisco has made a major investment in controlling
-------
WATER QUALTTY STANDARDS IN THE.21.Bt CENTURY: 67-82
Los Angeles County
Orange County
East Bay MUD (Oakland, Berkeley, etc,)
MgSH City of Los Angeles
San Francisco
, —4 H i : 1 ^ ' 1 : 1
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1000 $1200 $1400
. Cost ($) Per Capita
Costs through 1991
Source: A MSA Survey; telecom with agencies (1991)
Figure 6. Construction costs per person for wastewater control, San Francisco compare*
with other cities (costs through 1991).
CSOs and it is useful to compare the City's performance with the standards. (The San Francisco
facilities were constructed to provide cost-effective attainment of the beneficial uses contained
in the standards but were not based on the standard's numerical criteria as translated into effluent
limitations.)
Bacteria standards are exceeded for 2 or 3 days following a shoreline discharge.
Currently, San Francisco posts the beaches when this occurs. San Francisco does not chlorinate
the discharge because of the technical difficulty and because of the adverse affects on marine life
from the chlorination. In addition, the overflows occur during winter months when shoreline
use is limited. Regardless, immediately following the discharge, bacteria standards are exceeded
and the beneficial use ca!nnot be realized during this period.
The chemical criteria present a more significant problem. If the numeric water quality
criteria are translated into effluent limits and applied to the treated storm flows, San Francisco
would not be able to comply, PAHs are the worst problem and exceed the criteria by several
orders of magnitude. PAHs are combustion byproducts, and the main source in the wastewater
75
-------
M.M. PLA
is runoff from street surfaces. -Even if we were to average in days of no discharge and assume
some initial dilution, we would still not be able to comply with the PAH limits.
San Francisco also would have a serious problem with copper, lead, and zinc if effluent
limitations were applied to the treated overflow discharges. The undiluted storm discharges
exceeds these limitations by a factor of 10. Other heavy metals will occasionally exceed the
limits but bylesser amounts. These include cadmium, mercury; nickel, silver, and cyanide.
Our shoreline discharges are 95 percent storm water. The problem constituents are
essentially all derived from street, runoff. Although we provide treatment to these discharges
which approaches primary level, we would still have a significant compliance problem if the
water quality criteria are applied directly to the discharges.
It's been suggested that best management practices (BMPs) will solve the problem.
BMPs will help, but at this time we do not believe that BMPs will bring the significant
reductions in pollutant loading necessary to comply with the water quality criteria. All our
streets are swept at least weekly and increasingly, we are using vacuum sweepers. We
implemented a comprehensive BMP program over a year ago. It includes, a permanent
household hazardous waste collection center and number of other measures. The real problem
is automobiles and, short of banning them, preventing their associated pollutants does not appear
an easy task.
How typical are the pollutant concentrations in San Francisco's storm discharges
compared with other CSOs? We believe San Francisco's pollutant concentrations are possibly
lower than similar urban areas because San Francisco has only limited industry and because
some treatment is provided. The available data also indicate that our wet weather discharges
are similar to storm sewer discharges from urban areas with separate sewer systems. The
pollutant loading is basically a function of the volume of vehicle traffic in the service area, and
so we expect that in other urban areas of similar density, both CSO and storm sewer discharges
will have similar or greater pollutant concentrations compared to those in San Francisco.
Our conclusion is that any similarly dense urban area with either combined sewage
overflows or storm water discharge will have serious difficulty complying with water quality
standards if the chemical criteria are imposed as effluent limitations.
COSTS FOR COMPLYING WITH THE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
NUMERICAL CRITERIA
/
As noted previously, San Francisco has spent more than $1 billion for wet weather
controls. What would it cost to comply with effluent limitations derived from the water quality
76
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 67-82
criteria? We have estimated that to capture the remaining storm flows (up to. the 1-year storm)
and treat to secondary levels would cost at least $560 million (beyond the $1 billion), excluding
the cost of land. And there would still be a water quality violation about once per year.
I
What would be the costs nationwide? CSO control cost estimates have ranged from $40
billion to $120 billion. Based on our experience, we think these costs are probably low and do
not reflect providing full secondary treatment to all combined flows. Equity demands that if the
standards are applied to combined sewer communities, they also be applied to those communities
with separate storm sewers. The control costs for the storm sewer systems will almost surely
dwarf the costs for CSO controls. Recent estimates for comprehensive controls range from $90
billion to $400 billion.
Perhaps these costs appear small compared with the defense budget. They do not appear
small to the cash-strapped urban areas that cannot pay for their most urgent needs. We must
face this issue. Congress and EPA cannot blithely impose requirements for which there is not
the slightest chance of compliance especially if the need is not clearly established.
HOW SIGNIFICANT IS THE PROBLEM?
Before EPA imposes standards which could result in massive expenditures, it should
establish that a real need exists. By real need, we mean a determination that human health or
the environment is bging harmed. San Francisco made this determination in the 1970s by
assessing the risk to the site-specific beneficial uses.
We should not necessarily apply numerical criteria developed for continuous discharges
to intermittent ones without making appropriate adjustments. We also need to carefully examine
the relevance of the criteria for the beneficial uses we are protecting.
Figure 7 shows the frequency of use of San Francisco's wet weather facilities. As
shown, shoreline discharge occurs only about 0.4 percent of the year. The expenditures we are
talking about are intended to prevent problems during this relatively limited time frame.
Compared with the other human health and environmental risks which we face, is this rather
limited period of shoreline discharge that significant? We can examine the potential threats
posed by this discharge to assess its significance. The main risks fall into three categories:
health risk from pathogens in the discharge, toxicity to aquatic organisms, and human health risk
from bioaccumulation of hazardous chemicals.
We have some data that help to place these potential risks in perspective. We have
completed more than 300 bioassays on .our first flush CSO discharge. Just under half of the 96-
hour static bioassays showed no measurable toxicity. Less than 10 percent of the assays showed
a toxic response at 56 percent concentration (roughly one part sea water to one part CSO).
77
-------
M.M. PLA
94% of the year
Dry Weather
(Dry weather flow
in cunettc only)
Baflle
5.6% of the year
Wet Weather
(All storm flows contained
within storage/transports)
0.4% of the year
(Storage/transports filled,
discharge to shoreline)
Figure 7. Frequency of storage transport use.
Consequently, the potential for adverse impacts on marine organisms appears limited. As our
BMP program further lowers pollutant levels, we expect corresponding decreases in the risk to
the environment.
Well what about bacteria? Aren't people getting sick? Prior to starting our construction
program we tried to establish the impact on human health of the more than 50 annual overflows.
Since the overflows all occur during the winter season, we assumed that health records might
show some identifiable trends. The San Francisco Department of Public Health did not have
any records of CSO-related illnesses nor did the California Department of Health Services.
Because the causes of minor diseases are rarely established, we requested the DPI! to complete
a statistical regression analysis comparing rainfall (and subsequent overflows) with the most
likely enteric diseases to result from the ingestion of CSO-contaminated water. They could find
no correlation. Now that our control program is nearing completion, we expect that the health
risk posed by pathogens is even less. We are assuming, of course, that we will continue to post
the beaches after discharges occur. As with any CSO discharge and many storm water
discharges, elevated bacteria concentrations are present and the waters are not safe to enter. In
effect, we are foregoing a beneficial use (body contact recreation) for a limited period of time
based on a determination that those additional days of use could not be attained in a cost-
effective manner.
We must still consider the human health risk posed by bioaccumulative substances.
These are apparently our most significant problem. PAHs are a suspected carcinogen and storm
discharges violate EPA's criteria by several orders of magnitude. But let's look more closely
at this risk. What the standards postulate is that PAHs in the street runoff will enter the
receiving waters, bioaccumulate in fish, and when eaten by humans, expose them to these
78
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 67-82
chemicals. Is this a significant route of human exposure? Does it warrant our urban
communities shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from other needs to solve this problem?
Furthermore, will our solution, wastewater control facilities, reduce exposures to a safe level?
These are critical questions for which we must have good answers based on scientific data.
We are concerned that the answers to the questions above will be no. IARC (World
' Health Organization) reports for benzo(a)pyrene (one of the primary PAHs) that:
Human exposure occurs mainly through the smoking of tobacco, inhalation of
polluted air, and by ingestion of water contaminated by combustion effluents or
ingestion of food contaminated by smoking, broiling or exposure to combustion
products.
PAHs from vehicle exhaust are deposited on street surfaces and during wet
weather can be washed into receiving waters. PAHs also enter waterways from
other sources including aerial fallout. Some aquatic organisms bioaccumulate
PAHs; however, most fish will metabolize them. Human exposure may occur
as a result of runoff contaminating fish which are subsequently eaten, however,
we have not seen a suggestion that this is a route of significant exposure. To the
contrary, it appears that if we are exposed to PAHs as the result of eating fish,
it is as likely the result of cooking them on our charcoal grill, as from
bioaccumulation. Consequently, unless more information is produced, it appears
that a massive and expensive control program would at best decrease a minor
route of PAH exposure.
In summary, at least in San Francisco, we do not appear to have adequate evidence of
real risk to take to our elected officials and citizens to convince them of the need to spend
additional hundreds of millions of dollars.
SUGGESTIONS
EPA and the States have only erratically addressed CSOs and storm water discharges in
the past. There is a clear need for nationwide direction. First, however, we must recognize
some basic facts. CSOs and storm water result from natural phenomena; they caiinot be
"eliminated." At best we can provide some level of treatment based on an assessment of the
environmental and health risks presented by these discharges. Providing full secondary level
treatment appears out of the question, although this is the direction we are being driven by the
new numeric criteria. Based on our experience in San Francisco, we offer the following
suggestions.
79
-------
M.M. PLA
1. Implement the National CSO Strategy (baseline program). .
The nine minimum technology (BMP) standards will provide some level of
control for all CSO discharges.
2. Base the program on real water quality needs.
* CSOs should not cause health problems or cause acute toxicity to aquatic
organisms. If a CSO discharge exposes a significant number of people to
elevated bacteria, then the control strategy must address this problem. If the
discharge kills fish or is the cause of increased concentrations of hazardous
chemicals in marine life, as determined by actual measurement offish tissue, then
correction of this problem should be a goal. In other words, the water quality,
needs must be established on a site-specific basis and must be demonstrated by
actual measurements. Hypothetical problems based on theoretical water quality
criteria are not an adequate basis for spending hundreds of millions of dollars of
• limited public moneys.
3. Establish national goals by identifying clear performance standards.
If national goals are necessary, they should be based on storm flow control
system performance, i.e., percentage of solids removed from the storm water and
reduction in frequency of overflows. Ideally, as discussed above, the controlling
criteria should be local water quality needs.
4. Establish comparability between CSO communities and separated sewer
communities. . %
To the extent that demands are placed on CSOs, then similar requirements should
be placed on storm sewers. CSO systems may have the added burden of
correcting bacteria problems; however, the chemical constituents of the discharges
are similar. If CSO communities are required, for example, to remove 30 to 50
percent of the solids carried by the storm water component, then separated storm
sewer systems should attain the same removals.
5. Recognize our limitations.
It may not be possible, from the standpoint of public policy, to have all waters
fishable and swimmable at all times. In San Francisco, we will spend more than
$1,900 per person for wastewater control. Although we believe that we will
achieve appropriate control levels, it is clear that our program would not comply
with the numerical criteria EPA is considering nor with proposed legislation.
80
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21* CENTURY: 67-82
Additionally, we will not be able to attain all beneficial uses at all times. It is not
realistic to expect the vast majority of communities, which have not even begun
to address storm flow problems, to achieve San Francisco's level of control. The
money is simply not there. Almost half of San Francisco's funds came from
grants. The grant programs have ended. It is safe to say that the Federal
Government is not likely to reinstate them at anything approaching the level
necessary to meet the proposed standards. Communities will have to rely on their
own resources -for these construction costs at a time when cutbacks to schools,
police and fire, and health care create much more significant threats to our health
and welfare.
6. Base facility planning for CSOs and stormwater controls, not on numerical
criteria, but on cost-effective attainment of beneficial uses.
An assessment of potential beneficial uses can help us identify the real needs and
the potential risk to the ecosystem. A cost-effectiveness study can help ensure
that we get the most benefits for the funds expended. For intermittent discharges
such as CSOs and storm water, EPA's water quality criteria appear to have only
limited usefulness for identifying real risks to human health or the environment.
The criteria should not be used as the basis for facility planning or for
determining compliance.
7. Reexamine our risk assessment procedures.
Increasingly, we are making decisions for environmental improvements on the
basis of risk. This is appropriate and will hopefully introduce consistency across
environmental media. A serious problem arises, however, when we multiply a
hypothetical worst case risk times hypothetical worst case risk. After several
iterations of this practice, we end up with a theoretical risk which is not a valid
basis for committing limited public resources. This is especially true in an era
of increasing illiteracy, hunger, and homelessness. (It is also possible that We are
saddling the private sector with costs that yield only limited benefits.) If we are
going to use risk as the basis for major expenditures, we need a risk assessment
procedure that strives to determine the "reasonable real risk."
8. Let's cooperate and communicate.
It is the goal of all of us to have oceans and rivers as clean as we can make them.
Many of us at this meeting have, in fact, dedicated our professional lives to this
goal. In San Francisco we believed that we were making major strides toward
protecting public "health and the environment. Recently, however, we were
accused by several prominent environmental organizations of wantonly causing
81
-------
M.M. PLA
• ¦ •• sickness and refusing to correct water pollution problems. Several groups have
challenged our Oceanside discharge permit and are demanding more facilities
whose costs will exceed $1/2 billion. City wide, the demanded facilities would
easily exceed $1 billion. These costs are in addition to the $1.4 billion we are
currently planning to spend on wastewater control. These challenges are not
based on demonstrated problems with water quality or human health. If, in fact,
such risks were present, then yes—more would need to be done. We need more
willingness to communicate by all parties involved in these disputes.
CONCLUSION
In the coming months, EPA will establish its program for solving the water quality
problems caused by storm water. At the same time Congress is assessing modifications to the
Clean Water Act. This is an excellent opportunity to structure the program so that we address
the site-specific risks presented by "wet weather discharges and assure that our limited resources
are used for the most pressing problems.
82
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: -83-89
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT:
PROMISE UNFULFILLED
David S. Bailey
Senior Attorney
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
This year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1256),
one of the earliest and most ambitious environmental acts ever adopted by the U.S. Congress.
To the optimist, this anniversary represents the culmination of billions of dollars in water
pollution cleanup efforts and a marked improvement in the Nation's general water quality while
still accommodating 20 years of economic growth and prosperity. To the pessimist, this
anniversary is a bitter pill, with thousands of the Nation's rivers, streams, and lakes closed to
the taking of fish for human consumption, the battle for control of toxic pollution still
floundering, and raw sewage a common occurrence in many U.S. cities. Regardless of your
viewpoint, most will agree that the task of returning all the Nation's waters to the Act's
objectives of fishable and swimmable will take considerably more time.
Perhaps one of the most visible tasks left undone under the Act is the control of
combined sewer overflows (CSO). Through a combination of EPA failures, lack of money,
court decisions, and just plain recalcitrance, we still have over 1,100 cities and towns in the
United States that discharge raw sewage, along with untreated or partially treated industrial
waste, into our Nation's waters virtually every time it rains (U.S. EPA, 1992).
It is not the purpose of this paper to review the reasons for the failure of CSO controls
to date, although some of the reasons will undoubtedly impact our decision process in the future.
Rather, this paper is to express an environmentalist view of what must now be done to correct
the CSO problem, and how it can best be achieved.
There is an old Chinese proverb that says "unless we change the direction in which we
are headed, we will surely get there." Thus, we start the analysis of the CSO problem with a
return to the fundamental objectives of the Clean Water Act: that the discharge of pollutants
into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985; and wherever attainable, that water quality
which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and provides
for recreation in and on the water be achieved by 1983 [33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(l)-(3)], Somewhere
83
-------
D.S. BAJLEY
along the line, some have begun to advocate that those objectives are no longer reasonable, or
not applicable to CSOs. The environmental community does not share that View, but believes
that the original objectives of the Act, regardless of the date of attainment, are the fundamental
and minimal objectives to which we must adhere. Already, our past mistakes have thwarted the
realization of these objectives in some areas for decades into the future. But that does not have
to be the case with CSO controls.
There is no question that CSO discharges cause pollution. The full impacts of CSO
discharges are unknown, since both State and EPA monitoring and reporting for CSO impacts
are sporadic and incomplete (U.S. EPA, 1992). We do know that CSO discharges have a
significant impact on stream use attainment. Nowhere is this more apparent than in shellfish
waters, where CSO discharges have adversely affected as much as 54 percent of the shellfish
waters in the Northeast (Leonard et al., 1989), and nearly 10 percent of all harvest-limited areas
nationwide (NOAA, 1991).
CSO impacts are not limited to shellfish waters, however. They are also a major factor
in the closing of beaches and other recreational areas across the United States. Again, no
reliable national statistics are available, but a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC) noted more than 2,000 beach closings in our coastal States in 1991, most of which were
due to CSOs and other human sewage problems (NRDC, 1992). It is not uncommon for major
cities to have numerous CSOs alongside designated park and recreational areas, since both tend
to follow stream routes. Even beach closing information, when available, is not comprehensive.
Many State Health Departments simply post warnings along stream banks and have long ago
given up trying td*enforce and maintain recreational water closures in the face of human
demands for such resources.
The contravention of established and recognized stream uses in shellfish waters, public
beaches, and other park and recreational areas violates the fundamental objectives of the Act,
and forms the basis for the first minimum step in CSO control sought by the environmental
community (that is, the elimination of CSO discharges in waters designated for us© as public
beaches, shellfish production, drinking water supplies, and waters containing unique ecological
habitats or designated as outstanding natural resource waters).
Elimination, not mere control, of CSOs in these sensitive waters is required because the
mere existence of a CSO in such waters contravenes use by its very presence. Responsible
health authorities do not wait and cannot wait for bacterial analysis, which may be delayed by
24-48 hours after overflow events, to act to close shellfish waters. They must assume that raw
sewage contains bacteria and other potentially harmful wastes (not an illogical or unreasonable
assumption) and act accordingly. The same is true for other swimming and recreational waters.
In fact, several States and cities [Delaware, Maine (Portland), New York City, Maryland (Cecil
County)] now have "rainfall standards" for closing coastal beaches in recognition of this fact
(NRDC, 1992). The prohibition of CSO overflow facilities must include the sensitive waters
84
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE21st CENTURY;- 83-89
listed above, as well as any CSO located outside such areas, but sufficiently close so as to negate
these uses in the same manner as if the CSO were located directly therein.
The elimination of, CSOs into sensitive areas would be achieved by either (1) total
containment, treatment and discharge at authorized points not impacting sensitive waters; or (2)
collection and conveyance to other treatment facilities or treatment and discharge at points that
are not located in sensitive waters. .
1 CSOs that discharge into all other waters should receive treatment according to
promulgated best practical treatment technology guidelines for CSOs, or that treatment necessary
to meet water quality standards, just like all other discharges of pollutants under the Act. At
a bare minimum, best practical treatment for CSOs should consist of several stages: screening,
solids removal, and disinfection (followed by removal of disinfectant chemicals) where
appropriate.
All CSOs should be subject to some form of screening for removal of debris, floatable
waste, and other inert solids. Many technologies are available to achieve this treatment.
Screening will remove some of the most objectional visible and aesthetic pollutants such as
personal hygiene items, styrofoam, and cans, as well as potentially dangerous items such as
needles and medical wastes. The American public is tired of beaches littered with condoms,
tampons, syringes, and all other manner of sewage debris. While not all stream or beach litter
comes from- CSOs, every CSO outfall makes a significant contribution, usually of the most
undesirable and unhealthful items (New York City Council, 1990). Screening is a feasible and
readily available technology that has been employed in standard sewage treatment for decades.
Solid organic wastes should be removed from all CSOs and treated. Solid wastes harbor
bacteria and viruses that are difficult or impossible to disinfect without further treatment and
extensive contact time with disinfection agents. These solids, which may be many times higher
than standard secondary treatment levels, contribute to dissolved oxygen consumption and
elevated bacterial counts in receiving waters (NRDC, 1990; Ellis, 1986).
Excessive levels of solids in CSO wastewater also make it extremely difficult to meet
water quality bacterial levels in receiving waters. As a practical matter, it is difficult to disinfect
water with high solids content, and usually requires long disinfectant contact times, which
translate into large holding facilities for both disinfection and removal of disinfection chemicals
prior to discharge.
New technologies are being developed to enable solids removal of high-volume wastes
over short periods of time. In addition to the traditional holding basin, which is now in use at
many cities, swirl concentrators and vortex separators, which employ principles of centrifugal
force, are being applied to high-volume CSO wastewater (Rubin, 1990). While these devices
are generally less expensive than large holding basins, their application may be limited.
85
-------
D.S. BAILEY
• Solids removal is also important for control of toxic pollution. Many toxic pollutants will
adhere to sewage solids and become deposited in the sediments of receiving waters, where they
may then be resuspended or become soluble in the overlying water. Given the increasing
stringency of water quality standards, as well as impending EPA rules on sediment quality
standards, many water bodies will probably experience violations of these standards without CSO
treatment. At the very least, contributions from CSOs may contribute so much to "background"
. ambient water quality conditions as to result in ambient water quality standard violations, such
that discharges from traditional point sources may be severely limited.
Finally, CSOs must be disinfected if necessary to meet receiving water bacterial
standards. Given the tremendous discharges of CSO waters into the populated areas of our
major cities, it has been truly remarkable that more serious health effects have not been
reported. It is very likely that many instances of bacterial infection such as stomach upset,
diarrhea, or skin infections have gone unreported by citizens who failed to seek medical
assistance or did not associate their exposure to CSO wastewater with disease incidence.
The time may be limited, however, before a major outbreak of disease caused by CSOs
occurs. The American population has become increasingly susceptible to outbreaks of
contagious disease (e.g., cholera) because few people continue to receive immunization against
serious diseases that have disappeared from the continental United States. These diseases still
exist worldwide, however, and carriers are capable of spreading disease through untreated
wastewater discharges. Additionally, higher numbers of our citizens are suffering from
decreases in their natural immune systems, creating new opportunities for old diseases such as
tuberculosis to regain a foothold in the general population. As the demand for water-related
recreational opportunities increases, a vulnerable population is drawn ever closer to CSO-
contaminated areas.
These basic requirements, screening, solids removal, disinfection (and removal of
disinfection chemicals where necessary) form the core of "best practical treatment" technology
for CSOs. Properly implemented, with a grain of common sense applied to the receiving stream
situation, these facilities will probably be all that is needed for many areas.
In some instances, because of stream uses, location, dilution, etc., attainment of water
quality standards will require a higher level of treatment. This is no different than the situation
today for all dischargers. Attainment of water quality standards as a minimum requirement has
always been a fundamental objective and requirement of the Act. We see no reason to alter that
principle now. To do otherwise takes us down the slippery slope of an increasing legacy for
future generations of lost resources, pollution, and deferred expenses.
Protection of stream uses, however, upon which water quality standards are based, does
not necessarily require full secondary or greater treatment of CSO wastewater, nor the
containment of every imaginable overflow event. Basic water uses, such as swimming, fishing,
86
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 83-89
¦ . " ' *
and boating, are not available, or safe, during floods. At some point, nonpoint source pollution
from general runoff during large storm events will cause streams to exceed bacteriological
standards. On other occasions, large rainfall events occur so infrequently that the construction
of treatment facilities is not practical.
Finding the right mix of conditions and treatment requirements for water quality use
attainment is the difficult task. The old axiom "the devil is the details" is certainly applicable
here. However, municipalities that have seriously considered this problem have come up with
remarkably similar conclusions. No matter how it is measured—storm events per year,
time/duration, or any other formula—the result is about the same: Only a few uncontrolled, or
partially treated, CSO discharges per year can be tolerated without serious adverse impacts on
stream uses.
In general, the number of resulting overflows is about four per year, although the number
can vary from one to six or more in some circumstances. Treatment levels also may vary, but
most CSOs receive basic levels of treatment for solids removal and, if necessary, disinfection.
Examples of this variability are tabulated by EPA in their review of nine State programs in
EPA's evaluation of wet weather design standards for controlling pollution from CSOs (EPA,
1992). In many areas of the country, correlation between one to four storm events yearly and
the ability to enjoy expected stream uses is probably pretty good, although such data have never
been specifically calculated in that fashion. For these reasons, we believe that EPA should look
at an overflow frequency of four times per year as a generalized approach to water quality use
attainment (this excludes, as previously noted, the ban on all discharges to sensitive areas).
The degree of treatment provided for these four overflow events, indeed the degree of
treatment provided for even more frequent events, must depend on the receiving stream uses and
physical conditions. Extreme overflows, such as major flood events, will probably not receive
much, if any, treatment. Most other events, however, can receive basic screening and solids
removal, and solids removed should be routed to standard treatment handling facilities.
Certainly, all CSO discharges occurring more than four times per year should receive this basic
treatment. Whether this basic treatment involves extensive holding basins Or flow through
separators will probably be dictated by water quality needs. In some cases, only secondary
levels of treatment may prevent water quality violations; basic primary settling may be enough
in other areas.
Flow volumes exceeding the maximum treatment capacity of existing systems cart be held
in holding basins and rerouted to treatment facilities when flow volumes decrease. There is no
reason, given existing capacity, why these CSO wastewaters cannot receive a modified level of
secondary treatment. By using a combination of water conservation, inflow/infiltration
elimination, basic system repair, holding basins, expansion of existing treatment facilities,
centrifugal solids removal devices, and screening, many CSO events up to four or less times per
year can receive basic treatment, or even a modified level of secondary treatment.
87
-------
D.S. BAILEY
•With some exceptions, treatment to a lesser degree is likely to result in stream use
violations. For this reason, we encourage planners and engineers to seriously consider the
maximum utilization of treatment systems and holding to avoid the uncomfortable position of
investing millions of dollars into a control system which does not ultimately protect stream uses.
Unfortunately, this is happening all too often today as EPA struggles to get any facially
reasonable plan in place.
It is absolutely clear that the magnitude of the CSO problem nationwide will require the
expenditure of large amounts of money. We have not come to where we are today in pollution
control without the expenditure of billions of dollars in Federal construction grants, loans, State
and local funds, and private capital. As Congressman Nowak of New York, Chairman of the
House'Subcommittee on Water Resources, noted at a recent CSO control hearing: "... CSO
control without some reasonable funding program to accompany it . . . will be an empty
promise."
Hie environmental community is well aware of this need and fully supports the
commitment of Federal funds to State Revolving Loan programs to help fund CSO work. Past
limitations on CSO expenditures from such funds should be eliminated, and States should be
given the flexibility to allocate funds in the most effective manner. It must also be recognized,
however, that CSO work, especially the rehabilitation and separation of combined sewers, is also
a part of the long-term maintenance and operation of sewer systems. All too frequently, the rate
charged for sewer and water services has not accurately reflected the true cost of providing such
services. The gap between costs and rates must be closed to place such systems on a sound
operational basis. *•
Programs must also be initiated to reduce sewer flow and the volume of CSO wastewater
while increasing existing sewage treatment capacity. Programs to increase water conservation,
and to eliminate unnecessary connections to sanitary sewers such as household storm drains and
sewer infiltration must be aggressively pursued. Modern sewage treatment is simply too costly
to treat spring water and household runoff. Increased use of zoning controls, erosion and
sedimentation laws, and other land use measures can be employed to divert and contain storm
water. Many cities may find that combining recent EPA storm water controls with CSO
programs may be cost effective. Temporary holding by industrial contributors during overflow
events may prevent many toxics from entering overflowing systems.
Many major U.S. cities have begun to address their CSO problems. Some have already
invested heavily in control mechanisms and are now doing what many have attempted to
characterize as impossible or too costly. Where such facilities have achieved a reasonable parity
with this proposed program and have protected stream uses, cities should not be penalized and
forced, in the name of rote compliance with new standards, to undo what has been done. In
such cases, grandfathering provisions should provide for those cities who have substantially
completed CSO abatement systems and are meeting established stream uses.
88
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2ltt CENTURY: 83-89
CSO abatement will be expensive and it will take time. But such treatment will restore
thousands of aeres of shellfish beds and untold stream miles to beneficial uses for boaters,
swimmers, and fishing enthusiasts alike. Perhaps even more important, we can look forward
to the day when raw sewage no longer flows into our Nation's waters.
REFERENCES
Ellis, J.B. 1986. Pollutional aspects of urban runoff at 20. In: Tomo, H.C. et al., eds.
Urban Runoff Pollution. Springer-Verlag.
U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Policy Branch, Office of
Policy Analysis. Evaluation of Wet Weather Design Standards for Controlling Pollution from
Combined Sewer Overflows. Draft Final Report!
Leonard, D.L. et al. 1989. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, p. 18.
i
New York City Council. 1990, City Wide Floatables Study, Report to the New York City
Council, Combined Sewer Overflows: Floatables and Bathing Beaches. New York: New York
City Council; August.
NOAA. 1991. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The 1990 National Shellfish
Register of Classified Estuarine Water, U.S. Department of Commerce, Rockville, MD.
NRDC. 1990. Natural Resources Defense Council. Testimony on combined sewer overflows
by Jessica Landman, Esq., before the Subcommittees on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and
the Environment and Ocean and Great Lakes, p. 8; June 20.
NRDC. 1992. Natural Resources Defense Council. Testing the Waters: A National
Perspective on Beach Closings, p. 11.
Rubin, D.K. et al. 1990. The return of an old nemesis: Combined sewer overflows, once
ignored, are the focus of a new pollution battle. Engineering News Record, pp. 28-32; Sept.
20. .
89
-------
Whole Effluent
Toxicity
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:' 9T-93
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY: THE BASIS FOR EPA'S
REGULATORY CONTROL PROGRAM
Cynthia C. Dougherty (Moderator)
.Director
Permits Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
With the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) started a long-term program aimed at restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. Removing the discharge of toxic
materials in toxic amounts to surface waters is one major element in this effort. The initial
phases of this program used chemical-specific water quality standards and treatment technology
principles to reduce discharges of toxic and conventional substances. EPA data from the early
1980s suggested that further reductions were necessaiy to achieve the State water quality
standards requirement of "no toxics in toxic amounts." These data showed that approximately
40 percent of NPDES facilities across the country discharge sufficient toxicity to cause water
quality problems.
On March 9, 1984, the U.S. EPA issued a policy designed to reduce or eliminate toxics
discharge and to help achieve the objectives of the Act. The Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (49 FR 9016), described EPA's
integrated toxics control program. The integrated program consisted of the application of both
. chemical-specific and biological methods to address the discharge of toxic pollutants. To support
this policy, EPA issued the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control (TSD) guidance. EPA continued the development of the toxics control program by
revising the TSD in 1991 and by including some aspects of the policy into NPDES regulations
at 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) in June 1989.
NPDES permitting authorities in EPA Regional Offices and in States authorized to
administer the NPDES program are now issuing permits to assess and control the discharge of
whole-effluent toxicity. By 1990, States and EPA Regions issued about 2,500 permits with
whole-effluent toxicity (WET) monitoring or limits. About 24 percent of these, permits had
91
-------
C.C. DOUGHERTY
effluent limits for toxicity. The environmental response is also occurring. The Region 4
program lias seen a reduction in effluent toxicity from 75 percent of the facilities to 45 percent,
a 40 percent reduction.
EPA'S POSITION REGARDING TOXICITY
EPA believes that whole-effluent toxicity controls are needed because chemical-specific
controls cannot cover all potentially toxic pollutants present in an effluent. The SARA. Title HI
Toxics Release Inventory database shows the release of many more pollutants than EPA's 126
priority pollutants. EPA's report to Congress on the pretreatment program also shows that
significant amounts of nonpriority pollutants enter municipal treatment systems. Chemical-
specific limitations alone cannot account for the interactions of toxicants in complex mixtures.
EPA believes that whole-effluent toxicity controls can be applied in a manner similar to
those used for controlling specific chemicals. Whole-effluent toxicity controls provide a direct
and supportable way to protect aquatic life as shown in EPA's Complex Effluent Toxicity
Testing Program studies and in other studies conducted by the State of North Carolina,
University of Kentucky, and University of North Texas. Whole-effluent toxicity tests, when
properly conducted, are no more variable than chemical analytical methods that have been
successfully used to develop and enforce NPDES permit limits. A proper toxicity testing
program includes replicate and control exposures, rigorous QA/QC requirements, and
Standardized statistical gata interpretation to minimize method and laboratory variability. EPA
believes that the only significant difference between whole-effluent toxicity and chemical controls
is that facilities need to conduct the additional step of determining which pollutants cause the
toxicity before being able to develop a treatment or source reduction plan for removing the
toxicity.
MAJOR ISSUES OF TOXICITY CONTROLS
Two principal issues arise regarding use of whole-effluent toxicity in regulatory
programs. Since most regulatory applications of whole-effluent toxicity have been by effluent
limits in NPDES permits, most of the issues pertain to permit liability.
First, some members of the regulated community believe that no enforcement action can
occur until a facility demonstrates a pattern of toxicity, that is, the toxicity occurs frequently.
Besides concerns about permit liability, three factors contribute to this belief: EPA's toxicity
identification evaluation (TEE) methods for determining the causes of toxicity require a continued
presence of toxicity for successful completion; EPA's field studies that correlated the presence
of effluent toxicity to actual ambient impairment of aquatic life were conducted in surface waters
92
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 91-93'
that experienced continual toxicity; and environmental engineers may have limited experience
in designing wastewater plants that will meet a toxicity objective all the time.
Second, some members of the regulated community believe that no enforcement action
can occur if a facility is actively attempting to resolve the problem, that is, the facility is
showing the appropriate diligence in trying to comply with the permit limit. Again, in addition
to concerns about permit liability, two factors contribute to this belief. In many instances, a
facility will not know the pollutants that cause the effluent toxicity. In addition, some POTWs
may not know the sources of these pollutants. Therefore, all facilities may not be readily able
to identify and remove the causes of effluent toxicity and do not believe they should be subject
to enforcement action until they can identify the causes and sources.
QUESTIONS FOR THE PANEL DISCUSSION
Most regulatory applications of whole effluent toxicity have been through effluent limits
in NPDES permits. As a result, most of the big questions relating to toxicity have pertained to
permit liability. However, this is a water quality standards conference, and it's only fair today
to discuss questions about interpretations of water quality standards. I'd like each of the panel
to give their perspectives on the following: t
• To what types of water does the acute criterion apply: all waters or only those
with aquatic life uses?
• To what types of water does the chronic criterion apply: all fxshable uses, or
only those with high-quality fishable uses?
• Where does the acute criterion apply: end of pipe or edge of mixing zone?
• How are the frequency, duration, and magnitude aspects of criteria inter-related?
Do the same frequency (one event in 3 years) and duration (1-hour and 4-day
averages) assumptions used for chemical criteria apply?
• What type of organisms should be used in monitoring: indigenous, sensitive, or
representative?
• Will a 304(a) criterion document for toxicity provide any benefit?
93
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 95-101-
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING: AN EFFECTIVE WATER
QUALITY REGULATORY TOOL - THE NORTH CAROLINA
EXPERIENCE
Ken W. Eagleson
Assistant Water Quality Section Chief for Environmental Sciences
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
Larry W. Ausley
Supervisor.
Aquatic Toxicology Unit
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
ABSTRACT
The use of whole effluent toxicity testing has become a valuable method for regulation
of toxic discharge to the surface waters of North Carolina. The North Carolina experience
demonstrates that this*technique can be applied as a limited parameter in NPDES permits with
expected compliance rates equivalent to those of conventional pollutants. North Carolina applies
these limitations to protect instream chronic toxicity at the 7Q10 low stream flow statistic. After
a complete 5-year permit cycle where these limitations have been included in NPDES permits,
compliance rates across the State are 89 percent. During this permit cycle, all facilities haying
a complex waste stream or those designated as a major discharge (>1.0 MGD) were issued
permits with the previously described limits. Experience has demonstrated that both municipal
and industrial waste streams found to be initially toxic can be reduced in toxicity to meet these
limits, even when the discharge is to an effluent-dominated stream.
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORY
Traditional methods of regulating the discharge of toxic substances to surface waters use
chemical criteria or standards to allocate specific quantities of these substances to a specific
water body. These chemical criteria are developed to protect a designated "use" of the receiving
waters. The uses typically include support of healthy aquatic communities. A numerical
criterion to protect this use can be developed using an array of laboratory exposure data to
95
-------
K.W. EAOLESON «nd L.W. AUSLEY
determine an acceptable quantity of the toxicant of concern. These criteria can then be utilized
to develop discharge limitations in an NPDES permit.
Chemical-specific limitations are extremely effective at protecting surface water uses.
Effluent discharges, however, are complex mixtures of chemicals. Both the regulated
community and regulators need another tool to allow the combined effects of these mixtures of
chemicals and unknown constituents to be evaluated. Biological monitoring provides that tool.
Because the "use" that is being protected is aquatic life propagation, biological monitoring
provides a direct evaluation of attainment of that protection. Biological monitoring may take
place either in the receiving waters (field survey) or in the laboratory (toxicity testing). Both
of these measures provide valuable information regarding the health of the resource being
protected.
Field collections of biological communities provide a summary of the environmental
conditions for a period prior to the sampling event. This period is dependent upon both the,
population being sampled and the type of insult received. A skilled investigator can use these
biological surveys to quantify the health of the system and often may identify the cause or causes
of any degradation that may have occurred.
Because biological survey of the receiving waters provides such a comprehensive
evaluation of the health of the water body, it is difficult to use as a tool to specifically limit the
discharge of toxic substances. This is where biological monitoring in the laboratory becomes
extremely useful. In the laboratory, the physical impacts to the receiving stream (e.g.,
destruction of habitat) can be isolated from the chemical impacts. When a laboratory test is
performed to evaluate biological responses to a waste discharge it is termed a "Whole-Effluent
Toxicity (WET) test."
The WET program began in North Carolina in the early 1980s with a surveillance
program administered through the North Carolina Water Quality Section of the Division of
Environmental Management. This initial surveillance program identified facilities that were
predicted to cause acute lethality to inhabitants of the receiving waters. Initial results published
in 1986 indicated that 25 percent of the facilities tested were found to be acutely toxic in-stream
(Eagleson et al., 1986).
During these early investigations, cost-effective short-term chronic assays were not
available to staff. Therefore, the test results reflect only instances where acute mortality was
expected. If chronic techniques had been available, the portion of streams predicted to be
impacted would, certainly have been greater. These statistics indicate that the typical, permitting
strategies in use at the time were not completely effective in controlling toxic discharge to
surface waters.
96
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:-95-101
. Because of the frequent occurrence of discharges predicted to impact our surface waters,
North Carolina began a program utilizing WET limits in NPDES discharge permits. His
program was begun in January 1987 and has been in place relatively unchanged since that time.
Since 1987, all NPDES facilities having a complex waste stream or who had a discharge volume
>=1.0 MGD received WET limits based on their instream waste concentration (IWC).
Instream waste concentrations are calculated as the percentage effluent in the receiving stream
while the facility discharges at maximum permitted capacity during a low stream flow event.
North Carolina uses the 7Q10 as its low flow stream statistic. The 7Q10 value represents the
lowest weekly average stream flow that has a probability of recurring once every 10 years.
These are the same statistics used when allocating a chemical-specific substance for the
protection of aquatic life. Testing protocols were based primarily upon the Ceriodaphnia
chronic procedure published by the U.S. EPA (1985) and modified by the North Carolina
Environmental Sciences Branch (North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, 1985).
These procedures limit the facility to discharging a waste stream that will cause neither
significant survival nor reproductive reductions at the IWC.
PROGRAM VALIDATION
North Carolina's early experience with the WET test procedures has indicated that direct
experience of the personnel performing these analyses and rigid adherence to specified protocols
are the most important factors in both successful completion of the test and repeatability of the
analysis. To ensure that the laboratories performing the analyses are adequately staffed and that
the laboratories are following specific quality control requirements, a Laboratory Certification
Program was established through the adoption of regulations in 1988. Through these
regulations, any WET data submitted as part of an NPDES permit requirement must be
performed by a laboratory certified by the State of North Carolina.
North Carolina is extremely comfortable with the utility and effectiveness of the WET
program. Our laboratory has performed more than 1,500 toxicity tests and has reviewed an
additional 9,500 submitted as self-monitoring data. Overall, the tests have been both repeatable
and reflective of toxic impact in the receiving water body. Early in our program we performed
and published a series of validations where predicted laboratory impacts were compared with
actual instream measures of environmental impacts. In this study, we found that the laboratory
tests were strong predictors of environmental impacts (Eagleson et al., 1990). Similar findings
are also found in the U.S. EPA Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA, 1991) and by other
authors (Dickson et al., 1992; Mount et al., 1992; Mount et al., 1985; Mount and Norberg-
King, 1986; Norberg-King and Mount, 1986).
Reliability of aquatic toxicity testing has been widely evaluated, and numerous
publications are available for review of the subject. Precision of the analyses (the ability for
multiple tests to derive similar results) have been shown to be equivalent to that of many
97
-------
K.W. EAGLESON and L.W. AUSLEY
chemical-specific analytical techniques used in the NPDES Program (U.S. EPA, 1991; Anderson
and Norberg-King, 1991; DeGraeve et al., 1992). We have reviewed a series of 45 split WET
samples submitted by NPDES permittees and have found an agreement , rate of 96 percent in
determination of compliance/noncompliance where the results reasonably represented the same
analysis. Whole effluent toxicity analysis, as applied in North Carolina, is clearly suitable for
routine application in the NPDES permitting process. This application, however, though must
be accompanied by active quality assurance and data review programs. Data submitted that have
been improperly analyzed and that haven't met stated quality objectives are not reflective of a
poor protocol but rather of poor application of that protocol. Analytical problems which arise
in a particular test do not imply unreliability but rather point directly to safeguards and quality
measures built directly into each analysis. These problems should neither be overlooked nor
grouped with conclusions that the protocols themselves are flawed. Statistical analysis
techniques defined for each method take into account the within-test variation that may occur and
account for this variation by decreasing the sensitivity of that analysis, effectively limiting to a
defined degree, the possibility that a "false positive" result is declared.
PROGRAM RESULTS
The North Carolina WET program, using chronic limitations in NPDES permits has been
in place nearly 6 years. During this time, we have included WET limits on almost every
complex waste discharge. Historically, both regulatory agencies and the regulated community
have questioned as to whether WET limits based on chronic criteria would establish criteria too
burdensome for compliance. Our experience demonstrates that this is not the case. At the
submittal date of this manuscript, North Carolina had issued 539 permits that contain WET
limits (270 to municipalities and 269 private industrial). Figure 1 depicts compliance rates for
these facilities with an overall compliance rate of 89 percent (95 percent for municipals and 83
percent for industrials). These rates are equivalent to those we experience for the conventional
parameters of BOD, solids, and ammonia (approximately 85 percent).
These high compliance rates for WET reflect significant effort at toxicity reduction on
the part of North Carolina discharging facilities. It is important to note that very early in North
Carolina's program, 1 in 4 dischargers was acutely toxic and after only 6 years only 1 in 10 is
chronically toxic. When comparing the compliance rates for WET limits with those of
conventional pollutants, it is important to remember that wastewater treatment facilities are
typically engineered to meet the conventional limits, and that WET limits were placed in most
permits after the facilities were designed and built. Even so, compliance with WET limits will
soon significantly exceed compliance rates of the conventional pollutants.
For all water quality-limited parameters (including WET limits based on the IWC),
compliance becomes more difficult as the percentage of effluent domination (IWC) increases.
In these instances, the specific chemical limit more closely approximates the water quality
98
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 95-101
standard, and the WET limit requires no
impairment to the test organisms in
essentially 100 percent effluent, A review of
the data set depicted in Figure 1 but grouped
by IWC indicates, however, that the
compliance rates are reasonably consistent.
These data may be viewed in Figure 2, A
strong trend toward noncompliance at the
higher IWCs does not exist. These results
reflect considerable effort by the dischargers
at addressing their WET limitations. They
also reflect the fact that when challenged, the
facilities are able to address chronic toxicity
within their wastestreams even at the higher
IWCs.
Figure 2 indicates that the lowest
grouping between 0 and 25 percent waste has
a compliance rate of 98 percent, while the
most effluent-dominated group (>=76
percent) has a compliance rate of 76 percent.
These compare favorably with typical
compliance rates for conventional
parameters. In many instances of
noncompliance, the causes or remedies of the
toxic condition have been discovered and
actions have been taken that are predicted to
resolve a noncompliant condition. Continued
efforts on the part of our discharging
community will eventually move these
compliance rates even higher.
2 60
= 40 ¦ •
to, 30 • -
Figure 1. Facility compliance.
St-75
76-100
Invircam Waste Concentration (St)
Figure 2. Facility compliance vs. instream
waste concentration.
NATIONAL APPLICATION
It is felt that the North Carolina experience validates the use of WET limitations based
on chronic criteria allocated at low flow (North Carolina uses 7Q10). Even in effluent-
dominated streams, these limits have been found to be reasonably achievable. Waste allocation
to these effluent-dominated streams is frequently encountered within North Carolina's permitting
program as evidenced by the histogram found in Figure 3. This information depicts frequency
of occurrence of the IWCs for the same dataset found in Figures 1 and 2. Effluent-dominated
streams constitute the majority of permits that must be addressed in North Carolina. In fact, 20
99
-------
K.W. EAOLESON *nd L.W. AUSLEY . " .
percent of the facilities constitute 90 percent or more of the receiving stream. Because the
objectives of the Clean Water Act and those of the North Carolina General Statutes require
protection of aquatic life uses, even these instances in North Carolina are limited at the IWC
using chronic criteria.
National application of the WET program should be equivalent to application of chemical-
specific limits with regard to protection criteria and allocation. Chemical-specific criteria for
the protection of aquatic life (outside a mixing zone) as required by the Clean Water Act demand
protection against chronic impacts. WET limits must be set equivalently. They must be.
enforceable, limited parameters providing protection during the same low stream flow events
protected by chemical-specific limitations. In instances where a noncompliant condition exists,
North Carolina has found Consent Orders (SOCs, JOCs) to be an extremely effective control
method by allowing the facility and
regulatory agency to work toward a
resolution of the problem. They provide
utility when working either with chemical-
specific parameters or WET limits.
North Carolina has found that the use
of WET testing as part of its regulatory
program has directly benefited surface water
environments of the State. The program has
been applied using the same administrative
techniques as chemical-specific standards.
Toxicity problems have been effectively
resolved by the discharging facilities, and
compliance rates continue to increase. WET
limits in NPDES permits have been proven practical and effective at controlling toxicant
discharge. North Carolina expects that these same results will be found by other agencies as
they pursue application of chronic WET limits in their own NPDES permitting programs.
REFERENCES
Anderson, S.L. and T. Norberg-King. 1991. Precision of short-term chronic toxicity tests in
the real world. Letter to the Editor. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 10:143-145.
DeGraeve, G.M., J.IX Cooney, B.H. Marsh, T.L. Pollack, and N.G. Reichenbach. 1992.
Variability in the performance of the 7-d Ceriodaphnia dubia survival,and reproduction test:
An intra- and interlaboratory study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:851-866.
Figure 3. IWC frequency distribution.
100
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 si CENTURY: 95-101
Dickson, K.L., W.T. Waller, J.H. Kennedy, arid LP, Ammann. . 1992. Assessing the
relationship between ambient toxicity and instream biological response. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 11:1307-1322.
Eagleson, K.W., D.L. Lenat, L.W. Ausley, and F.B. Winbome. 1990. Comparison of
measured instream biological responses with responses predicted using the Ceriodaphnia chronic
toxicity test. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 9(8): 1019-1028.
Eagleson, K.W., S.W. Tedder, and L.W. Ausley. 1986. Strategy for whole effluent toxicity
evaluations in North Carolina. |n: Poston, T.M. and R. Purdy, eds. Aquatic Toxicology and
Environmental Fate, Vol. 9. ASTM STP 921. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing
and Materials, pp. 154-160.
' '
Mount, D.I. and T. Norberg-King. 1986. Validity of Ambient Toxicity Tests for Predicting
Biological Impact, Ohio River, Near Wheeling, West Virginia. EPA/600/385/071. March.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
Mount, D.I., A.E. Steen, and T. Norberg-King. 1985. Validity of Effluent and Ambient
Toxicity Testing for Predicting Biological Impact on Five Mile Creek, Birmingham, Alabama.
EPA/600/8-85/015. December. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
Mount, D.I., N.A. Thomas, T.J. Norberg, M.T. Barbour, T.H. Roush, and W.F. Brandes.
1984. Effluent and Ambient Toxicity Testing and Instream Community Response on the Ottawa
River, Lima, Ofuo. EPA-600/3-84-080. August. Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth,
Minnesota.
Norberg-King, T.J. and D.I. Mount. 1986. Validity of Effluent and Ambient Toxicity Tests
for Predicting Biological Impact, Skeleton Creek, Enid Oklahoma. EPA/600/886/002. March.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota.
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. 1985. Revised Sept. 1989. North
Carolina Ceriodaphnia Chronic Effluent Bioassay Procedure (Ceriodaphnia Mini-Chronic
Pass/Fail Toxicity Test).
U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document for
Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. March.
U.S. EPA. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Short-Term Methods for Estimating
the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater Organisms.
EPA/600/485/014. 162 pp.
101
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2Ut CENTURY: 103-121
WET CONTROL: SQUARE PEGS DO NOT FIT IN ROUND HOLES
Mark T. Pifher, Esq.
Anderson, Johnson & Gianunzio
Colorado Springs, Colorado
James T. Egan, P.E.
Regulatory Management, Inc.
Colorado Springs, Colorado
INTRODUCTION
In 1988, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, after av lengthy and in-depth
hearing process, adopted one of the first comprehensive biomonitoring programs in the country.1
That original regulation, and the numerous redrafts developed since 1988, have become the
cornerstone for two important lessons in regulatory management. First, when floundering in the
arena of new, scientifically based regulatory undertakings with a Federal genesis, State agencies *
will often be besPserved by remaining on the slow road to heaven if not indefinitely parked in
limbo. Second, in confronting a Federal bureaucracy with 18,000 staff and a $4.5 billion
budget, those who conform are blessed, those who conflict are damned, and whether one is
treated as St. Michael the Archangel or Mephistopheles depends in large measure on who is
sitting on the right hand of God on a given day.
To better understand the nature of this controversy and hopefully to identify some middle
ground upon which sound future decisions can be made, this article will initially describe the
key provisions of the original Colorado biomonitoring regulation and disclose the current status
of that enactment. This will be followed by a brief analysis of significant legal and technical
arguments. The article will conclude with a commentary upon the significant public policy
issues which have fueled the debate, while identifying a possible legislative solution. Though
the article will be presented from the perspective of publicly owned treatment works (POTWs),
many of the same concerns are shared by private dischargers.
103
-------
M.T. OTHER «od J.T. EQAN
THE COLORADO BIOMONTTORING REGULATION
In December 1988, the Water Quality Control Commission of the State of Colorado
adopted a biomonitoring regulation which unfortunately became known as the "diligence
approach" to whole effluent toxicity control. Under the program, "permit violation and
enforcement [were] based on the diligence of efforts to investigate and eliminate toxicity once
detected," rather than upon the mere presence of toxicity.2 Failure of a single quarterly WET
test would trigger accelerated testing to determine if a pattern of toxicity existed, or if one was
simply dealing with a one-time episode. If a "pattern of toxicity" were detected, the permittee
would begin a preliminary evaluation to determine the possible cause. If that investigation
proved inconclusive, a two-phased toxicity reduction evaluation process would be triggered,
including a Phase I toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) which would involve an identification
and characterization of the source of toxicity, and if necessary, a Phase II TRE which would
involve a site-specific plan to further investigate, and take steps to eliminate, the toxicity. Each
step in the process was the;subject of stringent time frames and identified test procedures, each
of which was strictly enforceable. An "enforceable" toxicity incident would arise when there
existed a pattern of toxicity and the permittee displayed a lack of diligence in investigating the
cause and/or initiating a control response. A failure to perform routine or accelerated testing,
a failure to meet required deadlines for completing a TRE, or a failure to develop and implement
plans to eliminate the toxicity once it was identified were prime examples of a "lack of
diligence." The "intent" of the permittee, as referenced- in 40 C.F.R. §123.27(b) (1991), was
not relevant if the defined steps were not undertaken in good faith.
<•
The original regulation also provided that if, despite due diligence, the cause of the
toxicity could not be located, one could file a request for administrative relief from further
investigation and testing if certain other conditions were met, including compliance with all
remaining permit conditions. The regulation also allowed a credit if the toxicity was determined
to be the result of pass through from the intake water, while providing for relief in the form of
episode closure if the toxicity spontaneously disappeared during the preliminary investigation or
the Phase I or Phase H TREs. Finally, in the absence of published test protocols, the regulation
contained a provision for chronic toxicity testing in the discretion of the State Water Quality
Control Division, but did not establish a "chronic toxicity limit" or an "enforceable toxicity
incident" based on chronic test results.
In response to EPA objections over the diligence approach, which objections lead to the
Region 8 EPA veto of certain individual discharge permits,3 the Water Quality Control
Commission engaged in discussions with EPA in an attempt to reach an acceptable compromise.
In April 1991, a public hearing was held in Denver, Colorado, for purposes of reviewing the
Colorado biomonitorihg regulation as a substantial program revision under Federal regulatory
requirements.4 In June of 1991, and again in November of 1991, the Commission made
additional revisions to the State regulation. These were made in response to both EPA's protest
that the so-called diligence approach was inconsistent with certain Clean Water Act statutory and
104
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 103-121
regulatory requirements,3 including EPA's June 1989 changes to the discharge permit
regulations,6 and the cry of certain State permittees that they could not live with "dual" permits,
especially if EPA could use the biomonitoring issue to renegotiate other unrelated permit
conditions.
The salient features of the current State regulation to which EPA still objects include the
following:
• The regulation does not provide for the imposition of enforceable chronic limits,
which EPA finds objectionable under §301(b)(l)(C) of the Act and 40 C.F.R.
§122.44(d)(1) (1991).
• The regulation does currently provide for a finding of an enforceable violation
upon failure of a single quarterly biomonitoring test, but does not consider
additional test failures during the accelerated testing, TEE and TRE, to be
separately enforceable failures, which EPA finds contrary to §309 of the Act and
40 C.F.R. §123.27(a)(3) (1991).
• The regulation states that acute toxicity limitations are maximum daily limitations,
exceedence of which are to be considered a "single day" of violation. EPA finds
this contrary to the provisions of 40 C.F.R. §122.45(d) (1991) mandating average
weekly and average monthly limits unless impracticable.
• The regulation provides that if a WET test failure is due to a specifically
regulated pollutant, the numeric limit shall control, which EPA asserts is contrary
to 40 C.F.R. §122.44(d)(l)(v) (1991).
• The regulation provides for an "intake credit" without virtue of reference to the
need for a TMDL allocation.
; • The regulation states that the Division will ordinarily make a finding that the
discharge does not cause or have the potential to cause interference with the
« attainment of applicable water quality standards if there is a discharge to an
otherwise dry stream bed and a biosurvey shows there is no aquatic life, a
provision which EPA claims may not adequately implement the State narrative
toxic standard.
• The regulation defines "acute toxicity limitation" so as to bar a discharge which
results in a statistically significant difference in mortality for organisms between
the control and any effluent concentration less than or equal to the instream waste
concentration or, if no instantaneous mixing is provided, mortality (in a
concentration of effluent) that exceeds 50 percent. EPA questions the adequacy
105
-------
M.T. P1FHER and J.T. EGAN .
~ ' " ' * .
/
" of this provision to implement the State narrative standard as required by
§301 (b)(1)(C), as it may allow 50 percent mortality in low flow streams.
Thus, like a balloon squeezed in one's hands, once the State Commission changes certain
regulatory provisions in response to EPA oversight, other objections pop out from between its
fingers.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
During the course of the Colorado controversy, numerous detailed legal analysis
defending the State approach have been prepared,7 including a point-by-point legal refutation to
the opinion of the EPA Administrative Law Judge upholding the Agency objection to the
biomonitoring provisions of the City of Delta, Colorado, permit.8 For purposes of this
discussion, a summary of the major points, in the form of a step-by-step analysis, is adequate.
1. Section 301 (b)(1)(C) of the CWA requires any more stringent limitation necessary
to meet water quality standards established pursuant to State law.
2. Section 301(b)(1)(C) does not require effluent limitations.
3. Congress made a distinction between "limitations" under §301(b)(l)£C) and
"effluent limitations" under §301(b)(l)£A) and £B).
4. Section 502(17) and §509(b) of the CWA likewise distinguish between
"limitations" and "effluent limitations," as have the courts.9
5. Section 303(c)(2)(b) of the CWA, as adopted in 1987, specifically endorses the
use of "permit conditions" as a means to control toxicity.
6. The restrictions on the discharge of toxic effluent, as reflected in the original
Colorado biomonitoring regulation, qualify as either "limitations" or "permit
conditions." .
7. Even if "effluent limitations" were required, they are defined broadly under
§502(11) of the CWA and include any restriction on quantities, rates and
concentrations, including "schedules of compliance." Court cases and EPA itself
(1990 Region 9 Storm Water Opinion) have concluded that effluent limitations are
not limited to numeric criteria.10
8. Under §502(17) of the CWA, a "schedule of compliance" is defined as a schedule
of remedial measures.
106
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 103-121
. 9. The original Colorado biomonitoring regulation qualifies as a schedule of
remedial measures.
10. Any guidance developed by EPA pursuant to §304(a)(8) of the CWA does not
rise to the level of enforceable criteria.11
11. Through its biomonitoring regulation, Colorado was implementing its narrative
water quality standard for toxics.12 There is no comparable Federal standard.
There is no evidence that the original Colorado biomonitoring regulation is not
adequate to meet the Slate standard.
12. The provisions of 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(d) must be based on statutory authority.13
Even assuming such authority exists, the regulation merely references to need for
"effluent limitations," and does not prescribe single test pass/fail limits. The
preamble must be consistent with the language of the regulation itself.14
Finally, as will be noted below, there exist certain critical questions regarding the
technical reliability of WET testing.15 These observations raise additional legal concerns if the
biomonitoring results are to be part of a single test pass/fail enforcement program.16 Technical
decisions must meet certain minimal standards of rationality." There must be an adequate
accounting for various factors, such as analytical variability,18 and there must be readily
discernible and repeatable standards of performance.19 There must exist notice of what action
wili result in a violation,20 and arguably some consideration given to whether a standard or limit
can reasonably be met given available technology.21 Finally, if the test is found to lack adequate
reliability, its use for purposes of violation prosecution, especially in the criminal arena, may
be quite limited.22 All' of these judicial caveats must be factored into the equation when
fashioning an appropriate biomonitoring program.
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS ¦ .
i
• Technical aspects of the Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) test and its application in the
Water Quality Standards and NPDES Permitting Programs have several components. These
components include, but are not limited to, the variability of the test itself, the representativeness
of WET test results to actual receiving water impacts, appropriateness and applicability of the
WET test protocol, the proper test result interpretation techniques, and the technical approaches
to responding to "positive" test results. This section briefly raises and summarizes some of these
issues.
107
-------
M.T. PIFHER and J.T. EOAN
Variability of the WET Test
Dozens of research articles have been written over the last several years analyzing and
evaluating the variability of the WET test, and in particular, the chronic toxicity test using
fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia dubia. Some researchers have found that the largest
component of variability associated with the toxicity test measurements is interlaboratory
differences' between the measured endpoints, ranging from 0 to 100 percent for some test
concentrations.23 These researchers also found that intralaboratory variability was significant
enough that multiple tests were necessary to establish a high degree of confidence. An intra-
and interlaboratory study found that experienced laboratory personnel at 11 labs could complete
only 56 percent of a given suit of 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia tests, and that substantial variability
occurred between the laboratories.24
Other researchers have documented the impacts of test organism health on variability
found in toxicity tests, and found the variability in control survival to be greater than the
variation in the toxicity tests, with reference toxicity test controls using Daphnia spp. having a
standard deviation of 5 and 147 percent C.V.23 • Parental diet for cultured test organisms
(Ceriodaphnia dubia) was found to have a profound effect on the susceptibility of newborn
organisms to toxicity of certain pollutants.26
The whole effluent toxicity chronic toxicity test does not reliably distinguish the presence
or absence of toxicity. As with all living organisms, the fathead minnow and Ceriodaphnia
dubia will naturally grow and reproduce with considerable variability between individuals. Even
lifespan varies. The level of background biological variability can confound the biomonitoring
test. EPA recognized this and established cutoff criteria for control performance. At a
minimum, controls must demonstrate 80 percent survival, minnows must weigh at least 0.25
grams, and Ceriodaphnia must produce at least 15 offspring. If the controls fail to meet these
criteria, the test must be restarted.27
Based on analysis of more than 210 tests,28 the fathead minnow procedure is likely to be
aborted 10 percent of the time for failing to meet mortality criteria and 22 percent of the time
for failing to meet growth criteria. Using results from 191 Ceriodaphnia tests, the procedure
is likely to be aborted 11 percent of the time for failing to meet mortality criteria. The data
from 103 Ceriodaphnia reproduction tests show the procedure itself fails nearly one-third of the
time. While EPA has developed criteria for rejecting ill-performing controls, and thereby
reduced the incidence of false negative results, no such adjustment is available when organisms
assigned to the effluent breakers begin to exhibit impairment due to natural causes. All
reductions in survival, growth, or reproduction are assumed to be due to toxicity in the water
column.
108
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 103-121
Table 1. Performance of Biomonitoring Controls in Dilution Water Only.
Organism
No. of
Cases'
Mean
Standard
Deviation
99%
Confidence
. Limits2
% Test
Restart5
No. of
Tests
Required
for
Stability4
Fathead Minnow
Mortality
Growth5
210
9.0®
10.6%
0-30%
10%
' 5
210
0.43 g
0.21 g
0-0.92 g
22%
95
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
Mortality
Reproduction6
191
I
11.4%
21.9
0-62%
11%
24
103
17,0
7.0
0-33
32%
68
Notes:
1. The number of biomonitoring tests used to calculate control performance.
2. The range of mortality, growth, or reproduction expected 99% of the time,
3. The number of test which failed to meet EPA's recommended acceptance criteria for control performance.
4. The number of repeated biomonitoring tests which would be required to assure that control performance was
within 5 % of the estimated average for the species.
5. Growth measured as dry weight grams/fish.
6. Reproduction measured as number of offspring per surviving parent.
Source: 1992 Risk Sciences, Colorado Springs, CO, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.
Table 1 presents the average performance of organisms exposed solely to dilution water.
The average mortality rate for fathead minnows is 9 percent; for Ceriodaphnia it is 11.4 percent.
The average weight for fathead minnows is 0.43 grams and the mean number of offspring for
the Ceriodaphnia is 17. However, the average tells only half the story. When biological
variability (standard deviation) is accounted for, it is clear that the test is incapable of
distinguishing the presence or absence of toxicity. Ninety-nine percent of the time, fathead
mortality ranges between zero and 30 percent. Fathead weight can range between 0 and 0.92
grams. Ceriodaphnia mortality can range between 0 and 62 percent, while reproduction varies
between 0 and 33 offspring.
For the key sublethal effects, even findings of zero growth and/or zero reproduction are
not statistically significantly different from population averages. A finding of statistically
significant difference in the context of a.single test is an artifact of the small sample sizes.
109
-------
M.T. PIFHER *nci J.T. EG AN
" * To compensate for normal biological variability, the biomonitoring test must significantly
increase the number of replicates used. Another alternative would be to increase the number of
tests used to make a determination on toxicity. If fathead minnow survival is the measured
endpoint, five complete chronic toxicity tests would be required before one could be 95 percent
certain that the controls performed within 5 percent of the known average lifespan for this
species. Ninety-five tests would be required before one could attain the same confidence about
the representativeness of controls with regard to growth.
Twenty-four complete chronic toxicity tests would be necessary before one could
statistically confirm that the controls were within 5 percent of the average lifespan for the
species population. And, it would be impossible to conclude that toxicity was adversely
impacting Ceriodapbma reproduction until 68 chronic tests were performed. Until the sample
sizes are made considerably larger, there as considerable risk of mistaking noimal biological
variability among exposed organisms for effluent toxicity.
In an attempt to demonstrate that the variability of WET testing was essentially
comparable to that of chemical analyses, the EPA conducted a Discharge Monitoring Report
Quality Assurance Performance Evaluation (DMR-QA 11) in 1991. This report looked at
analytical results nationwide for metals, conventional pollutants, nonconventional pollutants, and
acute and chronic WET tests using fatheads and daphnia. Based on this report, CVs for various
analytical methods were compared. As shown in the attached chart, Table 2, biomonitoring
methods consistently had the highest CVs, ranging from 20 percent for the fathead acute LC50
procedure to 50 percent for daphnia chronic results. The CV was estimated from the 95 percent
confidence intervals for the data, reported as warning limits in the attached Discharge
Monitoring Report Quality Assurance (DMR-QA) Summary Report. The 95 percent confidence
interval spans approximately 2 standard deviations on either side of the mean, and the equation
below was used to estimate the CV. With the exception of biomonitoring methods, only CBOD
and cyanide CVs equaled or exceeded 20 percent. (Data selected from DMR QA Study 11,
prepared by City of Colorado Springs Wastewater Department.) '
In general, the methods currently used to calculate WET limits for discharge permits have
been found to overestimate the harm to aquatic communities, WET test variability is substantial
and is not taken into account in permit limits, and site-specific factors that reduce toxic effects
are generally ignored.28
Correlation of WET Test with Receiving Water Impacts
The fundamental assumption behind the EPA's use of WET testing as a water quality-
based approach to toxics control is that the results of the WET test on effluent in the laboratory
correlates directly to toxic impacts in the receiving waters. To demonstrate this relationship,
EPA conducted eight studies as part of its Complex Effluent Toxicity Testing Program
(CETTP). Closer examination of this effort revealed that (1) the CETTP was performed without
110
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 103^121
Table 2. Coefficients of Variation (CVs) for various NPDES analytical methods were
compared using the data from the DMR-QA Performance Evaluation,
conducted for EPA in 1991.
. Aitalyte
CV est
ALUMINUM
3
ARSENIC
4
BERYLLIUM
7
CADMIUM
7
CHROMIUM
5
COBALT
3
COPPER
4
IRON
3
LEAD
3
MANGANESE '
2
MERCURY
14
NICKEL
2
SELENIUM
S
VANADIUM
2
ZINC
2
pH
1
TSS
4
OIL AND GREASE
11
AMMONIA-NITROGEN
4
NITRATE NITROGEN
4
KJELDAHL NITROGEN
g
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
4
ORTHOPHOSPHATE
4
CBOD
20
COD
6
TOC
3
BOD
11
CYANIDE
39
TOTAL PHENOL
14
CHLORINE, TR
6
FATHEAD. ACUTELC50
20
FATHEAD, LETHAL NOEC
' 25
FATHEAD, CHRONIC IC25
33
FATHEAD, CHRONIC IC50
23
FATHEAD. CHRONIC NOEC
SO
DAPHNIA. ACUTE LC50
32
DAPHN1A, LETHAL NOEC
50
DAPHNIA. CHRONIC IC25
50
DAPHNIA, CHRONIC IC50
50
DAPHNIA, CHRONIC NOEC
50
Ill
-------
M.T. FIFHER «nd J.T. EGAN
CV est =
UWL - LWL\
TRUE VALUE
x 100
where:
UWL
LWL
Upper Warning limit and
Lower Warning limit
Mettb
Misc.
Haokfits Other MUc. Dtpimia
the benefit of a formal statistically based experimental design; (2) the studies focused on
correlating only instream toxicity, not effluent toxicity to community effects; (3) that significant
correlation occurred for 22 percent of the individual comparisons; (4) the site-specific factors
confounded relationships among effluent toxicity, ambient toxicity, and community effects; and
(5) the conditions examined in the studies were markedly different from those used as the basis
for toxicity permit limits.30 The review effort concluded that the additional studies were required
to "strengthen the scientific basis for using~(WET)~to predict potential ecological effects." An
evaluation of the statistical relationships between effluent toxicity and instream impacts
developed by the CETTP showed relatively few correlations.31
Presently, the EPA biomonitoring protocols require, among other things, the use of
nonrepresentative species. For example, Daphnia spp. live in quiescent conditions, and cannot
survive the velocities of free-flowing rivers and streams. Yet discharges to such water bodies
are analyzed for toxicity using daphnia. Also, test protocols require toxicity analyses to be
conducted at water temperatures that do not exist in most receiving waters, Diet, food
abundance, and the ability to move to less stressful locations as limited by the protocols do not
represent receiving water conditions. The dilution water used during the test typically is
synthetic laboratory water which does not reflect the character of the receiving water. These
are some of the issues that bring into question any direct correlation of WET results with
receiving water impacts.
A use attainability analysis on the Santa Ana River, that is presently being completed,32
has indicated that the "corroborative evidence" of chemical analyses, biomonitoring, and
ecological assessments is necessary to determine if there is an impact, and what the causative
agent(s) may be.
112
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
103-121
Test Result Interpretation
Interpretations of test results can also be extremely difficult, erroneous, and meaningless.
For example, without a demonstrated dose-response relationship, the test data are meaningless.
An effluent may be tested at 12.5 percent, 25 percent, 62.5 percent, and 100 percent
concentrations, and the respective survival results are 100 percent, 90 percent, 100 percent, and
100 percent, with control survival of 100 percent. The 90 percent survival at 25 percent effluent
is statistically significant according to the applicable statistical technique. Yet this survival rate
is above the allowable control mortality and higher effluent concentrations show no toxicity—
there is no dose-response relationship. These test results are questionable and probably
meaningless. Yet they will result in a permit violation. Is the violation due to real toxicity or
to flawed statistical interpretation?
EPA's current standard WET analysis protocols consider only intra-laboratory variability.
Inter-laboratory variability is excluded. Chemical data analysis considers both. Until toxicity
protocols consider both, their results will be often misleading or meaningless.33
Current statistical analysis methods can lead to erroneous interpretations with respect to
compliance with permit WET limits. These analyses compare the biological responses between
exposed organisms and unexposed organisms. This hypothesis testing approach is subject to the
statistical analysis upon which determinations of biological significance are made. The
magnitude of any indicated adverse effect is heavily influenced by the design of the toxicity test
and the natural variability between living organisms exposed to the same test conditions.34
Therefore, WET tesT design, the test dilutions used, natural variability, and the choice and
application of the statistical method, rather than actual toxicity, can have a greater influence on
the "apparent" test results.
Additional Technical Considerations
Other factors must be considered in the use of biomonitoring, or WET, for compliance
determination purposes.35
The health and well-being of the test organisms is critical. Diet and environmental
factors must be optimized to prevent false indications of toxicity that are caused by poor health,
poor diet, or the environmental conditions in which the organisms are cultured and tested. In
one publicized case, apparent toxicity was due to daphnia infection by a bacterium living in the
automatic sampler tube.36
Selection of dilution water is important. Synthetic laboratory water may not accurately
reflect the character and mitigating effects of the receiving waters. Replacement of dilution
water during the chronic test adds other variables and may create a shock stress on the
113
-------
M.T. P1FHER and J.T. EQAN
organisms. On the other hand, use of-upstream receiving water as dilution water also adds
variables, and may be a source of toxicity. This was the case in a Wisconsin POTW situation
where the higher the effluent concentration, the less mortality and greater fecundity and growth.
The POTW effluent diluted the toxicity caused by nonpoint pesticides entering the upstream
receiving waters which, per the permit, had to be used as dilution water,
#
The pH creep in the laboratory test situation, which does not occur in the real
environment, can and does cause toxicity due to un-ionized ammonia concentrations artificially
elevated by the laboratory conditions. This situation is especially of concern in small lagoon
treatment systems that experience seasonal high pH levels as a result of algal growth.
Further, the effects of synergism between otherwise innocuous substances in POTW
effluent or effluent/receiving water mixtures cannot be predicted or easily identified. POTW
influents and effluents are continually changing in their makeup. Determining the causative
agents of toxicity under such circumstances may be impossible with current technology. At the
very least, the toxic agents must be consistently present—one cannot find that which no longer
exists—and the opportunity to run multiple tests without facing liability for such investigative
efforts must be available.
PUBLIC POLICY ARGUMENTS
Most, if not all, POTWs will acknowledge that WET testing is a useful tool in toxicity
control, and that it should be a part of the Nation's water quality regulatory program. However,
its misuse, including an insistence that each biomonitoring test failure be subject to the
enforcement provisions of the Federal Act, could prove disastrous both financially and
politically.
It is unfounded for the Agency to fear that if the same approach to effluent control which
has worked tolerably well for the past 20 years for conventional, numerically measured
pollutants, is modified, a precedent will be set which will open the flood gates to the
incorporation of a "diligence approach" throughout the environmental regulatory program.
Fundamental scientific principles and commonly accepted notions of due process simply demand
that a different course be followed in this instance in order to reach the same commendable
result, i.e., the control of toxic discharges and the protection of classified water uses as
identified by the States. As noted in the recent report issued by the Council on California
Competitiveness, in the area of regulatory management, process cannot take precedence over
rational policy-snaking.37
In advocating adoption of the original Colorado biomonitoring regulation, Colorado
POTWs identified a number of public policy concerns (in addition to the technical concerns)
during the course of the debate. These remain relevant today, and include the following:
114
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
103-121
; • By its very nature, WET testing is designed to catch the "unknown" pollutant; if
the toxicant is known to exist, it will be regulated in the permit as a specific
chemical numerical limit.
• It takes multiple biomonitoring tests, each with inherent variability, to track and
identify the cause of the toxicity. Until the cause is determined, POTWs cannot
take action to stop a WET violation, such as enhanced pretreatment regulation.
• There must exist a positive incentive to run more tests.
• WET test failures can be the result of toxicity sources which are difficult if not
impossible to control, such as illegal dumps, synergism as a result of legal
discharges, a disposal of household waste, or copper plumbing leaching.
• EPA's use of enforcement discretion in a single test pass/fail system pay be
closely circumscribed due to the possibility of citizen suits.38
• By virtue of judicial precedent, a single incident of toxicity may be the basis for
30 separate violations if monthly testing is in effect, or 90 violations if quarterly
testing is adopted.39
• Even though enforcement discretion may be exercised and no fine imposed,
adverse publicity may undermine citizens' support of, and confidence in, the
utility system and its employees.
• A finding of violation could result in an inability to obtain bond financing, or at
least bonds at the rate desired.
• An initial "violation" could be utilized in the future by EPA or the State in
assessing and calculating future penalties under EPA or State penalty policies.
• An enforcement "policy" of leniency relative to initial violations may run the risk
* of modification due to political pressures, citizen concerns, changes in
philosophy, or simple personnel shifts.
• EPA's insistence in its preamble to the 1989 changes to 40 C.F.R. §122.44
(1991), mid in its biocriteria guidance,40 on "independent applicability" repeals the
long accepted notion of permit as a shield, and exposes POTWs to substantial
enforcement risk.
Not emphasized in the above listing are the tremendous costs associated with ensuring
that the sensitive test species, generally Ceriodaphnia dubia and fathead minnows, survive at a
115
-------
M.T. PIFHER icd J.T. EG AN
given-.rate in the wastewater effluent. Though EPA has at times indicated that indigenous
species may be used for test compliance purposes, this has been with the caveat that it is
"strongly discouraged."41 If employed, species from the receiving water itself "should never be
used," while use of the resident organism would require the development of complex EPA-
approved protocols and quality assurance procedures.42 In other words, protection of the current
water quality is not acceptable. These costs are reflected in plant upgrade expenditures,
additional pretreatment program measures, and testing expenses, including direct labor costs.
In addition, there are expenditures associated with penalty enforcement proceedings, including
attorney fees.
One must ask the question whether EPA's preferred single test pass/fail approach to WET
control is a. wise use of scarce resources. Wouldn't it be better to devote these resources to
investigation and control under a "diligence" scenario? As stated in the Report of the California
Council on Competitiveness referenced above, isn't it a worthwhile undertaking to require "that
all proposed environmental legislation and regulations include an analysis of alternatives that
would achieve the same or nearly the same benefits but with a more efficient use of resources, "43
A recent article in Forbes magazine highlighted many of these same concerns.44
One thing, however, is absolutely clear: The cost per life theoretically saved-
as measured by the EPA itself, often under statutory requirement—is now verging
on the fantastic. "I have never seen a single [proposed regulatory] rule where we
weren't paying at least $100 million per life for some portion of the rule, or very
few," says Yale Law Professor E. Donald Elliott, a Reilly ally and recent EPA
general counsel. "I saw rules costing $30 billion."
John Goodman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis reports a 1990
EPA regulation on wood preservatives that imposed costs at a rate of $5.7 trillion per life
presumed saved. This implies a willingness to spend the entire GNP to avoid a single
hypothetical premature death.
Similarly, there appears to be a willingness to expend vast sums to ensure the happiness,
in a laboratory setting, of oftentimes nonindigenous test organisms. Mr. Elliott was later quoted
in the article as stating:
Everybody at EPA understands, and everyone who works in this business
understands, that you could save many more lives if you took the same amount
of money and devoted it to say, infant nutrition programs, or a whole range of
public health services.
116
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:• 103-121
The article then concludes:
As Elliott puts it, reflecting on prospective costs and benefits: "I've come
around to the view that you just can't get there from here using these kinds
of techniques." What Elliott means by "here" is known in the trade as
v "command-and-control" bureaucracy—prescribing detailed rules attempting to
cover every possible circumstance. The EPA's pervasive rules, some observers
say, amount to a national industrial policy ... or land use act.
The above observations have a direct application to biomonitoring, as EPA attempts to
prescribe the essence of State programs down to the last detail, rather than allowing the States
to implement their narrative toxics standards, through WET controls, in a manner that efficiently
and effectively achieves the goals of the Act, and in a manner which is consistent with Executive
Order 12612 (on federalism) and Executive Order 12778 (on civil justice reform). A
"command-and-control" approach not only is financially expensive but. also leads to
governmental in-fighting, which breeds delay.
To the extent EPA argues that its actions in this particular area are constrained by the
very language of. the-GW A, POTWs have supported clarifying legislation which would allow
States to adopt enforceable permit "conditions" to meet toxic control objectives rather than
relying upon single test pass/fail limits.45 The exact wording of the legislation, which is
currently pending in Congress, is not magical in nature, and certainly could be modified as long
as the underlying concept of performance-based enforcement is retained. One must produce a
positive incentive for the productive use of biomonitoring testing, while ensuring that test
nonperformance, malperformance, or failure to comply with a schedule of compliance, will
remain susceptible to enforcement proceedings. Legislation which clearly endorses this approach
could be the foundation for forging a partnership between local, State, and Federal government
agencies in the control and eventual elimination of toxic discharges.
FOOTNOTES
*
. 1. 5 C.C.R. 1002-2, Section 6.9.7.
2. Pifher and Egan, Biomonitoring and Toxics Control: The POTW Perspective, Natural
Resources and Environment, Volume 4, No. 1, Spring, 1989.
3. See, e.g.. Objection to NPDES Permit No. CO-0039641, City of Delta, Colorado,
February 15, 1989.
4. 40 C.F.R. §123.62(b) (1991).
117
-------
M.T. PIFHER and J.T. EG AN
5. '-See, e.g.. Sections 301, 309 and 402 of the Clean Water Act; 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.4(a),
122.45(d), 123.27(a), 123.27(b), 122.45(d) (1991).
6. 40 C.F.R. §122.44(d).
7. See, e.g.. Legal Opinions to Martha Rudolph, counsel for Water Quality Control
Commission, from Mark T. Pifher dated November 20, 1990, and August 29, 1991;
Comments of the City of Colorado Springs and the City of Delta for Public Hearing
Upon the Colorado Biomonitoring Regulation as a Substantial Program Revision,
April 19, 1991; In Re: Region VIH EPA Objections to the Issuance of Delta. Colorado,
Permit, CO-0039641, Memorandum and Exhibits in Opposition to EPA Objection,
January 17, 1990.
S. Correspondense from James Scherer, Regional Administrator, Region VIII EPA, to
David Holm, Colorado Water Quality Control Division, January 9. 1991.
9. §S§ NRDC v. EPA. 656 F.2d 768 (D.C. Cir. 1981); Virginia Electric and Power
Company v. Costle. 566 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1977).
10. Virginia Electric and Power Company, supra: Correspondence from Harry
Seraydarian, Director, Water Management Division, Region IX, EPA. to Elizabeth
Miller Jennings, State Water Resources Control Board, 1990.
11. SfiS Exxon Con?, v. Train. 554 F.2d 1310 (5th Cir. 1977); E.I. duPont de Nemours and
Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112 (19771
12. See State of Alabama v. EPA. 557 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir. 1977), (EPA must object to
adoption of state standards as compared to implementation provisions); In the Matter of
Star-Kist Caribe. Inc.. NPDES Appeal No. 88-5 (1990), order denying modification
request, May 26, 1992 (Under 301(b)(1)(C), Congress intended the states, not EPA, to
define appropriate compliance deadlines and the stringency of limitations).
13. Hoffman Homes v. EPA. 1992 WL 78009 (7th Cir. 1992); Fertilizer Institute v. EPA.
935 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1991).
14. SSS Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co.. 325 U.S. 410 (1945); £f: National
Recycling Coalition. Inc. v. Reillv. 884 F.2d 1431 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
15. Sge N.R.D.C. v. EPA. 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (EPA can express technology-
based or water-quality-based limits in terms of toxicity).
118
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY! 103-121 -
16. See Connecticut Fund for Enviro.. Inc. v. Upiohn Co.. 660 F.Supp. 1397 (D. Conn.
1987) (Congress did not intend for courts to determine adequacy of scientific
measurements); Sierra Club v. Union Oil of Calif.. 813 F.2d 1480 (9th Cir. 1987);
N.R.D.C. v. Outboard Marine. 702 F.Supp. 690 (D.C. 111. 1988) (test methods must be
challenged at time of permit issuance).
17. American Paper Institute v. EPA. 660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981).
18. Chemical Manufacturer's Association v. EPA. 870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989); sre also
NRDC v. EPA. 863 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 19881
19. See Kulender v. Lawson. 461 U.S. 352 (1983); Hercules. Inc. v. EPA. 598 F.2d 91
(D.C. Cir. 1978); Reynolds Metals Co. v. EPA. 760 F,2d 549 (4th Cir. 1985); Cf:
Student Pub. Int. Res. Group v. P.P. Oil & Chemical. 627 F.Supp. 1074 (D. N.J. 1986)
(cannot challenge accuracy of DMR's); PIRG of New Jersey v. Yates Industries. Inc..
33 ERC 1149 (D. N.J. 1991); Student Public Interest Group v. AT&T Bell Lab.. 617
F.Supp 1190 (D.C. N.J. 1985).
20. See Gravned v. City of Rockford. 408 U.S. 104 (1972); United States v. Hutson. 843
F.2d 1232 (9th Cir. 1988).
21. See 48 Fed. Reg. 51408 (1983) (40 C.F.R. 131); 40 C.F.R. 131.10 (1991); Union
Electric Co. v. EPA. 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (Clean Air Act); United States v. West Penn
Power Co.. 460 F.Supp. 1305 (1978); Cf: United States v. Earth Sciences. 599 F.2d 368
(10th Cir. 1979) (intent and good faith are irrelevant).
22. See Frve v. United States. 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
23. Warren-Hicks, W. and Parkhurst, B.R. 1991. Performance Characteristics of Effluent
Toxicity Tests: Variability and Its Implications For Regulatory Policy. Kilkelly
Environmental Associates, P.O. Box 31265, Raleigh, NC.
DeGraeve, G.M., et al. 1989. Precision of the EPA Seven-Day Ceriodaphnia dubia
Survival and Reproduction Test, Intra- and Interlaboratory Study. EN-6469, Research
project 2368-2. Battelle Columbus Division, Columbus, Ohio.
Dorn, P.B. and Rodgers, J.H., Jr. 1989. Variability Associated with Identification of
Toxics in NPDES Effluent Toxicity Tests. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry,
Vol. 8, pp. 893-902.
24.
"i
25.
119
-------
M.T. PJFHER and I.T. EGAN
* * , «
26. : Belanger, S.E., Farris, J.L., and Cherry, D.S. 1989. Effects of Diet, Water Hardness,
and Population Source on Acute and Chronic Copper Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia dubia.
Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, Springer-Vering, New York,
Inc.
27. Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluent in Receiving Waters
to Fresh Water Organisms, 2nd ed., EPA/600/4-89/001, March, 1989.
28. Chadwick & Associates and Risk Sciences, July, 1992. Santa Ana River Use
Attainability Analysis, Vol. 6, Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing Requirements.
29. Parkhurst, B.R. and Mount, D.I. 1991. Water Quality-Based Approach to Toxics
Control; Narrowing the Gap Between Science and Regulation. Water Environment &
Technology, December, 1991.
30. Parkhurst, B.R., et al. 1990. Is Effluent Toxicity Correlated with Ecological Effects?
A Critique of the US EPA's Complex Effluent Toxicity Testing Program. Presented at
the 1990 Water Pollution Control Federation Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.
31. Marcus, M.D. and MacDonald, L.L. 1991. Evaluating the Statistical Basis for Relating
Receiving Water Impacts to Effluent and Ambient Toxicities. Accepted by
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.
32. Risk Sciences and Regulatory Management, Inc., June, 1992. Final Report Santa Ana
River Use Attainability Analysis, Vol. 1.
33. Dhaliwal, B.S. and Dolan, R.J. 1991. Aquatic Toxicity Data Interpretation and
Application in Regulatory Compliance. Central Contra Costa Sanitary District,
California.
34. Berger, R. and Ellgas, W.E. 1991. Determining the Biological Significance of Toxicity
Test Results. Presented at the 1991 Water Pollution Control Federation Annual
Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
35. Pifher and Egan, Biomonitoring and Toxics Control: The POTW Perspective, Natural
Resources and Environment, Volume 4, No. 1, Spring, 1989.
36. French, R.D. and Humble, D.E. 1990. False-Positive Results May Plague
Biomonitoring Tests. The Bench Sheet, Water Pollution Control Federation and
American Water Works Association, Vol. 12, No. 2.
120
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
103-121
37. California's Jobs and Future: Council on California Competitiveness, April 23, 1992,
Peter V. Ueberroth, Chairman.
>
38. See Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A.. Inc.. 834 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987); Atlantic States
Legal Foundation. Inc. v. Koch Refining Co.. 681 F.Supp. 609 (D. Minn. 1988).
39. See Gwaltnev of Smithfield. Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 791 F.2d 304 (4th Cir.
1986), vacated 108 S.Ct. 376 (1
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 123-133
THE STATUS OF THE SCIENCE RELATIVE TO THE USE OF
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY TESTING IN WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS
Philip B. Dorn
Senior Staff Environmental Toxicologist
Shell Development Company
Westhollow Research Center
Houston, Texas
INTRODUCTION
Whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing has been used for monitoring purposes since the
early 1940s, and has been utilized for compliance monitoring in California since the late 1960s.
The purpose of such monitoring was a recognition that chemical monitoring alone could not
predict or measure biological effects in receiving water bodies. Early test development was
targeted toward short-term exposures measuring lethality, and when coupled to an estimate of
the field exposure, could be used to assess receiving water effects. However, early uses of
toxicity testing were targeted toward technology to control effluent quality with Little
consideration for receiving water exposures. The adoption of water quality-based permitting in
1984 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA, 1984) was a major step forward
in integrating chemical and biological monitoring to protecting receiving water quality.
Integrating the concept of hazard assessment which coupled effects and exposure allowed effluent
dischargers to estimate environmental effects of effluent quality (Bergman et al., 1986).
Water quality-based permitting applied to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit monitoring, and compliance presented an opportunity to assess and
control the discharge of "toxic substances in toxic amounts." However, considerable controversy
arose regarding the technical basis for implementing this approach considering that unacceptably
deemed toxicity test results could result in multimillion dollar engineering solutions for
corrective action. There also continues to be a lack of standardization in the application of test
methods or the results of WET (Glickman, 1991).
' > '
The use of WET for development of water quality standards may be made on a State-
specific basis and may be either a numeric limit or narrative standard to protect the designated
uses of the receiving system. EPA guidance has recommended that no receiving system should
123
-------
P.B. DORN
have acute toxicity at any time, although a chronic toxicity standard protective of the receiving
water is appropriate. The development of that standard should incorporate the best available
science to protect the biological population in the system, and should be site-specific to account
for regional differences in biological community and water quality characteristics.
The test procedures for whole effluent testing have been developed for several freshwater
and marine tests and are being utilized for many NPDES programs in the United States. These
methods, for the most part, have not been promulgated as procedures as specified in the Clean
Water Act section 304(e), but are being utilized. This paper addresses the science of WET for
water quality standards.
The puipose of this discussion is to review the technical progress made toward the
application of WET toward water quality standards and to outline some of the problems facing
implementation. The existing science of WET as it is being applied to State and regional
programs will be discussed and highlighted: (1) the expected variation in test results and
exposures relative to a discharger's ability to meet a water quality standard; (2) selection of the
appropriate test species for the specific site; and (3) application of site-specific WET methods
for assessing receiving water impacts.
*
EXPECTED VARIATION IN TEST RESULTS
In anticipating WET testing for compliance to a water quality standard, several factors •
require attention to ensure that results are realistic with relationship to achieving the goal of
receiving water protection. For illustrative purposes, Figure 1 shows several cases whereby
there is considerable uncertainty in knowing whether WET limits are being achieved for
receiving water body protection. This figure in essence, captures all of the major issues
surrounding WET testing for water quality standards. The top set of data shows WET results
for acute and chronic toxicity such that the receiving water concentration is below the effect
concentrations. However, superimposed on these data are areas of uncertainty (dashed lines)
that delineate boundaries where the measurements vary, and one is not certain (or with a small
probability) that WET standards are achieved. The second set of data shows the same
information and includes the issues surrounding setting an exposure estimate of receiving water
flow. The indicated line for the 7-day average low flow during a 10-year period (7Q10) is often
used to set limits. The chronic toxicity data illustrate possible responses of three species
(recommended in U.S. EPA, 1991) and their span of sensitivity and frequency of reflecting
changing effluent conditions. The dilemma of these data is that one may not be in compliance
because of uncertainties due to test precision, exposure, and site-specific variations. The
following discussion illustrates these concerns, as applied to specific derivations of effluent
toxicity and exposure.
124
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 123-133
EFFLUENT EXPOSURE VS. TOXICITY
Chronic
Toxicity
Receiving
Stream
Acute
Toxicity
UNCERTAINTY IN EXPOSURE AND TOXICITY
Chronic Toxicity
Acute
Toxicity
Receiving
Stream
.7010
% Effluent
Figure 1. The conceptual application of Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing to
compliance with water quality standards (WQS). The top figure demonstrates the
relationship between acute and chronic toxicity of an effluent compared to an
instream effluent concentration determined by stream flow gaging data. The
difference between the exposure and toxicity is the margin of safety, which1 is,
however, confounded by the uncertainty in the measurements shown by dashed
lines. The lower figure illustrates the uncertainty when multispecies testing is
used and the relationship to instream exposures.
125
-------
P.B. DORN .•
Test Precision Estimates
Few effluent toxicity test round robin exercises have been conducted to understand
precision, but available results demonstrate that there is variation between laboratories. In some
cases, there is so much variation that the ability to determine compliance to a toxicity
requirement would be questionable! Numerous intralaboratory studies have shown that effluent
toxicity tests, and toxicity tests, in general, are within "acceptable variability" relative to
chemical analysis methods to be used in a regulatory framework. In the last few years,
interlaboratory experiments have been conducted using NPDES compliance test methods for
Daphnia, Ceriodaphnia dubia, Pimephales promelas, and Mysidopsis bahia. These programs
have investigated interlaboratory response to reference toxicants in conjunction with effluent
testing. Reference toxicants used include potassium dichromate, sodium chloride, and sodium
pentachlorophenol. Effluents tested have been from electric generating utilities (DeGraeve et
al., 1992; 1988), pulp and paper mills (DeGraeve et al., 1992), refineries (DeGraeve et al.,
1988), chemical plants (Grothe and Kimerle, 1985), and drilling muds (Ray et al., 1989). ;
Table 1. Interlaboratory variability of fathead minnows and Ceriodaphnia exposed to
reference toxicants and effluents. Mean data are 7-day LC50 for 10 laboratories.
Sets 1 and 2 represent time independent testing periods. The coefficient of
variation (CV) is shown in percent and derived as standard deviation/mean x 100.
Test Sample
Ceriodaphnia
Fathead Minnow
Set 1
Set 2
« Set 1
Set 3
Mean
C.V.
Mean
e.v.
Mean
c.v.
Mean
C.V,
KjCrjOj Oig/L)
29.6
70.8
49.6
37.7
2000
22.8
2000
23.6
N*Cl (g/L)
1.77
6.7
1.33
49.9
-
Utility Effluent (%)
3.7
80.6
100.0
0.0
3.7
36.9
Pulp Effluent {%)
70.0
12.0
Refineiy 301 (%)
1.0
0.9
30.9
33.1
Refineiy 401 (%)
10.0
9.0
27.9
26.0
NaPCP (fig/L)
228
288
54
43.5
293
285
40.3
44.7
126
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 123-133
Table 2. Intra- and inter-laboratory variation in effluent toxicity tests conducted. Number
of species and effluents are indicated from all studies analyzed, toxicity is ratio
of maximum/minimum values measured, and coefficients of variation (CV) are
shown as mean and range. (Adapted from Parkhurst et al., 1992)
Intralaboratorv
Acute
Chronic
Species
5
2
Effluents
13
7
Mean max/min
Toxicity
3.2
1.9
Mean CV
17
7
CV Ranee
0-135
0-20
Interlaboratorv
•
Acute
4
13
7.4
34
0-166
Chronic
2
7
' 2.9
34
0-83
In studies to determine the interlaboratory variation of Ceriodaphnia dabia test methods,
10 laboratories participated and tested utility and paper mill effluents. Test variation (coefficient
of variation) ranged from 12 to 80 percent, and variation using reference toxicant ranged from
6 to 70 percent. Similar results were obtained in a second study using the fathead minnow
(Table 1). In a summary of acute and chronic round robin data (Parkhurst et al:, 1992), the
mean coefficient of variation was between 7 and 34 percent (Table 2).
There is a need to conduct interlaboratory precision exercises for other species utilized
in NPDES WET testing before implementing compliance requirements for these species. After
thorough testing, EPA should publish test methods according to Clean Water Act section 304
(c) criteria. Although all species utilized in State NPDES programs may not have been
evaluated, some baseline species can be used.
TOXICITY TESTING FOR PERMIT COMPLIANCE
For screening purposes, effluent toxicity testing is a valuable tool, and can enable a
discharger to determine the need for additional treatment, process changes, point source control,
etc. However, effluent toxicity testing is routinely being used for compliance with requirements
such that the determined toxicity, i.e., no observable effects concentrations (NOEC) such as
NOEC > 90 percent effluent, may be difficult to achieve. Although the interlaboratory precision
of effluent toxicity testing has been shown to be approximately 30 percent variation, the variation
has been calculated on lethal concentration (LC50) or inhibiting concentration (IC50) point
estimates and not on specific variability in complying with a specific concentration, such as that
the NOEC must be greater than a specific concentration. A summary of effluent performance
characteristics and implications for regulatoiy testing were evaluated (Parkhurst et.al., 1992;
127
-------
P.B. DORN
Warren-Hicks et al., 1992), and were found to show higher variation in one concentration
comparison which compared a point estimate such as LC50. Data analyzed by Warren-Hicks
et al. (1992) from the fathead minnow round robin conducted by DeGraeve et al. (1988)
illustrate the variation in response if the same concentration/mortality data from "refinery 301"
are plotted for each laboratory compared to comparing LC50s (Figure 2). The figure shows that
the variation in data from the 10 different laboratories would be inconclusive to determine
compliance.
100
100
Rofinory 401
80 -
80
Measured
Values
Predicted
1 60 -
60
40 -
40-
Predicted
V Values
20 -
20
X
Om 2 4 6 8 10
Concentration, %
Concentration, %
Figure 2, Chronic fathead minnow effluent toxicity test results from 10 laboratories on
concentration-specific exposure to two refinery effluents. There is a wide range
in interlaboratory sensitivity to each of these two effluents, which could result in
uncertain decisions for NPDES compliance. Typical application would use the
point estimates for a "critical" concentration compared to the control for
compliance determinations. (Adapted from Warren-Hicks and Parkhurst, 1992.)
Although interlaboratory precision is acceptable for general research testing, permit
compliance to specific limits may have greater variation than the discharger can accept. Unless
the uncertainty of these results can be incorporated, dischargers may continuously face
unnecessary toxicity identification" evaluation studies. EPA should adopt the use of uncertainty
to include inherent test variation in water quality-based permitting with WET, Precision
estimates are based on studies with "well-qualified" laboratories, and are not necessarily
indicative of all laboratories conducting NPDES testing.
128
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
123-133
A strong reference toxicant program should be required and considered in any compliance
testing. Reference toxicant testing provides a baseline response to indicate to the laboratory and
the client the quality of test organisms and their response to known challenges. A time course
analysis of data portrayed as a statistical process control chart will show the performance of the
laboratory organisms over time. Reference-toxicants, in addition to WET controls, should be
used to evaluate the performance of valid tests. When unacceptable reference toxicant test
results are identified, WET compliance tests should be discarded.
SELECTION OF TEST SPECIES APPROPRIATE TO THE RECEIVING
ENVIRONMENT
Selection of test species for effluent toxicity has been a subject of considerable debate.
If the receiving water is to be protected, species selection should be consistent with that
environment. Test species and protocols should also be carefully evaluated such that
"interferences" are eliminated. If the effluent possesses higher total dissolved solids (TDS),
different ionic composition, or salinity, test methods may have to be modified to incorporate
potential toxic effects from effluent quality not associated with "toxics" (Dom and Rogers,
1989). Measurement of "salinity" or "TDS" alone may not determine whether one species or
another is a better choice for testing. If the ionic balance is markedly different than the
environmental tolerance of the organism, toxicity may result (Figure 3). In this figure, the
effect of effluent salinity is compared to effluent "toxicity," and the resulting interpretation is
that the effluent ionic balance caused the toxicity. In actuality, the site is located in the arid
West Texas environment and contributes to an otherwise ephemeral stream. The plant intake
water contains the high ionic strength solution, and little additional constituents were added by
the plant process. '
1
If receiving water temperatures are lower than laboratory toxicity test conditions, such
as 15°C in the field and 25 °C in the laboratory, an effluent containing ammonia would test toxic
in the laboratory test and not in the field. Cautions for these interferences must not be
underestimated.
i
Test conditions should provide a tolerable environment for the test organisms, so the
"toxics" in the effluent may be expressed independent of other sources of effect. EPA guidance
recommends that control data be carefully evaluated by using positive, and negative control data.
The dilution water, as well as laboratory reference toxicity tests, should be used to determine
organism health before decisions on effluent toxicity are made.
-------
P.B. CORN
'3JM®!'" I
80 -| Theoretical |
J December
8 60
o
-, 40
^ c
20 «*^VN,v^NN*»-NNSV^VN^NVj|VNNVsSX\\NS\.\N\NV\\'^X\X\\\SVNSVS\N'S.\\\Xj^WSNV.SNSNNS\\.\\SV^\\-\Vv\-\NNNS\.N>\NS\'v\^
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Fraction Plant Effluent in Synthetic Effluent
Figure 3. The effect of salinity on the toxicity of refinery effluent. The "theoretical" line
indicates the LC50 that was found when the synthetic effluent was prepared by
adding the exact composition of anions and cations to distilled water and
measuring toxicity. The two data points for January and December show the
results of mixtures of refinery effluent and synthetic effluent. The 1.0 point
shows that the refinery toxicity duplicates the toxicity of the synthetic effluent.
EPA procedures for calculating a water quality criteria value for a toxic pollutant
acknowledge that the criterion will be protective of 95 percent of the species in the population.
The search for the most sensitive species should not be the focus of WET testing, and better
estimates of variability in toxicity and exposure would produce better WET standards.
SITE-SPECIFIC WET METHODS FOR ASSESSING RECEIVING
WATER QUALITY
Effluent toxicity may result in acceptable or unacceptable results depending upon the
specific permit limits that have presumably taken exposure into account. Understanding effluent
variability should be more important than evaluating one "toxic" result as a significant toxicity
event. The presumption of receiving water effects from one or two WET results is not
appropriate unless a significant "pattern of toxicity" can be established that would indicate a
130
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2ist CENTURY: 123-133
cause and effect relationship between laboratory toxicity tests and receiving water community
effects. State and regional programs have utilized different methods for WET compliance, such
as weekly acute flow-through tests using rainbow trout in San Francisco Bay, where the 90th
percentile of 11 tests must be 90 percent or greater. Dischargers in the Bay also must not have
survival in the lower 10th percentile less than 80 percent. In EPA Region 6, dischargers may
be required to meet chronic toxicity limits for Ceriodaphnia and fathead minnows corresponding
to the critical low flow and one-half of the critical low flow for the receiving water body.
Region 6 stipulates that a test failure for mortality will require three retests in 45 days, and a
failure to meet requirements at that point results in a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (HE)
study.
To eliminate diverse State and regional testing and compliance programs, EPA should
develop guidance for criteria for establishing patterns of toxicity that could lead to remediation
activities such as toxicity identification evaluations.
In development of WET water quality standards, site-specific factors must be included
to assure that national approaches are compatible with specific sites. Through the use of
constructed stream and pond enclosure mesocosm experiments, it has been demonstrated that
laboratory toxicity test results are reasonable estimates of field predictions when site-specific
conditions are maintained in test environments (Pontasch et al., 1989; Dorn et al., 1991;
SETAC, 1992). Procedures for WET site-specific criteria similar to those allowed in modifying
water quality criteria should be included (U.S. EPA, 1983).
SUMMARY
The science of WET methods for establishing water quality-based receiving standards is
well developed, but has not been appropriately addressed for implementation into State programs
and NPDES compliance testing.
WET methods have been well developed to present few technical challenges for
laboratories. However, EPA should conduct interlaboratory comparisons of those methods and
initiate promulgation according to the Clean Water Act section 304 (c) procedures.
Implementation of WET for water quality standards must address, variability and
uncertainty associated with the receiving water exposure, and measurement (calculation) of
toxicity endpoints. The pattern of toxicity should be established for appropriate test species
relating to receiving water effects before remediation activities are begun.
131
\
-------
P.B. DOIIN
REFERENCES
Bergman, H.L., R.A. Kimerle, and A.W. Maki, eds. 1986. Environmental Hazard Assessment
of Effluents, Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
DeGraeve, G.M., J.D. Cooney, B.H. Marsh. T.L. Pollack, and N.G. Reichenbach. 1992.
Variability in the performance of the 7-day Ceriodaphnia dubia survival and reproduction test:
An intra- and interlaboratory study. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. ll(6):851-866.
DeGraeve, G.M., J.D. Cooney, T.L Pollock, N.G. Reichenbach, J.H. Dean, M.D. Marcus,
and D.O. Mclntyre. 1988. Fathead minnow 7-day test: intra- and interlaboratory study to
determine the reproducibility of the seven-das fathead minnow larval survival and growth test.
Report to the American Petroleum Institute. Publication 4468, Washington, DC.
Dickson, K.L., A.W. Maki, and J. Caims. Jr. 1979. Analyzing the Hazard Evaluation
Process. Bethesda, MD: American Fisheries Society.
Dora, P.B. and J.H. Rodgers, Jr. 1989. Variability associated with identification of toxics in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) effluent toxicity tests. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 8:893-902.
Dorn, P.B., R. Van Compernolle, C.L. Meyer, and N.O. Crossland. 1991. Aquatic hazard
assessment of the toxic fraction from the effluent of a petrochemical plant. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. 10:691-703.
Glickman, A.H. 1991. Beyond Implementation: Challenges to complying with new water
quality-based standards. , In: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proceedings: "Water
Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Office of Water, Washington, DC, pp. 207-210.
Grothe, D.R. and R.A. Kimerle. 1985. Inter- and Intra-laboratory variability in Daphnia
magna effluent toxicity test results. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 4:189-192.
Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren-Hicks, and L.E. Noel. 1992. Performance characteristics of
effluent toxicity tests: Summarization and evaluation of data. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11:771-
791.
Pontasch, K.W., B.R. Niederlehner, and J. Caims, Jr. 1989. Comparisons of single species,
microcosm, and Field responses to a complex effluent. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 8:521-532.
132
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 123-133
Ray, J.P., K.W. Fucik, J.E. O'Reilly, E.Y. Chai, and L.R. Lamotte. 1989. Drilling fluid
toxicity test: Variability in U.S. commercial laboratories, pp. 731-747, In: Engelhardt, F.R.,
J.P. Ray, and A.H. Gillam, Eds. Drilling Wastes. New York: Elsevier Applied Science.
SETAC. 1992. Use of Simulated Aquatic Ecosystems in Risk Assessment. Society of
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Special Publication. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
Pn press.]
U.S. EPA. 1983. XJ.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 1984. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Development of water quality-
based permit limitations for toxic pollutants: National policy. Fed. Reg. 49(48):9016-9019;
March 9.
U.S. EPA. 1985. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA-440-4-85-032. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA. .
U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA-505-2-90-001. Washington, DC:
U.S. EPA.
U.S. EPA. 1985, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
Warren-Hicks, W,, B.R. Parkhurst. 1992. Performance characteristics of effluent toxicity tests:
Variability and its implications for regulatory policy. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 11 (6):793-804.
133
-------
Re-examining
Independent
* Applicability
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 135-138
RE-EXAMINING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY: AGENCY POLICY
AND CURRENT ISSUES
Susan Jackson (Moderator)
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
EPA's Office of Water recommends the independent application of its full array of water
quality measures (chemical-specific, whole-effluent, and bioassessment approaches) in State
water quality programs. "Independent applicability" means that the validity of the results of any
one of the approaches used to assess water quality does not depend on confirmation by one or
both of the other methods. This policy is based on the unique attributes, limitations, and
program applications of each of the three approaches. Each method alone provides valid and
independently sufficient evidence of aquatic life use impairment, irrespective of any evidence,
or lack of it, derived from the other two approaches. The failure of one method to confirm an
impact identified by another method does not negate the results of the initial assessment. The
policy, therefore, states appropriate action should be taken when any one of the three types of
assessment determines that a standard is not attained.
The policy of Independent Applicability is discussed in the Technical Support Document
for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991a), which was widely peer reviewed,
and in policy guidance to the Regional Offices on the use of biological assessments and criteria
in water quality programs (U.S. EPA, 1991b). The current policy largely evolved from a work
group chaired by EPA that included representatives from EPA Headquarters offices, research
laboratories, all 10 Regions, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest Service. New
York and North Carolina provided technical assistance to the work group. Based on the
recommendations from several areas within EPA's national water program, EPA asked the work
group to address how to integrate biological assessment and criteria approaches with traditional
chemical and physical methods. To do so, the work group had to first consider the scientific
base for the three approaches.
Water chemistry methods are used to predict risks to human health, aquatic life, and
wildlife,' and to diagnose, model, and regulate water quality problems. Chemical-specific water
quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life are toxicity-based and address the effects of
single chemicals over a wide range of species. Whole-effluent toxicity tests measure the toxic
135
-------
S. JACKSON
effects' of effluent samples that may consist of unknown or complex mixtures of chemicals.
Biological assessments and criteria directly measure the aquatic community's response to any
and all pollutants, including habitat degradation and loss. The distinct capabilities of each of
these approaches to water quality assessment are the technical underpinnings of the policy on
independent application. The work group concluded that a comprehensive picture of risk is
possible from using all three together, and when used in a regulatory context, each measure also
indicates risk and can be, and should be. applied independently. When one technique detects
or predicts a water quality impairment, the results of another assessment technique should not
be used to overrule that finding.
The policy clearly has a regulator) purpose, and at first reading, its application to water
quality programs appears straightforward However, implementation of the policy has shown
this not to be the case. Several States, municipalities, and industries question the policy and its
application in water-quality based programs, including challenges to individual approaches.
Examples include challenging the environmental significance of the chemical- specific water
quality criteria or whole-effluent toxicity measures and giving precedence to biological
assessments over those other two approaches. However, the central issue under discussion is:
How are these different approaches, our basic program tools, most effectively applied in water
quality and resource protection?
Central to the debate is the uncertainty about what biological criteria are and how these
criteria will be applied in pollution control and abatement programs. Some of the issues under
consideration are: What constitutes a sufficiently comprehensive biological assessment that
accurately reflects critical conditions? How can biological assessments be used in evaluating
cause-and-effect relationships? How will biological criteria derived from such information be
used in regulatory programs? Some of the key policy issues surrounding independent application
will be addressed as technical guidance on biological criteria is developed and implemented.
The scientific foundation of biological criteria needs to be well established and tested in a wide
range of situations before some aspects of policy implementation can be resolved.
Aside from questions about policy application, the environmental benefits of
independently applying the three assessment tools in detecting and remedying receiving water
impacts are not yet evident to many States, municipalities, or dischargers. One viewpoint holds
that since a biological assessment is a direct measure of the health of an ecosystem, a visibly
healthy biological community should be the deciding factor for determining whether or not a
water body is impaired or whether exceedances of a permit limit are environmentally significant.
This viewpoint gives precedence to biological assessments and criteria over toxicity-based
chemical measures. The Agency's concern in using a hierarchical approach of biological
assessments over chemical measures is based on the technical evaluation that each of these
assessments measures different endpoints and each provides a valid assessment of nonattainment
136
1
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 135-138
of standards. For example, a short-term assessment of a biological community would fail to
detect long-term chronic and sublethal effects that would put the community at risk. In addition,
the science supporting biological assessments and criteria, and indeed all methods, is evolving.
A related issue involves the use of long-term biological assessments rather than the
Agency's recommended toxicity-based methodology to establish chemical-specific water quality
criteria to protect aquatic life. Some within the Agency feel that this challenges the policy of
independent applicability and could result in less protective criteria because information specific
to each approach may not be considered. In fact, more stringent criteria could also be the result.
Others argue that a thorough, long-term biological assessment is the most direct and realistic
measure of the status of the resource that we want to protect. This question has arisen under
provisions of the water quality standards regulation that authorizes States to develop water
quality criteria based on "other scientifically defensible methods." The Agency has not yet
issued guidance on the use of a biological assessment in the development of chemical-specific
water quality criteria, and this issue is being addressed on a case-by-case basis without
thoroughly evaluating potential ramifications to other parts of the water quality program.
An alternative to strict application of the policy is the weight-of-evidence approach. This
approach entails the evaluation of all available information to make the most informed decision
possible, and can take into account the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Since
sufficient uncertainty is associated with each of the three assessment methods, an integrated
synthesis of all available information will make for the most sound and cost- effective decision
making. Some would argue that a weight-of-evidence approach is appropriate and practical in
all aspects of a water quality program, from assessing impairment of a water body to deriving
permit limits and conditions. The Agency is concerned that this approach would be difficult to
implement to protect water quality and to avoid one measure undermining another in a finding
of nonattainment. For example, if a short-term biological assessment is used to override a
chemical-specific permit limit violation, it may neither take into account the potential long-term
chronic impact of the toxicant discharged at higher concentrations nor measure if there is a
reasonable potential for a water quality impairment. However, the predictive chemical-specific
and whole- effluent approaches will. ,
The discussion on independent applicability has two key aspects: the technical foundation
of the policy and the logistics of policy implementation. First, from the Agency's point of view,
sound scientific reasons support the basic premise of the policy: that together, each of the three
measures (chemical-specific, biological assessment, and whole-effluent) provide unique and
complementary information about water quality and the health of an ecosystem. Essentially,
each approach tests a somewhat different hypothesis. The Agency recognizes the need to better
articulate this point, and we plan to do this. Various aspects of the technical issues have been
investigated. Additional technical evaluation of the complementary nature of these three
measurements are being planned, including an examination of the strengths and weaknesses of
each approach and further explanations and interpretations of situations when discrepancies
137
-------
S. JACKSON . :
between the results are found. Such a comprehensive evaluation will provide further technical
basis for application of the policy, making full use of the strengths of the three approaches..
Second, the Agency's water quality-based program has evolved from relying on
technology-based industry standards to including chemical-specific water quality standards and
whole-effluent toxicity limits, which have proved to be successful in controlling the discharge
of toxic pollution. In addition, the Agency is evaluating the application of sediment quality and
wildlife criteria as well as developing fundamentally different approaches such as biological
(instream response) and habitat criteria. This expanding base of water quality protection tools
reflects advancements in science and technology and a more sophisticated understanding of the
complexity of our natural world. The challenge to the Agency is to integrate all these tools in
a practical and cost-effective manner. The driving question should be: What is the most
effective application of our water quality tools in the protection of water quality and water
resources? Successful implementation of the policy of independent applicability depends upon
this integration as well as clear and comprehensive guidelines for its application.
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. Washington. DC: U.S. EPA;
EPA/505/2-90-001.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Transmittal of Final Policy on
Biological Assessments and Criteria. [Memo from Tudor T. Davies, Director, Office of Science
and Technology, to Regional Water Management Division Directors.]
138
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 139-147
RE-EXAMINING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY: REGULATORY
POLICY SHOULD REFLECT A WEIGHT-OF-EVIDENCE APPROACH
Peter J. Ruffier
Director of "Wastewater Treatment
City of Eugene ,
Eugene, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
The protection of aquatic life is a basic mandate of our Nation's water pollution control
efforts. This mandate has been pursued over the years by a variety of regulatory measures that
have increased in sophistication and complexity to reflect the growth in understanding of the
dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Water pollution control programs have sequentially
implemented these measures in a hierarchical progression: from the broad-brush approach of
technology-based standards; adding the more narrow focus on chemical-specific, numeric permit
limitations; followed by whole effluent toxicity testing; and now beginning to incorporate
bioassessment and biocriteria.
Each successive regulatory measure for the protection of aquatic life is translated into
permit requirements that are layered over the preceding ones, traditionally without regard to arty
redundancy in their technical foundations and informational values. The permit requirements
are subsequently treated as independent, autonomous limitations that are separately evaluated for
compliance and enforcement under the strict liability statute of the Clean Water Act (CWA). -
This approach, endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) policy
of independent applicability, excludes much valuable information from the development of
permit limitations and magnifies the liabilities associated with scientific uncertainties in each of
the control measures during compliance evaluations. The results of this policy may be
manifested in redundant and inefficient allocations of resources for the protection of aquatic life
and contradictory conclusions from the multiple control measures about the health of the aquatic
community. Independent applicability also perpetuates a rigid, mechanistic regulatory strategy
that is inconsistent with the EPA's advocacy of risk-based environmental management.
A better approach to the protection of aquatic life would use the weight of all evidence
provided by the various assessment techniques to determine appropriate water pollution control
139
-------
PJ. RUFFIER
requirements. The weight-of-evidence approach acknowledges and accounts for the scientific
uncertainties of each assessment technique, builds upon the techniques' informational strengths,
emphasizes the value of site-specific data, and promotes the flexibility in the process necessary
to facilitate the incorporation of new science (such as sediment toxicity assessment). Using the
weight of evidence is technically defensible, and is consistent with risk-based environmental
management.
BACKGROUND
s.
Early efforts to develop regulatory control measures protective of aquatic life were
severely hampered by a lack of understanding about the environmental fate and modes of toxic
action of waterborne pollutants. The First attempt to use water quality standards and water
quality-based permitting in a regulatory format failed because of the difficulties in linking cause
and effect, and because of the tremendous resource requirements that had to be applied to each
particular permit evaluation.
The need to arrest the continuing decline in water quality during the time that science and
understanding caught up to regulatory demands for effective aquatic toxicity data led to the
establishment of uniform national technology-based effluent standards. With the technology-
based standards assuring a minimum level of water quality, research continued to develop the
techniques and data needed to assess the potential for adverse impacts from water pollution and
to identify effective control measures.
Initial research efforts focused on defining the toxicity of individual chemicals through
the use of laboratoiy toxicity tests with multiple aquatic species. These data were used to
generate national water quality criteria representing "safe" levels of exposure for aquatic life and
providing for the calculation of chemical-specific, numeric limits in discharge permits.
Development of whole effluent toxicity assessment in the second phase of research was driven
by recognition that the chemical-by-chemical approach was very slow and did not address critical
real-world exposure factors such as bioavailability and the possible additive, synergistic, or
antagonistic effects of mixtures of toxicants. Whole effluent toxicity testing, although more
useful for measuring bioavailability and the aggregate toxicity of a complex effluent, is still an
indirect assessment of in situ effects and must be extrapolated to the elaborate community of
indigenous aquatic oiganisms. This shortcoming is now being compensated for by the use of
bioassessment techniques that can directly appraise the status of a water body's biological health
under the dynamics of actual exposure.
Although the foregoing is an oversimplistic history of the development of aquatic
toxicology, it does represent conceptually the continued increase in complexity and refinement
of aquatic ecosystem assessment techniques. Each successive assessment technique incorporates
the major elements of the preceding one. Therefore, whole effluent toxicity testing also
140
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY;
139-147
measures the effects of individual toxicants, and bioassessment studies provide data on the
response of aquatic communities to the aggregate toxicity of complex effluents. The progression
of chemical-specific to whole effluent toxicity testing to bioassessment greatly increases the
amount of information and knowledge provided by each technique, but at a loss of focus and of
the ability to resolve the causative factors of any effect.
The interrelationship of aquatic toxicity assessments has been acknowledged in national
regulatory policy. In the first detailed expression of the National Policy for the Development
of Water Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants (U.S. Federal Register, 1984),
the EPA states:
There is now a general consensus that an evaluation of effluent toxicity, when
adequately related to instream conditions, can provide a valid indication of
receiving system impacts. This information can be useful in developing
regulatory requirements to protect aquatic life, especially when data from toxicity
testing are analyzed in conjunction with chemical and ecological data, (emphasis
added) • .
Unfortunately, this acknowledgment has not carried over into the actual development of
regulatory requirements. Control measures have been implemented in a step-wise procedure
reflecting the availability of the successive assessment techniques. In this manner, permit
requirements derived from each technique (i.e., chemical-specific numeric limits, whole effluent
toxicity restrictions, and biocriteria) are being added on top of each other in an .approach that
ignores the broad overlaps of the assessment techniques and prevents the consideration of
valuable information generated by each assessment.
The policy of independent application reinforces this approach by requiring that the most
"protective" result [empirically equivalent to the finding of most significant potential adverse
impact] from each assessment be used for effluent characterization while suppressing the
comparison of data from other techniques where the data are contradictory (U.S. EPA, 1991).
DEFICIENCIES OF INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY
It must be noted that there is no statutory requirement driving the policy of independent
applicability. This policy has developed because of the severe limitations on resources essential
to assess fully each specific discharge situation and the necessity of operating under the rigid
format of the NPDES program. It is being administered as a regulatory expediency, to allow
water pollution control measures to keep pace with advancing science without having to modify
the existing permit program and without the need to justify or resolve discrepancies between the
aquatic assessment techniques. Independent applicability simplifies the implementation of permit
141
-------
PJ. RUFFIER
requirements for the protection of aquatic life by minimizing the need for best professional
judgment and site-specific flexibility in the process, but at the loss of accuracy and effectiveness.
A basic conceptual failing of independent applicability is that it presumes that only
negative findings, i.e., those that indicate adverse impacts, are valid data. The problems with
this principle are twofold; First, it assumes that each assessment technique is unique and that
its measurement endpoint is a perfect indicator of the adverse effects on aquatic life from
exposure to the pollutant being evaluated. Second, it dismisses all positive data, i.e., the data
indicating no adverse impacts, as valueless when these data are in contradiction to negative
findings from any assessment.
Consider the following scenario as an illustration of the problems with independent
applicability: A discharge permit is being developed for a single point source discharge to a
freshwater receiving stream. Chemical analyses of the effluent demonstrate that all pollutants
are below applicable water quality standards except for copper, which exceeds the criterion
continuous concentration standard by 15 percent at the'in stream waste concentration. Short-term
chronic toxicity tests of the whole effluent do not show any adverse effects. Instream
bioassessments of fish and benthic macroinvertebrates indicate the existence of a healthy aquatic
community.
In this scenario, if stringently applied, the policy of independent applicability would
require that the chemical-specific data alone be used to justify the need for a permit limit for
copper, resulting in either additional wastewater treatment for this element or in a permit
violation for the discharger. Any value of the information provided by whole effluent toxicity
testing and bioassessment would be excluded from consideration in the development of permit
requirements, and the uncertainties with the chemical criteria results (such as bioavailability, and
relevance to the local indigenous species) would be magnified in importance because of the
substantial liabilities associated with violations of NPDES permit limitations.
Clearly, unanswered questions are raised by this scenario. Why is there a discrepancy
between the chemical-specific data, which predict an adverse impact from the discharge, and the,
whole effluent toxicity data and bioassessment results, which do not show any such impact?
What site-specific factors could be mitigating the effects of copper toxicity? Is a permit limit
really "necessary to protect the aquatic life of the receiving stream, in light of the actual
bioassessment results? Under the policy of independent applicability these questions would
remain unanswered, and permit writers would be discouraged from addressing them.
An evaluation of empirical results from the different assessment techniques indicates that
contradictions can be expected a significant percentage of the time. A comparison of the use
of chemical criteria and biocriteria to detect impairment of the aquatic community found that the
two assessments disagreed 53.6 percent of the time (Yoder, 1991). Whole effluent/ambient
toxicity assessments have been observed to be in contradiction to instream (bioassessment)
142
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 139-147
findings from 10 to 19 percent of the time. [These values are derived by adding the percentages
for those cases where impact was predicted but not observed, and where impact was not
predicted but was observed, from a series of studies as reported in the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1991).]
Such contradictions between the aquatic life assessment techniques arise because the
techniques are not perfect measures of actual effects. Each technique has an inherent degree of
uncertainty and can produce erroneous or inapplicable information. The potential for false
conclusions was noted in an EPA study of environmental indicators in the surface water
programs:
The utility of biological community monitoring derives from its direct nature.
One is monitoring the feature of the environment that water quality regulations
seek to protect, so that one cannot be fooled into falsely believing the ecological
protection goal of the CWA has been met, as can occur when physical and
chemical measures are used (U.S. EPA, 1990).
The relative strengths and weaknesses of each technique, and their comparative evaluations, are
addressed in several publications (Courtemach, 1989; Parkhurst et al., 1990; Parkhurst and
Mount, 1991; U.S. EPA, 1991), and the reader is referred to these documents for further
details.
BENEFITS OF*THE WEIGHT-OF-EVEDENCE APPROACH
In contrast to independent applicability, the weight-of-evidence approach does not
establish an a priori presumption about the validity of any information generated by the various
assessment methods (Miner and Borton, 1991). This approach encourages the consideration of
all information relevant to the assessment of potential impacts on the aquatic community. In
cases where the data are contradictory, attempts are made to resolve the contradictions by
evaluating assumptions or simplifications in the assessment methods, accounting for site-specific
factors that would influence the findings, and using best professional judgment in "weighing"
all of the evidence available to determine what, if any, control measures are needed to protect
aquatic life.
Weight of evidence acknowledges and accounts for the weaknesses in each of the
assessment techniques. It allows the strengths of each method to be used to complement and
support, not isolate, the others. This approach is based upon the scientific manner of inquiry,
in which a hypothesis is proposed and data are collected and evaluated to test the hypothesis.
Furthermore, it promotes and advances the use of site-specific data in the development of control
strategies.
143
-------
PJ. RUFHER •
: : The presence of contradictory information from the aquatic assessment techniques
emphasizes the importance of evaluating the data within the site-specific conditions of the
discharge. Hanking the techniques in the hierarchical order of chemical-specific criteria <
whole effluent toxicity testing < bioassessmerit represents a continuum toward increasing value
of site-specific data. With respect to the previously described scenario, the weight-of- evidence
approach encourages the use of detailed site-specific information generated during whole effluent
toxicity testing and bioassessments to judge the applicability of the national water quality
criterion for copper to the discharge site, and to, decide if site-specific adjustments of the
criterion are justified. [See Brungs et al. (1992) and U.S. EPA (1992) for a specific discussion
about the problems of correlating impacts predicted by water quality criteria for metals to actual
in situ bioavailability and ecological effects.] In this regard, the weight-of-cv idence approach
is fully compatible with, and can be considered an expansion of, the site specific criteria
development policies of the EPA (U.S. EPA, 1983).
Using the weight of evidence will also serve to drive a holistic perspective to the
evaluation of all factors influencing water. quality and aquatic life. In the process of
investigating contradictory findings and integrating the various assessment techniques rather than
employing them piecemeal, evaluators will be motivated to address all sources of water quality
impacts, including nonpoint sources. Weight of evidence will help to expand the focus of
regulatory programs and will provide the evaluations and knowledge needed to target aquatic life
protection programs for the greatest effective return. It will also help to realize the currently
hollow promise of use attainability analyses and site-specific water quality criteria in practical
and effective elements of the process.
Finally, this approach permits new assessment techniques and advancing scientific
knowledge to be phased into the water pollution control program. New initiatives such as
sediment toxicity assessment can be utilized to produce a more complete evaluation of potential
impacts of a discharge on aquatic life, while at the same time facilitating the validation process
for the new assessment technique by providing comparative site-specific data and an interpretive
framework. This can be accomplished without automatically placing the results of the new
technique under the strict liability rule of the NPDES program, since the information will be
considered as part of the whole evaluation and not as an independent finding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Implementation of the preferred approach of using the weight of evidence in regulatory
decision making for aquatic life protection will require several changes in the current system:
The EPA must discontinue the policy of independent applicability, which is
inconsistent with the weight-of-evidence approach.
144
-------
. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 1-39-147
/ ; '•
Permit writers must be adequately trained and Supported with sufficient resources to
effectively use their best professional judgment with the data for aquatic life protection. They
must be actively encouraged to collect and evaluate all site-specific information necessary and
appropriate to assess the potential of a discharge to have adverse impacts on aquatic life.
Permit writers should be discouraged from "layering" limitations with similar endpoints
(such as a chemical-specific aquatic toxicity number and a whole effluent toxicity limit) simply
for regulatory convenience and without sound technical justification.
1 • - »
Implementation of the provisions under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) et seg. relating to the
determination of "reasonable potential" for a discharge to cause an instream excursion of a water
quality standard must emphasize the use of site-specific data under the weight-of- evidence
approach. Overly conservative assumptions and the use of multiple safety factors should be
avoided in this determination unless adequately justified by the preponderance of local data.
The NPDES permit program, as established under section 402 of the CWA and in
subsequent Federal regulations, must be modified to incorporate additional flexibility in how
"permit limits are expressed and compliance with limits is assessed. Provisions must be included
to allow for the consideration of all available data in the evaluation of whether the designated
uses of the receiving water bodies are being maintained in the presence of any particular
discharge.
The use of special permit conditions should be promoted and expanded to account for
unique local water quality and aquatic life characteristics and interactions. The NPDES
enforcement strategy must be updated to enable consideration of all permit information to be
included in determinations of appropriate enforcement actions, rather than responding to each
permit limitation as an autonomous, definitive, and irrefutable endpoint.
Criteria to determine Significant Noncompliance (SNC) and Violation Review Action
Criteria (VRAC) should be revised to reflect both the degree of uncertainty in a compliance
assessment technique and the environmental significance of the compliance endpoint. [Note that
enforcement discretion should not be used to cover for technical or conceptual deficiencies in .
the assessment methods, but to resolve any site-specific anomalies that arise in their application.]
CONCLUSIONS
The policy of independent applicability suffers from significant conceptual and scientific
deficiencies. This policy enhances a disjointed approach to aquatic ecosystem assessment,
magnifies the uncertainties in the assessment methods in the regulatory process, and fosters the
development of extraneous permit limitations that in turn divert scarce resources and attention
from more significant problems. Furthermore, the policy excludes valuable information about
145
-------
PJ. RUFFTER
the aquatic community. It discourages permit writers from using their best professional
judgment in deciding appropriate control measures, and can leave them with unresolved
contradictions in the assessment results. Independent applicability sustains a rigid regulatory
process that treats the aquatic assessment techniques in an isolated, compartmentalized approach
that is antagonistic to the desired strategy of watershed level, risk-based water quality
management.
In contrast, the weight-of-evidence process makes maximum use of all data generated in
aquatic ecosystem assessments. It emphasizes site-specific information, encourages resolution
of contradictions, and motivates permit writers to use their best professional judgment. Using
the weight of evidence builds upon the strengths of the various assessment methods. It accounts
for their weaknesses and integrates the information to enable a full deductive evaluation. The
weight-of-evidence approach is fully consistent with the policy of risk-based water quality
management and provides a process that will advance the consolidation of water pollution control
within watersheds.
REFERENCES
Brungs, W.A., T.S. Holderman, and M.T. Southerland. 1992. Synopsis of Water-Effect Ratios
for Heavy Metals As Derived for Site-Specific Water Quality Criteria. Washington, DC: U.S.
EPA, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, Office of Science and Technology.
Courtemach, D.L. 1989. Implementation of Biocriteria in the Water Quality Standards
Program. In: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Proceedings of a National
Conference. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, March 1989, pp. 135-138.
Miner, R. and D. Borton. 1991. Considerations in the Development and Implementation of
Biocriteria. In: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Proceedings of a. Conference.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, May 1991, pp. 115-119.
Parkhurst, B.R., M.D. Marcus, and L.E. Noel. 1990. Review of the Results of EPA's
Complex Effluent Toxicity Testing Program. Utility Water Act Group.
Parkhurst, B.R. and D.I. Mount. 1991. Water-Quality-Based Approach to Toxics Control.
Water Environ. Technol. 3(12):45-47.
U.S. EPA. 1983. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
146
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:" 139-147
'• '• 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Feasibility Report on Environmental
Indicators for Surface Water Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. EPA/505/2-
90-001.
. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, Office of Science and Technology. Interim Guidance on Interpretation and
Implementation of Aquatic Life Criteria for Metals. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. Federal Register. 1984. Development of Water Quality-Based Limitations for Toxic
Pollutants; National Policy. 49(48):9016.
Yoder, C.O. 1991. Answering Some Concerns About Biological Criteria Based Upon
Experiences in Ohio. In: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, Proceedings of a
Conference. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC, May 1991, pp. 95-104.
147
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY.STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
149-156
RE-EXAMINING INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY
Donald R. Schregardus
Director
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA ARE THE BEST MEASURE OF THE
INTEGRITY OF A WATER BODY AND SHOULD CONTROL WHEN
THERE IS A CONFLICT
Biological criteria have as their most promising attribute the ability to detect and quantify
a wide range of effects upon the aquatic ecosystem. The effects of habitat disturbances on
stream communities constitute a form of pollution that is often undetectable with chemical
criteria and toxicity measurements. Pollution from traditional chemical pollutants is also
accurately assessed because responses in the biological criteria reflect the frequency and duration
of stress caused by the pollutants. These factors make biological criteria the preferred method
forjudging use attainment, reporting impaired waters, and prioritizing watersheds for point and
nonpoint control strategies. However, the user must recognize important limitations; for
example, biological criteria will not adequately address problems related to bioaccumulative
toxicant effects on wildlife and humans.
The role of biological criteria in the permitting and compliance program has been a major
concern to regulators, industries, municipalities, and environmental groups. How can biological
criteria be effectively employed without upsetting the more established chemical-specific and
whole-effluent toxicity methods? Initially, we must recognize the existence of a hierarchy of
bioassessment methods that vary in their abilities to both assess water body condition and
contribute to the permitting process. This paper will present examples of situations facing water
resource managers as we attempt to fit biological criteria into water body assessment tasks and
permitting tasks.
Finally, Ohio's 13 years of experience with biological monitoring will be drawn upon to
address several of the technical questions posed by the organizers of the session.
*
149
-------
D.R. SCHREGARDUS
'• » Are we confident enough, in the accuracy of the newer measures to allow them
to override the well-established chemical criteria?
• Is the laboratory development of the chemical criteria so unrepresentative of the
real world that we should abandon them where conflicts arise?
• Do we have the expertise available now to routinely resolve conflicts between the
measures in a thoughtful way?
INTRODUCTION
I want to express my appreciation for the invitation to be here today. Because Ohio has
been at the forefront in developing and using biological criteria, I feel we can significantly
contribute to the resolution of this issue.
Yesterday, we heard Tudor Davies identify the importance of using good science and the
need to include all data in decision making. EPA has encouraged comparative risk projects that
focus on the most important issues with the bottom line being environmental results.
i.
The challenge we face as water resource managers is to effectively transfer the broad
policy statements about good science and comparative risk management into specific program
policies. We think this can be accomplished through integrating biological criteria into many
program areas that are designed to protect aquatic life. I urge EPA to work toward a good
science framework for integrating the various water quality criteria disciplines into a workable
policy that achieves what we all want-environmental results.
What I'd like to do in the next few minutes is explore how Ohio is using biological
criteria to achieve environmental results. We'll look at a couple of case examples: one in
permitting, the other in water body assessment and reporting. In keeping with our panel's
objective, we will need to examine whether data are best evaluated using a weight-of-evidence
approach or whether EPA's policy of independent application should be followed.
Finally, I will take just a minute or two to use Ohio's experience to answer the questions
posed by the organizers of this session.
SUMMARY OF OHIO'S BIOLOGICAL METHODS
I will begin with a short overview of Ohio's biological criteria. Between 1981 and 1984,
the Ohio EPA worked on a cooperative research project with EPA's Corvallis Lab. Nationally,
150
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 149-156
this was some of the early work on defining aquatic ecoregions and, in Ohio, it has led to a
regional reference site approach for biological criteria. Standardized methods were developed
for collection and assessment of fish and macroinvertebrates. More than 300 "least impacted"
reference sites in 5 ecoregions were sampled in the 1980s to develop our biological community
expectations for fish and macroinvertebrates. Three separate multimetric indices or criteria are
employed: two using fish, one using macroinvertebrates. These indices have proven to be very
reliable in describing the health of aquatic communities. In 1990, these biological criteria
became part of the State's WQS rules.
One veiy crucial point that policy makers must recognize is that there exists a hierarchy
of bioassessment methods, which vary in their ability to accurately measure biological
performance. EPA has encouraged the use of biological assessments of all types ranging from
volunteer monitoring through a series of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols to more advanced
ecoregion-based reference site methods such as those employed in Ohio. However, EPA's
policy on the use of biological assessments and criteria does not account for the very strong
technical differences along this hierarchy of assessment methods. This must change to promote
the greater use of biological criteria.
On the screen, you can see our recommendation for a better system that will promote the
use of biological criteria. States with more advanced biological survey methods, and
subsequently stronger biological criteria, should be given modest policy flexibility in certain
program areas to use these powerful tools. I will provide some examples as I describe Ohio's
program. Bioassessment programs provide EPA, Congress, and the public with a much more
accurate and complete assessment of the Nation's water resource quality. Most importantly, the
environment benefits because problems are identified and addressed.
Our experience in Ohio offers clear evidence that the identification of pollution impacts
and sources cannot be done with chemical testing and toxicity testing programs alone. In many
locations, the major threat to resource integrity comes from periodic discharges at unregulated
sites, habitat destruction, nutrient enrichment, or flow diversions.
Biocriteria offer new avenues to address these problems. If we want to be good stewards
of our total water resource, if we truly want to protect our water ecosystems, we must find ways
to encourage all States to adopt and use biological criteria.
OHIO'S USE OF BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA ,
The potential use of biological criteria, especially in the NPDES permit program, has
become a controversial issue. An EPA newsletter discussed this conflict.
151
-------
D.R. SCHREOARDUS
: 'Fortunately, I can report to you that this "conflict" is really a misunderstanding of the
language in Ohio's standards rather than an ideological difference about independent application.
Ohio EPA and regional EPA staff will clarify the language as a part of the next triennial review.
A case example illustrates how we can use the biological criteria in permitting. This plot
presents biological survey results of the Maumee River at Defiance, Ohio. The data reveal that
the biological performance of the river meets our expectations or biocriteria set for the
designated use. No significant impact is caused by the Defiance WWTP.
The next chart adds information regarding the ammonia effluent quality. The open bar
depicts an existing quality of 20 mg/L. The dark bar represents a proposed effluent limit of 5
mg/L derived using the ammonia WQS criterion and the usual steady-state model. It is not
always appropriate to use the river's present biological conditions under an existing effluent
quality to draw conclusions about the expected biological condition under future conditions. In
this situation, however, it is appropriate because it is not anticipated that the existing WWTP
flow will change. Only the concentration is proposed to be reduced. Since current biological
conditions meet the criteria, the results serve as the cue to re-examine the assumptions behind
the proposed permit limit. The biological assessment criteria alone are not justification to
withhold the ammonia limit in this case, but they are sufficient reason to re-examine the
chemical-specific criteria and modeling assumptions before a permitting decision is made and
expensive treatment upgrades are mandated. In fact, EPA's criteria support documents contain
similar precautionary statements.
Given this information, what should be done with the Defiance permit? Ideally, the
permit would wait until further study is done. In the present system, however, deadlines for
major permit re-issuance seldom wait for good science to catch up.
Here is an opportunity for EPA to provide some policy flexibility for State programs that
use advanced biological assessment methods. The incentives for States and permit holders could
be as simple as extended compliance schedules to meet the initial limits while additional water
Quality studies are performed. That is what we did with Defiance. Another alternative could
be a short-term extension of the previous permit. I want to stress that such options are
appropriate only in situations where advanced biological assessment methods are employed and
results show little risk to aquatic life. We believe such policy flexibility would accelerate the
use of bioassessments and biocriteria, encourage site-specific assessments, and promote the use
of good science in decision making.
Finally, was this an example of weight-of-evidence or independent application? To us, '
using biological criteria as a feedback mechanism for triggering the next level of good science
in a permitting decision is simply an example of integrating the strengths and weaknesses of each
discipline as called for by EPA's policy on independent application;
152
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 149-156
What about weight of .evidence? You've probably heard that Ohio operates using a
weight-of-evidenee approach. Well, this is true, but only in the context of water body
assessment tasks: that is, the work required under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. The
purpose of the 305(b) report is to provide the most accurate picture of the conditions of the
Nation's waters. It serves to prioritize where program attention or changes are needed, to
correct programmatic problems, and to direct many site-specific tasks on the State level. On
the screen, you see some of the attributes that make biological criteria a strong tool for assessing
aquatic life conditions in a water body. It is important to recognize that biological assessment
does not address bioaccumulative affects of some chemicals or wildlife and human health.
Separate criteria and assessment methods are needed here.
Given this recognized strength of biological criteria, let's examine some data from the
Ohio River. Slide 9 depicts the biological performance of the river in 1991. As you can see,
the Ohio River, once quite polluted, is now supporting a full array of sport fish and nongame
species, and is rated in good to excellent condition by our biologists. Monthly monitoring for
chemical parameters is conducted at several locations along the river. These results have
indicated a fairly consistent exceedence of the total copper criteria. If one uses the EPA
guidelines regarding the frequency and magnitude of these exceedences, the entire length of the
Ohio River is either partially attaining, or not attaining, the "fishable" goal of the Clean Water
Act. Furthermore, the policy of independent application states that the failure of one measure
to detect a problem should not discredit another finding.
In this example, independent application sets in motion a series of events aimed at
identifying and regulating copper inputs into the entire Ohio River system. This will be done
with the purpose of achieving the copper standard, but we know beforehand that these efforts
will achieve little aquatic life improvement. Greater environmental improvement would result
if we had focused on control efforts where the biological criteria indicated a problem exists.
The recommendation here is to include some policy flexibility for States with advanced
biological assessment methods. States should be given the option of using a weight-of-evidence
approach when assessing and prioritizing water quality and water resource problems. States will
get more done, and the environment will realize greater improvements in aquatic life protection,
if biological criteria are used as the measure of aquatic life use impairment in the 305(b) report
process. Ohio has more than 3,000 miles of degraded stream segments to address. We need
to concentrate our limited resources where we will get environmental results. Conversely, we
should be able to rank as low the risk posed by copper violations along 450 miles of the Ohio
River if we know the river supports a balanced aquatic life and attains the biological criteria.
153
-------
D.R. SCHREOARDUS
*' ' In summary, to manage for environmental results, we should not let "independent"
application direct our attention to insignificant issues. Biological assessment used with a weight-
of-evidence approach is very much a comparative risk project that can successfully direct our
efforts to protect and enhance our water resources. ,
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
PRESENTATION OBJECTIVES
1. EXPLORE HOW OHIO IS USING BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
• Cm* Eximplt*
Permitting
W*t»rtxKly Ascaumanlt (305b report)
2. INDEPENDENT APPLICATION or
WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
3= EXAMINE THE KEY QUESTIONS
POSED BY THE ORGANIZERS OF THIS SESSION
Slide 2
SUMMARY OF OHIO'S
BIOASSESSMENT METHODS
• REGIONAL REFERENCE SITE APPROACH
• STANDARDIZED METHODS
• 300 "LEAST IMPACTED" REFERENCE SITES
• THREE MULTI-METRIC INDICES OR CRITERIA
- INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY (FISH)
- MODIFIED INDEX OF WELL-BEING {FISH)
- INVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY INDEX
Slide 3
HIERARCHY OF BIOASSESSMENT METHODS
POLICY
METHOD COMPLEXTTY
POWER
RESTRICTIONS
VOLUNTEER
LOW
LOW
MANY *
tPk
I
-
•
•
t
•*
11
MODERATE
MODERATE
SOME
Hi
IV
.
»
REGIONAL
i
4-
¦*
REFERENCE
MIQH
HIQH
MEW
snrc
1
•
I
f
liwwwwul ruiw
Kll
Slide 4
MAUMEE RIVER AT DEFIANCE, OHIO
Up*tnratnflDownstr«am Plot of aiocrtifrrit
Showing ft© tmguel from WWTP
MDcx of a tone iwticrjt>
«0 1
10
40
SO
*0
10
I - UPSTREAM |
- QAM POOL , J
' - OOWNSTHEAU
WWTP
criteria
FOR USE
154
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 149-156
SlideS
INDEX OF eionc MTEORfTY f AMMONIA
48
ao
20-
10-
AUMONIA
EFFLUENT
QUALITY
J 3 EXISTING
¦proposes
to RIVER MILE 46
Ammonia ¦zpiuMtl ** •fftuwit concentration, mgA
Slide 6
MAUMEE RIVER AT DEFIANCE, OHIO
Blocriterla as a CUE to
Reexamine Criteria Application jn Permit
LIMITATIONS OF CRITERIA
AMMONIA AS AN EXAMPLE
PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS FOUND IN USEPA 1985 (1)
'There is limited data on the effect of temperature
on chronic toxicity."
"...additional site-specific information should be
developed before these criteria are used in
wasteioad modeling."
"Dynamic models are preferred tor the application
of these criteria."
AttBlENT AQUATIC LIFE WATER GUAlfrr earrTfw* •
Slide 7
DEFIANCE SITUATION REQUIRES
POLICY FLEXIBILITY
• EXTENDED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE
• SHORT TERM EXTENSION OF PREVIOUS PERMIT
• BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA ARE THE FEEDBACK
MECHANISM TO TRIGGER NEXT LEVEL OF
ANALYSIS
• THIS INTEGRATION IS CONSISTENT
WITH INDEPENDENT APPLICATION
Slide 9
BIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS
OF THE OHIO RIVER
INDEX OF BlOTiC INTEGRITY
M-
20-
II
EXCEPTIONAL *'
- -GOOD
Slide 8
STRENGTHS OF BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
- BIOTA ARE RESPONSIVE TO WIDE RAHQt O* IMPACTS
. HABITAT ,
- ENERGY OR FOODCHAJN IMBALANCES
. FLOW ALTERATIONS
- CHEMICAL POLLUTANTS
- • BIOTA CAN ACCOUNT FOR THE REAL WORLD FREQUENCY
AND DURATION OF STRESSES CAUSED B* POLLUTANTS
• THERE ARE IMPORTANT LIMITATIONS
CONCENSUS OPINION AT RECENT
NATIONAL 305(b) WORKSHOP
Slide 10
AMBIENT EXCEEDENCES OF
COPPER CRITERIA - OHIO RIVER
INDEX OF BIO TIC INTEGRITY
EXCEPTIONAL:
GOOD
¦ « CKCEEOENCCS
TOTAL OF 71
OVER 3
YEARS
155
-------
D.R. SCHREGARDUS
Slide 11
INDEPENDENT APPLICATION
CONCLUDES OHIO RIVER IMPAIRED
MDiX Of Btome MTEGftftY
EXCEPnONAL'"
M
44
34
«
II
jm-jn
ii
GOOD
III
l» EXCEEMNCE9
TOTAL OF 71
OVER 3
YEARS
Slide 13
Slide 12
MAJOR CAUSES OF AQUATIC LIFE
USE IMPAIRMENT IN OHIO
AS DETERMINED WITH BIOASSESSMENTS
CAUSE OP IMPAIRMENT
SEWAGE / D.O,
METALS
e too i.eoo i,mo i.soo 2,50(3
MILES OF STREAM IMPAIRED
wmm
Slide 14
QUESTIONS POSED BY USEPA FOR THIS PANEL
Sum *• eoft!ld«tt In th* mcmoy of bloariffit?-
A Mow Www to ovfrtd* otftfcrftfit?
* COMnctHCCtMCPXNMUrONYtff SIQASSESSUENT UETttQO.
if A FOUCV WOULD AOWOWlIOat TMI MtftARCKY
Of MCTHOOS WITH QRADUATIO PCUCY FUEXMVUTY.
ADVAMCCO MCTtOOS • OJIIATEfl PUXWUTY
• WHVmt* TO "OVtKftJM'eTHCACfVTCftttDCMNOt UPON TASK:
• mom or ivot mcs ts appropriate po*
WATIAAOOY A*lttlUEKT TASKS
.M&iHM&CKf APPUCATXJN WITH ftiOCNTXMIA AS
fttMACX KteCHAMSW » APPROPftfATE FOR PCftyfTTlNO
SUMMARY
* BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS ARE VITAL
TO PROTECTING THE WATER RESOURCE
* THEY CAN BE IHTREGftATED IKTO EXISTING PROGRAMS
- WATERBOOY ASSESSEMENTS
pERUrTT|NQ
- STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
* THEY OOfTT REPLACE EXISTING METHODS
* THEY ENHANCE OUR USE OF GOOD SCIENCE
AND MANAGING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
156
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 157-164
WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIRES INDEPENDENT
APPLICATION OF CRITERIA
Wayne A. Schmidt
Research Specialist
Great Lakes Natural Resource Center
National Wildlife Federation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
The National Wildlife Federation supports broader use of biological criteria. It is an
important step toward realizing our vision, which lives in the Clean Water Act: "to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
But we oppose allowing biological criteria to trump chemical criteria or whole effluent
toxicity testing—the so-called weightof-evidence approach. Given our limited ecological
understanding and the predictive limits of biomonitoring, it is foolish to discard any assessment
indicating potential for impairment. I will focus on three arguments in support of our position.
1. We remain ignorant of ecological consequences. No assessment methods have
proven adequate in the past to prevent or accurately predict impairment; all are
evolving rapidly, including biomonitoring. With so few States eyen using
biological criteria, it is premature, at best, to consider discarding EPA's
integrated policy of independent application.
2. New evidence of impairment warrants a conservative approach. There is
emerging scientific consensus regarding reproductive and developmental effects
from trace levels of certain environmental contaminants. Wildlife is being
seriously affected, yet no national wildlife criteria exist and few States have
adopted their own. Under these circumstances, prudence dictates that the most
stringent water quality criterion available should govern.
3. Reliance on biological criteria ultimately conflicts with national clean water goals.
No one has an inherent right to use common resources to dilute poisonous wastes.
Biological criteria are valuable as a tool, but too easily can be aimed into a final
measure to justify how much pollution is "OK."
157
\
-------
W.A. SCHMIDT
•. ' History, law, ethics, and humility lead us to this conclusion: an absence of evidence of
environmental damage is not" necessarily evidence of the absence of environmental damage.
If you need proof, look to the Great Lakes. Here, the best efforts to manage this
ecosystem have fallen short.
Biomonitoring may show an absence of environmental damage in the vicinity of a
discharge. But downstream, where the Great Lakes provide a sink for the cumulation of their
tributary loads, there's unmistakable environmental damage. Bald eagles and mink can't
successfully reproduce near the coast Fish aren't safe to eat for wildlife or people.
Last year a group of scientist* from around the world, who have been looking at some
of the more insidious effects of pollution, met at Wingspread Center in Racine, Wisconsin.
They synthesized the body of evidence regarding widespread disruption of endocrine systems in
fish, wildlife, and humans from certain environmental contaminants. These effects, including
male and female sexual dysfunctions, are in evidence in the Great Lakes and elsewhere, due to
long-term contributions of pollutants to the environment.
In their "Wingspread Consensus Statement" (Colborn and Clement, 1992) the scientists
noted well-documented impairments:
The impacts include thyroid dysfunction in birds and fish; decreased fertility in
birds, fish, shellfish, and mammals; decreased hatching success in birds, fish, and
turtles; gross birth deformities in birds, fish, and turtles; metabolic abnormalities
in birds, fish, and mammals; behavioral abnormalities in birds; demasculinization
and feminization of male fish, birds and mammals; defeminization and
masculinization of female fish and birds; and compromised immune systems in
birds and mammals.
~
Most troubling, the experts estimated "with confidence" that:
Unless the environmental load of synthetic hormone disruptors is abated and
controlled, large scale dysfunction at the population level is possible. The scope
and potential hazard to wildlife and humans are great because of the probability
of repeated and/or constant exposure to numerous synthetic chemicals that are
known to be endocrine disruptors.
How many of us would have predicted such effects 10 years ago, even 5 years ago? What
biomonitoring criteria predict endocrine disruption in the second generation of eagles (see
Gilbertson, 1991)? What additional revelations are in store for us in the 21st century?
158
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
157-164
: This is one reason we shouldn't pretend we can craft nature's most efficient wastewater
assimilation systems. New and improved dilution zones, mixing zones, and proposals to discard
independent application suggest we can.
We can't and we shouldn't. Our encompassing task is to maintain a cadence toward
halting the toxic pollution to our Nation's waters. This is the wisdom of the Clean Water Act
(Hair, 1989).
Recent Initiatives in the Great Lakes can provide a national model and a valuable
backdrop for this debate over independent applicability.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement took the Clean Water Act's goal and turned
it into a concrete mandate for the Great Lakes ecosystem—zero discharge of any persistent toxic
substances.
This 1978 agreement between the United States and Canada implicitly recognizes the
reality of the ecosystem it aims to restore. Contaminated sediments and atmospheric fallout will
continue to impact the system; therefore. - any additional inputs from controllable sources of
persistent toxic substances should be banned.
I recommend to you the fifth and sixth biennial reports to the; U.S. and Canadian
governments in 1990 and 1992 by the International Joint Commission (UC)-the body charged
with overseeing implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These reports
anticipate issues that will frame the agenda for water quality management in the 21st Century.
The UC encapsulated the moral and scientific power of our environmental conundrum—
those stubborn issues mandating the goal of zero discharge. Its 1990 report singled out
persistent chemicals widely found in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem, including PCBs, dioxin,
furan, hexachlorobenzene, DDT, dieldrin, lead, and mercury.
When available data on fish, birds, reptiles and small mammals are considered
along with . . . human research, the Commission must conclude that there is a
threat to the health of our children emanating from our exposure to persistent
toxic substances, even at very low ambient levels. The mounting evidence cannot
be denied . . . These chemicals appear to be causing serious and fundamental
physiological and other impacts on animal populations in the Great [Lakes basin,
and undoubtedly elsewhere. The dangers posed to the ecosystem, including
humans, by the continuing use and release of persistent toxic contaminants are
severe (International Joint Commission, 1990).
159
-------
W.A.SCHMIDT
. -.This year the UC singled out synthetic chlorinated organic substances as a class of
compounds that should be subject to zero discharge. The Commission recommended that the
Federal Government,
in consultation with industry and other affected interests, develop timetables to
sunset the use of chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds as industrial
feedstocks and that the means of reducing or eliminating other uses be examined
(International Joint Commission, 1992).
One major, albeit imperfect, step to implement this mandate of zero discharge of
persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes is under way now. In 1990, Congress passed the
Great Lakes Critical Programs Act (P.L. 101-596). This neat little law codifies the ecosystem
approach. It requires EPA to develop guidance for minimum water quality standards,
antidegradation policies, and implementation procedures consistent with the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement that will apply in all eight Great Lakes States. This draft guidance is the
"Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative."
The Initiative's approach attempts to start from the needs of the ecosystem, then projects
criteria limits back upstream. Wildlife criteria are included. Mixing zones for bioaccumulative
chemicals will be banned after 2004.
The Great Lakes Initiative does not include biological criteria. Nevertheless, as its
measures are implemented, we expect biological criteria to be an increasingly important
component of tracMng progress toward our ultimate goal of healthy ecosystems.
But we are cautious about reliance on biological criteria. For example, the experience
in Ohio is often cited to demonstrate that biological assessments frequently pick up impairment
missed by chemical evaluation (U.S. EPA, 1990). That is hardly comforting; Ohio is viewed
widely as having the most lenient chemical criteria among the eight Great Lakes States (Indiana
Department of Environmental Management, 1990; Foran, 1991).
During debate on the issue of independent applicability at this conference 2 years ago,
one speaker argued for use of judgment based on the "weight-of-the-evidence" when faced with
contradictory chemical, toxicological, and biological assessments (Miner and Borton, 1990).
The fatal flaw in this logic, it seems to me, is . the presumption of what he called
"irrefutable in-stream data document[ing] the presence of healthy and abundant populations..."
and "copious unimpeachable studies involving the most sensitive organisms in the water quality
criteria database..."
160
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 si CENTURY: 157-164
How convincing is the use of so-called unimpaired reference sites, on which comparative
studies are based, particularly in a State like Ohio that historically has been subjected lo
wholesale landscape modification?
In the Great Lakes basin the injury has been so extensive and for such a long
period of time, that most people, even trained biologists, barely know what
happened nor what they are trying to restore (Gilbertson, 1992).
Are biological assessments today capable of demonstrating the absence of developmental
and reproductive effects from any chemical? Which chemicals should we worry about? Are there
interactive—additive or synergistic—effects occurring in the stream, or far downstream?
The U.S. General Accounting Office (1991) concluded last year that we don't have good
answers to these questions:
Because there is no accepted federal list of reproductive and developmental
toxins, such as that generated by law for carcinogens, federal agencies have had
no index of whether they have regulated the most important hazards to
reproduction and development ... The protection against reproductive and
developmental toxicity afforded the public by current regulation is uncertain at
best.
There are lots of things going on out there in the environment that we don't recognize or
understand. ~
CONCLUSIONS
First, our histoiy in the Great Lakes suggests it would be foolhardy to dismiss any
chemical, toxicological, or biological indicators of impairment from pollutants. There is strength
in each approach; even when results differ, we don't know enough to assume contradictions
exist. Independent applicability is grounded in law and common sense.
The National Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups opposed Ohio's recent
proposal to allow biological criteria to trump other criteria in its revision of State water quality
standards. We would oppose any similar nationwide proposal.
Second, until zero discharge of persistent toxic substances is achieved, however imperfect
the use of biological indicators, they are an essential tool in attempting to predict insidious
effects of combinations of pollutants.
161
-------
W.A, SCHMIDT
¦. Rather than continue to debate the established policy of independent applicability, EPA
needs to direct States to adopt and use biological criteria. Leadership from EPA Headquarters
is needed to establish consistency among and within Regions. The draft Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative can be a national model for progressive guidance and inter-state consistency.
Third, national wildlife criteria must be developed quickly. The Clean Water Act calls
for more than a seemingly healthy aquatic system; it also requires health of terrestrial species
that rely on the aquatic food chain-eagles, terns, kingfishers, mink, people.
Fourth. water quality criteria must include protection against the spectrum of potential
adverse effects, including second generation reproductive and developmental impairment.
Counting water bugs under rocks will not suffice—which brings us back to the need for national
wildlife criteria that effectively protect the babies of eagles that eat the gulls that eat the fish that
eat the little fish that eat the water bugs under the rocks.
Fifth, the term "weight of evidence" has been abused. In fact, we agree on the need for
regulators to make judgment calls, to incorporate real-world field data into the process of setting
permit limits.
However, weight of evidence does not mean selection of criteria most convenient to
dischargers. It does not mean innocent until proven guilty. It does mean a conservative
assessment of all indications of impairment, in context of our meager ecological ken. It means
coming down on the side of environmental health, when there are inconsistencies among data.
Finally, we seek restoration goals superior to the status quo. Should we have set our
sights in the 1960s, for example, on the best water quality Lake Erie or its tributaries then had
to offer? Certainly, it would have been hard to justify the 1 mg/L phosphorus limit based on
biological impairment in the vicinity of wastewater treatment plants, such as Detroit and
Cleveland. But the dreams were for restoring a Lake Erie capable of sustaining a world class
fishery. It is a dream coming true.
Our hopes and aspirations for water quality, which were detailed in our own "A
Prescription for Healthy Great Lakes: Report of the Program for Zero Discharge" (National
Wildlife Federation and Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, 1991), are set
by three affirmative goals:
• Whether women can eat fish from the waters without affecting the development
of their babies;
• Whether wildlife that eat fish and other aquatic life from the waters can thrive;
and
162
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IK THE 21st CENTURY- 157-164
• Whether people can eat fish from the waters without increasing their risk of
getting cancer. .
Independent application of water quality criteria is just one tool necessary today to move us in
that direction.
REFERENCES
Colborn, T. and C. Clement, eds. 1992. Chemically-Induced Alterations in Sexual and
Functional Development: The Wildlife/Human Connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Scientific
Publishing Co.
Foran, J.A. 1991. The Control of Discharges of Toxic Pollutants into the Great Lakes and
Their Tributaries: Development of Benchmarks. Washington, DC, and Ottawa, Ontario:
International Joint Commission.
Gilbertson, M. 1991. The forensic approach to Great Lakes toxicology: Have we invented a
new science for regulation of persistent toxic substances? In: Cause-Effect Linkages n
Symposium Abstracts. Kalamazoo, Michigan: Michigan Audubon Society Publications.
Gilbertson, M. 1992. Experimental versus empirical approaches to setting water quality
objectives. In: Proceedings of the American Society for Testing & Materials Symposium, April
26-29. In press.
Hair, J.D, 1989. Water quality standards for the 21st century. In: Water Quality Standards
for the 21st Century. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1-3, 1989, pp. 7-10.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 1990. Comparison of Water Quality
Standards and NPDES Permit Limitations in Region 5 States. IDEM, Office of Water
Management, Indianapolis, IN.
DC. 1990. International Joint Commission. Fifth Biennial Report under the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978 to the Governments of the United States and Canada and the State
and Provincial Governments of the Great Lakes Basin, Part n. DC, Washington, DC, and
Ottawa, Ontario: DC, pp. 15-16.
DC. 1992. International Joint Commission. Sixth Biennial Report Under the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement of 1978 to the Governments of the United States and Canada and the
State and Provincial Governments of the Great Lakes Basin. Washington, DC, and Ottawa,
Ontario: DC, p. 30.
.163
-------
W.A. SCHMIDT
Miner,. R. and D. Borton. 1990. Considerations in the development and implementation of
biocriteria. In: Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Dec. 10-12, 1990, pp. 115-119.
National Wildlife Federation and Canadian Institute for Environmental Law and Policy. 1991.
A Prescription for Healthy Great Lakes: Report of the Program for Zero Discharge. NWF,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, and CIELAP, Toronto, Ontario.
U.S. EPA. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Biological Criteria:
National Program Guidance for Surface Waters. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1^1. Reproductive and Developmental Toxicants:
Regulatory Actions Provide Uncertain Protection. Washington, DC. GAO/PBMID 92-3.
164
-------
Human
Health Risk
Management:
Who Should
We Protect?
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 165-167
HUMAN HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT: WHO SHOULD WE
PROTECT? WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF PROTECTION?
Clyde Houseknecht, Ph.D., MPH (Moderator)
Chief '
Fish Contamination Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Washington, D.C..
EPA's Water Quality Criteria (WQC) for Human Health are designed to protect against
the risk of adverse health effects associated with the ambient concentration of a pollutant. The
human health criteria are based primarily on two endpoints: (1) carcinogenicity, and (2) toxicity
with the principal routes of exposure being the consumption of contaminated surface water and
the ingestion of fish contaminated from polluted water.
For many pollutants, human health criteria are limiting factors for the establishment of
effluent discharge restrictions. But, although EPA issues criteria guidance documents, it is
primarily the responsibility of the States to give these criteria regulatory force through the
adoption of water quality standards (WQS).
Human health criteria and water quality standards are derived using a calculation
encompassing many exposure, risk assessment, and risk management parameters. For example,
the existing EPA methodology assumes an average exposure scenario based upon a fish
consumption rate of 6.5 grams per day (i.e., approximately one 7-ounce serving per month).
Most States use this rate in setting their WQS. Also, most States adopt an incremental cancer
risk level of 1 in 1 million, although a significant number of States have chosen a risk level of
1 in 100,000. The combination of these factors has recently lead to questions being raised about
exposure and risk management aspects of the criteria and standards.
\ - ' '
• As States have adopted WQS for toxic pollutants, dischargers and other interested
parties have challenged the fish consumption exposure and risk level assumptions
underlying the standards. Issues relate to the adequacy of the data, the degree of
conservativeness in the methodology, the appropriateness of the target population
being protected, etc.
165
-------
C, HOUSEKNECHT
'• '• During the process, many have questioned the statuaiy provisions and risk
management policies that allow for diversity among States in the level of human
health risk protection provided their citizens,
«• In February 1992, EPA Deputy Administrator Henry Habicht issued Guidance on
Risk Characterization. The document established principles to promote greater
consistency and comparability in risk assessments and risk management decisions
across Agency programs. Implementation of this policy should produce more
realistic risk characterizations and encourage more accurate risk communication.
Applying this policy to "the Clean Water Act (CWA) WQS could result in
important changes.
• Over the past few months, the issue of "environmental equity" has received
increased public and EPA attention. The Agency has been petitioned by the
Alabama Attorney General to address these equity issues. In the WQC/WQS
program, this takes the form of issues concerning the adequacy of protection of
populations that are more highly exposed to the risk of consumption of chemically
contaminated fish. These exposure patterns may be based on economic status,
religion, racial or ethnic background, or geography. Questions arise about what
populations and individuals the WQC/WQS should protect, whether the State or
EPA should make that decision, what constitutes sufficient data upon which to
base these risk management decisions, etc. Others counter that the existing
methodology provides adequate protection to even highly exposed populations
because of the generally conservative nature of the methodology.
EPA has initiated a review of its CWA risk assessment methodology for WQC and
related risk management issues. A major aspect of this review will focus on exposure through
the consumption of chemically contaminated fish. This triggers a number of specific questions
on which EPA is seeking input.
• How should EPA achieve balance in its risk assessment methodology between
being sufficiently protective given continuing scientific uncertainty and not so
oveiprotective as to divert limited pollution control resources to address de
minimis risk?
• Which exposure scenario for fish consumption should be reflected in EPA's
criteria development and approval or disapproval of State WQS actions? Should
this parameter be dealt with in isolation from the other factors in the risk
assessment methodology?
166
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
165-167
-• Should States be given more or less flexibility in risk assessment and risk
management decisions? Are the existing mechanisms for developing site specific
criteria adequate to address concerns about protecting highly exposed populations?
• Are the data for rates of fish consumption of sufficient quality to justify changing
the assumed rate of 6.5 grams per person per day?
* Is a statutory change necessary or desirable, and if so, what form should it take?
Your input is important. We look forward to a free-ranging exchange of ideas during
the panel discussion and the question and comment period to follow.
167
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 169-173
"FISH CONSUMPTION" AND NATIONAL WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA
Daniel C, Picard
Director
Net Perce Tribe Water Resources Division
Lapnai, Idaho
"Environmental Equity"--a very appropriate term used by the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly, to describe a work group convened by the
EPA to assess evidence that racial minorities and low-income communities bear a substantially
higher environmental risk burden than the general U.S. population. In terms of "environmental
risk," the general findings of the work group were of no real surprise to minority races, groups,
arid communities, but did well to raise this important issue in the eyes of both the general
American public and the EPA itself. This work group intimated the idea that the Agency should
indeed increase the priority that it gives to the issue, of "environmental equity."
The obvious question then becomes "Why should the EPA increase the priority it gives
to environmental equity, and further, how would EPA accomplish this task?" The initial answer
is also obvious: EPA has a responsibility, as the Nation's environmental and environmentally
related human health "protector," to see that the Nation's citizenry is thus protected adequately.
This, of course, would also mean an "equal" protection for all citizens. A protection of the
"majority" of the Nation's citizens is not adequate, and in fact is not the mandate under which
the EPA operates. As outlined in countless volumes of statutory law, the EPA has, as its
general purpose, the protection and enhancement of both the environment and human health.
With this in mind then, let us move on to a more specific application of these ideas. For
some time now, it has been argued that perhaps certain criteria by which the EPA attempts to
fulfill its role as the human health protector are not adequate when applied to specific
populations. This, I would submit, holds especially true for the Native American tribes of the
Northwest, with the Nez Perce Tribe being no exception.
As most are no doubt aware, the Agency bases its pollution effluent limitations on certain
baseline assumptions, with the idea of protecting human health. The EPA has developed this
baseline human health criterion using a combination of exposure and risk management
parameters. And, of course, most are no doubt aware that the baseline "fish consumption" rate
169
-------
D.C, PICARD
is presently at an estimated 6.5 grams per day, or an average of 7 ounces per month. This also
is the baseline "standard" that most States have used in the development of their individual water
quality standards. The focus of my remarks is to bring to light that this fish consumption
baseline assumption is not adequate in terms of protecting the Tribes of the Northwest; this may
also hold true when speaking of other minority groups who may consume an above-average
amount of pollution- contaminated fish.
The Nez Perce, along with a number of Tribes in the Northwest (and more specifically,
the Columbia River Basin), have for time immemorial accessed the fisheries of the Columbia
River Basin, but in only recent times have been subjected to threats to their health for exercising
this custom, right, and subsistence need. With the coming of the European and continual growth
in science and technology, we stand today with industry and various other pollution sources on
the banks of that same river system. The Nez Perce Tribe is highly dependent upon fishery
resources, just as in the past, and in fact, the fishery resource is a vital component of tribal
subsistence and cultural preservation. The protection and enhancement of the water quality
throughout the Columbia Basin is, therefore, also of vital importance to the Tribe. It is the
Tribe's position that the fishery resources within the Columbia Basin are in need of heightened
protection. There is increasing evidence of toxic contamination in the river system, which leads
both to health effects on the fish themselves and to a threat to the health of the tribal members
consuming those contaminated fish.
To ascertain whether EPA water quality criteria, and the underlying "fish consumption"
assumption numbers, actually protect human health from the possible effects of toxic chemicals
in the Columbia system, the Nez Perce Tribe, along with the other member tribes of the
Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission (Yakima, Umatilla, and Warm Springs), conducted
a fish consumption survey. This survey determined the dietary rates, habits, and patterns of
tribal members. The survey was funded under a grant from the EPA and was completed under
the direction of a technical panel consisting of representatives from the EPA. the Seattle Indian
Health Service, and the Centers for Disease Control.
The most significant finding of the Nez Perce portion of that survey was confirmation
that the current EPA water quality criteria do not adequately protect tribal members consuming
a significantly higher amount of fish than the general public. In comparison to the EPA water
quality fish consumption assumption level of 6.5 grams per day, the survey indicated that the
average Nez Perce tribal member consumes 79.7 grams per day, 2.35 fish meals per week, and
an average of 8.37 ounces at each meal! Further, 10 percent Of the Nez Perce interviewees
indicated that fish is still relied upon as a primary source of subsistence, and these members
ingest fish at a rate of 12.69 meals per week, at an average of 8.46 ounces per meal.. This then
averages out to approximately 434.79 grams of fish per day, a frightening 67 times the EPA
assumption estimates!
170
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 169-173
\The Nez Perce members involved in the survey were age 18 years or older, but by
including questions regarding the rate of fish consumption by children within their households,
the survey also garnered important information. The average weekly consumption for children
identified as fish eaters was 1.18 meals per week, 4.12 ounces per meal, or 19.7 grams per day.
Therefore, Nez Perce children typically consume three times the EPA estimate!
The risk of exposure to toxic chemicals by members of the Nez Perce Tribe is heightened
even more because the majority of the fish consumed by Tribe members is obtained from the
Columbia system, which today stands in a generally high degree of degradation. The threat of
health effects in Nez Perce children from dioxin and other toxic pollutants is again increased
because a significant number of Nez Perce mothers breast feed, or have breast fed, their
children. Nez Perce children also were shown, at a rate of 30.3 percent, to begin eating fish
by the age of 7 months while continuing to breast feed. They thus have a threat of double
exposure!
Finally, the threat is again heightened because Tribe members are exposed to the threats
of toxic pollutants not only at home but also at nearly every tribal cultural or social function.
Nearly every function that occurs on the Reservation generally includes the use and consumption
of fish.
The survey illustrates that, because fish consumption plays an essential role'in tribal
religion and culture as well as to subsistence and other uses, and because Tribe members are
thus more highly exposed to toxic pollutants, the EPA criteria are obviously inadequate in terms
of protecting the tribal "human health."
It is obvious, then, why this particular issue concerns the Nez Perce and other Tribes in
the Northwest. It is also obvious why the Tribe would consider the present EPA criterion, with
an assumption level at 6.5 grams of fish per day, inadequate.. The Tribe is especially concerned
with the amounts of dioxin that may enter the water systems, as a result of this faulty standard,
on and surrounding the reservations and in places where the Tribe members may access the
fisheries. The EPA water quality standard for dioxin also concerns the Tribe because the
criterion controlling this pollutant not only is based upon a faulty fish consumption average but
also does not account for other harmful effects of dioxin. Recent information on the health
effects of toxic pollution show that serious reproductive, hormonal, and other problems result
from exposure to much lower levels of dioxin than the levels that may cause cancer (Colborn,
1991; U.S. News and World Report, 1992).
The Nez Perce also believe that the Federal Government's responsibility to protect the
public from toxic contamination resulting from industrial waste is even more critical in the case
of Indian treaty fishing rights. In 1855, the Nez Perce signed a treaty with the United States that
secured to them a reserved right to hunt and fish in "all usual and accustomed places.". As part
of the treaty right, and to allow the Tribes to take advantage of the right to harvest fish in the
171
-------
D.C. P1CARD ' ;
Northwest, Federal courts have expressly recognized a duty of the Federal Government to
protect Indians and their fisheries, as demonstrated in Kittitas Reclamation District v. Sunnyside
Valley Irrigation District, 763 F. 2d 1032 (9th dir., 1985). This "trust responsibility" is much
more than that of an ordinary trustee in that the government has a moral obligation to exercise
the highest degree of responsibility, care, and skill in protecting tribal members and the trust
property from loss or damage. [See Seminole Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17
(1831).] By failing to protect tribal people and the fishery resources upon which they rely, in
the Columbia Basin or otherwise, the limitations on toxic chemical discharges may thus violate
Federal treaty .rights. Federal agencies are obligated to safeguard the treaty tribal members, as
well as the subject matter of those treaties. This "trust responsibility" also includes actions taken
off reservation by the Federal Government, which may uniquely impact tribal members or their
property, as demonstrated in Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 12 Indian L. Rep. 3065,
3070-71 (D. Mont., 1985). It is thus argued that the EPA must, therefore, revise the limitations
on toxic chemicals based upon faulty fish consumption information to adequately protect tribal
treaty rights and to safeguard the health of Tribe members in the Columbia Basin.
The findings and recommendations of EPA's Environmental Equity Work Group stated
"there is a general lack of data on environmental health effects by race and income," and also,
"Native Americans are a unique racial group with a special relationship with the Federal
Government and distinct environmental problems . ... EPA should establish and maintain
information which provides an objective basis for assessing risks by income and race ....
"Finally, the findings stated: "The Agency should incorporate considerations of environmental
equity into the risk assessment process. It should revise its risk assessment procedures to
ensure, where practical and relevant, better characterization of risk across populations,
communities, or geographic areas. In some cases it may be important to know whether there
are any population groups at disproportionately high risk" (U.S. EPA, 1992).
It would be the opinion of the Nez Perce Tribe that the recommendations outlined by
EPA's Environmental Equity Work Group should be implemented. The group also suggested
that "the Agency should expand and improve its communications with racial minority and
low-income communities and should increase efforts to involve them in environmental policy
making." The Nez Perce emphatically agree. Especially with regard to Indian Tribes, who
stand in a unique relationship with the Federal Government, EPA Has an obligation to do just
that. The Indian Tribes have long asked for such a coordinated effort, and although somewhat
late in coming, it is with great optimism that they review the recommendations of EPA's
Environmental Equity Work Group.
In the spirit of those same recommendations, the Tribes of the Columbia River Intertribal
Fish Commission are hopeful that the data collected for their recently completed fish
consumption survey will be put to appropriate use by the Agency. The data collected illustrate
that the tribes of the Columbia Basin (more specifically, the Nez Perce, Yakima, Umatilla, and
Warm Springs) are disproportionately affected with'relationship to the limitations on dioxin and
172
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 169-173
other, toxins, especially regarding fish consumption levels. Approximately 15 to 20 previous
studies in the United States have addressed fish consumption rates of U.S. citizens. Few of
these surveys have addressed fish consumption rates of ethnic groups, and none comprehensively
reviewed the fish consumption habits of Native Americans. Therefore, the Columbia River
Basin survey is unique because there is little or no other information focusing exclusively on
subsistence and ceremonial use of fish by Native Americans. We now have that information,
and we again would expect the Agency to use that information and take whatever actions are
necessary to ensure the protection of this category of citizens. EPA has noted (as mentioned in
the report of the EPA Environmental Equit) Group), that there is a "general lack of data on
environmental health effects by race and income." The Tribes are optimistic that the recently
completed fish consumption survey will help to lay the groundwork for a future of working
together to ensure that human health i* being adequately protected by the EPA, State
environmental agencies and groups, and also tribal environmental protection entities.
It is our hope, then, that when contemplating the change of water quality standards and
regulations for dioxin and other toxic contaminants, the EPA would recognize their responsibility
to protect the "human health" of all its citizens, and would further recognize their unique "trust
responsibility" with regard to the protection of the Native American Tribes. Dioxin and other
toxic pollutants seriously threaten almost every aspect of the lives of the Columbia River Basin
Tribes, and we believe that water quality standards should pay particular interest to those
individuals who stand to be harmed most by the effects of water pollution.
REFERENCES
Colborn, T. 1991. Nontraditional evaluation of risk from fish contaminants. Conference
Proceedings, Symposium on Issues in Seafood Safety, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC, pp. 95, 99, 103, 107, 111.
U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Communications,
Education, and Public Affairs. Findings and recommendations of EPA's environmental equity
workgroup. EPA J. 18( 1 ):20-21. ;
U.S. News and World Report. 1992. Puzzling over a poison, pp. 60-61; April 6.
173
-------
Sediment
Management
olicv Decisions
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 175-179
EPA'S CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Elizabeth Southerland
Chief
Risk Assessment and Management Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Standards and Applied Science Division
Washington, D.C.
In the 1980s, EPA documented the extent and severity of contaminated sediment,
problems at sites throughout the United States. Concerned with the mounting evidence of
ecological and human health effects, EPA's Office of Water organized a Sediment Steering
Committee chaired by the Assistant Administrator of Water and composed of senior managers
in all the EPA offices with authority to handle contaminated sediments and EPA's 10 regional
offices.
Over the past 2 years, this committee has been preparing an Agency-wide Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to coordinate and focus EPA's resources on contaminated
sediment problems. A draft outline of this strategy was released to the public this year to serve
as a proposal for discussion in three national forums scheduled for April, May, and June. The
draft strategy is designed around three major principles:
1. In-place sediment should be protected from contamination to ensure that the
beneficial uses of the Nation's surface waters are maintained for future
generations;
2. Protection of in-place sediment should be achieved through pollution prevention
. and source controls; .
3. Natural recovery is the preferred remedial technique. In-place sediment
remediation will be limited to high-risk sites where national recovery will not
1 occur in an acceptable time period and where the cleanup process will not* cause
greater problems than leaving the site alone.
175
-------
E. SOUTH ERLAND
The draft strategy includes several component strategies: assessment, prevention, remediation,
dredged material management, research, and outreach. A brief summary of each of these
elements follows.
In the assessment strategy, EPA is committing to develop a national inventory of
contaminated sediment sites and a pilot inventory of potential sources of sediment contamination,
based on existing data. The two types of inventories will be complementary because the source
database can be used to predict where sediments are contaminated in unsampled areas. The
inventories will be designed so that EPA's prevention and remediation programs can use them
to focus their resources on cleaning up the lop priority sites and sources. Another key element
of the assessment strategy is the commitment to develop a consistent, tiered testing strategy that
will include a minimum set of sediment chemical criteria, bioassays, and bioaccumulation tests
that all programs will agree to use in determining if sediments are contaminated.
The prevention strategy includes a variety of pollution prevention measures and source
controls. The scale of contamination will guide the choice of a particular set of these measures.
If a sediment contaminant is causing harm or risk at numerous sites nationwide, it may be
relatively inefficient to deal with the problem on a site-by-site basis. Instead, the strategy
discusses nationally applicable responses, such as prohibitions or use restrictions under TSCA
orFIFRA, technology-based effluent limitations for industrial dischargers, or a national initiative
to revise water quality-based limits in NPDES permits. If atmospheric deposition appears to be
a primary source of contamination, responses under the Clean Air Act will be considered.
Where sediment contamination is a concern at particular sites, but not on a national scale,
case-by-case assessments and response actions are recommended. Based on narrative and
chemical-specific criteria and standards, EPA or a State can develop NPDES permit limits for
discharges from industrial sources, municipal sewage treatment plants, stormwater outfalls, and
combined sewer overflows. States that have nonpoint source control programs can take actions
to reduce the contributions of these sources to sediment contamination.
EPA may remediate sediments under CERCLA, RCRA, CWA, and TSCA. The
remediation programs will use the national inventory to assist in selecting sites for cleanup and
the consistent tiered testing to assist in identifying contaminated areas and establishing cleanup
goals. The remediation strategy emphasizes that sources of contamination should be controlled
prior to remediation efforts unless the contaminated sediments pose a sufficiently great
environmental hazard. In making remediation decisions, the strategy also points out that it is
important to consider whether contaminated sediments at a site can be transported to downstream
or offshore areas if left in place, thereby increasing the size of the contaminated area and making
future remediation efforts much more difficult. Other factors to consider include the timeframe
for natural recovery, the potential for contaminant mobilization during remediation, and the
feasibility and cost of various treatment and removal options.
176
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY175-179
The maintenance of.our Nation's waterways for navigation requires the dredging and
disposal of 250 to 450 million cubic yards of material each year. . Dredged material testing
manuals prepared jointly by EPA and the Corps of Engineers recommend the chemical and
biological tests that should be conducted to determine if the material is contaminated and must
be disposed of using special procedures. The tests selected for the Agency-wide contaminated
sediment strategy will be included in these dredged material testing manuals. The strategy also
outlines additional guidance that will be developed by EPA and the Corps to improve the
management of these materials.
The research strategy outlines all the work that EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) has planned on sediment chemical criteria, sediment bioassay and
bioaccumulation tests, fate and transport models, and remedial techniques. ORD is establishing
a Resource Center to provide EPA offices with centralized technical assistance in evaluating
sediment contamination and will also sponsor workshops and training sessions throughout the
country.
The outreach strategy describes how EPA will work with other Federal agencies and State
agencies to coordinate EPA's contaminated sediment activities with their efforts. EPA will
strive to ensure that these agencies share sediment-related research findings and innovative
technologies. In addition, EPA is proposing a two-way public awareness program that will
disseminate contaminated sediment information to the public and also incorporate information
from the public into EPA activities.
The purpose of this panel is to debate key issues involved in the strategy. The
fundamental question is whether the relative human health and environmental risks of
contaminated sediments merit the increased attention and resources EPA is proposing to commit
to this area. The second key issue is whether we need any statutory changes to address
contaminated sediment problems more effectively. The current strategy is based on existing
authorities and requires no new legislation. If it is decided we need to focus more attention on
this problem, the next issue of importance is how EPA should prioritize its activities. Should
the primary focus be on criteria development, policy guidance, data gathering, NPS controls,
or developing remedial technologies?
There are two key implementation issues which also must be debated. First, how should
sediment quality criteria be used in the prevention, remediation, and dredged material
management programs? Second, do the States have the resources and knowledge base to
effectively implement the prevention, remediation, and dredged material management programs?
I look-;forward to a lively discussion of all these issues and invite everyone to take part
in our debate.
177
-------
E. SOUTHERLAND
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
EPA'S
CONTAMINATED
SEDIMENT STRATEGY:
A PROPOSAL FOR
DISCUSSION
Slide 2
MAGNITUDE
OF THE PROBLEM
• Extent of Contamination May Be Large
• 1985 and 1987 OW Surveys „
• PCBi, Pntiddo, PAlb, Mm»U
• PMcaUall; Hu*dn
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21,st CENTURY: 175-179
Slide 7 Slide 8
ELEMENTS OF
OUR STRATEGY
I. Assessment
A. National Inventory
B. Consistent Tiered Testing
C. Monitoring
II. Research
A. Sediment Chemical Criteria
B. Bioassay/Bioaccumulation Methods
C. Fate and Effects Models
D. Remedial Technology Development/Demonstration
E. Technology TVansfer
Slide 9
ELEMENTS (Cont.)
IV. Remediation
A. Enforcement-Based Remediation
B. Superfnnd Cleanups
C RCRA Corrective Action
D. PCB Cleanup Requirements
E. CWA/Corps Remediation
V. Managing Dredged Materials
A. Improved Testing and Management
B. Applying Sediment Criteria
C. Applylag RCRA Criteria
D. PCB Disposal Requirements
ELEMENTS (Cont.)
HI. Preventidn
A. Effluent Guidelines
B. Point Source Controls, Including CSOs and
Stormwater
C. Nonpoint Source ControU ;
D. Review or Pesticides
E. Review of Toxic Chrmfc-ah
F. Additional Pollution PrrveMloa Activities
I
179
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 181-190
REGULATORY USES OF SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
IN WASHINGTON STATE
Keith Phillips
Washington Department of Ecology
Sediment Management Unit
Olympia, Washington
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
QtoyiHCN,
to/
Chemistry Bioassays
Sediments
£?
LFish IrvJauna
¦
Sediments with elevated
concentrations of chemical
contaminants.
Adverse effects to laboratory test
animals.
Fewer animals living on and in
contaminated sediments.
Bottomfish fin rot, gill lesions,
reproductive failure and liver tumors.
Local health department fishery advisories warning against human consumption.
Sio&cctnmulation,
Liver lesions
INSTITUTIONAL CHAl£eNGES OF
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
* Like water, sediments are an
environmental medium and are
subject to aquatic protection laws.
* Unlike water, if sediments are
picked up, they are similar to any
other solid waste material.
/ \
Water \
Quality
^ Laws
Management i
Water * Soil
I Cleanup
Laws
t •
: 181
-------
K. PHILLIPS
•, • Contaminated sediments result in cleanup liabilities to the discharger, the
waterfront developer, and the landowner.
• Underlying institutional challenge; Ensure that all government programs that
affect the quality of sediments (source control, dredging and cleanup) are
integrated and work toward the same quality goals.
• Sediment management requires an innovative blend of legal mandates and
procedures to effectively integrate water quality, dredging, and cleanup programs.
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT
STANDARDS
* Washington recently adopted a
new rale known as the Sediment
Management Standards, Chapter
173-204 of the Washington
Administrative Code.
* The rule established a set of
narrative chemical and biological
criteria as "sediment quality standards."
* The rule applies sediment quality standards in existing source control programs
designed to control the discharge of contaminants (e.g., discharge permits).
* The rule applies sediment quality standards in a sediment cleanup decision process
and as sediment cleanup standards.
The rale was recently approved by EPA as part of the State's "water quality
standards" pursuant to section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
Sediment Management Standards
(Chapter 173-204 WAC)
• Adopted: March 27,1991
• Effective
April 27,1#$t1
Sourca
Control
Sediment ^
^ Standai-ds
Quality \
Standards
\ Sediment
Cleanup
Standards
182
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 181-190
S EDIMENT RULES
WASHINGTON STATE
IN
In response to environmental
problems, institutional challenges,
and legal mandates associated with
sediments, the State of
Washington has been working on
two new sediment rules.
Washington Sediment Rules
• Sediment Management Standards
- adopted 1991
• Dredged Material Management Standards
- adopt late 1993?
The first sediment rule is known
as the Sediment Management Standards and was adopted in 1991.
The other sediment rule is known as the Dredged Material Management Standards
and is currently scheduled to be drafted by 1993.
SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDS:
CHEMICAL TESTS/CRITERIA
• The rule lists 47 chemical-specific
concentration criteria for Puget
Sound marine sediments.
• These criteria were developed
using the Apparent Effects
Threshold and Equilibrium
Partitioning methods because the
combination was more reliable in predicting adverse biological effects.
i
• The rule also provides for addressing "other deleterious substances in or on
sediments" which cause adverse biological effects, with methods and criteria to
be established on a case-by^case basis.
Sediment Chemical Criteria
• 47 Chemicals of concern
- 8 metals
• 39 organ ics
• Criteria - - highest reliability
, - Apparent Effects Threshold
- Equilibrium Partitioning
• "other deleterious substances"
183
-------
K. PHILLIPS
SEDIMENT QUALITY STANDARDS:
BIOLOGICAL TESTS/CRITERIA
• The rule establishes a set of
routine biological tests for
assessing sediment quality,
• When biological testing is
conducted, a minimum of three
tests is required—two to address
"acute effects" and one to address
"chronic effects."
Sediment Biological Criteria
Acute Effects: Do 2 tests -
- amphipod
- larval (bivalve/echinoderm)
Chronic Effects: Do 1 of 3 tests -
- benthlc Infaunal abundance
- polychaete biomass
• Microtox
To address "acute effects," the rule requires that a 10-day amphipod mortality test
and a 48- to 96-hour sediment larval (oyster,, mussel, or echinoderm) test be
conducted.
To address "chronic effects," the rule requires that a bacterial bioluminescence
test, a polychaete worm growth test, or a field benthic infaunal abundance
assessment be conducted.
Biological test interpretation criteria are contained in the rale.
SEDIMENT TESTING MODEL
• The Sediment* Management
Standards relies on a tiered testing
model to evaluate sediment
quality.
• The first tier is sediment
chemistry, where sediment
chemical test results are compared
to chemical criteria. If all
Sediment Quality
Standards
*F»il"
^CHEMICAL TESTS/CRfTERIA j
OPTION.
BIOLOGICAL TESTS/CRITERIA
*Fa!f
¦VMM'
EXCEED i
STANDARDS !
T
•PmM'
MEET
STANDARDS
chemicals of concern are below criteria, the sediment is assumed to not cause
adverse biological effects.
If any of the chemicals of concern are above the chemical criteria, the sediment
is assumed to cause adverse biological effects pending results of biological
testing.
184
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN TtyE 21st CENTURY: 181-190
• •• If biological tests are performed, the biological test interpretation criteria will
govern the final decision regarding the quality of the sediments.
• This technical approach is used for all sediment quality decisions contained in the
rule.
REGULATORY APPLICATION
MODEL
* Sediment quality standards
represent a "no effects" goal.
• Exceeding the sediment quality
. standard does not mean terminate
discharge or start active cleanup.
• "No effects" standard was
established solely using scientific information—not engineering feasibility or cost
factors that are part of regulatory decisions.
* A second sediment standard, the "minor adverse effects level," acts as a upper
bound gr ceiling on regulatory decisions.
* Between these two standards, source control and cleanup decisions are made in
consideration of net environmental effects and cost/feasibility tradeoffs.
SEDIMENT DILUTION ZONES
• The rule uses "sediment dilution
zones" as the vehicle for
authorizing adverse effects over
the "no effects" sediment quality
standards.
* For ongoing discharges, the State
can authorize an area outside the
discharge known as a "sediment
impact zone" within
Sediment Management Standards
Application Model
¦Minor m amn„,atnrv
Adverse -1-— ,0^T
Effects* I . um,t*
Goal: 1 Sediment
¦No Effects" T — Quality
Standards
Incrsuing
Sediment
Contamination
Sediment Dilution Zones
'Sediment impact Zone
(ongoing discharge)
Active
Cleanup.
(historic contamination)
185
-------
K. PHILLIPS
which the discharge can exceed the lower
higher "minor effects" standard.
'no effects", standard, but not the
For historic contamination subject to cleanup, the State can define contamination
above the "no effects" standard and below the "minor effects" standard that does
not need to be cleaned up-leaving a "sediment recovery zone,"
"Regulatory Beauty"
SmUmm
Impact
Zona
Minimum
A
PSOOA
Guidattm*
<7
7
I
Gtoanup Ser—nlna
• Mbifcnum
Cleanup LimI _ ,
¦ > Ba«ul«tory
* Limit
Ctaaiaip
' atandant
Ctaonup
CROSS-PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS
* The same standards of quality are
established for all regulatory
programs, ensuring that
government programs affecting
sediment quality work in harmony.
• We do not want permitted
discharge sediment impact zones
that will result in increased
disposal costs and liabilities to navigation dredgers.
For cleanup programs, the upper standard is a cleanup trigger ("cleanup screening
level") above which we will list a site for active cleanup, below which we will
not list a site for active cleanup. ;,
This arrangement ensures that we will not be permitting discharges or creating
dredged material disposal sites that will later become future cleanup sites.
Sourca
Control
Dredging
I uwanup
Jl CbMcttw Sadknanl
Y Quality
Ckmnup Standanla
SEDIMENT SOURCE CONTROL
PROCESS
• The rule describes the process for
controlling sediment quality effects
of discharges to the aquatic
environment, beginning with
evaluating the potential effects
prior to discharge permitting.
Sediment Source Control
(1 ©f 2)
A) Evaluate potential sediment impact
B) Require S1Z application
C) Verify technology requirements (e.g., BAT)
D) Verify sediment Impact
E) SIZmax exceedance?
If adverse effects are possible, the
rule outlines discharger information to be supplied with the permit application.
186
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2'lst CENTURY:
1SI-190
: • Sediment impact zones are authorized only for discharges that are applying all
federal and state technology requirements.
• Discharge sediment effects are verified by empirical and modeling information.
• Rule prohibits a discharge from exceeding the upper standard of "minor adverse
effects"—the sediment impact zone maximum contamination (SIZmax) standard.
(Sediment quality-based effluent limits can be required.)'
^ The rule contains narrative criteria
for locations where 'SIZs are to be
avoided if possible.
• Authorized SIZs are to be as small
as practicable, with the least
degree of contamination possible,
i.e., the SIZ may not be allowed
to reach the upper standard of
contamination.
• Public and landowner review of the proposed SIZ is required prior to permit
issuance.
• Key intent: Rule ascribes accountability to the discharger through the permit,
including monitoring, maintenance, and closure requirements for authorized SIZs.
• Key policy: To eventually reduce and eliminate all SIZs through the permit
renewal process.
Sediment Source Control
(2 of 2)
F)
SIZ locations] criteria
G)
Small/least contaminated as practicable
H)
Public/landowner review
0
Permit Issued with accountability:
- monltorlng/malntenance/closure
J)
Reduce/eliminate —> renowals/modlficatlons
EVALUATING POTENTIAL
SEDIMENT EFFECTS OF A
DISCHARGE
• Unlike water, sediment effects can
build up over years of discharge.
• Hie rule requires evaluation of the
discharge for a period of 10 years
(about two 5-year permit cycles).
Source Control Evaluation
Incrmalng
SldHiwtt
Concentration
J
H"
Ex ting
SlZrout
(3
Amblant
SOS
Tl«n« tyaara)
10
187
-------
K. PHILLIPS
From "ambient" conditions (natural/background sediment quality, absent any
other ongoing or historic contamination), the lower curve shows that the discharge
may eventually result in exceedance of the sediment quality standards—requiring
a SIZ authorization at the time of permit issuance.
From the "existing" conditions (current sediment quality), the middle curve shows
that most sediments are undergoing a natural recovery process due to regulatory
efforts over the last decade. .
The upper curve indicates thai an increased discharge would typically delay that
recovery process. ,
SIZs can be established in areas that are already contaminated above the SIZmax
line, and are more like permitted loads than observable field conditions.
t
Cleanup of historic contamination within an authorized SIZ is also possible.
DISCHARGE
LIABILITIES
AND SEDIMENT
Unresolved legal issue: Whether
a regulatory discharge permit that
restricts, yet allows sediment
contamination on someone else's
land constitutes an action subject
to proprietary laws.
Sediment/Discharge Liability
Regulatory
Control?
or
Trespass
and Taking?
• No landowner approval or indemnification
• Rule avoids proprietary implications
• Align standards/provide accountability
• Integrate regulatory arid proprietary
Landowner approval over
regulatory permits could result in the landowner holding the discharger hostage.
And there are legal questions about Ecology delegating regulatory powers to the
landowner.
Indemnifying the landowner for contamination that Ecology permits to be placed
on their land would illegally rewrite legislated liability standards.
Rule states that regulatory action does not address any proprietary requirements.
Rule aligns the sediment standards so that discharges do not create new cleanup
sites.
188
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 1-81-190
• Rule establishes accountability to the discharger for sediment effects.
* State agencies are integrating regulatory and proprietary interests.
SEDIMENT CLEANUP STANDARDS
• Key rule feature: Defines
sediment cleanup standards.
• Cleanup standard is defined on a
site-specific basis, as close as
practicable to the sediment quality
standards (the "cleanup
objective"), not to exceed the
"minimum cleanup level."
In defining practicability, net environmental effects, natural recovery rates,
engineering feasibility, and cost are all factors that are considered when
determining the site cleanup standards. •' _ .
Sediment Cleanup Standards
__ Minimum Claunup Level
• Effects/Tims
Cleanup
Standard
• Engineering Feasibility
• Coat
Cleanup Objective
(Sediment Quality Standards)
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL
STANDARDS
• The State is developing a second
sediment rule addressing dredging
and disposal of sediments derived
from navigation and cleanup
projects.
• Dredged Material Management
Standards, Chapter ,173-227
WAC, will specify technical and procedural requirements for all dredging and
dredged material disposal actions.
• Rule will codify key features of existing federal/state program for unconfmed,
open-water disposal of. dredged material (Puget Sound Dredged Disposal 1
Analysis).
Dredged Material Management Standards:
(Chapter 173-227 WAC)
• Testing —
• Dredge Method
« Water
• Transport
• Site Design
—i for • Nearshore
• Construction/
Closure
• Upland
* Monitoring
189
-------
K. PHILLIPS
Rule will provide "minimum functional standards" for disposal of sediments in
upland disposal sites.
Rule will be linked to the State's hazardous waste rules to address hazardous
waste and contaminated sediment interface.
Draft guidance manual due by late 1992; draft rule scheduled for 1993.
ONGOING DEVELOPMENT OF
SEDIMENT CRITERIA
• Though the adopted Sediment
Management Standards contain
policies, procedures, and narrative
criteria that are applicable state
wide, numerical chemical and
biological criteria contained in the
adopted version of the rule are
solely applicable to Puget Sound
marine sediments.
• Ecology is continuing work to fill in the "reserved" portions of the rule.
• Human health sediment criteria are being developed jointly by Ecology and the
Washington Department of Health, with technical work scheduled for completion
in 1993. Freshwater sediment criteria are also being developed by Ecology.
• Ecology will convene a meeting of benthic infauna experts to evaluate improved
ways for interpretation of benthic community data.
• Ecology has agreed to include sediment quality issues during development of the
antidegradation implementation plan for water quality standards.
Ongoing Criteria Development
• Human health sediment criteria
• Freshwater sediment criteria
• Benthic infaunai criteria
• Antidegradation
190
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 191-198
SEDIMENT CRITERIA: NEEDS AND USES
Glenda L. Daniel
Executive Director
Lake Michigan Federation '
Chicago, Illinois
First, I'd like to say that I'm sure I speak for thousands of environmentalists around the
country when I say that I'm pleased that EPA has focused so much energy and attention over
the past several years toward the development of sediment criteria and a national contaminated
sediment management strategy.
WHY BE CONCERNED ABOUT SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION?
In the Great Lakes, we're used to being the miners' canaries thai spot problems first,
probably because there are so many of us out there watching all the time. For more than 6
years, contaminated sediment in our Great lakes tributaries and harbors has been recognized as
one of the biggest contributors of persistent, bioaccumulative contaminants to our sport fish and
fish eaters. Lack of agreement on safe disposal options for contaminated dredged material has
also been the thorniest problem for keeping recreational and commercial harbors operating at
full capacity.
I surely don't need to tell this group that contaminated sediment is now thought to come
close to or to possibly even equal the atmosphere as a source of persistent contaminants to the
Great Lakes. It certainly exceeds (currently active) point source contributions by a long shot;
we don't have good data on surface runoff. '
When we look, therefore, at human and environmental effects of toxic chemicals in the
Great Lakes, at fish tumors and other carcinomas, at reproductive failure and behavioral
abnormalities of fish and of fish-eating birds and people, we are increasingly confident that
sediment has been a major exposure route. Several specific caged-fish studies, notably in
Detroit River sediment, have corroborated this. So has the continued predominance of PCBs
in fish flesh, because PCBs have long since been banned from production, leaving sediment as
the biggest source of these compounds.
191
-------
G.L. DANIEL
Numerical vs. "Effects-Based" Criteria: What Are We Really Arguing
About?
Sediment quality criteria, as our "national contaminated sediment working group" of
environmentalists sees them, are measures of the levels of contamination in sediment that pose
risks of adverse effects to human health or the environment. (Many of the points I will address
here today are taken from a report our group prepared in March, with Rich Colin-Lee and
Jessica landman of the National Resources Defense Council as principal authors and collators
of our views.) We believe that sediment criteria must:
• Protect the most sensitive species in a given habitat plus an extra safety margin;
• Take into account the fact that many organisms absorb contaminants directly from
sediment and not through the water column; and
• Be designed to protect against chronic, bioaccumulative effects; dynamic changes
in bioavailability, food chain exposure-and reproductive and behavioral effects
as well as cancer.
Some people have expressed concern that it would not be scientifically possible to come
up with one simple number (such as 1 fig/kg for cadmium) that defines what level of
contamination is safe or "clean" in all locations or circumstances. This concern is based on what
we perceive as an incomplete understanding of EPA's proposed criteria process.
Sediment quality criteria need not consist of one simple number applicable in all waters.
It is likely that criteria will vaiy depending on a number of factors that might affect toxicity or
exposure, such as salinity, organic carbon content, or sediment grain size. A sediment quality
criterion could consist of a matrix that includes these or other relevant factors, and that enables
the decision maker to calculate a concentration appropriate for a given site. Many of the water
quality criteria now in existence are written this way.
Furthermore, sediment quality criteria need not be only a "number." Sediment quality
criteria and standards should be allowed to consist of an array of tests. EPA may not be able
to derive numbers that define the safe concentration of a chemical in sediments with a high
degree of confidence for more than a small subset of chemicals.
In summary, the concept of sediment quality criteria is broad enough to encompass a
combination of single-chemical criteria (such as those developed by the Equilibrium Partitioning
approach or the Apparent Effects Threshold), toxicity bioassays, and in situ measurements of
benthic health. Single-chemical numbers by themselves will not meet the "sensitive species" or
"margin of safety" criteria. Toxicity bioassays should be able to define chronic effects and
192
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY.- 191-198
sublethal endpoints. Owing to gaps in the understanding of sediment chemistry and
bioavailability, sediment quality criteria must incorporate this full suite of testing to be accurate
and protective.
We believe this approach will be more protective and accurate than the "effects based"
approach, which develops an action level in a specific location, based on toxicity of a chemical
in a single chemical dilution without regard to synergistic or antagonistic effects, and without
acknowledging the direct sediment to organism pathway for pollutants.
How Ik) Sediment Quality Criteria Fit into the Federal/State Relationship?
Sediment quality criteria, as 1 see it. are fully compatible with the existing Federal and
State regulatory framework.
Under section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act, States are required to adopt water quality
standards that "serve the purposes of the Act," as spelled out in section 101(a). Such standards
must include criteria that protect water body uses such as fishing, swimming, and for fresh water
bodies, drinking.
Furthermore, Federal regulations provide that State standards must be based on Federal
criteria (EPA's section 304(a) guidance), the EPA guidance modified to reflect site-specific
conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods.
Once EPA develops sediment quality criteria, this same principle would apply to State
adoption. That is, Federal 304(a) guidance wilf form the basis for State standards, unless the
State develops site-specific standards or uses some other scientifically defensible method for
deriving standards; the burden of demonstrating defensibility will rest with the State.
Over the past decade, the States have been extremely slow to adopt water column
standards for toxic pollutants, despite a specific requirement in the 1987 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act that they do so within 3 years. This inactivity has resulted in a delay in
protecting our waters. For this reason, a successful national sediment quality criteria program
must include strong incentives for States to promptly adopt and implement standards. If
sediment quality criteria are developed by the EPA, the States should be given 2 years to adopt
their own standards. If they do not adopt standards at least as protective as EPA's within the
deadline, EPA's criteria should automatically become applicable State standards.
In waters where State criteria do not apply, such as the open ocean, federally adopted
sediment quality criteria should be used. In interstate waters such as the Great Lakes or
Chesapeake Bay, a mechanism, such as that currently being offered through the Great Lakes
Water Quality Initiative, is needed to ensure adoption of consistent, protective standards,. If
States wish to apply more stringent provisions, they should be provided authority to do so.
• v 193
-------
CJ.L, DANIEL
How Should Sediment Quality Criteria Be Applied?
There are a number of obvious applications for sediment quality criteria. More are sure
to emerge once these criteria are established.
NPDES Permitting, Limits Derivation
Industries and sewerage treatment plants that discharge effluent into U.S. waters are
required to have permits that establish limits on the quantity of pollutants they can release.
Today, those limits are derived to protect water quality, i.e., the chemical content of the water
column. Permit writers use State standards, plus information on effluent concentration, flow
(the "dilution" of the waste stream that will occur once it hits the water), and patterns of mixing
to back-calculate the level of a pollutant that is permissible in the effluent (U.S. EPA, 1991a).
However, it is known that, even if pollutants are present in low concentrations in the
water, they can settle out into sediment and, over time, accumulate in high concentrations.
Once sediment quality standards are available, they can be used in a manner similar to
water quality criteria to back-calculate the level of pollutant discharges that can safely be made
without exceeding sediment criteria (U.S. EPA, 1991b). Permits limits then can be modified
to protect both water and sediment quality.
For many waters, multiple dischargers often exist for a toxic contaminant of concern. In
such cases, single-facility discharges cannot be analyzed in isolation. A Total Maximum Daily
[sediment] Load (TMDL), or the maximum daily amount of a certain pollutant that the sediment
bottom can safely receive, must be calculated. Once the TMDL for sediment is determined, that
load must be allocated among all dischargers and pollutant sources (both point and nonpoint
sources). I say all this with the caveat that environmentalists do not favor mixing zones and
dilution allowances for the handful of persistent bioaccumulative toxic compounds that have
produced clear adverse health effects. We also see approaches such as TMDLs as interim
tactics on the way to achieving zero discharge for these same compounds.
During the time that the load allocation calculations are taking place, an interim approach
would be to require a staged cutback or freeze at current levels of discharges if a sediment
Standard for a pollutant is exceeded. The freeze or reduction would remain in effect until an
acceptable wasteload allocation could be developed.
Once the load allocation is established, pollution prevention strategies on several levels
should be implemented to reduce and ultimately end the discharge of pollutants to the water and
sediment. Although individual strategies may vary depending on site-specific factors, a TMDL
should typically include the reduction of pollutants from discrete industrial, commercial, and
municipal discharges, and the prevention of more diffuse sources such as contaminated
,194
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 191-198
storm water runoff from urban, agricultural, and harvested forest areas. Some pollution
prevention strategies include the elimination of harmful chemicals from industrial and
commercial processes, and the retention of naturally vegetated "buffer zones" to reduce the
magnitude and contamination of runoff flows during rainfall.
Protection of Pristine Areas ,
Clean sites that do not yet have contaminated sediments also need to be protected. To
effectively protect sites that are cleaner than the sediment standards would require, the
antidegradation policy of the Clean Water Act, which states that clean waters must remain
uncontaminated, should be amended so that it clarifies that sediment quality criteria, as well as
water quality criteria, can trigger its application.
Evaluation of Materials for Dredging and Disposal, and Better Management of Contaminated
Materials
Every year, between 350 and 450 million cubic yards of materials, enough to fill a
football field-sized pit 6,000 miles deep, are dredged and disposed of to keep shipping channels
and harbors open in this country. A growing percentage of these materials is contaminated by
toxic substances. Sediment quality criteria and standards will enable us to test these materials,
to see which ones are "clean" and which may have adverse effects on the environment.
Once the distinction can be made between clean and contaminated dredged materials, we
can focus on beneficially reusing the clean materials. The comprehensive pollution prevention
strategies we support will help by halting their continuing contamination. We also support
elimination of the open water disposal of contaminated materials, a practice already in effect
over most of the Great Lakes. Elsewhere, as we move toward achieving that elimination, more
effective sediment control and management strategies are needed to minimize damage to the
environment.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), or Ocean Dumping
Act, should incorporate sediment quality criteria as a screening tool to determine the quality
(i.e., clean, partially contaminated, contaminated) of sediments at a site where dredging is
planned. Since the MPRSA forbids the ocean dumping of dredged materials that would
endanger human health, the aquatic ecosystem, or the economic potential of an area, sediments
that fail the sediment quality criteria should not be approved for ocean dumping. In emergency
situations where there is no feasible alterative to ocean disposal, our group has proposed that a
waiver request could be submitted to the EPA. If the Agency determines that the dumping will
not result in "unacceptably adverse impact" on a water body, a waiver will be granted that
permits ocean dumping of contaminated material (33 USC Section 1413(d)).
195
-------
O.L. DANIEL
•• ' Site management plans should be developed for designated ocean sites that receive both
clean and contaminated dredge materials. These plans should include periodic monitoring using
sediment quality criteria as a measurement tool and a plan for closing the site or modifying its
use if impacts are discovered.
Consistent Standards for Monitoring and Ecological Evaluation
For many years, people have been debating the scope and degree of sediment
contamination. A number of efforts have been made to evaluate the problem on a national basis,
by such institutions as the National Academy of Sciences.
Thus far, all the evaluators have had to develop their own yardsticks for contamination,
which has made it difficult to reach definitive answers. National sediment qualif > criteria (either
EPA guidance adopted by the States or national criteria adopted by EPA for U.S. waters) will
give us one yardstick that everyone can use. We will be far more able to set up monitoring
programs, both for still uncontaminated sites, to protect them, and for contaminated sites, to
measure our progress in cleaning them up, once criteria are in place.
Standards for Site Cleanup/Restoration
For sediments that are already contaminated and need to be cleaned up. a mechanism is
needed to determine what triggers a cleanup. Sediment quality standards would serve as a
critical component of a set of criteria used to trigger the cleanup and remediation of a
contaminated site. Little agreement or understanding currently exists regarding the extent to
which sediments must be cleaned up to consider a site "remediated." Of course, cleanup can
mean many things. It can mean implementation of pollution prevention strategies to hah further
contamination and allow natural processes to take their course-although this solution is unlikely
to be applicable to Great Lakes tributaries, which regularly, during storm events, wash great
quantities of contaminated sediments downstream to disperse beyond recovery in the lakes. In
many cases, it will mean dredging a river bed or hot spots within it and treating the
contaminated dredge spoils. Each site will need to be evaluated individually. Used in
conjunction with other factors or criteria, sediment standards can serve to trigger remediation.
Does EPA Have Legal Authority To Develop Sediment Quality Criteria?
Yes. EPA does have authority to develop and implement sediment quality criteria.
Section 101(a) of the Clean Water Act establishes a national objective of restoring and
maintaining the "chemical, physical and biological integrity" of our Nation's waters. In
addition, section 304(a)(1) directs the Administrator to develop and publish criteria for water
quality reflecting the latest scientific knowledge on (1) the kind and extent of all identifiable
196
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 191-198
effects on plankton, fish, shellfish, and wildlife that may be expected from the presence of
pollutants in any body of water, including ground water, and (2) the effects of pollutants oil
biological community diversity, productivity, and stability.
Section 304(a)(2) directs the Administrator to develop and publish Information on the
factors necessary for the protection and propagation of shellfish, fish, and wildlife for classes
and categories of receiving waters.
EPA has developed water column criteria pursuant to its authority under section 304(a).
These numerical criteria are intended to protect the chemical integrity of the aquatic resource,
but, standing alone, are not adequate to protect physical and biological integrity as required by
section 304(a). It is our view that it is in the context of recognizing this deficiency that EPA
has begun developing both biological criteria (criteria based on biological assessments of natural
ecosystems) and sediment criteria to complement its water column criteria. Once water column,
sediment, and biological criteria are in place, we will have a better mechanism for restoring and
protecting our waters as mandated under sections 101(a) and 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.
Why Do We Need Legislation?
Since EPA already has authority to, set sediment quality criteria if it wants, why is
legislation needed? There are two main reasons: timing and applicability.
Timing ,
While the law clearly allows, even requires, EPA to develop sediment quality criteria,
the Agency's job would be done more quickly if Congress provided more express authorization
and clearer instructions to convey priority. Despite its existing mandate, in 20 years EPA has
yet to promulgate a single sediment quality criterion (although four have now been presented for
approval). The Clean Water Act should be amended to specify how quickly EPA must move
in developing sediment quality criteria; the law could also specify a priority for persistent,
bioaccumulative compounds.
Applicability
Sediment quality criteria will protect the environment only if thev are used as a basis for
making regulatory decisions. The Clean Water Act and Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act should be amended to clarify that, once developed, these criteria will form the
basis for decisions about permitting for the disposal of dredged materials (what may be dumped
and where) and the discharge of pollutants. Further, we believe that the law should be amended
to ensure that EPA's sediment quality criteria are applicable in ocean and shared coastal waters.
Ideally, the Clean Water Act should be amended to establish national sediment quality criteria
as well as national water quality criteria. These amendments would lay to rest once and for all
197
-------
OX. DANIEL
the issue of "pollution shopping" by industries and would be a far more efficient and effective
way to begin the national assessment and cleanup process. Of course, the law would continue
to provide for the establishment of site-specific standards where scientific evidence demonstrates
that such standards are appropriate.
Thank you.
(Members of the National Contaminated Sediment Working Group who participated in developing
the positions summarized in this paper include Dery Bennett of The American Littoral Society,
Topher Hablett of Save the Bay, Sarah Clark of the Environmental Defense Fund, Glenda Daniel
of the Lake Michigan Federation, Brett Hulsey of the Sierra Club, Jessica Landman and Rich
Cohn-Lee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Boyce Thome-Miller of Friends of the
Earth, Beth Millemann of the Coast Alliance, David Miller of National Audubon Society,
Kathleen Van Velsor of Coastal Advocates, Philip Weller of Great Lakes United, and Cindy Zipf
of Clean Ocean Action. An additional 135 organizations have endorsed the general goals
embodied in this statement through a Citizens Charter for Contaminated Sediment, published in
1987,)
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1991a. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
EPA 505/2-90-001.
U.S. EPA. 1991b. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology.
Pre-Draft Guidance on the Application of Sediment Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Life. Draft. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.
198
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
IN
THE 21st CENTURY:
199-206
APPROACHES TO MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
WITHOUT SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
William R. Gala, Ph.D.
Team Leader, Ecotoxicology
Chevron Research and Technology Company
Richmond, California
INTRODUCTION
Near many industrial centers, the sediments in rivers, estuaries, and harbors contain
elevated concentrations of toxic chemicals relative to sediments from "pristine areas." The
concentration of toxic chemicals in many of these locations are great enough , to have a
reasonable potential to cause adverse effects to human health and the environment. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a management strategy to
assess, control, protect, and remediate these contaminated sediments (U.S. EPA, 1992).
i
The management of contaminated sediments can be separated into two major functions:
(1) controlling and protecting existing and future sediment quality, and (2) assessing and
remediating sediments contaminated from ongoing and historic discharges. Recent EPA
presentations before EPA's Science Advisory Board make it clear that EPA plans to rely heavily
on sediment quality criteria (SQC) to provide the basis for their control and remediation
strategies. In the draft contaminated sediment management strategy, EPA proposes to derive
NPDES permit limits based on SQC to control and protect sediment quality (U.S. EPA, 1992).
To accomplish this goal, EPA plans to release a draft guidance manual for deriving permit limits
and conditions to protect sediment quality in Fiscal Year 1992 (U.S. EPA, 1992). Also in the
draft strategy, EPA proposes to use existing CERCLA and RCRA regulations to manage the
assessment and remediation of contaminated sediments (U.S. EPA, 1992). SQC will potentially
be used as a pass/fail trigger to assess whether a sediment is contaminated and will form the
basis for determining cleanup levels necessary to remediate contaminated sediments.
However, EPA does not necessarily need to develop SQC to manage contaminated
sediments. Rather than relying on SQC, EPA can utilize existing water quality-based controls
to control and protect sediment quality from current discharges and use a tiered, effects-based
approach to assess and remediate sediments from historic discharges. Current water
quality-based controls (e.g., water quality criteria, whole effluent toxicity limits) are likely
199
-------
W.R. GALA
protective of both water and sediment quality, thus eliminating the need for the development of
a new control approach and the concomitant research, validation, and regulations needed to put
the SQC approach into place; A tiered, effects-based approach similar to the one proposed by
Adams et al. (1991; 1992) will more accurately assess sediment quality and provide a better
basis for selecting between different remediation options than SQC.
CONTROLLING AND PROTECTING SEDIMENT QUALITY
Sources of sediment contaminants need to be controlled before successful remediation of
contaminated sediments can occur. Otherwise, freshly remediated sediments will become
re-contaminated from the uncontrolled sources. Rather than develop a new control strategy,
EPA should first assess the integrative effectiveness of existing water quality-based controls for
protecting sediment quality and controlling sources of sediment contaminants. If existing water
quality-based regulations are adequate, then EPA can proceed with implementation of their
remediation strategy. The development of any new control strategy, such as SQC, will certainly
delay the remediation of contaminated sediments at many sites.
The perception that the presence of contaminated sediments means that water
quality-based controls are not protective of sediment quality is not necessarily correct. In many
cases, severely contaminated sediments sites were contaminated prior to the implementation of
NPDES regulations and even the most basic NPDES discharge limits (i.e., effluent guidelines
and conventional pollution control). Contaminated sediment sites such as Los Angeles County
Wastewater Treaflhent Outfall, California (DDT, PCB), Hudson River, New York (PCB),
Detroit River, Michigan (metals), Duwamish Waterway, Washington (metals, PCB, PAH) were
contaminated as a result of discharges in the 1960s and early 1970s. In fact, EPA. has concluded
that "It is clear that many of the worst cases of sediment contamination are associated with
sources that have ceased discharge" (U.S. EPA, 1987). . ¦ -
It is also clear that water quality-based controls, and the wastewater treatment technology
needed to meet them, are reducing sediment contamination from point source discharges and,
thereby, protecting sediment quality. In many contaminated sediment sites, the deeper sediments
are more contaminated than surficial sediments. EPA readily acknowledges that in many
locations the older polluted sediments have been covered by recent deposits of cleaner material
(U.S. EPA, 1987). For example, in contaminated Detroit River sediments the maximum toxicity
is presently at depths 10-15 cm below the surface, while the surficial sediments are not toxic
(Rosiu et al., 1989). This improvement in sediment quality resulted from water quality-based
controls, not from any sediment quality criteria or management approaches.
Current water quality criteria for many common sediment contaminants are stringent
enough to prevent sediment contamination. For example, the water quality criteria for protection
of human health for DDT (0.59 ng/L), PAHs (2.8 ng/L), and PCBs (0.044 ng/L) should
200
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 199-206
preclude sediment concentrations that
could adversely affect benthic
organisms. Marine chronic criteria
for metals, such as copper (2.9
Hg/L), nickel (8.3 /xg/L) and mercury
(0.025 /xg/L), should also prevent
sediment contamination.
Theoretically, even equilibrium
partitioning (EqP), the basis for
EPA's SQC, supports the contention
that water quality criteria will likely
be protective of sediment quality
(Adams et al., 1991). For non-ionic
compounds, EqP assumes that a
chemical's concentration in the
sediment will be in equilibrium with
its concentration in the water.
Because benthic organisms are not
more sensitive than water column
organisms (Di Toro et al., 1991), the
EqP theory would predict that when
a non-ionic compound's concentration
is less than its water quality criteria,
that adverse effects should not occur
in the water column and sediments
that are in equilibrium. Water
quality criteria should be fully
protective of both the water column
and benthic communities, especially
for non-ionic compounds, thereby
eliminating the need for SQC development specific to the protection of benthic organisms.
It is not correct that SQC are necessary because there are many sediment contaminants
for which water quality criteria have not yet been developed. Wastewater treatment technologies
are not chemical-specific; they remove classes of compounds. For example, activated sludge
technology removes all types of biodegradable compounds, not just chemicals for which there
are permit limits. Dischargers need the necessary wastewater treatment technology to meet all
of their water quality-based and technology-based control limits. Thus, the treatment technolojgy
necessary to meet a phenanthrene water quality standard of 2.8 ng/L will certainly remove
acenaphthene and fluoranthene to similar levels even though their water quality standards would
be much greater. Even when water quality-based controls do not specifically regulate chemicals
EPA Water Quality Criteria
PAHs
2.8 ng/L
PCBs
0.044 ng/l.
DDT
0.59 ng/L
Dieldrin
0.14 ng/L
Mercury
1.2 ng/L
Cadmium
1.1 ng/L
Equilibrium Partitioning Theory
¦
Biota
Sediment
Carbon
. K°C k Pore
n— v Water
201
-------
W.R. GALA
that are considered potential sediment contaminants, the level of treatment that is required should
be sufficient to also reduce the discharge of these chemicals. "
Water quality criteria are only
one component of water quality-based
controls. The other major element,
whole effluent toxicity, will also
protect sediment quality. The whole
effluent toxicity approach was
field-validated by investigating the
correlation between ambient and
effluent toxicity as predicted by
toxicity tests and biological impacts
in the receiving water communities
(U.S. EPA, 1991). Benthic
invertebrate community measures
were included in the biological
indicators used to validate the whole
effluent toxicity control approach in EPA's Complex Effluent Toxicity Testing Program
(CETTP) (U.S. EPA, 1991). In addition, a study conducted by the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management indicated that whole effluent chronic toxicity tests using
Ceriodaphnia dubia accurately predicted receiving water impacts on the benthic
macroinvertebrate community in freshwater streams (as cited in U.S. EPA, 1991). Similar
results were observed in a comparative time series study on the Trinity River in Texas (as cited
in U.S. EPA, 1991). Whole effluent toxicity limits are expected to be fully protective of both
water column and benthic communities as evident from the results of the CETTP and other
studies.
Before proceeding with the development of new control strategies, EPA should first
assess the integrative effectiveness of all water quality-based controls to protect sediment quality.
States are already having difficulty implementing all of the existing water quality-based controls,
and for this reason, EPA needs to critically evaluate whether the States will be able to take on
a new control strategy to protect sediment quality. A new control strategy that cannot be
implemented will not be effective. Rather than using limited resources to develop SQC and its
related control and implementation strategies, EPA may find that it is more cost-effective to
control and protect sediment quality by assisting States in implementing existing water
quality-based controls.
Whole Effluent Toxicity Validation
65%/
Discharging
Q fcttrtam Toxicity Predict*!,
ftrmpict NoC*d
0 No Iftttraam Toxicity Predict**,
No Impact N
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 sj CENTURY: 195-206
ASSESSING AND REMEDIATING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Even after all sources of sediment contamination have been controlled, there will still be
a need to assess and potentially remediate sediments contaminated from historic discharges.
EPA's potential use of SQC as a pass/fail trigger for determining whether a sediment is
contaminated ignores the wealth of experience that indicates that a tiered, effects-based approach
(Adams et al., 1991; 1992), similar those used to assess the hazards posed by dredged materials,
pesticides, and other toxic chemicals, will be more cost effective and scientifically sound.
Because the factors controlling the fate, concentration, and bioavailability of chemicals in
sediments are only now being investigated and understood, the use of a single value, such as
SQC, to assess sediment quality and derive cleanup levels is overly simplistic and highly
questionable. However, a tiered, effects-based approach which integrates biological,
toxicological, and chemical data on a site-specific basis to evaluate the significance of sediment
contamination will allow contaminated sediment sites to be prioritized and remediation options
to be selected based on the risk to human health and the environment. ,
In a tiered approach, the
methods increase in complexity and
cost as the assessment progresses,
and at each tier a decision is made to
stop if adequate safety is
demonstrated or the hazard is well
characterized, or to continue to the
next tier if significant uncertainties
remain. The methods being proposed
to develop SQC, such as EqP for
non-ionic chemicals and acid volatile
sulfide normalization for metals,
could be incorporated into a tiered
approach as sediment assessment
values that would be used for
screening sediments to determine whether additional toxicological and chemical investigations
are needed (Adams et al., 1991; 1992). If sediments passed this screening tier, they would be
considered "not contaminated" and the assessment would stop. If a sediment assessment value
was exceeded, the assessment would proceed to the next tier, which would include laboratory
sediment toxicity tests to determine if the chemicals present are bioavailable and present in toxic
amounts (Adams et al., 1991; 1992). The last tier would involve confirming the laboratory
results by performing a detailed field investigation of the sediment site. This confirmatory tier
would include in situ toxicity tests, benthic invertebrate surveys, bioaccumulation tests (to
investigate food-chain effects), and toxicity identification evaluations (Adams et al., 1991; 1992).
Sediment Assessment Approaches
Chemical-Specific
Effecti-Based
1 Tier I: Screening;
Sod I merit Chamlcal Analysis
Equilibrium Partitioning
Apparent EHacta Threshold
Pore Water Bloassays
1 Tier II: Investigative
Bulk Sadlmant
Bloassays .
[Tier HI: Confirmatory!
Chsmlcal Analysis 1 ... Raid Surveys
of Biota
Sediment
Quality Triad
203
-------
W.R. GALA •
'¦ ' EPA should not approach sediment quality assessments any differently then they have
approached hazard assessments in other programs (CWA, FIFRA, TSCA, CERCLA). These
other programs all utilize a tiered, effects-based approach where higher tiers represent increasing
degrees of complexity, resolution, costs, and predictive confidence. EPA should abandon the
concept of using SQC as pass/fail triggers to determine if a sediment is contaminated and focus
their efforts on developing standardized sediment quality assessment methodologies that will be
useful in a tiered assessment approach. It is important to remember that the objective of any
sediment assessment strategy is to determine if remediation is necessary to reduce the risks posed
by the contaminants in the sediments to an acceptable level. The use of chemical-specific SQC
will address neither the integrative effects from multiple contaminants nor all of the complex
factors which govern bioavailability. Only by using a tiered, effects-based approach can the
public have confidence that sediment sites will be remediated based on their actual risks to
human health and the environment.
EPA'S NEXT STEPS
The risks posed by contaminated sediment have not been sufficiently characterized to
justify EPA's haste in developing a comprehensive contaminant sediment management strategy. .
Although contaminated sediment sites are found nationwide, the actual areal extent of
contaminated sediments is quite small. Corps of Engineers experience has shown that about
0.75-3 percent of the sediments that are dredged from waterways typically require, special
handling or treatment because of potential toxicity, even though areas that are dredged typically
are near large population centers and high industrial activity locations (Lee, 1992). EPA should
compile and maintain an up-to-date national contaminated sediment inventory so they can
accurately assess the extent and severity of the contaminated sediment problem. The most recent
inventory (U.S. EPA, 1987) is not altogether comprehensive because few of the identified
contaminated sediment sites were assessed to determine if the chemicals present were actually
causing adverse effects to human health or to the environment.
EPA should assess the significance of all potential existing sources of sediment
contaminants, and structure its strategy accordingly. The heavy focus on controlling point'
source discharges in the draft strategy (U.S. EPA, 1992) may not be warranted. The impact of
nonpoint sources of sediment contaminants will be difficult to assess, but it must be considered
during the development of the strategy. EPA should not rely on SQC to manage contaminated
sediments. Before continuing with SQC development, EPA should assess the integrative
effectiveness of existing water quality-based controls for controlling and protecting sediment
quality. EPA should continue its research into developing standardized sediment quality
assessment methods which can then be incorporated into a tiered, effects-based assessment
approach.
204
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 199-206
Most States will have neither the expertise nor the resources to implement new control
and remediation strategies to protect sediment quality. Rather than developing strategies that the
already overloaded States will be unable to implement, EPA should act as a technical
clearinghouse and resource to the States. EPA should focus on providing research, training, and
assistance to the States so the States can develop sediment strategies that recognize the priority
that contaminated sediments pose locally and the resources they have available to effectively
manage contaminated sediments.
CONCLUSIONS
It is likely that contaminated sediments will still be an issue far into the 21st century.
The complexities in assessing, controlling, protecting, and remediating contaminated sediments
will prevent any easy solutions to this problem. This assertation has been acknowledged by EPA
when they stated in the draft strategy that "no action" (natural remediation) will in many cases
be the preferred sediment management option. EPA should utilize all available technical
expertise within both the Federal Government and State governments as well as in the private
sector and academia, to continue their development of a comprehensive, scientifically sound
contaminated sediment management strategy.
REFERENCES
Adams, W.J., R.A. Kimerle, and J.W. Barnett. 1992. Sediment quality and aquatic life
assessment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 26:1864-1875.
Adams, W.J., R.A. Kimerle, and J.W. Barnett. 1991. Sediment assessment for the 21st
Century: An integrated biological and chemical approach. In: Water Quality Standards for the
21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, pp. 59-66.
DiToro, D.M., C.S. Zarba, DJ. Hansen, W.J. Berry, R.C. Swartz, C.E. Cowan, S.P. Pavlou,
H.E. Allen, N. A. Thomas, and P.R. Paquin. 1991. Technical basis for establishing sediment
quality criteria for nonionic organic chemicals by using equilibrium partitioning. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 10:1541-1583.
Lee, C.R. 1992. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Dredging Program. Presented at:
EPA Forum No. 1, The Extent and Severity of Contaminated Sediments. Chicago, IL, April
' 21-22.
205
-------
W.R. OALA
Rosiu, C.J., J.P. Giesy, and R.G. Kries. 1989. Toxicity of sediments in the Trenton Channel,
Detroit River, Michigan to Chironomus tetans (Insecta: Chironomida). J. Great Lakes Res.
15:570-580.
U.S. EPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. An Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States. EPA-9Q5/9-88-002.
Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality Based Toxics Control. EPA-505/2-90-001. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
U.S. EPA. 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. Draft Outline
EPA's Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy: A Proposal for Discussion. Washington,
DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agericy.
206
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE.21st CENTURY: 207-218
EFFECTS-BASED TESTING AND SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR DREDGED MATERIAL
Thomas D. Wright
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Robert M. Engler
U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi
Jan A. Miller
U.S. Army Engineer Division, North Central
Chicago, Illinois
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 450 million cubic meters of material are dredged each year from
navigable waterways. Where open-water disposal is proposed for the material, the Corps of
Engineers (CE) evaluates the material for suitability under the Clean Water Act (CWA, P.L.
92-500, as amended) or the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA, P.L.
92-532, as amended). If the material does not meet the CWA guidelines or the MPRSA criteria,
the CE cannot approve unrestricted disposal of the material in open water. The CWA guidelines
and MPRSA criteria are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and it
exercises oversight on CE decisions regarding disposal. Further, CWA disposal requires State
certification that it will not violate State water quality standards (Wright and Saunders, 1990).
The CWA guidelines (40 CFR, Part 230) for the evaluation of dredged material were first
issued in 1975 and revised in 1980. These guidelines allow a comparison of contaminants in
the dredged material with those at the disposal site and allow open-water disposal where
contaminants at the two sites are "substantially similar" or where it can be shown that
unacceptable concentrations of contaminants will not be transported beyond the boundaries of
the disposal site. In addition, the guidelines provide that where there is such a large number of
contaminants as to preclude identification of all of them by chemical analyses, or where
chemical-biological interactive effects may occur, effects-based tests which measure organism
responses may be used in lieu of chemical tests. In response to these guidelines, the CE issued
207
-------
T.D. WRIOHT, R.M. ENGLER, and J.A. MILLER
an implementation manual (CE, 1976) which described the effects-based procedures. This
manual is currently being revised.
The MPRS A criteria (40 CFR Parts 220-228) for the evaluation of dredged material were
issued in 1973 and revised in 1977. These criteria are clearly effects based. At 40 CFR 227.6,
certain constituents (organohalogen compounds, mercury and mercury compounds, cadmium and
cadmium compounds, and oil of any kind or in any form) are prohibited from disposal other .
than as "trace contaminants." No numerical limits are given for these contaminants. Rather,
the results of biological tests to evaluate persistence, toxicity, and bioavailability are to be used
to determine whether or not the prohibited constituents are present in greater than trace amounts.
In response to the 1977 criteria, the EPA and the CE issued a joint implementation manual
(EPA/CE, 1977), which described the bioassay procedures. A revision of this manual was
issued in 1991 (EPA/CE, 1991). In general, the revision focused on refinements of the 1977 ,
procedures and retained the effects-based approach (Wright, 1992).
It is important to understand that dredged material is a highly complex substance
composed of natural soil constituents that may or may not be contaminated (Engler et aL,
1991a,b). Both the MPRSA and the CWA make this distinction and provide evaluatory
procedures for dredged material that are different from those used for other materials. In the
case of new dredging projects, the excavated material is usually "virgin," that is, it Is sediment
which has been exposed to few, if any, anthropogenic contaminants. Material excavated as a
maintenance operation may come from a variety of sources, such as littoral drift, riverine input,
and sheet erosion adjacent to the project. Such material may have been contaminated at its
source or may become contaminated during transport or deposition at the project. Because the
initial source of the material is soil or existing sediments, it will contain all of the elements in
the periodic table as well as both natural and anthropogenic compounds. Insofar as many of
these are classified as "contaminants," virtually all dredged material could be considered to be
contaminated. In actual practice, the mere presence of a contaminant or its concentration in
dredged material can rarely be used to predict whether or not it will have adverse effects upon
biota (Engler, 1980), and the effects-based approach described below appears to be
environmentally conservative (Jones and Lee, 1988; Lee and Jones, 1987).
EFFECTS-BASED TESTING
Effects-based testing whereby organism responses are used to determine the contaminant
status of sediment is regulatorily mandated and has been in use for many years. Evidence of
its effectiveness in environmental protection is provided by the observation that despite intensive
monitoring of many disposal sites, there is no documentation of adverse effects from
contaminants from material evaluated under these procedures. Effects-based testing is a holistic
approach recognizing that there are potentially thousands of contaminants in sediments, and that
many of these are biologically innocuous despite their concentration, whereas others may be
208
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 st CENTURY: .207-218
biologically active at concentrations that cannot be measured with current analytical chemistry
techniques.
The current evaluatory approach used in determining the suitability of dredged material
for open-water disposal uses acute biological toxicity, bioaccumulation, and water quality criteria
or standards. The effects-based results do not distinguish which contaminant or combination of
contaminants is responsible for an observed effect and, for regulatory purposes, this is not
important. It does, however, take into account possible interactive effects and is a direct
measure of the bioavailability of all of the contaminants present (Wright and Saunders, 1990).
Further, the evaluation includes an estimation for bioaccumulation of contaminants. The latter
is not addressed by any proposed sediment quality criteria.
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
Attempts to establish cause-and-effect relationships between the concentration of a
particular contaminant and a biological effect in natural sediments have proved futile (Lee and
Jones, 1992). Results from regulatory testing of sediments proposed for open-water disposal and
broad field studies during the past decade which have yielded vast databases, such as the Status
and Trends Program, have failed to demonstrate clear relationships between sediment
contaminants and biological effects (O'Connor, 1990). >
Despite the lack of cause-and-effect relationships, sediment quality criteria have been
developed and applied. Among the first were the so-called Jensen criteria promulgated by the
EPA in 1971 for dredged material evaluations. These appear to have had little, if any, technical
validity and, in some cases, the criteria were well below the average crastal abundance for
several contaminants (Engler, 1980) and did not take into account natural background
concentrations (Wright, 1974). Naturally occurring levels of chemicals in sediments,
particularly metals, vary greatly with the physical and mineralogical character of soils in the
watershed. Within the Great Lakes, for example, background levels of lead, copper, and
chromium in bottom sediments from Lake Superior (generally considered the "cleanest" of the
Lakes), are 2-6 times those of the other four lakes (International Joint Commission, 1982).
More recently, criteria were developed for use in Puget Sound (CE/State of Washington Natural
Resources, 1988). These were developed using an approach known as the apparent effects
threshold (AET). Although originally applied to exclude or allow open-water disposal
(sediments which were not clearly excluded or allowed would be biologically tested to determine
their status for disposal), the current use of these criteria is as a screening tool. When the
criteria are exceeded, biological testing provides a possible override. Hence, decisions on
disposal of the material are made on the basis of the biological tests rather than the criteria.
In the development of sediment quality criteria, it is extremely important that the activity
to which they will be applied is taken into account. In the case of navigation dredging, it is a
209
-------
T.D. WRIGHT, R.M. ENGLER, *nd J.A. MILLER "
given that the material will be removed, and the question to be addressed concerns potential
contaminant effects at the disposal site. For remediation, dredging concerns are the effects of
in-place sediments, the benefits of removal, and potential effects at the disposal site. Several
of the approaches proposed for the development of criteria, specifically the AET (IH, 1988)
and the sediment quality triad (Chapman, 1986, 1989) have failed to make this distinction. The
AET and the triad incorporate benthic community structure at the excavation site as a
component, thereby raising serious questions regarding their applicability to navigation dredging.
The benthic community structure at the excavation site is not a particularly useful indicator of
sediment effects, since the community is subject to a variety of influences other than the
sediment. These include dredging, navigation traffic, degradation of water quality from outfalls,
thermal discharges, surface runoff, the effects of droughts and floods, and other perturbations.
The AET and the triad may be useful tools in evaluating the overall health of an aquatic
environment but should not be used in the determination of the suitability of dredged material
for open-water disposal. Unfortunately, this seems to have been overlooked in a recent
controversy over the applicability of the threshold and triad (Spies, 1989; Chapman et al., 1991).
Most recently, criteria have been developed using the equilibrium partitioning (EqP)
approach, whereby a nonpolar oiganic contaminant is normalized to organic carbon. This
approach uses chronic water quality criteria to derive sediment quality criteria. The approach
has some merit in explaining why certain sediment contaminants are not toxic or bioavailable.
However, it has very limited utility in predicting whether-or not a sediment will be toxic (Lee
and Jones, 1992). Reviews of the various approaches used to derive sediment quality criteria
are found in Brannon et al. (1990) and Marcus (1991). The EqP approach for sediment quality
criteria is currently uflHer review by the EPA Science Advisory Board.
COMPARISON OF EFFECTS-BASED TESTING AND EqP SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA
In an effort to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the two testing approaches,
preliminary EqP criteria for acenaphthene, fluoranthrene, and phenanthrene (Hais, 1991,
personal communication) were compared to effects-based acute toxicity tests from Puget Sound,
Washington. Of 152 samples, the criteria were exceeded and acute toxicity was observed in 5;
there was no toxicity nor were the criteria exceeded in 116. One criterion was slightly exceeded
in one sample but there was no acute toxicity. Of primary interest is that there were 31 samples
which exhibited acute toxicity but which did not exceed criteria. The conclusions are that in 31
samples the organisms were responding to contaminants other than those of the criteria, and in
five out of six samples acute toxicity and the criteria agreed.
It is commonly stated that chronic tests are more conservative than acute tests, that is,
an effect is more likely to be observed with the former. This was clearly not the case in Puget
210
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 207-218
Sound and is probably related to the fact that there is no field or laboratory validation for the
criteria nor is there any validation for the chronic effects of contaminated sediments. This casts
significant doubt as whether or not the EqP criteria evaluate chronic effects.
From a pragmatic point of view, the only way to have detected the single marginal
criterion exceedance would have been, as was done, to conduct sediment chemistry on all 152
samples. This is expensive and time-consuming, and one must question whether the
environmental benefits of the detection of one marginal exceedance justifies the cost (Wright,
1974).
APPLICATION OF SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
Within the extant regulatory framework for dredged material there is no provision for
sediment quality criteria or standards. Notwithstanding their underlying technical deficiencies,
this leads to the question of how they will be applied in the effects-based testing protocol. Will
they be pass-fail? Will they serve as a screen or trigger for effects-based testing? To date, no
information has been put forth to address this issue. In a regulatory environment this is a crucial
need. For example, if the Puget Sound data are representative (and there is no reason to believe
that they are not), no additional environmental protection would have been gained from the
application of the EqP criteria. Additionally, a number of samples could not be evaluated by
the criteria because organic carbon was below the minimum required.
In the Puget Sound comparison, we used 0.5 percent organic carbon as the minimum
level for which the criteria are valid. This excluded 21 percent of. the samples. However, in
/Various EPA documents regarding EqP sediment quality criteria, one finds 0.5 percent, 0.2
percent, and 0.1 percent as lower limits for organic carbon. There is no technical
documentation for values < 0.5 percent. In a recent national survey paper, Suedel and Rodgers
(1991) found that the median organic carbon was 0.57 percent and 0,24 percent in freshwater
and marine sediments, respectively. This suggests that the EqP criteria cannot be used for many
sediments because of organic carbon constraints.
An additional concern is that dredged material effects-based testing compares the results
of organism response to a reference sediment (EPA/CE, 1991). This procedure is eminently
logical because it answers the question, "How will the dredged material behave with regard to
the reference?" There are potential circumstances where the reference might not meet the EqP
criteria. Would this mean that the reference might require remediation? If the dredged sediment
proposed for disposal meets the criteria and the reference does not, does this constitute license
for disposal? It could be argued that dredged material disposal would be a beneficial use under
such circumstances.
211
-------
T.D. WRIGHT, R.M. ENQLER, «nd J.A. MILLER
• -A particularly thorny problem to be faced is whether to apply sediment quality criteria
"across the board." This is an EPA problem. From an environmentally protective position,
there should be no distinction in application. If a sediment "fails," the applicable statute
regulating the material should make no difference. This would apply to RCRA, Superfimd, etc.
From the perspective of the States, who will presumably adopt the criteria as standards, the
problem is even more vexing. As previously noted, both the CWA and the MPRSA have
specific provisions concerning the procedures used to evaluate material dredged for navigation
purposes. At the very least, the EPA should clearly and publicly provide guidance on the
applicability of the proposed EqP criteria and how they relate to the current procedures used
in various programs. ' ''
The utility of any sediment quality criteria to dredged material disposal decisionmaking
is conceptually possible if there are numerical criteria for every possible contaminant and some
kind of mechanism or formula to quantify the magnitude of interactive effects for all possible
combinations of contaminants. Without a complete set of these tools, sediment quality criteria
can only provide information incidental to regulatory decisionmaking. Further, if we accept that
effects-based testing provides the most direct laboratory indication of contaminant mobility and
impact, it should remain the preferred tool for regulatory decisionmaking in dredged material
disposal.
SUBSTANTIATING RESEARCH
Between 1973 and 1978, the CE conducted a major $33 million program on dredged
material disposal. This program consisted of over 250 individual studies and, in contrast to
previous largely site-specific project investigations, the studies were generic in nature so as to
have the widest applicability. A specific goal was to define the biological and water quality
effects of open-water, wetland, and upland disposal. A major finding was that no single disposal
option is presumptively suitable for a geographic region or group of projects. What may be
desirable for one project may be completely unsuitable for another; consequently, each project
must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (Saucier et al., 1978). An additional finding was that
open-water disposal resulted only in physical, rather than contaminant, effects on biota at the
disposal site, and that biotal recovery was rapid following the cessation of disposal (Wright,
1978).
A further effort was initiated as a cooperative program between the CE and the EPA.
This $7 million program was designed to compare new evaluatory techniques with those in use
and to investigate the effects of the disposal of material from a single site in three different
environments (open-water, wetland, and upland). Of the various new biological techniques
examined to determine the suitability of material for open-water disposal, only a few showed
significant potential as evaluatory tools and these were not suitable for regulatory application
without additional research and development. None appeared to predict the effects of open-water
212
-------
, WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 207;-218
disposal, better than the acute toxicity and bioaccumulatiori techniques which are still in use; field
investigations following the laboratory tests verified the predictive ability of the tests (Gentil.e
et al., 1988). Upland disposal produced the greatest and most persistent effects, including the
release of metals and extreme toxicity, whereas open-water disposal showed relatively minor and
nonpersistent effects; effects from wetland disposal were intermediate between upland and open-
water disposal (Peddicord, 1988). In addition to these broad investigations, an estimated $70
million has been expended by the CE on other studies over the past two decades.
CONCLUSIONS
The open-water disposal of dredged material is currently regulated under the CWA and
MPRSA. The applicable regulations provide for an effects-based evaluation. Various alternative
procedures to evaluate the material have been proposed. Of these, it is felt that the sediment
quality triad and the AET are inappropriate for dredged material. Sediment quality criteria
developed through equilibrium partitioning suffer from a number of technical defects. Further,
no information is available as to how the equilibrium partitioning criteria might be applied.
Experience with effects-based evaluations has clearly indicated that the approach is
environmentally conservative. The imposition of sediment quality criteria will increase testing
costs without a concomitant increase in environmental benefits. As noted by Kagan (1991), this
may well represent "administrative fragmentation and adversarial legalism."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report summarizes investigations conducted under the Dredged Material Research
Program, Long-Term Effects of Dredging Program, Field Verification Program, Dredging
Operations Technical Support Program, and field reimbursable work funded by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. Permission to publish this material was granted by the Chief of Engineers.
REFERENCES .
Brannon, J.M., V.A. McFarland, T.D. Wright, and R.M. Engler. 1990. Utility of sediment
quality criteria (SQC) for the environmental assessment and evaluation of dredging and disposal
of contaminated sediments. Coastal and Inland Water Quality Seminar Proceedings, No. 22,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Committee on Water Quality, Washington, DC, pp. 7-19.
213
-------
T.D. WRIGHT, R.M. ENGLER, «nd Jf.A. MILLER
CE. 1976. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of
Dredged or Fill Material into Navigable Waters: Interim Guidance for Implementation of
Section 404(b)(1) of Public Law 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972). Miscellaneous Paper D-76-17, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
CE/State of Washington Dept. of Natural Resources. 1988. Final Environmental Impact
Statement—Unconfined Open-Water Disposal Sites for Dredged Material, Phase 1 (Central Puget
Sound). U.S. Army Engineer District, Seattle, Washington.
Chapman, P.M. 1989. Current approaches to developing sediment quality criteria. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 8:589-599.
. 1986. Sediment quality from the sediment quality triad—An example. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 5:957-964.
Chapman, P.M., E.R. Long, R.C. Swartz, T.H. DeWitt, and R. Pastorok. 1991. Sediment
toxicity tests, sediment chemistry and benthic ecology do provide new insights into the
significance and management of contaminated sediments-A reply to Robert Spies. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 10:1-4.
Engler, R.M. 1980. Prediction of pollution potential through geochemical and biological
procedures: Development of regulation guidelines and criteria for the discharge of dredged and
fill material. In: Baker, R.A., ed. Contaminants and Sediments, Vol. 1. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. pp. 143-169.
Engler, R.M., L.H. Saunders, and T.D. Wright. 1991a. The nature of dredged material.
Environ. Prof. 13:313-316.
. 1991b. Environmental effects of aquatic disposal of dredged material. Environ.
Prof. 13:317-325.
EPA/CE, 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal (Testing
Manual). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
. 1977. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into
Ocean Waters: Implementation Manual for Section 103 of Public Law 92-532 (Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972). U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
214
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 207-218
Gentile, J.H., G.G. Pesch, J. Lake, P.P. Yevich, G. Zaroogian, P. Rogerson, J. Paul, W.
Galloway, K. Scott, W. Nelson, D. Johns, and W. Munns. 1988. Synthesis of Research
Results: Applicability and Field Verification of Predictive Methodologies for Aquatic Dredged
Material Disposal. Technical Report D-88-5, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Hais, A. 1992. Personal communication, EPA Health and Ecological Criteria Division,
Washington, DC.
International Joint Commission. 1982. Guidelines and Register for Evaluation of Great Lakes
Dredging Projects. Report of the Dredging Subcommittee to the Water Quality Programs
Committee of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, Windsor, Ontario.
Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee. 1988. Toxicity of U.S. waterways with particular reference to the
New York Harbor area. In: Lichtenberg, J.J., F.A. Winter, C.I. Weber, and L. Franklin, eds.
Chemical and Biological Characterization of Sludges, Sediments, Dredge Spoils, and Drilling
Muds. ASTM STP 976, Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, pp.
403-417.
Kagan, R.A. 1991. The dredging dilemma: Economic development and environmental
protection in Oakland Harbor." Coastal Manage. 19:313-341.
Lee, G.F. and R.A. Jones. 1992. Water quality effects of dredging and dredged material
disposal. In: Herbich, J.B., ed. Handbook of Dredging Engineering. New York: McGraw-
Hill, pp. 923-959.
. 1987. Water quality significance of contaminants associated with sediments: An
overview. In: Fate and Effects of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. New York:
Pergamon Press, pp. 3-34.
Marcus, W.A. 1991. Managing contaminated sediments in aquatic environments:
Identification, regulation, and remediation. Environ. Law Report. 1-91, pp. 10020-10032.
O'Connor, T.P. 1990. Coastal Environmental Quality in the United States, 1990, Chemical
Contamination in Sediment and Tissues. Rockville, Maryland: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Peddicord, R.K. 1988. Summaiy of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Field Verification Program. Technical Report D-88-6, U.S. Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
215
-------
T.D. WRIGHT, R.M. ENGLHR, «nd J.A. MILLER
TO.' 1988. The Apparent Effects Threshold. Briefing Report to the TJ.S, Environmental
Protection Agency Science Advisory Board. PIT Environmental: Services, Bellevue,
Washington.
Saucier, R.T., Calhoun, C.C., Engler, R.M., Patin, T.P., and Smith, H.K. 1978. Executive
Overview and Detailed Summary. Technical Report DS-78-22, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Spies, R.B. 1989. Sediment bioassays, chemical contaminants and benthic ecology: New
insights or just muddy water? Mar. Environ. Res. 27:73-75.
Suedel, B.C. and J.H. Rodgers. 1991. Variability of bottom sediment characteristics of the
continental United States." Water Res. Bull. 27(1): 101-109.
Wright, T.D. 1992. Evaluation of dredged material for open-water disposal: Numerical
criteria or effects based? In: Herbich, J.B., ed. Handbook of Dredging Engineering. New
York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 959-967. .
Wright, T.D. and L.H. Saunders. 1990. U.S. Army Coips of Engineers dredged material
testing procedures. Environ. Prof. 12:13-17.
Wright, T.D. 1978. Aquatic Dredged Material Disposal Impacts: Synthesis Report. Technical
Report DS-78-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Wright, T.D. 1974. Is dredge spoil confinement always justified? Great Lakes Basin
Commun. 4(12):5-8.
216
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st.CENTURY: 207-218
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
Slide 2
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
REVIEW OF EPA SQC DOCUMENTATION
O TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENT
O ACENAPHTHENE
ODIELDRIN
omomn
OFUUORANTHENE
OPHENANTHRENE
TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES IN EqP
DEVELOPED SQC
O LABORATORY OOCUMENttTTON IS (N ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT
USE OF FINAL CHRONIC VALUE (FCV>
O CUMULATIVE ERROfl (UNCERTAINTY) NOT QUANTIFIED
O SMALL DATA BASE ON ARTIFICIALLY MANIPULATES? SEDIMENTS
O NO REUS VALIDATION
O PORE WATER ONLY EXPOSURE ASSUMPTION
O HOLE OP mmBfT CHARACTERISTICS OTHER THAN TOO
O PRESEHCE OF MULTIPLE COHTAWNANTS
O INSUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION OF VARIOUS ASSUMPTIONS
O EFFECT OF HOtMSOUtUBRtUM CONOmOH
Slide 3
Slide 4
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
BASED SQC
HAVE LIMITED IfTUTT FOR BWECT SEDIMENT REGULATION BECAUSE:
o*zccAmoTiBema*wAxmMOQ*UMMxno*
o*acaLmmAoo*KmmtmaimtxmvkmtMjfT*
o tectum not mm rauiiMxumB)
o toe NiM Mf asm us WLBJQK0 wmt AMY MXIIMAI. «CQ«iB«rs
O CUMUUWi CNM* {UNCtXttMTO * *OC PUGCBH S ttOT OtMMTWES
o roc tmrmcnem Euauorc AmjcxnoN ¦» majqmtv op ub. waaKNn
o umwo wcremi awctwo »oc tone* TWW ted wwe HOT ¦«* owtTWED
O &MH0T M tWUifi *10 J*0t»-CQtA4JMMJII COMOfTIOMS ffcf, AAEAS 6* MMP
MSMMOtOmOM. 0KMOK, Rt)
ot>* DCfiuuETOMv w*m fo* urn imiaww o* *oc iu*i nor aax euow
0*OCH»e£W*eaU»tt* AW>*AWVM*rEOO«T»taAl
•cwwwc ttmam
CURRENT EFFECTS-BASED SEDIMENT
REGULATORY ASSESSMENT WORKS BECAUSE
OICCS MX TWCmKAlir $0 t&MKXT AfUCSHWWT t TBgfwa ttc*Ntou*a
o •crwiMJsa; ceomott c£**UDuras
OAOOMCSSCS OfMEA THAW HOTHB COMCtSMKS
Qt»*«MTTO<»IECOJCALlJ«tfOT*W-0«»Q«JC»»0
O ftCQttX fVW SRC WldHC COMSiOCfUtTKMB
o recognizes N0*€OUl*mum wsemmtf oonexykms
O CUBSIXNTIAL MO SMC VTTM IAB AMD MQjD WUOrfTION
O ItJUY ACCCPTtO •* SCSMtWC OOMHVHrrV m#* Atrm;
a MttTMNES JUMOM. PCVKW
OHOOWO research
OWOlttOCWHmVgWlwmultONe»»Km^U»MWWOW
O (MPLEWDOTON MOORE » TOXICOLOG3ST
MR. VJC MCTARLAND (PhD CANDJ - TOXJCOUXUST
MR. FRANK RE1LLY (PhD CAND) - TOXICOLOOtST
MR. CHARLES WTZ - BIOLOGIST
MS. JOAN CLARKE - WOSTAT1ST1C1AN
Slide 6
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING
BASED SQC
EqP SEDIMENT QUALITY GUIDELINES
(CRITERIA)
O CAN BE USED AS A REASON TO BELIEVE
¦SCREEN* LEADING TO MORE DEFINITIVE
ASSESSMENTS
O CANNOT BE USED AS A PASS / FAIL
ASSESSMENT
217
-------
T.D, WRIGHT, R.M. ENQLER, *h<3 J .A. MILLER
Slide 7
Slide 8
scdiuent quality enrrEmA
-------
Advocates
Forum
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 219-220
ADVOCATES FORUM? RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS
Allan Stokes
Panelist
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
_ U.S. EPA should proceed as rapidly as possible, consistent with sound scientific
principles, to develop additional water quality criteria. Criteria developed must include an
implementation component that provides clear guidance for States to use in translating the
criteria into State water quality standards and establishing appropriate permit limits. First,
emphasis should be placed on developing criteria and guidance relative to nonpoint sources.
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HASN'T DONE IN THE
PAST?
U.S. EPA should initiate a formal, orderly, and routine process for reviewing, and
updating or revising, water quality criteria and technology-based standards/guidance, including
categorical and pretreatment standards, and better definition of what constitutes Best Available
Treatment Economically Achievable. This should include an initial review fairly soon after
adoption to evaluate implementation difficulties and problems, and regularly scheduled
reevaluations on a periodic basis thereafter. The evaluative process should include the States,
who are the primary agents for using and implementing these criteria and standards.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
U.S. EPA should not get involved in water quantity issues of water use or water rights
allocation. Water quality criteria- and/or technology-based standards development should not
be used as a means to insert Federal involvement in water quantity and allocation decisions.
219
-------
A. STOKES
¦mm a hp tcj Tnc cjitw^t t? *,r#~*c"T' tiwhadtaiut /itt a i/rf"vrT't*7/~vttt r»
WMAi JUs 1jH±L aUMlrLJi MUai JJVlrUKlAIN1 tHAJNtrE YUU WOUJbD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
A realistic matching of resources to expectations relative to Clean Water Act
implementation. Funding of U.S. EPA and State water quality programs must be increased to
provide adequate resources to meet all of the expectations set forth in the Act. In the
alternative, the Act could be amended to alter some of the expectations, eliminate duplicative
and costly administrative requirements of little direct benefit to the environment, and provide
greater flexibility for implementing creative solutions to water quality problems.
220
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 221-223
ADVOCATES FORUM RESPONSES
Robert Berger
Aquatic Toxicologist
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
*
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
Criteria are the scientific basis for the Nation's environmental quality. They help
establish the specification or standard to which both regulatory agencies and regulated parties
are held. Developing technically valid new criteria and routinely reevaluating existing criteria
are critical EPA responsibilities in the third decade of water quality control programs.
EPA's future criteria development must be guided (and modified) by the experience
gained in implementing water quality standards. After 20 years, almost 25 percent of States
have not adopted ^ater quality standards that are satisfactory to EPA. This delay is attributable
in pait to a perception that EPA criteria are not always technically valid, nor representative of
the most up-to-date scientific information. For example, in July the Harvard School of Public
Health Center for Risk Analysis recommended that EPA's existing cancer classification systems
"should be abolished" because they are "too simplistic to convey meaningful information to
scientists, risk managers and the public."
Regulated agencies feel that peer review has often been limited to in-house evaluations
and public comment periods that have been too short and that have occurred too late in the
criteria development process. Additionally, the majority of water quality criteria developed by
EPA are more than 10 years old and have not been modified to reflect new empirical data or the
most current thinking of the scientific community.
It is hoped that EPA will use a peer review process similar to that used in developing
sludge regulations to create future criteria for controlling water quality: Equally important, EPA
must strive to routinely reevaluate existing criteria and modify them as necessary to ensure their
effectiveness.
221
-------
R. BERGER
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HASN'T DONE IN THE
PAST?
Admittedly, a recommendation for more rigorous scientific peer review of new criteria
and routine evaluation/modification of existing criteria will burden EPA's limited resources.
This burden will worsen with the increased responsibility for criteria development proposed
under the Clean Water Act Reauthorization. It behooves EPA to initiate a working partnership
with affected parties and such research organizations as the Water Environment Federation's
Research Foundation to help develop new criteria and reevaluate existing criteria.
Many of the member agencies of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
(AMSA) have technical staffs and financial resources available to aid EPA in this effort. AMSA
recognizes the Importance of well-developed criteria to guide water quality control efforts, and
has provided EPA with technical evaluations and comments on a variety of proposed and existing
criteria. EPA is encouraged to make greater use of the technical resources, information and
experience of permitted agencies. In addition to "in-kind" support, permitted agencies may also
help fund the reevaluation of existing criteria as a cost-effective alternative to complying with
permit requirements based on water quality criteria not consistent with current information or
scientific thinking.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
Increasingly, water quality control programs are shifting from indirect to more direct
predictors of environmental/biological impact. However, the use of such direct measures
requires implementation of control programs that reflect regional or site-specific conditions.
Historically, States have implemented EPA guidance and criteria with little if any modification
to account for the regional character of water bodies under their authority. It is critical that EPA
not get involved in implementing control programs based on biocriteria.
EPA developed biocriteria to guide programs that control water quality by establishing
standards for the "biological integrity" of aquatic communities. Integrity is measured by the
species composition, diversity, and functional organization of communities compared to
"reference waters" that are least impaired by human activities. The cornerstone for determining
waterbodies impacted by anthropogenic activities is the selection of site-specific or ecologically
similar reference waters, and development of field sampling and biological assessments that are
regionally relevant.
222
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY::221-223
Although EPA should direct these efforts with general guidance, it must provide States
the time, flexibility, and clear direction to use EPA guidance to develop programs that
accommodate the varying geographic, climatic, geologic, and hydrologic conditions of the
region.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
Incorporating a comprehensive watershed management approach to water quality control
in the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act provides the most effective water quality
enhancement and protection. AMSA is developing a legislative proposal with this intent.
Present water quality control programs emphasize a command-and-control approach that
focuses almost entirely on regulating permitted point source dischargers at the end-of-pipe.
Water quality control based on comprehensive watershed management offers the following
advantages:
• Risk-based prioritization of water quality control efforts reduces ineffective use
of limited resources;
• Monitoring and regulation of all pertinent pollution sources, both point and
nonpoint, thus providing true water quality-based toxics control;
• Control program limits based on site-specific standards that provide reasonable
rather than over- or undeiprotection of beneficial uses; and
• Increased use and integration of a variety of chemical, biological, and ecological
measures to guide water quality control efforts.
223
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 225-228
ADVOCATES FORUM
Robert J. Overly
Senior Environmental Engineer
James River Corporation
Green Bay, Wisconsin
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
There are three primary areas in which EPA can do more or improve. These are
management, research, and cooperation:
1. Management - There is a need for more leadership and direction from EPA
Headquarters to the Regions. There are considerable discrepancies in the way the
10 Regions interpret and apply national policies. Headquarters should develop
clear policies, within and between programs, and hold the regions accountable for
the application of these policies on a uniform timeline. To accomplish this,
Headquarters needs to identify and prioritize environmental problems through a
scientific understanding of the relative risks to the environment and human health.
This will prevent misdirected efforts such as the Great Lakes Initiative. The
purpose of the initiative is to provide the Great Lakes States with uniform policies
and procedures for developing and implementing water quality standards for
toxics, even though seven of the eight States already have EPA- approved
programs in place. The initiative focuses almost exclusively on point source
discharge when convincing evidence shows that the problems which prompted this
effort are occurring because of past practices (i.e., sediment contamination) or
nonpoint sources (i.e., atmospheric deposition). If implemented as proposed, the
money spent on compliance, which ultimately comes from "society," will have
been wasted in the sense that no real environmental benefit or reduction of risk
is attained.
Providing this leadership will be a significant challenge. EPA will have to move
away from the present method of setting priorities, which have largely been
determined by political mandate and public perception. Basing policies on sound
225
-------
RJ. OVERLY
science and education of the public will help EPA Headquarters provide this
leadership.
2. Research - EPA needs to identify and address real problems, not the perceived
or "poHticaHv correct" problems. EPA has developed a research strategy
following SAB's recommendations to use a risk assessment framework. The goal
is to maximize risk reduction where the opportunities are the greatest. Integrating
the various program offices must be accomplished to take full advantage of this
new strategy. Increased research is needed in the areas of environmental
monitoring and assessment to determine the potential for, or the magnitude and
cause of, environmental impact. This information will allow regulators to
develop rational control strategies and determine whether there are cost-effective
methods to reduce impacts.
In adopting this research strategy, EPA will be assessing the risk of chemical
substances using facts, statistical models, and assumptions. When scientific
consensus is lacking models or assumptions, the range of uncertainty should be
clearly defined to policy makers and the public. The assignment of a priority
should clearly distinguish between the scientific basis and the policy basis for fhe
Agency's conclusion. This will identify the conservative biases embedded in risk
assessment, which impart a substantial margin of safety. Margins that may
actually increase health and safety risks by misdirecting priorities. EPA should
strive to improve risk assessment by reducing conservatism and bias.
3. Cooperation - EPA needs to involve more "stakeholders" In development of
management strategies from the start. Historically, involvement or input from
outside the Agency has come at the tail end of the process, resulting in
expressions of dissatisfaction from the environmental and the regulated
community. Using dissatisfaction as an evaluation of a program's worth is a poor
measure of its intended environmental benefit. Involving more stakeholders
would help define problems and reasonable cost-effective solutions early in the
process, resulting in improved setting of priorities. It would also have the
potential to prevent politics from overriding good science. If significant gains are
to be made in providing environmental protection, EPA must abandon the
"command control" mentality and develop a more cooperative approach.
226
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 225-028
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HASN'T DONE IN THE
PAST?
This question cannot be answered with an outlook specific to the water quality program.
Part of the existing problem stems from taking a compartmentalized approach toward
environmental problems and not one that fully recognizes ecosystem dynamics. In trying to
achieve its charge of protecting the Nation's environmental assets, the efforts of different
program offices have rarely been consistent or coordinated. Even though these fractionated
efforts have worked in the past, they will not be as successful in the future as the most obvious
controls already have been applied to the most obvious problems. EPA should initiate a revision
of environmental policies and break away from the traditional site-specific approach.
EPA needs to develop policies that are integrated and more focused on opportunities for
environmental improvement based on relative risk. To accomplish future improvements, EPA
must develop integrated solutions by requiring the various program offices to work together to
provide an ecosystem approach to solving environmental problems. There are not unlimited
resources to solve all environmental problems at one time. Identification of the source posing
or imparting the greatest adverse effect will assist in focusing resources to provide the greatest
environmental benefit. It is not an efficient or effective use of resources to be chasing
picograms of a substance in a point source discharge when it is raining kilograms into the same
ecosystem. Focusing strictly on toxic substances while ignoring the effects of habitat loss,
introduction of exotic species, or other impacts is not sound scientifically based environmental
protection policy. ^ >
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
EPA should not become directly involved in dictating what production technology should
be employed to achieve a desired result. The Agency has avoided this in the past, yet the
United States has some of the cleanest water in the world. It has been clearly demonstrated in
Eastern Europe and Asia that government-controlled industries are inefficient and not protective
of the environment. EPA should continually renew its pledge to work with industry to improve
processes, and resist the arrogance implicit in thinking it knows better how to do it than those
who have been doing it successfully for years.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
The most important change to the CWA would be the elimination of the language
"prohibiting the discharge" of a list of substances based on their potential to bioaccumulate. If
227
-------
RJ. OVERLY
implemented, this section would probably increase more than reduce risk to the environment.
It totally ignores the importance of social and economic considerations. It also ignores any
potential of increasing environmental or human health risks in other areas. 'This concept has no
scientific justification and should be dropped from the reauthorization.
This section has the potential to severely restrict or eliminate necessary recycling efforts
intended to save natural resources and valuable landfill space. The list already includes
substances whose manufacture has been banned in the United States for years. The procedures
described for adding substances to this list have the potential to include substances that pose no
significant adverse effect. In reality, it does not consider how a substance moves through the
environment or its ultimate fate. There is a great likelyhood that attention will be focused away
from far more important environmental risks or impacts unless this language is deleted.
228
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 229-230
ADVOCATES FORUM: RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS
*
Terry Williams
Director
Fisheries Department
Tulatip Tribes of Washington
MaryviUe, Washington
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
Promote Environmental Equity
EPA has taken a positive first step toward addressing the issues of environmental equity
by forming a work group (Environmental Equity), and producing a report in which
environmental equity issues are identified and defined. EPA should now act swiftly to
implement the recommendations made by this work group.
Revise Fish Consumption Rates for Human Health Risk Criteria
EPA should support tribal efforts to reevaluate the fish consumption levels. Recent
studies indicate that the current EPA fish consumption rate is an inaccurate reflection of tribal
fish consumption. The rate of 6.5 grams per day is derived from an outdated study and does
not account for the higher fish consumption levels associated with coastal Tribes. A recent
Puget Sound study found that the median fish consumption rate was 95 grams per day.
Contribute to the Development of Water Quantity/Quality Database
EPA should provide greater support for the collection, access, and management of water
resource data. Water withdrawals can impact the productive capacity of fish and wildlife
resources, groundwater supplies, potable water, and watershed ecosystems. The goals of the
Clean Water Act are jeopardized, and standards are increasingly compromised by the lack of
data on this subject.
229
-------
T.WILLIAMS
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HASN'T DONE IN THE
PAST?
Management of! Nutrient Loading in River Systems
Despite EPA's regulatory efforts in the arena of surface water standards, it has yet to
adequately address the issue of nutrient loading in river systems. Management of nutrient
loading in river systems should be integrated into EPA's water quality programs.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
Making Resource Allocation Decision Unilaterally
The process by which EPA allocates Federal resources to Indian Tribes is flawed to the
extent that EPA makes these important decision unilaterally. A tribal voice in this process
would assist in the development of more appropriate and effective water quality protection
activities.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
Affirm Long-Term Goal of "Treatment as a Tribe"
For purposes of implementing the Clean Water. Act, "Treatment as a State" is recognized
as the short-term, but necessary, vehicle by which legal, administrative, and financial
responsibilities are transferred from the Federal Government to Tribes. EPA should now begin
to implement the long-term goal of replacing "Treatment as a State" with "Treatment as a
Tribe," the latter phrase reflecting the sovereign nation status and govemment-to-government
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
EPA Recognition of Tribal Jurisdiction
Without EPA recognition of tribal jurisdiction, the development of regulations and
infrastructure on reservations is stunted. To effectively operate, tribal governments need
stability, which is undermined by unresolved litigation. Unresolved jurisdictional issues create
an undesirable legal and economic climate for business and industry. In turn, tribal governments
suffer from an unstable and diminishing tax base. Yet it is this tax base that allows Tribes to
become self-sufficient, to develop an infrastructure and programs that protect the health of their
environment and people.
230
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21sJ CENTURY: 231-232
ADVOCATES FORUM: RESPONSE TO GENERAL QUESTIONS
Roberta (Robbi) Savage
Executive Director
Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
Washington, D.C.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
Create and implement more and better water quality criteria and guidelines.
• Update existing criteria and guidelines.
• Create and implement new criteria and guidelines.
• Establish an effective development process to include direct and continuing
communication and consultation with the States.
• Develop a workable implementation strategy in consultation with the States.
• Focus on successful integration of numeric, biological, chemical, and narrative
. criteria to better balance the technological and water quality-based approaches.
A suggestion would be the creation of a State/EPA Water Quality Standards Development
and Implementation Advisory Board to expedite the processes for (1) development; (2)
implementation; and (3) tracking of water quality standards and effluent guidelines.
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HAS NOT DONE IN THE
PAST?
• An effective coordinative process with State and Local governments.
• A mechanism to ensure consultation and communication with affected groups.
231
-------
R. SAVAGE
A procedure to assure the issuance of an acceptable number of guidelines
responding to the needs of the program rather than those of the courts and
environmental groups. • ' * . •
A strategy to promote pollution prevention in the water programs and across
environmental media. .
Increased and enhanced coordination and cooperation between Federal agencies
(e.g., U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Agriculture, Department of the
Interior, NOAA).
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
• The discussion and debates over the: use of water (quality and quantity) should
remain at the State level.
• The State promulgation of water quality standards.
• Ongoing public or legislative discussions on standards at the State level.
The development of State ground water standards.
• The re-creation of a national grant program to fund point source projects.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
The Congress needs to put the water quality program on sound technical and financial
footing within the next 5 years. To do so, the Congress must:
• Authorize adequate funds for development and implementation of criteria,
guidelines, and standards, which should include monitoring.
• Focus on achieving a creative balance between technology and the water quality-
based program with the assumption that best available technology (BAT) is
achieved.
232
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st,CENTURY: 233-234
ADVOCATES FORUM
Peter L. deFur
Senior Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington, D.C.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DO MORE OF OR IMPROVE?
Currently, there are several major regulatory initiatives that EPA needs to complete
quickly: completing the dioxin reassessment; setting sediment quality criteria; finishing the
toxics standards/criteria for the laggard States; developing standards for the Great Lakes under
the Great Lakes Initiative; updating the effluent guidelines; and setting criteria for the protection
of wildlife. Completing these would go a long way toward solving the problems with toxic
chemicals.
Much of the progress made in cleaning up the Nation's surface and ground waters
resulted from applying the original provisions of the Clean Water Act. The criteria and
standards promulgated under the CWA were an. important tool in this effort. Indeed, recent
reviews of national standards and studies of three rivers document improvements in water
quality. Installation of secondary treatment systems for industrial and municipal dischargers led
to these improvements. These reviews suggest that considerable improvement would result from
enforcing the existing statutes.
Regulatory programs to clean up the Nation's waters depend on the quality and quantity
of information available for use by EPA and State program staff. For that reason, EPA research
facilities need to continue research programs using professional staff and high-quality equipment.
EPA must prevent any erosion of the ability of the EPA labqratories to conduct research and
provide high-quality technical support.
WHAT SHOULD EPA INITIATE THAT IT HAS NOT DONE IN THE
PAST?
EPA needs to protect the most heavily affected component of the population—usually a
subpopulation—from the total threats that exist in the real world. We recommend refocusing
efforts away from protecting the "average individual" over a lifetime from cancer due to a single
233
-------
P.L. deFUR .
chemical in one medium. EPA needs to improve the technical ability to address multiple threats
and multiple end-points in groups, subpopulations, and identified age groups. EPA also needs
to broaden, expand, or begin efforts to address dispersed multimedia contamination to include
all sources. Thus, there will have to be breakdown of the walls between the Offices of Water
and of Air.
Accept moving targets in the scientific and technical world. Both the environmental
community and the citizenry have heard that EPA cannot act until the analysis is complete and
"the answer" has been identified. As a result, nothing happens until "the answer" is found.
Stop depending on the researchers to finish the experiments—well- designed experiments always
result in more research. Science should always improve and we can always correct the numbers
for the latest data. So, stop asking for the right answer for the lawyers to love and defend.
WHAT SHOULD EPA DEFINITELY NOT GET INVOLVED IN?
EPA should not apply "risk assessment" broadly across the board to every action using
the present approaches. TTie area of risk assessment is new and changing quite rapidly to meet
the demands of specific sites, cases, and issues. These cases involve primarily human cancer,
rather than a range of health end-points, subpopulations, targets, and effects. Thus, the
methods developed to protect "average" humans from lifetime cancer risks probably do not apply
to populations of birds, marine mammals, amphibians, endangered freshwater mussels, or a
component of an ecosystem.
Protecting humans from cancer risks associated with chemicals in drinking water does
not protect humans from the same chemical when found in fish. The standards that protect
people do not protect populations of mammals or birds from either risk.
WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT CHANGE YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SEE IN THE CWA REAUTHORIZATION?
Make the nonpoint source pollution program a folly funded watershed restoration and
protection program with mechanisms to address the difficult sources. The 319 program operates
like a pilot program with a modest level of funding in comparison to the need and size of the
State program budgets. If this were fully funded and staffed at the Federal and State levels, it
would identify sensitive areas before impacts occur, restore degraded habitats such as wetlands,
and direct respurces to the most critical problems. This program offers a means of coordinating
end-of-the-pipe, runoff, storm water, and CSO efforts within a functional water unit—the
watershed. At the same time, the 319 program could bolster the wetland protection program by
demonstrating the critical functions that wetlands perform in watersheds.
234
-------
Ecological Risk
Assessment
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE ?lst CENTURY: 235-238
SLIDE PRESENTATION
Spyros Pavlou
Manager
EBASCO Environmental
Bellevue, Washington
In lieu of a paper, the slide presentation is as follows:
Slide Presentation
Slide 1
Slide 2
A PERSPECTIVE ON
ECOLOGICAL RISK ANALYSIS
AT SUPERFUND SITES
Interpretation of Basic Questions
S.P. Pavlou, Ph.D.
Kusco EmroororaiTU.
¦ State of the All
¦ Policy implications
¦ Practical Implementation/application
a Statutory changes naadsd
tMNIU. MtM
235
-------
S. PAVLOU
Slide 3 Slide 4
.
Additional Questions
Applied to Superfund ERAs
¦ PokylmpftcaBons
-SqMtfuraVERAs militant w»i new (Indian
InemirocmentalpiolaeSon?
¦ PracBcal fcnptomenUHcuVappilcaaon
-«lti-«pedfc approach appropriate?
- aVecthwtacx In romedW decision making?
—EflA band crMa meaningful?
¦ Mate el the Jtit
- approach lor "true* EHA developed?
- expfldt ERA guidance avalable?
- mm NMarch priorities needed?
New EPA Direction
in Environmental Protection
¦ PoUuBao prevention vs. control
¦ Waste eiimlnation at saunas
¦ RIak reduction
¦ Cutmilativa risk and integrated risk assessment
¦ Quantification of uncertainty
¦ Biak management ard risk mttlgatJon
Slide 5
EPA's new Ecological Research Strategy
ai EnvtamneotaJ monitoring and assessment
(heurtMefilfflcatlon)
¦ EcctoQlarieiiposure assessment
¦ Ecaioglcsl affects (dose-response/
ttaaua cencersmUon rolstioasMps)
¦ Ecoiogkai rick characterization
¦ Eceaystm restoration and management
¦ nMcccmmunlcaUon
Slide 7
Slide 6
Approaches and Methodologies for ERAs
Jhftakiislntive Approach (axpsdient/cast et.'ecHm)
- exooedsmce of legal standards by measured
oonosmratons in sto-cpecific contaminated media
Weight of Bridence Approach (rigamusMghfy special
- administrative criteria
- madia toxicity tests/bioassaya
- bkjsutwysrtpidemtatogieiii evaluations
Slide 8
Critical ERA Questions for Complex Sites
Maximum Allowable Tissue Concentration (MATC)
¦ Appropriate and points used to compute liATCs
(«4K> reproductive effects, tmki enzyme
daptiselon)?
a Protection of population vs. Individuals?
¦ Dose-mponsaASasueooocanntlonnMSonshtp?
m Toxicity data for specifletropMc compartments?
¦ Uncertainty In toxloologleat krftxmiUcn?
Critical ERA Questions for Complex Sites
(continued)
BlomagnKcation Factors
a Input parmafer data lor eech trophic eaitpvttmM til thaBMFmodett
m MMWecyeteapMhiiHiWtelTiMtpanincieriiianUAntleR?
¦ Adequacy of predictive model?
m SfMiWoorMidmtionilnprapM'eatlnMlmiKBMFinbloMmeyi
1*^, cdotMon d mmptm, home nns»Y>
a AitoqueKcaiilxMiMAnAdWiinnMarad;
Biota Criteria
¦ HautMn.to>M approach?
e Choice of valin Iran prebabfMieaRalyics?
236
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 235-238
Slide 9
Critical ERA Questions for Complex Sites
(continued)
Hazard todexffiisk Estimation
m Spatial adjustment to exposure?
¦ Appropriate axjjoaura medium concentration data used
to represent exposure (e.st, apatlaJ adjustment)?
¦ kicorporailcn of lMto«NiBlectian data In estimating rtok
and defensibaity ot statistical treatment?
Slide 10
Complex Site Example:
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA)
¦ NPUCERCLA stta
¦ SJto: 27 square miles
¦ ManWM potential sites: 184
¦ Ar«a of known contamination: 4+ square miles
¦ Type of contamination: persistent organic* and
trace metals
Slide 11
Complex Site Example:
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (oanHnuxQ
a Projected land use: open apace to industrial
¦ Target receptors: IwmanaMata
¦ Ecosystem: aquatic and laiiartlal
• '¦ Endangered species: aagle
¦ Exposwe media: soils, setimants, surface water
¦ Exposure pathways: multiple (direct, indirect)
¦ Contamination assessment:
- soi and sodimenls (1 5,000* samples)
- biota {1 MO* samples)
Slide 12
ERA Objectives at RMA
¦ Quantify risks to aquatic and terrestrial biota
¦ Develop criteria tar contaminants In soils and
sediments for protection of wildlife and
supporting ecosystem
¦ Identify areas of potential criteria
exceedances tor remedial action planning
Slide 13
See Blowup of slide on next page
Slide 14
Computation of Risk
0MF3 TbsuaOowuMi»«lton
Sol Co«K*ntra#of!
. - Tmsim ConaMCrvtiort
aOI LOBCMIIIIIKWI * — ""~
BHF
AOowsbto C&novntrsUon s
PBC <
Altowbte Ttesue Cowc.
BftIF
MATC
BMF
Hanrtj QmiSnit) CootirntrMmt CowirtwBoB)!
Hazard Index m X HQ]
i
fO$krn HI
(1)
m
Pi
t«)
m
m
m
237
-------
S. PAVLOU
Slide. IS
Research Priorities
m Devetofxnent of do»a*»*poi»e/tlasua concentration
r»kbon«hlp« for bioaccumuiiflv* chemicals and ¦
variety of aped**
¦ EnbafwariQorouaneaa of nwttodaiogy tor thriving
ttdclqr nilmmtm vatmm (varietyof chemicals and
speclea)
¦ Develop MandcnSnwl maJhodoJogy lor estimating
parameters In aquatic and teRastrtalfood-vMbraatSole
m tnprovaldocnagnmationfmodafing theory and
eeniputaNonaJ framework
¦ Develop »»atbedolo0y for statistical treatment of
rrpoeure IraSeMAWci
Slide 13 Blowup
Proposed ERA Approach for RMA
Xusrt Ouoitentt
and CwmitaUv* Hlsls
BiaMMac
Anas ana mummm
efUnacetpaMiRKk
PopulaUanx rotendUfy « Nik
(dartre urn AH owa&tt
Tleuw CencerttrMfwie
(tutro
238
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY; 239-248
TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY IN ECOLOGICAL RISK
ASSESSMENT: BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR . . .
Joshua Lipton, Ph.D.
Manager, Senior Scientist
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
Boulder, Colorado
Hector Galbraith, Ph.D.
Senior Associate
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
Boulder, Colorado
INTRODUCTION
The quantitative incorporation of uncertainty into probabilistic assessments of ecological
risks has attracted considerable attention recently in both academic and regulatory communities.
A number of researchers have developed sophisticated methods for probabilistic risk estimation
(e.g., Bartell et al., 1992, 1983; Lipton and Gillett, 1991; Suter et al., 1983). In this paper,
we address the following simple question: Could (and would) these quantitative uncertainty
models be used by environmental regulators?
BACKGROUND
The process known as "ecological risk assessment" (ERA) emerged as a "discipline" in
the 1970s when concerns began growing about the potential impacts of contaminants on the
environment. The first regulatory manifestation of this discipline appeared in environmental
impact statements (EISs) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Publication by the National Academy of Sciences, in 1983, of "Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process" (NAS, 1983) provided a formalized framework for
calculating probabilistic estimates of human health risks. This by-now familiar framework,
consisting of hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk
characterization, was adopted by environmental scientists to apply to the calculation of ecological
risks.
239
-------
J. UPTON and H, GALBRATTH
Ecological risk assessments play an important role in environmental policy and
regulation. For example, standard-setting, site cleanups, and permit-writing all have ecological
risk components. The vast majority of ecological risk assessments generate single-point
deterministic estimates of the "risk" posed by a single contaminant to a single species. Often,
these risk estimates take the form of a simple "quotient": for example, an environmental
"benchmark" concentration (e.g., ambient water quality criterion) divided by the measured or
estimated concentration of the contaminant in the environment. If the exposure concentration
is less than the critical.dose-response benchmark concentration (i.e., ratio is less than one), it
is generally assumed that there is no significant ecological risk.
Such simplistic deterministic estimates fail to consider sources of uncertainty in the
process. These sources of uncertainty include:
• Errors in measurement of site characteristics,
• Natural variability in site characteristics,
• Intra- and inter-species variability,
• Uncertainties regarding the dose-response models on which benchmark
concentrations usually are predicated, and
• Uncertainties in inter-species extrapolations.
Predicted Value
1
Low
High
Range of Possible Risk Values
Figure 1. "Actual" Risk compared with predicted point estimate.
Point-estimates of risk therefore may not truly predict the actual risk posed by
contaminants (Figure 1). This failure to account for uncertainty may limit the ability of policy
makers to make informed decisions, can erode public confidence in risk-based decisions
(Ruckelshaus, 1983), and may engender opposition within regulated communities.
240
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 239-248
TREATMENT OF UNCERTAINTY
Most commonly, uncertainties have been incorporated into the risk assessment process
in a qualitative fashion by applying "safety factors." This often involves addressing a potential
area of uncertainty (for example, the exposure estimate) by adjusting a point estimate by an
arbitraiy factor (often 10). The more uncertainties that are identified, the greater the number
of safety factors used. It is important to remember that these factors may have little or no
relevance to the actual variability or uncertainty associated with a parameter. Since the
uncertainties have not been rigorously addressed, confidence in the actual risk assessment may
be misplaced. On the one hand, effects that were unforeseen because the uncertainty was not
addressed may occur once contaminants enter the environment. On the other hand, the use of
such assessment methodologies may result in overstringent standards or regulation. While this
might not bother the cautious environmentalist too much, strident opposition will likely be
encountered from regulated industries that may have to foot the bill for unnecessarily stringent
regulation. It could also lead to the discrediting of ERA as an exact scientific tool. Indeed, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB, 1990) noted the following:
. . . risk assessment practices . . . effectively intermingle important policy
judgments within the scientific assessment of risk. Policy makers must make
decisions based on risk assessments in which scientific findings cannot be readily
differentiated from embedded policy judgments.
The formal incorporation of uncertainty analysis into ERA using some form of simulation
methodology, such as Monte Carlo analysis, offers at least a partial way out of this impasse
(Upton and Gillett, 1992, 1991). At its most basic, this procedure involves quantifying the
uncertainties specific to the two main variables in the ERA: the exposure and dose-response
assessments. This is done by fitting or selecting statistical distributions for dependent variables
in risk models, randomly selecting variables sampled from these input distributions, and
calculating the model output many times. This iterative process yields probabilistic distributions
of the model output rather than a single point estimate (Figure 2). These output distributions
represent the probabilities of the occurrence of the hypothetical range of exposure
concentrations, or responses of the receptor organisms. These curves can then be combined into
an integrated probabilistic risk curve (Figure 3). This latter curve describes the probability of
a chosen endpoint (e.g.,- increased adult trout mortality) occurring, given the probable
distribution of exposure concentrations and dose-response conditions.
Such analytical techniques have a number of advantages over the single-point estimate,
deterministic solution. Both the range of possible outcomes, and their associated probabilities,
can be estimated. If output distributions are compared to standards and/or criteria, estimates of
"exceedence frequencies" can provide policy makers with an indication of the likelihood of
"being wrong" (i.e., overshooting the criterion and injuring a resource). Additional benefits of
such formalized uncertainty techniques include the following (Finkel, 1990):
241
-------
J. UPTON and H. GALBRATTH
Input Variables
(a,b)
Output Variable
(E = a * b)
a
m !
Scenarios
a
*
b
Frob.
Liii.
Exposure []
b
Figure 2. Schematic depiction of Monte Carlo simulation of environmental exposure (E).
Curves a and b represent the assumed distributions of variables determining actual exposure.
Improving understanding of the possible states of nature that may impinge on
decisions, and
Providing decision-makers with an understanding of the "costs" of being wrong.
242
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDSIN THE 21st CENTURY: 239-248
Frequency
Ecological Risk Value
Figure 3. Probabilistic distribution of ecological risk values.
' *
In addition, assessments that fail to consider uncertainties may not be reproducible
(Bogardi, 1988), may appear to be (or may actually be) arbitrary, and may be politically and
technically unconvincing (OMB, 1990).
DECISION-MAKING IMPLICATIONS
The development of a probabilistic ecological risk assessment methodology provides a
more rigorous method for deriving standards and making decisions. Although this may benefit
the regulatory community, caution must be exercised in its use. This may be a case that
conforms to the maxim: Be careful what you wish for because you may get it!
What do analytical methods such as Monte Carlo analysis do for us in terms of risk-based
decision-making? In many decision-making contexts (e.g., permit-writing), an acceptable
regulatory standard or criterion (e.g., AWQC) often is used to predict possible adverse effects.
This standard can be superimposed (as a vertical line) on a probabilistic exposure distribution
to assess the likelihood of its exceedence (Figure 4), Of course, this begs the question "What
243
-------
J, UPTON and H. GALBRAITH
Frequency
Environment Exposure Concentration
Figure 4. Ambient water quality criterion (AWQC) superimposed on distribution of
exposure concentrations.
probability of exceeding the benchmark concentration is acceptable?1,2 Unfortunately,
simulation analysis won't help answer the "How much risk is acceptable?" question. For
example, Figure 4 shows us that there is a 5 percent probability that ambient conditions will
'This exceedence frequency represents the probability that the environmental concentrations of
the contaminant of concern will exceed the AWQC based on variability in exposure conditions.
This should not be confused with the number, or duration, of effluent excursions that may
exceed an AWQC as a result of facility operation.
2Alternatively, we can derive a standard directly from the simulation modeling process by asking
ourselves just how much ecological impact we are willing to accept. We might set our standard
as the exposure concentration that will ensure that there is no more than a 5 percent probability
that a selected ecological endpoint will be exceeded. Again, the same question must be
addressed: How much "risk" is acceptable?
AWQC
i
5% likelihood of exceedence
244
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 239-248
exceed the acute AWQC. Is this 5 percent likelihood of fish kills sufficiently protective of the
environment? Is it too low?
/ / - • • •
In the absence of any constraints, the answer to the question "How much risk is
acceptable?" is that no level of risk is acceptable. However, we do not live in a world without
constraints. This is particularly evident to policy makers. Each environmental decision we
make involves a series of trade-offs between different policies and resource uses. One constraint
that is impossible to avoid in standard-setting is cost. For example, absent a cost constraint it
is easy to say that we wish to have zero risk of exceeding an AWQC rather than the 5 percent
value. However, what if that regulatory action results in industry incurring an additional $1
Cost
Risk Reduction (%)
Figure 5. Hypothetical relationship between risk reduction and cost.
billion of treatment costs and a 25 percent increase in food prices (Figure 5)! What had seemed
like a reasonable risk reduction now appears less palatable. In one study, Lipton (1992) showed
245
-------
J. UPTON *nd H. QALBRAITH
1
4 * t
that regulators' preferred "acceptable risk" levels (for human health) doubled when cost
constraints were included in a decision problem. The bottom line is as follows: When
uncertainties are included formally into risk assessments, regulators invariably will be asked to
defend decisions regarding acceptable risk—and acceptable risk decisions invariably lead to the
inclusion of economics as a regulatory consideration. This is not necessarily bad; it is part of
making decisions that involve choices between societal alternatives. However, the ecological
risk community must be aware of this aspect of their work.
CONCLUSIONS
By adopting more rigorous ERA tools which address uncertainty we are not necessarily
ensuring that ecological impacts become less likely than they were under the deterministic,
single-figure risk assessments. Rather, uncertainty techniques simply provide a means of
formalizing many decision-making trade-offs. For example, the consistent use of conservative
point-estimates is effectively a management decision rather than a scientific approach.
In addition, it has been noted (OMB, .1990) that the failure to characterize uncertainties
can be used to hide value-based decisions. For example, a policy maker may consider the
economic, social, or political costs of a given regulation to be too high. Individuals
uncomfortable with stating decisions in terms of value-preferences may choose, instead, to mask
this decision by "reassessing" the selection of an uncertain numerical parameter in the risk
assessment, or by adding/removing safety factors from an assessment. To the extent that
formalized uncertainty analysis clearly establishes sources and bounds of uncertainties, the
temptation to utilize hidden decision rules may be circumvented and the value preferences of
government regulators can be judged as part of the public record. Thus, the application of
uncertainty analysis may provide a mechanism to assist in divorcing "scientific" risk assessment
from regulatory decision-making.
This view was echoed further by OMB (1990) in a statement regarding risk assessment
and risk management:
These problems can be addressed by providing decision makers with the full
range of information on the risks of a substance or an activity. Thus, decision
makers should be given the likely risks as well as estimates of uncertainty and the
outer ranges of the potential risk. Then, if regulatory decision makers want to
choose a very cautious risk management strategy, they can do so and a margin
of safety can be applied explicitly in the final decision. This approach is superior
to one in which the expected risk and an unknown margin of safety are hidden
behind the veil of a succession of upper-bound estimates adopted at key points in
the risk-assessment process.
246
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 239-248
The development of new methods for ecological risk assessment must be coordinated with
the decision-making models if the assessment process is to have any applicability for regulation
(rather than simply being an academic exercise). For example, a risk assessment approach
should be designed in a manner that will generate information that integrates easily into an
existing decision-making model. Similarly, decision-making models should conform to the
constraints, statutory and administrative, of policy analysis. Thus, a "top-down" approach could
be devised according to the following tiered system:
• What are the regulatory (policy) alternatives available to decision makers?
• What decision-making model generates decisions that conform to these available
alternatives?
• What risk assessment approach provides information required for the decision-
making model (i.e., all assessment methodologies are not necessarily appropriate
for all decision-making fora)?
• What data need to be collected to support such a risk assessment approach?
Quantitative models for uncertainty analysis are capable of providing useful information
to regulators. This information can be factored into a decision-making calculus that involves
consideration of the scope of potential outcomes and their probabilities of occurrence.
Application of such approaches ultimately may aid in optimizing risk-based regulation, thus
ultimately reducing19tal ecological risks. Moreover, to the extent that application of uncertainty
analysis can prevent the obfuscation of value-based or political decisions as "science,"
environmental policies may become more responsive to social goals. Given the expanded uses
of ecological risk assessment in environmental regulation, we believe that it lies within the scope
of responsible Agency behavior to begin viewing ecological risk assessments within the
framework of this mode of analysis.
REFERENCES
Bartell, S.M., R.H. Gardner, and R.V. O'Neill. 1992. Ecological Risk Estimation. Chelsea,
MI: Lewis Publishers, 252 pp.
Bartell, S.M., R.H. Gardner, R.V. O'Neill, and J.M. Giddings. 1983. Error analysis of
predicted fate of anthracene in a simulated pond. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2:19-28.
Bogardi, I. 1988. Risk analysis under uncertainty: Novel approaches. Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Science Policy Branch,
Washington, D.C.
247
-------
J. UPTON and H. GALBRAITH
Finkcl) A. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Washington, DC: Center for
Risk Management, Resources for the Future, 68 pp.
Lipton, J. and J.W. Gillett. 1992. Uncertainty in risk assessment: Exceedence frequencies,
acceptable risk, and risk-based decision making. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15:51-61.
lipton, J. and J.W. Gillett. 1991. Uncertainties in risks from ocean dumping: Chemical
bioconcentration, commercial fish landings, and seafood consumption. Environ. Toxicol, and
Chem. 10:967-976.
NAS. 1983. National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. Risk Assessment in
the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,
191 pp.
OME. 1990. Office of Management and Budget. Regulatory program of the United States
government. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, pp. 14-41.
t
Ruckelshaus, W.D. 1983. Vital Speeches of the Day, 49:612-615.
Suter, G.W., n, D.S. Vaughan, and R.H. Gardner. 1983. Risk assessment by analysis of
extrapolation error: A demonstration for effects of pollutants on fish. Environ. Tojcicol. Chem.
2:369-378.
248
-------
Human
Health Risk
Assessment:
Reviewing EPA
Guidelines
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:.'249-250
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REVISING THE EPA
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
Margaret Stasikowski (Moderator)
Director
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
develop ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human health from toxic pollutants.
EPA responded by publishing Guidelines for deriving these criteria in the Federal Register on
November 28, 1980. Human health protective criteria for surface water for more than 100 toxic
pollutants, including pesticides, heavy metals, synthetic organics, and dioxin were published by
EPA using these Guidelines.
The Clean Water Act also required EPA to review and revise these human health criteria
when necessary so that they reflect the latest scientific knowledge. EPA is now in the process
of doing this. The first and most important step is to ensure that the Guidelines used to derive
the criteria do reflect the latest scientific knowledge. This session will discuss the basis of the
current Guidelines and explore some of the major changes under consideration for revising the
Guidelines.
The panel members who will talk about the Guidelines today cover a wide range of
opinions in their presentations:
• The Guideline methodology is over-conservative.
• The Guideline methodology is insufficiently protective.
• The Guideline methodology should be updated to reflect scientific advances.
• The Guideline methodology should reflect the intended protected use.
We agree with all of these! The difficulty lies in figuring out what we need to change
in the Guidelines to satisfy all these concerns.
249
-------
M. STASKOWSKI
;For many pollutants, the EPA human health criteria form the basis for State water quality
standards. In turn, these determine the pollutant limits in surface water discharge permits. The
ambient water quality criteria are also utilized as limits in requiring cleanup at Superfund sites.
The need to have scientifically supportable, protective criteria cannot be overemphasized!
The Guidelines for deriving human health criteria have not been updated since their
original publication in 1980. Since that time, there have been significant advances in our ability
to characterize and quantify the risk to human health of pollutants in surface water. These
advances should enable EPA to develop a more scientifically supportable set of Guidelines for
calculating the human health criteria.
The current version of the human health criteria Guidelines, which is under revision by
EPA, was subjected to intensive public comment and peer review before its publication in 1980.
A proposed methodology was published for public comment in the Federal Register, and the
EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) conducted an extensive review of the Guidelines.
EPA will initiate its formal revision of the 1980 Guidelines with a 3-day workshop later
this month in Washington, D.C. The workshop will include about 75 invited participants from
EPA, academia, environmental groups, industry, and other Federal agencies. We will examine
all aspects of the Guidelines with separate working groups on cancer and noncancer risk
assessment, microbiology, exposure, bioaccumulation, and minimum data, requirements for
developing criteria. After the workshop, we will go to the Science Advisory Board and the
public for comment.
The input that we receive at this Conference on Water Quality Standards will also be
factored into the revision of the Guidelines. It is important that you express your concerns and
comments so that we know where to focus our attention.
The panel discussion that we are about to hear provides an excellent forum for
presentation of diverse viewpoints on the current human health Guidelines. The only thing that
the panel will probably agree on is that the Guidelines do need to be reviewed, updated, and
revised to make them the best science that EPA can provide. With the help of all of you, we
will be able to do that.
250
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: '251-258
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: REVISING THE EPA
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA FOR
AMBIENT WATER. THE METHODOLOGY IS OVER CONSERVATIVE
Paul Anderson
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Acton, Massachusetts
I have been invited to present the view
that the current methodology for deriving human
health criteria is over-conservative. Throughout
the majority of my presentation, I will present
information indicating that the methodology is
over-conservative in several of the areas the
invitation asked that I consider. Before getting to
the "conservative nature" of specific elements of
the methodologyI think it is important to
consider what is meant by "conservative" and
then, the conservatism of the methodology, or
lack of, in a broader public health context.
When public health risk assessment
specialists refer to an assumption, methodology
or criterion as "conservative," generally that
means that the potential risks to public health will
be overestimated. This paper defines
"conservative" in the same way. The degree of
conservatism, however, is generally not
quantified and, indeed, varies from assumption to
assumption, methodology to methodology, and
criterion to criterion. The public health
consequences of this unquantified variation in
conservatism can be enormous and unintended.
Unintended because the variation can lead to diminished protection of public health—the exact
opposite of what conservative methodologies are designed to accomplish.
Human Health Risk Assessment Methodology
Position: It Is Too Conservative
Paul Anderson, Ph.D.
ENSR
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
Em
What is Conservative?
* An Estimate of Risk That Overestimates Actual
Risk
* Usually Degree of Conservatism is Not
Quantified
* Consequence of Unquantified Conservatism is
Misprioritization
251
-------
P. ANDERSON
KM3t
Misprioritization Occurs When:.
• Single Upper-bound Risk Estimates Presented
•Uncertainty
• Not discussed
- Discussed qualitatively
* Estimates Assumed to be "Equal" and
Compared
How can this happen? Imagine that each
of several regulatory programs whose goal is to
protect public health uses risk assessment
methodologies that have varying degrees of
conservatism. Imagine further that the actual risk
posed by a particular compound that falls under
the purview of these programs is identical. Yet,
because the methodologies differ in their degree
of conservatism, the estimated risks posed by this
compound will vary between regulatory
programs. Because the estimated risks are
reported by the regulatory program and are also
one of the key elements in forming regulatory, public, and congressional perception about this
compound and regulatory program, they (the estimated risks) govern how we as a society will
prioritize our efforts to reduce them.
If the actual risks are identical and the degree of conservatism in each regulatory program
is similar, then it is unlikely that substantial risk-based misprioritization will occur. If, on the
other hand, the conservatism varies substantially, then it is likely that the highest risks, those
estimated most conservatively, will receive the greatest priority. As long as the actual risks
under the purview of each regulatory program are roughly similar, the initial overall public
health consequences of this scenario may not be of great concern. However, if the actual risks
are different, or when they become different due to reduction of the high-priority risks, i.e.,
those with the most conservatism, then a potentially disturbing unintended consequence arises:
The regulatory programs with the lowest actual risks may still be viewed as addressing public
health risks of greatest magnitude. They will receive priority not because they pose the greatest
actual risk but because they are the most conservative, i.e., they overestimate actual risks the
most.
If the only public health risks that society
had left to deal with could be termed "relatively
minor," then the consequences of any
misprioritization caused by differences in
conservatism would also likely be "relatively
minor." This is not the case, however. Society
is faced with a variety of public health risks that
are better described as "major." These range
from the potential public health consequences of
ozone layer thinning, to AIDS, to an infant
mortality rate in the United States of about 1 in
100. In addition, society is also faced with
estimating and mitigating other kinds of risks (other than strictly public health risks), including
Examples of Misprioritization
252
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 251-258
Avoiding Misprioritization
• Quantify Uncertainty
•Try to Include All Uncertainty
• Best Method is Monte Carlo Analysis
those, associated with differences in socioeconomic status as well as risks to the environment.
As pointed out by the Science Advisory Board in their report on ranking risks, the latter type
of risks may be especially significant.
The potential unintended consequences of
conservatism can be avoided, at a minimum for
various public health risks, and possibly for other
risks as well, by quantifying the uncertainty
associated with estimates of risk. While such
quantification may have been difficult and time
consuming several years ago, today it can be
done easily using Monte Carlo analysis and
readily available and relatively inexpensive
software programs. The notion of
"conservatism" can be largely taken out of the
risk assessment process, because the goal of, and
end result of, a Monte Carlo risk assessment is the calculation of a range of potential risks
corresponding to the range of actual risks. If a risk assessment produces a realistic range of
risks, then it is neither conservative or non-conservative. Armed with such information, the
conservativeness of a criterion is dependent upon how a risk manager uses the range of realistic
risks. If all regulatory programs were able to estimate a range of realistic risks, then the above
discussed unintended consequences of conservatism and prioritization of societal effort could be
largely avoided. That is not to say that priorities would change. They might remain the same.
However, then the prioritization would be intended and not unintended.
The remainder of this paper addresses the
notion that the current methodology is over
conservative in several of the eight areas the
invitation asked that I comment on. The paper's
perspective is that a risk assessment methodology
should derive realistic estimates of risk. To the
extent that many of the elements of the existing
methodology were designed to overestimate
actual risks, I suggest ways to make the
methodology more realistic, and thus less
conservative. Note, however, that some elements
of the existing methodology may lead to an
underestimate of actual risks. These also need to be modified such that realistic estimates of risk
are derived.
BOt
Is the Current Methodology Too
Conservative?
• Yes, Overall
• All Elements Not Conservative
• Must Quantify This Conservatism
253
-------
P. ANDERSON
THE EXISTING METHODOLOGY ASSUMES THAT THE CONSUMED
FISH CONTAIN 3 PERCENT LIPID AND THAT ONLY THE EDIBLE
PORTION IS CONSUMED. WHAT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED IN THE
THESE ASSUMPTIONS?
Lipid content is a critical factor in
determining the amount of many chemicals in
fish. The lipid content of fish varies as does the
portion of fish that people eat. Consequently, an
ambient water quality criterion that is driven, in
part by fish consumption, should be based upon
a lipid content that is representative of the fish
people eat. In most cases, that will be different
from 3 percent. One way to account for this is
to have water quality criteria that are dependent
upon the percent lipid content of edible portions
of fish in the water bodies to which the criteria
will be applied. The edible portion lipid content should be derived using a method designed to
estimate a realistic lipid content, and not an over- or underestimate. The proposed sediment
quality criteria take this approach when dealing with organic carbon content of sediments.
SHOULD CRITERIA FOR HYDROPHOBIC CHEMICALS BE
EXPRESSED AS FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATIONS INSTEAD OF
WATER COLUMN CONCENTRATIONS?
From the point of view of whether the current method for deriving ambient water quality
criteria are overly conservative or hot, the answer to this question should not affect the
conservativeness of the criteria. This assumes the application of the criteria does not affect their
conservativeness. To the extent that fish tissue criteria may be easier to apply for some
hydrophobic chemicals than water quality criteria, such criteria may be more desirable.
Regardless of whether the ultimate criterion is for fish tissue or water column, it is imperative
that the procedure used to determine whether a water body meets the criterion not add
conservatism to the criteria. For example, the long-term average fish tissue concentration, and
not the maximum, is appropriate for comparison to a criterion that assumes a long-term exposure
to chemicals through consumption of fish.
DBI
Conservatism of Specific Areas
«Fish Lipid
- Use actual data
1 l-i-l k - »- * ¦
• Lfpxj Daseci cmena
• Fish Tissue or Water Based
- Doesn't affect conservatism
-Application may
254
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 251-258
SHOULD THE EPA DEVELOP "LESS THAN LIFETIME" CRITERIA
FOR HUMAN HEALTH? HOW SHOULD THE HUMAN HEALTH
IMPACTS OF SHORT-TERM EVENTS BE ASSESSED?
The potential human health impacts of
short-term events should be assessed using the
same approach as was proposed for long-term
events, i.e., using a methodology that predicts
realistic estimates of potential risks. The results
of such an assessment would indicate whether
there was a need for "less than lifetime" criteria.
Given the conservative nature of the current
methodology, it seems unlikely that "less than
lifetime" criteria would be more stringent than
existing lifetime criteria. However, if the
methodology for estimating potential lifetime
risks is modified such that it predicts realistic risks, it would be prudent to also estimate less
than lifetime risks and develop criteria for both endpoints. Both methodologies need to calculate
realistic estimates of potential risk so that an accurate comparison of the two endpoints can be
made.
SHOULD OTHER EXPOSURE SOURCES BE CONSIDERED IN
SETTING CRITERIA? IF SO, WHAT CONTRIBUTION SHOULD BE
ASSUMED?
As with the other areas, the answer to this question depends entirely upon whether the
methodology predicts realistic estimates of potential risk, or retains the conservativeness of the
current methodology. If the methodology remains conservative, then the need to account for
other sources of exposure is eliminated. The conservative elements in the current procedure
reduce the criteria sufficiently to account for other sources of exposure. If the methodology is
made realistic, then for some compounds, it may be necessary to modify criteria to account for
other sources. Once again, please note that the possible need for an apportionment of exposure
assumes that the total allowable exposure has been established using realistic estimates of
potential risk. Because current EPA estimates of allowable exposure are designed to be
conservative, they would need to be modified before use in an apportionment of exposure.
Finally, the apportionment of exposure is likely to vary among chemicals, depending upon how
much exposure typically comes from ambient water versus other environmental media.
nat
Conservatism of Specific Areas (Cont'd)
• Less Than Lifetime
- Not with current conservatism
- May with unbiased criteria
• Other Exposure Contribution
- Not with current methodology
- Perhaps with unbiased criteria
-Total allowable exposure should be unbiased
255
-------
P. ANDERSON
SHOULD BIOACCUMULATION BE CONSIDERED IN CALCULATING
CRITERIA? THE EXISTING METHODOLOGY ONLY ACCOUNTS
FOR BIOCONCENTRATION. HOW WELL THESE FACTORS BE
DERIVED?
"Of course," is the short answer.
Bioconcentration is a laboratory phenomenon.
By definition, it estimates uptake of a chemical
from water only. Such conditions are not
possible in ambient water where other sources
will contribute to, or even dominate, total uptake.
The traditional application of BCFs, used by
existing criteria, to total water column
concentrations of a chemical, while technically
incorrect, accounts for the uptake of chemicals
from the other exposure pathways because it
overestimates the concentration of the chemical
actually dissolved in the water. (The correct application of a BCF is to only the dissolved
portion of a chemical in the water column.)
Accurate derivation of BAFs is far more difficult because no user-friendly and widely
accepted method is currently available that allows for accurate prediction of a range of BAFs.
(The Great Lakes Initiative cannot be used for a number of reasons, including its dependence
upon BCFs, use of assumptions specific to the Great Lakes and thus not transferable to other
waters of the United States, and its failure to accurately predict accumulation in other waters as
well as for many species in the Great Lakes.) Clearly because an accurate estimate of
accumulation is critical to development of realistic criteria, the development of a method that
leads to realistic estimates of bioaccumulation is critical and should be a priority. In the absence
of such a method, an alternative is to use available data from various water bodies to estimate
bioaccumulation in the ambient environment. Even this needs to be done with care because the
variable nature of environmental sampling can introduce biases into field-derived estimates of
bioaccumulation.
CNER
Conservatism of Specific Areas (Cont'd)
• Account for Bioaccumulation
-Yns
- Realistic modal (or measurements)
-Not GLWQt method
• Risk Management Implications of Biased
Assumptions
-Remove bias
• Accurately characterizing range of risk
• Multipls papulations
256
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 251-258
WHAT SHOULD THE BALANCE OF STRINGENT VS. NONSTRINGENT
PARAMETERS BE TO ACHIEVE A BALANCED RISK ASSESSMENT?
SHOULD SOME OF THE FACTORS IN OUR "RISK ASSESSMENT"
METHODOLOGY MORE ACCURATELY BE CHARACTERIZED AS
RISK MANAGEMENT DECISIONS?
The achievement of a balanced risk assessment is an essential and laudable goal. The
current methodology does not achieve that goal. Indeed, the only way to achieve a balanced risk
assessment is to use realistic assumptions, not a balance between stringent and non-stringent
assumptions. Because the current methodology contains mostly stringent and some non-stringent
assumptions, it contains "risk management" decisions. This violates the fundamental tenet of
the National Academy of Science's "Red Book," which is that risk assessment and risk
management decisions need to be made explicit and hopefully be kept separate. Use of Monte
Carlo analysis achieves this end, because done correctly, it will provide a risk manager with a
range of realistic risks (or conversely, a range of potential criteria associated with a particular
level of protectiveness) from which the risk manager will have to choose a criterion based upon
the allowable level of risk, among other factors.
Some of the key factors that a realistic
methodology needs to account for include: a
range of fish consumption rates for the general
population at a minimum and perhaps also for
sport and subsistence fishermen and their
families; a range of bioaccumulation factors; a
range of duration of residence times; and a range
of cancer potency estimates and reference doses.
Given these and other inputs, a range of potential
risks associated with a range of water
concentrations can be calculated and provided to
a risk manager. Given this range, the risk
manager can decide how protective criterion should be. The information provided the risk
manager would also let him decide to protect various populations at different allowable risk
levels. For example, the average (or some upper or lower bound) member of the U.S. general
population at a 1 in 1 million excess lifetime cancer risk level; the average sport fisherman (or
some upper or lower bound) at a 1 in 100,000 risk level; and the average subsistence fisherman
(or some upper or lower bound) at a 1 in 10,000 risk level.
. ; POt
Conclusions
» Current Methodology is Biased (Conservative)
• Remove Bias
• Accurately Characterize Range of Risks
• Make Risk Management Decisions Explicit
257
-------
P. ANDERSON
•. • The elegance of a methodology that provides a complete and realistic characterization of
potential risk is that the risk manager can ask for, and be provided, information on the potential
risks for a variety of endpoints that may be of concern. Such a method also avoids the
unintended risk management consequences commensurate with methods that provide estimates
of risk without a quantification of how conservative or non-conservative they are.
258
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 259-267
OPPORTUNITIES FOR UPDATING THE METHODS FOR THE
DERIVATION OF HEALTH-BASED WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Rolf Hartung, Ph.D., D.A.B.T.
Professor of Environmental Toxicology
School of Public Health
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan , .
EPA's mission centers on the protection of the environment. The protection of human
health from effects due to contaminants that have found their way into the environment has
become an important component of that mission, A major turning point that caused the Agency
to recognize the importance of human health issues as a key component of environmental
protection was the mandated requirement to develop water quality criteria during the late 1970s.
BACKGROUND
The basic concepts incorporated into the methodology for the derivation of health-based
water quality criteria have strongly influenced the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to
establish limiting concentrations in ambient water and drinking water. The methodologies for
the derivation of such limiting values are clearly part of the discipline of risk assessment, and
involve many related specialty areas.
It is a fairly simple task to trace the development of the methodology for the derivation
of water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life from their early beginnings through the
encyclopedic treatment by McKee and Wolf (1963), through the Green Book (U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1968), the Blue Book (NAS, 1972), to the precisely circumscribed procedures
in U.S. EPA (1987).
In contrast, development of methods for the derivation of health-based criteria has a much
more complex history, primarily because many groups had already been active in the
interpretation of toxicological and epidemiological data for the protection of human health during
many years prior to creation of the U.S. EPA. Before the U.S. EPA was established, most of
the limiting values were established on the basis of scientific judgment and consensus. Thus,
259
-------
R. HARTUNO
the Water Quality Standards for drinking water were determined in this manner by the U.S.
Public Health Service (U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1962).
I
Clearly, the Agency borrowed risk assessment concepts for the derivation of water quality
criteria from many institutions. The methodologies that were formalized as part of the derivation
of Water Quality Criteria in turn exerted strong influences on the ways in which other
institutions conducted their risk assessments. The general characteristics of the process were
summarized by NAS-NRC in 1983, after the basic methodologies for our present health-based
water quality criteria had already been established. The report Risk Assessment in the Federal
Government: Managing the Process clearly distinguished between risk assessment and risk
management (NRC, 1983). The area of risk assessment was subdivided into a number of
subspecialties, namely hazard identification, dose-response assessment, and exposure assessment,
to arrive at a risk characterization.
An early trend in EPA's risk assessment activities was a declining emphasis on
professional judgment, and an increasing reliance on codified procedures. The introduction of
standardized procedures has resulted in consistent criteria for wide ranges of data sets.
However, this has also diminished the extent of advanced scientific inputs by substituting worst
case default assumptions when there were any reservations concerning the quality of the
database. .
In turn, recent risk assessments conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety
(NIOSH) exhibit a noticeable influence from the methodologies developed and modified by the
U.S. EPA. Within the U.S. EPA, the methodologies have influenced the derivation of limiting
concentrations in ground water, soils, sediments, and air. In the aggregate, the end result of
these methodologies has been a significant reduction of wastes discharged to the environment.
The apparent successes attributable-to the health-based risk assessment methodology are
clearly evident. Then why should there be any credible motivation for change? There are
important'scientific issues that determine the true relationships of contaminant concentrations and
potential health effects. It is important to remember that the basic development of the present
methodologies for the derivation of health-based water quality criteria dates back to 1978 to
1979, when the criteria were being developed in response to a suit by the Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC). The Agency's response was influenced by court-imposed deadlines
and the urgency to develop criteria for a specified list of contaminants. Clearly, the
methodology for the derivation of the criteria was developed in deliberate haste, and their
development took the path of least resistance, so that the criteria are based upon protective risk
assessments rather than predictive risk assessments, which result in significant differences that
will be discussed in greater detail later in this paper. At this time more thai? a decade has been
elapsed, which has seen significant advances in the science of risk analysis. Yet, there have
260
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 259-267
been relatively few changes in the methodology for the development of health-based water
quality criteria. This apparent inertia to change is in part due to the success of the water quality
criteria process in controlling environmental pollution, but on the other hand this inertia also
seems to be sustained by the interactions among various interest groups that use the health-based
criteria issues to support their own agendas, without regard for the scientific underpinnings for
the criteria.
Protective Versus Predictive Risk Assessments and Uncertainties
i *
Although the Agency's achievements in limiting the releases of contaminants into the
environment have been admirable, there are a number of basic conflicts in the present fabric by
. which the Agency seeks to control the adverse impacts of human activities upon the environment
and upon humans themselves. The basic problems may have their foundations in generic
semantic concepts, such as "protection, safety, and ample margins of safety." On a purely
scientific basis, absolute safety cannot be guaranteed, except when the stressor that may
compromise safety is completely absent. Similarly, the concept of protection is often used
interchangeably with safety. A strict adherence to these basic concepts would demand a steady
reduction and eventual elimination of all contaminants. These concepts are simply stated; easily
comprehended, and if executed, they would guarantee the protection and safety from any
conceivable effect that might be produced by the contaminants that had been selected for this
action. At this stage, one of the cornerstones for the protective strategy is the selection of
specific substances for action. This selection process has developed a class of substances referred
to as "toxics," which have been chosen to receive special treatment, often without regard for the
concentrations in which they occur. Aside from the fact that the word "toxic" or "toxics" as a
noun is not to be found in the dictionary, conflicts arise when most toxicologists are firm
believers in the concept that any substance can be toxic, and that the dose makes the difference.
Although it is clearly possible to eliminate many substances from the waste stream, and although
it is clearly possible and desirable to reduce the amounts of waste produced, it is clearly
impossible to construct a human civilization that produces no waste at all. The known physical
and natural laws are not going to be held in abeyance in favor of Federal or State laws!
Given the public mandates, the immature state of the science of risk assessment, and the
existing time pressures, EPA's present health-based risk assessments are characterized by a
selection or listing process, followed by the development of water quality criteria that are almost
exclusively the product of protective risk assessments. For this type of risk assessment, data on
the human health experience and/or experimental data from laboratory animals are evaluated to
determine their significance and the qualitative uncertainties associated with the data. The
present methodology separates substances into carcinogens and noncarcinogens. It is assumed
that all carcinogens exhibit no threshold with respect to the dose that is expected to produce an
effect, and that the dose-response relationship is linear at low doses. The modified multistage
risk assessment model (Crump, 1982) commonly applied in these situations also incorporates
linearized confidence limits on doses given a specified risk. In practice, the model is applied
261
-------
R. HARTUNG
to the* particular combination of cancer sites in the most sensitive species that provides the
highest calculated upper limit to risk.
For noncarcinogens, the methodology codifies uncertainties and translates them into
uncertainty factors (formerly safety factors) and modifying factors that tend to accumulate
uncertainties in ways that lower the acceptable exposure for the criterion (Dourson and Starra,
„ 1983). In addition, protective risk assessments evaluate the available toxicological information
selectively; information that reports adverse effects is given much greater credence than
information that reports the absence of adverse effects. Although the process appears to yield
criterion exposure limits that are likely to be protective in nearly all cases with a large margin
of safety, these criterion exposure limits have essentially no predictive power, because the
magnitude of the actual uncertainties is unknown due to the methodology by which the criterion
has been derived. Moreover, the quality of the information upon which individual criteria are
based differs tremendously, so that the actual uncertainties differ from substance to substance.
In contrast, at the present time predictive risk assessments are used primarily by the
insurance industry. Ideally, these predictive risk assessments are based upon prior experience
or actuarial information, e.g., 1 out of 44 Americans can expect to die as a result of a motor
vehicle accident (as a driver or passenger, or as a pedestrian). The uncertainties for this
prediction are evident from year to year and site to site variations plus any effects due to long-
term trends.
If one were to take this approach with substances where most of the information is
indirectly provided, such as through studies with laboratory animals, then obviously both the
most likely actuarial prediction, as well as the uncertainties, would be much more difficult to
assess than the relatively simple case cited above. When the available toxicological information
is derived through laboratory studies using model systems, then the risk assessments need to
resort to extrapolations. These extrapolations need to encompass the qualitative and quantitative
differences in the susceptibility of the test animal and the human. The extrapolations need to
address the differences in the range of sensitivities in the human population when compared to
the range found in the test species. Humans are not always the most sensitive species, neither
are they always the most resistant species. Potentially, predictive risk assessments can provide
an opportunity to express the uncertainties around the predicted condition and the dose rate at
which they are expected to occur.
The obvious advantages of protective risk assessment approaches are that they are
relatively easy to construct, and that they iare responsive to the most obvious concerns. Their
disadvantages are primarily due to a failure to address underlying issues, which in turn curtail
the ability to deal with complex causes of risks. The advantages of predictive risk assessments
are that they provide information on the dose regimen most likely to produce adverse effects,
and in addition provide a best estimate on the range of uncertainties about this estimate.
262
-------
WATER QUALITY'STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 259-267
ASSESSING THE EXPOSURE
The Agency's water quality program appears to be constrained by a compulsion, created
by perceived legislative mandates, to deal with problems arising from contaminants in the aquatic
environment by controlling the concentrations of those contaminants in water. While this
approach has the advantage that it can address effluent discharges by considering various dilution
scenarios, and the buildup of persistent organic chemicals in biota through bio-accumulation
coefficients, it fails to address many environmental processes that determine the ultimate
exposures and therefore the ultimate risks. It is impossible to estimate human exposures related
to discharge permits unless one considers environmental transport and fate in addition to the
extent of dilution that may occur. It is therefore inappropriate to apply stream-based discharge
permitting schemes that are suitable for the Hudson, Columbia, or Mississippi Rivers to the
Great Salt Lake or the Great Lakes System. It should be obvious that the hydrology in these
large lake systems, which are characterized by very long residence times, exerts a very strong
influence on the concentrations of contaminants that are attributable to discharges into these
systems. Thus, most of the perceived needs for a Great Lakes Initiative do not have their
foundations in any unusual sensitivity of the organisms living in the Great Lakes to persistent
contaminants, but instead have their basis in a historical failure to recognize the applicable
concerns for the fate and transport of persistent chemicals in the Great Lakes. Another example
of simplistic applications can be found in the attempts to link bio-accumulated chemicals to
discharge permits through the application of a bio-accumulation coefficient. Clearly, the
concentration of persistent chemicals in fish is of paramount importance to fish-eating species,
including humans. However, there are many intervening steps and processes that lead from the
discharge of a substance to its accumulation in sediments and directly or indirectly into biota.
Consequently, the ability to predict the corresponding concentrations of contaminants among
water, biota, and sediments is fraught with major difficulties. Obviously, if one wishes to
protect the consumers of aquatic life, then the most important parameter to control is the
concentration of a substance in the aquatic life that is likely to be consumed. In other words,
the limiting concentration should be set for the aquatic life. Ultimately, substances that are bio-
accumulated need to be controlled by limiting their inputs to watersheds or lake systems.
However, it needs to be recognized that the control of bio-accumulating substances through the
application of limiting concentrations in ambient waters or in discharges is increasingly remote
from the locus of the problem, resulting in increasing uncertainties. These uncertainties are part
of reality. They need to be identified and assessed as part of the overall process.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING HEALTH-BASED RISK
ASSESSMENTS FOR CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
It is obviously futile to expect an immediate conversion from protective to predictive risk
assessment models. Nevertheless, a gradual conversion is desirable, largely because predictive
263
-------
R.HARTUNG
risk assessment paradigms allow a better assessment of the uncertainties surrounding the process.
To date, the Agency's program of Reduction of Uncertainties in Risk Assessment (RURA) has
been applied mostly to its current protective risk assessment methodology, and the success of
RURA for this application has not been outstanding; arid given the underlying approaches for
most of our current risk assessment methodologies, the prognosis for significant future successes
for RURA is very poor. Therefore, the risk manager will continue to have little tangible
information on the robustness and the extent of uncertainties about the risk assessments that are
to be used in any specific action.
To approach these problems, I will consider carcinogens separately from noncarcinogens.
This follows the present risk assessment methodology of the Agency which assumes that all
carcinogens exhibit no threshold, and that the toxicity of noncarcinogens is characterized by the
presence of thresholds for responses above certain dose levels. The risk assessment
methodology for carcinogens is characterized by the application of a linearized multistage risk
assessment model, while the risk assessment for noncarcinogens relies primarily upon the
codified application of uncertainty factors (formerly called safety factors).
NONCARCINOGENS
Once the minimum data requirements have been met, the methodology for the derivation
of water quality criteria for noncarcinogens revolves around extrapolations on individual
differences, interspecies differences, short-term to long-term differences, and differences
attributable to the quality of the data. The extrapolations take the form of 10-fold uncertainty
factors or a variable modifying factor. The usual underlying assumption is that humans are at
least as sensitive as the sensitive individuals in the most sensitive species tested. These separate
factors are presently used as components of a protective risk assessment in the derivation of
health-based water quality criteria, but it is also possible to begin to address the issues
underlying the use of these factors in predictive risk assessments.
Individual and Inter-specific Differences
In most cases, the current methodology selects the No-Observed-Effect Level (NOEL),
occasionally the No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level (NOAEL), in mg/kg/day that was observed,
and divides this dose rate by an uncertainty factor of 10 for individual differences and a further
uncertainty factor of 10 for differences between species. A major problem associated with the
approach is that the exact dose levels associated with the NOEL or the NOAEL are a result of
the dose levels selected by the investigator at the beginning of the chronic or subchronic
experiment. Furthermore, the NOEL or NOAEL is not influenced by either the quality of the
experiment or the number of animals used per dose level. Some of these issues are addressed
by the "benchmark dose" concept, which seeks to substitute a calculated effective dose near the
264
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 259-267
threshold, at a low percentile response, e.g., an ED10 for the NOEL or NOAEL, However,
while this approach addresses some of the mechanistic frailties of the derivation of the NOEL
or the NOAEL, it does not address the issues that are directly related to individual and inter-
specific differences in sensitivity. More direct measures of the extent of individual differences
can be found in the slope of the dose-response curve. If the response axis measures the
proportion of the exposed individuals that respond at any one dose level, then the slope of this
dose-response curve is a direct measure of the extent of individual variability. Several problems
associated with this approach still need to be resolved. The most important ones are (1) to what
extent is the slope of the dose-response curve a property of the variabilities in response found
among the individuals, and to what extent is it a property of the interactions of the chemical with
the individuals; (2) to what extent does the variability among individuals found in one species
relate to the variability in another species; (3) are there unusually sensitive subgroups in the
human population; and (4) to what extent do they differ from the dose-response projections for
the bulk of the population. It is possible to begin an analysis of many of these issues, especially
by analyzing toxicological data on drugs, where there exists an extensive database on effects in
laboratory animals with direct comparisons to humans.
While the issues related to inter-specific differences in the derivation of health-based
water quality criteria have been commonly dealt with by using another factor of 10, considerable
progress has been made in exploring the bases for inter-specific differences in responses.
Differences in pharmacokinetics, metabolism, and toxico-dynamics among species have been
found to relate strongly to the observed species differences in response. Thus, physiologically
based pharmacokinetic (PB-PK) models have been found to be very useful in explaining many
observed inter-specific differences (Klaassen and Rozman, 1991). A further combination of PB-
PK models with a knowledge of molecular mechanisms of toxic action has great potential in
improving inter-specific extrapolations of toxicity.
Less-than-Llfespan Exposures
At present, the methodology for the derivation of health-based water quality criteria
considers studies that involve exposures from weaning to the end of the normal life span to be
chronic exposures, and in almost all instances shorter exposures are considered to be subchronic.
Subsequently, subchronic toxicity data are extrapolated to chronic conditions by applying an
uncertainty factor of 10. However, when McNamarra (1976) explored the relationships of
responses to subchronic as compared with chronic exposures, he found many instances where
subchronic exposures were more sensitive than chronic exposures in eliciting responses, so that
in some instances subchronic exposures elicited responses at dose levels 10 times lower than the
chronic exposures required to produce similar responses. This appeared to be in part due to the
obscuring effects of aging. Furthermore, laboratory data that involve intermittent exposures are
commonly adjusted by time-weighting. The time-weighted average (TWA) is based upon
Haber's Rule (Filov et al., 1979),
265
-------
R. HARTUNG
E = k X C X t
where:
B = a fixed effect,
k = a constant.
C — concentration or dose rate,
t = duration of exposure.
However, tWs simplistic relationship appears to approximate reality only over small differences
in dose rate or duration of exposure. Clearly, while a factor of 10 may produce adequate
protection, it lacks the ability to predict.
The Application of Uncertainty Factors in Monte Carlo Simulations
The applicability of the individual uncertainty factors in a protective risk assessment has
been adequately justified by Dourson and Starra (19B3). However, there has been no logical
justification of the present policy for multiplying all identified uncertainty factors. In practice,
each uncertainty will have a distribution of its own, and the uncertainties will interact with one
another independently, or with various degrees of interdependence. Such relationships are more
appropriately dealt with using Monte Carlo simulations or similar processes.
CONCLUSIONS
The present approaches to health-based water quality criteria have arrived at a dead end.
Although the list of substances covered may be expanded using the current protective risk
assessment methodology, the ability to judge the quality of the assessment, the ability to examine
the extent of variability, and our ability to deal with the vagaries of effects due to sensitive
subgroups and duration of exposure will elude us. To incorporate the next level of sophistication
combined with defensibility for the health-based water quality criteria, it is necessary to
surrender the protective risk assessment methodology in favor of a predictive risk assessment
methodology that is able to incorporate the uncertainty issues from its inception.
REFERENCES
Crump, K. 1982. An improved procedure for low-dose carcinogenic risk assessment from
animal data. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 5:339-348.
266
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY
259-267
Dourson, M.L. and J. Starra. 1983. Regulatory history and experimental support of uncertainty
(safety) factors. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 3:224-238.
Filov, V.A., A.A. Gobulev, E.I. Liublina, and N.A. Tolokontsen. 1979. Quantitative
Toxicology. New York: John Wiley & Sons. [Based on the 1973 edition of Kotichesrvennaya
Toksikologiya in Russian; translated by V.E. Tartachenko.]
Klaassen, C.D. and K. Roztnan. 1991. Absorption, distribution, and excretion of toxicants.
In: Amdur, M.O., J. Doull, and C.D. Klaassen, eds. Casarett and Doull's Toxicology, 4th Ed.
New York: Pergamon Press, pp. 50-87.
McKee, I.E. and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria, 2nd Ed. Sacramento, CA: State
Water Quality Control Board. Publication No. 3-A.
McNamara, B.P. 1976. Concepts in health evaluation of commercial and industrial chemicals.
In: Mehlman, M.A., R.E. Shapiro, and H. Blumenthal, eds. New Concepts in Safety
Evaluation. Advances in Modern Toxicology, Vol. 1, ft. 1. Washington, DC: Hemisphere
Publishers, pp. 61-140.
NAS. 1972. National Academy of Sciences. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office,
NRC. 1983. National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. 1962. Public Health Service, Drinking
Water Standards [Rev. 1962], PHS Pub. 956. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Water
Quality Criteria. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. EPA. 1987. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Regulations and
Standards. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA. 440/5-86-001.
267
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 st CENTURY: 26^-275
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY AS AN INTENDED PROTECTED USE OF
WATER RESOURCES: IMPLICATIONS FOR REVISING THE EPA
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
Tom Schaeffer
Director of Technical Sendees
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Washington, D.C.
\
The protection of public water supplies is one of the main purposes of maintaining or
restoring the quality of the Nation's waters. Recently, however, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a proposed National Toxics Rule (NTR), which would
establish human health water quality criteria and standards that differ significantly from Safe
Drinking Water Act standards. The differences bring into focus whether the proposed criteria
fully consider the intended protected use of water resources for public water supplies.
EPA is presently reviewing and updating their guidelines for deriving human health water
quality criteria and the underlying risk assessment methodology. From the perspective of water
supply agencies, it is important that public water supply uses of water be fully considered in that
review. This paper discusses inconsistencies found in the NTR, and the main issues those
inconsistencies brought into focus for water suppliers concerning the development of revised
guidelines.
BACKGROUND
Water resources have always been judged by their abundance and suitability for intended
use. Historically, the availability of water and the uses that could be made of it have determined
the areas where people lived and how prosperous those areas could eventually be. Ample fresh
water allows for consumption by the residents of the area, and irrigation, transportation, and
energy uses. It also provides a source of fish and shellfish, supports wildlife, and allows
recreational uses. However, when water resources fail to meet their intended uses—through
diversion, drought, overuse, pollution, or other means—economic conditions as well as public
health and well-being are put in jeopardy. The intended uses of water are, therefore, key
elements to be considered in establishing standards for. water quality.
269
-------
T. SCilAEFFER
• * This fact was recognized early in the development of legislation governing water quality.
Intended protected uses of water resources have been a part of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
since its passage. In various sections, the Act1 lists intended protected uses, including the
following:
• protection of public water supplies,
• protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife,
• protection of recreational activities in and on the water, and
• protection of use for navigation.2
The Act also defines water quality standards in terms of protected uses in section 303 (c) as State
rules or laws that distinguish the uses of waters and the level of water quality to protect those
uses. The U.S. EPA is charged with developing water quality criteria for the States to use in
setting standards. In section 304 (a), the Act states that EPA shall develop and publish,
. . . criteria for water accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge (A) on
the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare including, but
not limited to, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches,
esthetics, and recreation which may be expected from the presence of pollutants
in any body of water. ...
Clearly, EPA must consider impacts on public water supplies in developing water quality
criteria, and, therefore, in the review of human health risk assessment methodology. To
consider those impacts, one must understand some of the requirements of the key piece of
legislation affecting water suppliers, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).3
To protect drinking water consumers from chemical and microbial contaminants, the
SDWA mandates drinking water standards consisting of maximum contaminant level goals
(MCLGs) and maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). MCLGs are established at a level where
no known or anticipated adverse human health effects occur, and incorporate a margin of safety.
MCLGs are not enforceable standards. MCLs are enforceable and set as close to MCLGs as
feasible considering factors such as available technologies, treatment techniques, and costs. All
MCLGs are developed based on human health effects, and, together with MCLs, are subjected
to the regulatory process including opportunity for public comment. Once promulgated, public
water suppliers are then responsible for meeting MCLs. Those that do not are subject to civil
penalties, public notification, and corrective actions. These sanctions can be imposed by EPA
or State agencies, or as a result of citizen suits.
270
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 269-275
. Corrective actions may require capital construction and/or increased operating costs.
Most contaminants regulated under the SDWA do not occur naturally in source waters used for
drinking water supplies. They are the result of pollution discharge or land use practices of
industries and others regulated in whole or in part under other statutes, including the CWA.
NATIONAL TOXICS RULE
The National Toxics Rule,4 proposed in November 1991 under the CWA, highlighted
several areas of concern for water suppliers because of the contaminants involved and the
standards proposed. The rule proposed water quality criteria (WQC) for the priority toxic
pollutants in those States that had not adopted criteria as required by the CWA. The criteria
included specific quantitative levels for protection of aquatic life in fresh and salt water, and for
protection of human health considering consumption of water and aquatic organisms, and
organisms only. Forty-one of the priority toxic pollutants under the CWA are also regulated
under the SDWA. Sixty-one of the contaminants regulated under the SDWA correspond with
those subject to required monitoring in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. Water suppliers, therefore, expected levels proposed for the human health
water quality standards to be consistent with MCLs promulgated under the SDWA for
contaminants regulated under both Acts. This expectation was not realized in every case.
Comparing the NTR and SDWA standards for noncarcinogenic pollutants reveals several
cases where the human health water quality standard (WQS) for consumption of water and
organisms is less stringent than the corresponding drinking water standard, as shown in Table
1.
Taking one example from the table: 1,1,1-trichloroethane has a drinking water MCL of
200 ppb,5 while the proposed NTR water and organisms standard is 3,100 ppb-more than 15
times higher. This difference means that point sources of pollution can contribute high levels
of 1,1,1-trichloroethane to apublic drinking water source-levels that the SDWA regulations do
not consider to be protective of public health in drinking water. Public water supply customers
will bear the costs of removal of the contaminant to levels that are protective of public health.
These costs are more properly borne by the original sources of pollution.
Other NTR standards were also proposed at unexpectedly high levels. The NTR lists 50
ppb for lead as the human health WQS for water and organisms. In developing the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation for Lead and Copper,6 EPA considered establishing a source
water MCL for lead at 5 ppb as the level adequately protective of public health. Although the
MCL was dropped in favor of a treatment technique approach, the final lead and copper rule
requires States to establish enforceable maximum levels for lead leaving treatment facilities when
those levels make a significant contribution to lead levels at consumers' taps. No exact level
271
-------
T. SCHAEFFER
Table 1. Comparison of Selected Human Health Water Quality Standards for the Consumption
of Water and Organisms from the Proposed National Toxics Rule and the Corresponding
Drinking Water Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
Chemical
Water Quality
Standard 0*g/L)
Drinking Water
MCL (jug/L)
Antimony
14
6
Cadmium
16
5
Nickel
610
100
Selenium '
100
50
Sliver
105
50
Cyanide
700
200
Ethylbenzene
3100
700
Toluene
6800
1000
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
3100
200
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
240
50
1,2,4-TrichIorobenzene
not
listed
70
is specified, but it appears that EPA, through preamble discussion in the final rule and guidance
criteria, is guiding the States toward the 5-ppb level.
It should also be noted that the overwhelming majority of surface water sources presently
have lead levels below 5 ppb. Setting the WQS for consumption and organisms at 50 ppb may
send the wrong signal to the public, which is appropriately concerned about the health effects
of lead, particularly when the continuous concentration criterion for aquatic organisms is
proposed at 3.2 ppb. Additionally, the higher standard does not appear to be consistent with the
Agency's overall lead control strategy or the ongoing consideration of further lead regulation
under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Chromium provides another example of an unexpectedly high proposed level. The NTR
proposes separate human health WQS for water and organisms for chromium ID and chromium
VI at 33,000 ppb and 170 ppb, respectively. In contrast, the drinking water MCL for total
chromium (HI and VI) is 100 ppb based on an extensive review of human health criteria.
During development of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, EPA noted that
chromium III is readily oxidized to the more toxic chromium VI by normal drinking water
disinfection.7 A high water and organisms standard for chromium HI is not appropriate,
therefore, in drinking water sources because of the potential for production of chromium VI in
water treatment processes.
272
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 269-275
IMPLICATIONS FOR HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY REVIEW
The problems found in reviewing the National Toxics Rule point to the challenges faced
by EPA in coordinating action on the various environmental statutes. The statutes often have
significant overlap but specify divergent criteria and approaches. Internal coordination of EPA
programs, policies, and priorities within the framework of those statutes is difficult at best. The
lack of consistency in these activities, even in areas as closely related as drinking water
standards and human health water quality criteria, serves to highlight the extent of these
challenges. The quest for consistency has served as one of the driving forces behind the present
review of guidelines for deriving human health criteria under the CWA. Consistency between
the two sets of standards should, therefore, be a major factor in developing guidelines.
Requiring such consistency will ensure that public water supply uses are considered as standards
are established.
The lack of consistency concerns water suppliers because they are responsible for
protecting public health, and are subject to enforcement and costly corrective actions for MCL
violations. When MCLs are not met because the corresponding WQS are less stringent, drinking
water consumers are subject to additional costs. As noted earlier, they effectively subsidize
industries and other point sources by paying for the removal of contaminants that do not occur
naturally in source waters. Human health WQS for water and organisms should generally be
set below corresponding drinking water standards to prevent this type of inequity. The level
chosen for such standards should contain an appropriate safety factor so that slight variations in
contaminant levels will not cause water systems to violate MCLs.
The major implication of the problems found within the NTR is that: a review of the
human health criteria for water quality criteria is appropriate. Throughout this discussion,
comparison has been made between MCLs and such standards. This does not imply that the
methodology used to develop human health risk assessments for drinking water is any better or
worse than that used in WQC development. Both methodologies can and should be improved,
and continue to evolve based on advances in scientific knowledge and capabilities. The
improvement and evolution of each should go hand in hand with the other because of their close
relationship and the need for consistency.
The NTR excluded organoleptic (taste and odor) criteria from consideration in
establishing water quality standards. The reason given is that organoleptic effects are not toxic
effects, so their consideration is unnecessary. The NTR (1991) noted, however, that
organoleptic effects cause:
273
-------
T. SCHAEFFER
-. '* ... taste and odor problems in drinking water which may increase treatment
costs or the selection by the public of alternative but less protective sou rces of
drinking water; and may cause tainting and off flavors in fish flesh and other
edible aquatic life reducing their marketability, thus reducing the recreational and
resource value of the water. ...
Organoleptic effects can, therefore, pose a severe threat to the intended uses of water.
Disregarding such effects is not compatible with the intent of the CWA. There is nothing within
the CWA which limits the consideration of criteria for the priority toxic pollutants to toxic
effects. For those few contaminants where organoleptic criteria may prove more stringent than
human health or aquatic organism criteria, they should take precedence to ensure that intended
uses are met. The phenols deserve special attention because chlorophenols formed during
drinking water chlorination can cause off-flavor problems that can be very costly to correct.
SUMMARY
The preceding discussion can be summarized in four statements that highlight the
concerns of water suppliers in the revision of the EPA guidelines for deriving human health
criteria:
• Human health water quality criteria should be consistent with drinking water
standards.
• Human health water quality standards for consumption of water and organisms
should generally be more stringent than corresponding drinking water standards.
• The risk assessment methodologies for both human health water quality criteria
and drinking water standards should incorporate current scientific capabilities and
knowledge. They should be consistent with each other and evolve together.
• Consideration of organoleptic criteria should be included in the development of
human health water quality criteria where appropriate.
Major portions of these issues fall more in the area of policy or risk management than
risk assessment. From a practical point of view, whether or not they are included specifically
in the human health risk assessment methodology is not critical. It is critical, however, that they
be part of the overall guidelines or framework for deriving human health criteria. Coordination
of clean water and drinking water programs, policies, criteria, and standards is essential so the
intended benefits of both programs can be realized.
274
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE21st CENTURY: 269-275
The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies is made up of the directors and
managers of 90 of the Nation's largest cities and metropolitan areas serving more than 78
million drinking water consumers. The association's formal positions on regulatory actions
undertaken by EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act are evolving as the impacts of these actions
on metropolitan water suppliers are evaluated. This paper reflects a combination of personal
views and preliminary thoughts of members of the association on the issues involved in human
health criteria for water quality standards.
FOOTNOTES
1. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (Clean Water Act), P.L, 92-500,
October 18, 1972.
2. Water Quality Act (Clean Water Act), P.L. 100-4, February 4, 1987.
3. Safe Drinking Water Act, P.L. 99-339, June 19, 1986.
4. Amendments to the Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants Necessary To Bring All
States Into Compliance with Section 303(c)(2)(B) (National Toxics Rule), Federal
Register, November 19, 1991 (56 FR 58420).
5. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Volatile Synthetic Organic Chemicals;
Final Rule, Federal Register, July 8, 1987 (52 FR 23690).
6. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead and Copper; Final Rule, Federal
Register, June 7, 1991 (56 FR 26460).
7. National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Synthetic Organic and Inorganic
Chemicals; Final Rule, Federal Register, January 30, 1991 (56 FR 3526).
275
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 277-292
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT AND WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Jeffery A. Foran, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Director
Environmental Health and Policy Program
Dept. of Health Care Sciences
George Washington University
Washington, D.C.
INTRODUCTION
Human health criteria define the maximum concentration of individual toxicants in
surface waters that should not result in adverse effects to individuals exposed to those toxicants
through consumption of contaminated fish and other aquatic organisms, and through consumption
of contaminated drinking water. Criteria are developed for toxicants with two types of response
curves-nonthreshold and threshold. The nonthreshold response is traditionally associated with
chemicals that are classified as carcinogens while the systemic effects of noncarcinogenic
chemicals are considered to occur in a threshold manner.
The Human Cancer Criterion (HCC) is derived for substances that are known, probable,
or possible carcinogens using the U.S. EPA's standard risk assessment techniques (Federal
Register, 1986). Human Cancer Criteria are numbers used to define maximum acceptable
concentrations in surface waters of nonthreshold acting toxicants. The HCC is intended to
protect humans from an unreasonable incremental risk of developing cancer resulting from
contact with, or ingestion of, surface waters and from ingestion of aquatic organisms taken from
surface waters.
The Human Threshold Criterion (HTC), sometimes called the Human Noncarcinogen
Criterion, is intended to protect humans from adverse effects resulting from contact with
noncarcinogenic substances through ingestion of surface waters and through ingestion of aquatic
organisms from surface waters. The HTC is derived for toxic substances for which a clear
threshold dose or concentration is displayed.
The basis for development of both Human Cancer and Human Threshold Criteria is the
potency of specific chemicals. Potency for carcinogens is reflected in the slope factor (q,*) and
277
-------
J.A. FORAN
in the1 Reference Dose (RfD) for threshold toxicants (noncarcinogens). Derivation and use of
the*q," (NAS, 1983; Anderson et al., 1983) and the RfD (Barnes and Dourson, 1988) have been
described extensively in the literature.
Human health criteria are not used directly to control the discharge of toxic substances
to surface waters. Rather, they are utilized in the development of effluent limits for toxic
pollutants that are discharged from point sources. Criteria are also used to determine whether
a surface water system has attained applicable Water Quality Standards, and to regulate" other
(e.g., nonpoint) sources of toxic pollutants to surface waters. In this paper, I discuss the
risk-based approach to development of human health criteria as well as the application of criteria
in programs to regulate toxicants in surface waters.
RISK ASSESSMENT AND HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
Much discussion and criticism of traditional risk assessment methodologies, particularly
for carcinogens, has occurred (see for example Ames and Gold, 1987; Ames and Gold, 1990;
and Finkel, 1990).. At the center of the controversy for predicting human risk and effects
associated with exposure to toxic chemicals is the lack of human epidemiologic: evidence for
most chemicals. A human dose-response relationship is usually derived, when epidemiologic
data are lacking, from laboratory studies conducted at relatively high doses on rodent species.
The dose-response relationship determined from these studies is then used to develop estimates
of potency for carcinogens (q,*) and for noncarcinogens (RfD) at low human doses or exposures.
The result of the uncertainty associated with derivation of the q,* and the RfD based on
a NOAEL to predict human risk may be error about the risk estimate of one or more orders of
magnitude. However, whether this error underestimates or overestimates true risk is unclear.
What is clear is that considerable discussion of the error about the dose-response curves,
particularly for carcinogens, has occurred without commensurate discussion of the other factors
that are used to calculate human health criteria. The remainder of this section of the paper
discusses the factors, other than those associated with chemical potency, that are used in the
derivation of human cancer and human noncancer criteria.
Risk Levels, Exposure Assumptions, and Other Factors Used To Derive
Human Health Criteria
The U.S. EPA develops cancer criteria to protect adults who weigh approximately 70 kg,
consume two liters of water per day, and consume 6.5 grams of fish per day. The Agency does
not, however, choose an acceptable risk level to calculate the cancer criterion but rather allows
States to adopt criteria associated with the risk level of their choice (Federal Register, 1980).
278
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 277-292
The choice of a cancer risk level in the development of the HCC is a purely nonscientific
issue. The basis for the choice may be public opinion, economic impact, of political expediency
but a scientific basis cannot be invoked to support such a choice. Acceptable cancer risk levels
generally range between 1 x 10"4 to 1 x 10"6 (Bailar, 1990). States in the Great Lakes Basin have
chosen acceptable risk levels that range from 1 x 104 to 1 x 106 to calculate state-specific human
cancer criteria (Foran, 1990). The U.S. EPA takes regulatory action (e.g., for Superfund
cleanups) when cancer risks are greater than 1 x 10^ and usually does not take regulatoiy action
when cancer risks are less than 1 x 10"6 (Travis et al., 1987). L
* ¦
The choice of the cancer risk level has an important impact on derived human cancer
criteria. Since cancer risk levels chosen to develop Water Quality Criteria may vary by one or
more orders of magnitude, criteria resulting from the use of different risk levels will also vary
by at least one order of magnitude. Yet, the choice of a cancer risk level is only one of several
considerations in the regulatory process that will affect the development of the HCC as well as
the human threshold criterion.
U.S. EPA's Technical Support Document (U.S. EPA, 1991) states that more than one
fish consumption rate may be appropriate for use, depending on the population to be protected,
in calculating human health criteria. However, the U.S. EPA uses a fish consumption rate of
6.5 grams/day to estimate average consumption of fish and shellfish from estuarine and fresh
waters by the entire U.S. population. It is this consumption rate that is utilized to derive
national human health criteria.
The choice of a 6.5 g/day fish consumption rate was based on a suivey of average fish
consumption in the U.S. population in the 1970s (Rupp et al., 1980). This rate represents a one-
half pound meal of fish once every five weeks. During the 1980s, the popularity of fish as an
important, healthy source of protein increased substantially. For example, the Institute of
Medicine reports in its text Seafood Safety (IOM, 1991) that the average individual consumption
of fish and shellfish in the United States totaled nearly 20 g/day (one 1/3-pound meal per week)
in 1989. However, a new fish consumption rate for the U.S. population has not been adopted
to reflect the increased popularity of fish and shellfish and to address the potential increase in
exposure to toxicants contained in fish and shellfish.
The EPA does recognize that some individuals may consume significantly greater
quantities of fish than the general U.S. population. For example, residents of the Great Lakes
Basin may consume several meals of fish weekly due to the availability of a vibrant sport
fishery. Few data are available to accurately estimate the quantities of fish consumed by Great
Lakes residents. Some States in the Great Lakes Basin have adopted consumption rates as high
as 30 g/day to derive human health criteria to reflect the potential for increased consumption of
Great Lakes sport fish (Foran, 1990), although many States still use 6.5 grams/day to develop
human health criteria.
279
-------
J.A. FORAN
• 'The use of a 70-kg human weight and water intake of 2 L/day in the derivation of human
health criteria is designed to represent average adult weight and water consumption. Thus,
criteria are developed to be protective of adults. Children also ingest fish and drinking water
from surface water systems although the U.S. EPA does not recommend criteria development
that recognizes exposure to children. When the average weight and the average water intake are
modified to represent younger individuals, resultant criteria are considerably more restrictive.
Development of human health criteria also includes consideration of the accumulation of
toxic chemicals ift tissues of aquatic biota. These concentrations may be several orders of
magnitude higher than concentrations of the toxicant in surrounding surface waters. For
example, a number of fish species in the Great Lakes Basin have accumulated toxic chemicals
in their tissues to levels that have prompted States surrounding the Great Lakes to issue
consumption advisories that warn individuals to reduce or eliminate the consumption of some
highly contaminated species.
The relationship between log BCF and log (Veith and Kosian, 1983) has been used
by most State and Federal agencies to regulate the concentrations of bioconcentratable pollutants
in surface waters. However, prediction of BCF from log may be relatively poor when log
K„, is greater that 6.0. The relationship between log Km and BCF also does not account for the
accumulation of chemicals in tissues via biomagnification or uptake through the food chain.
Biomagnification may play a considerable role in determining the concentration of a chemical
in tissues of aquatic biota. For example, Thomann and Connolly (1984) suggested that more
than 99 percent of the observed concentration of PCB (Log = 6.4 to 6.8) in Lake Michigan
lake trout resulted from exposure through the food chain. Use of the octanol-water partition
coefficient to predict lake trout tissue concentration underestimated observed concentrations by
a factor of 4. In this case, consideration of only bioconcentration in calculating human health
criteria would underestimate total accumulation of a chemical in tissues of aquatic biota.
Recommendations have been made for the use of a food chain multiplier (FM) to account
for bioaccumulation of chemicals in tissues of aquatic biota. However, most States have not
used a food chain multiplier or other adjustment factor to account for food chain uptake of toxic
chemicals. Rather, most States rely solely on the BCF to predict the accumulation potential of
chemicals in aquatic biota and to generate human cancer and human threshold criteria.
The choice of fish consumption rate, human weight, and bioaccumulation factor has a
profound effect on development of the human health criteria. Fish consumption rates ranging
from 6.5 grams/day to 180 grams/day (several meals per week) will change criteria by a factor
of up to 28 when all other factors are held constant. Further, a derived criterion for chlordane
(a carcinogen) calculated for a 15-kg individual ingesting one-half liter of water per day is 4
times more restrictive than the criterion calculated using the adult weight and water consumption
rate. And the use of a BCF without a food chain multiplier results in Water Quality Criteria that
280
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21 st CENTURY:; 277-292
may be up to 100 times less stringent depending on chemical and food chain characteristics
(U.S. EPA, 1991).
The choice of combinations of these factors has an effect on the final Water Quality
Criterion that is much more profound than effects elicited by these factors individually. In the
chlordane example, the choice of the least conservative risk levels and exposure factors (weight,
water intake, and fish consumption) results in a criterion that is nearly four orders of magnitude
greater than a criterion resulting from use of the most restrictive risk levels and exposure factors
(Table 1).
Table 1. Human health criteria for chlordane (in /ig/L).
GRAMS
FISH/DAY
HUMAN
WEIGHT (KG)
RISK LEVEL
10^
io-5
10"6
6.5
70
0.20
0.02
0.002
15
0.05
0.005
0.0005
20.0
70
0.07
0.007
0.0007
15
0.015
0.0015
0.00015
90.0
70
0.016
0.0016
0.00016
15
0.003
0.0003
- 0.00003
180.0
70
0.008
0.0008
0.00008 .
15
0.002
0.0002
0.00002
q*l = 1.3/mg/kg/day
BCF = 3804
Another important consideration in criterion derivation is exposure to chemical toxicants
through routes other than drinking water and fish consumption. In many cases, data are not
available to quantify human, nonsurface water-related exposures to toxic substances on a State
or regional basis. However, two States in the Great Lakes Basin use default values for
nonsurface water-related exposures. Minnesota uses a default value of 0.2 (called a Relative
Source Contribution - RSC) to adjust the HTC to account for nonsurface water exposures.
Wisconsin uses an Exposure Adjustment Factor (EAF) of 0.8 to modify the HTC to account for
nonsurface water exposures; thus, Wisconsin assumes that 20 percent, and Minnesota assumes
281
-------
J.A. FORAN
that 80 percent, of human exposure to individual toxicants is derived from nonsuiface water
sources. Both States use the adjustment values only when data are not available to address
actual, nonsurface water exposures.
Finally, concurrent exposure to more than one contaminant must be incorporated into
criterion development. Human health criteria generally address human exposure only to
individual chemicals. In many, if not most, cases, surface waters and aquatic biota contain a
multitude of toxic pollutants. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified
more than 400 different chemicals in Great Lakes sport fish (Passino and Smith, 1987).
Concurrent exposure to more than one toxicant requires some consideration of the cumulative
risk associated with exposure to multiple contaminants. The U.S. EPA (1991) has suggested
that, for carcinogens, risks should be considered to be additive, although this consideration is
generally not incorporated into criterion derivation.
Use of the additivity concept in criterion development reduces allowable concentrations
of individual carcinogens in surface water well below levels allowed when criteria are based on
risks or effects associated with exposure to individual toxicants only. For example, a cancer
criterion for each of two equally potent, co-occurring carcinogens would be half the HCC for
each of the chemicals should they occur alone.
APPLICATION OF HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA
Criterion development is only one step in the regulation of toxic pollutants in surface
waters. A host of non-health-based factors, which contribute to the variability in the pollutant
"regulatoiy process, are introduced through the application of human health criteria in the
regulation of sources of toxic pollutants. Therefore, the application of human health criteria
must also be included in any discussion of the adequacy of criteria to protect human health from
the impacts of toxic pollutants in surface waters.
Human health criteria do not, by themselves, define the mass or concentration of
pollutants that may be discharged from industries, agricultural activities, urban areas, and many
other sources of toxic pollutants. Rather, the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged to
a water body is calculated so that the concentration of the pollutant will meet human health and
other criteria after mixing with the receiving water. The quantity of a pollutant that can be
discharged from a point source to a receiving water body is determined by the quantity of
pollutant that can be assimilated by the water body as well as by the quantity of pollutant that
already exists in the water body.
. A receiving water's assimilative capacity is defined operationally by the total maximum
daily load (TMDL) or the mass of a pollutant which can be discharged into a surface water
without exceeding ambient Water Quality Criteria or otherwise violating Water Quality
282
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
•'277-292
Standards; that is, by the ability of the surface water to dilute a toxicant to levels that meet
WQC. The portion of the TMDL available for allocation among point sources is called the
wasteload allocation (WLA).
Water quality-based effluent limits (WQBEL) for toxic poEutants, incorporated in MPDES
permits, are determined by the wasteload allocation. The goal of the WLA is to prevent a
pollutant discharged from a point source from reaching an instream concentration that will
exceed any numeric Water Quality Criterion or otherwise violate a State's Water Quality
Standards. The wasteload allocation is developed based on the maximum concentrations of
toxicants allowed in surface waters determined by numeric Water Quality Criteria, the amount
of dilution provided by a receiving water, and other factors including analytical detection
capabilities, the source of intake water, the co-occurrence of other toxic pollutants in the
effluent, background concentrations of toxic pollutants, and variability of toxicant concentrations
in effluents.
Analysis of wasteload allocation procedures utilized by the States in the Great Lakes
Basin indicates that the quantities (loads) of pollutants discharged from point sources vary
dramatically between states (Figure 1). His variation is due only in part to differences between
human health criteria. Differences in the wasteload allocation processes are also critical in
determining how much of a pollutant can be discharged to a surface water system. For example,
most of the States in the Great Lakes Basin use relatively similar numeric WQC for lead (with
the exception of Illinois - Figure 1). The result of use of a less stringent criterion to regulate
point sources of lead in Illinois is, of course, substantially elevated lead discharges (loads) to
surface waters. However, substantial variation also exists between States with similar lead
criteria due to the choice of dilution capacity utilized in the calculation of the WLA for lead.
Use of different dilution flows in the WLA by States with similar criteria results in substantial
differences in the allowable loads of lead that can be discharged from a point source to surface
waters.
' v ' ' '
The control of pollutants discharged from point sources can be affected further, without
changes in numeric criteria, when the water quality-based effluent limit for a toxicant is below
the method detection limit for that toxicant. Some State policies to address this problem result
in the discharge of extremely large loads of pollutants. For example, if the concentration of
PCB in an industrial discharge is at or near the detection level used for compliance purposes by
Wisconsin (0.6 fig/h), the load of PCB discharged by this facility will be approximately 50 times
greater (54 kg/year) than the PCB load discharged in the effluent with a PCB concentration that ,
meets the Water Quality-Based Effluent Limit (1 kg/year). The PCB load in the same effluent
will be over 7,000 times greater than the PCB load discharged in an effluent where the
concentration meets the human health criterion at the point of discharge (0.007 kg/year, Table
2). Even discharges at the detection level used in most Great Lakes States, or at half this
detection level, result in annual loads over 800 times and 400 times larger, respectively, than
the load resulting from an effluent with a PCB concentration set at the EPA Water Quality
\ 283 '
-------
1. State-specific Water Quality Criteria (WQC - first graph) and dilution flows (second graph) used to
calculate annual loads (third graph) of three pollutants (lead, mercury, and PCB) discharged by a
hypothetical industry with an effluent flow of 100 CFS. Wasteload allocation and dilution flows are specific,
to criteria in the first graph (see Foran, 1992, for a description of the use of numeric criteria and dilution
in the calculation of the WLA). NA indicates that a State does not have a WQC for that substance.
LEAD
ft IN W MN NT OH FA VI
nmsoenotf
R. M M W DY (NMA «1
K. X M MN HY OH M *1
MERCURY
W NT W M M
JURBOCtON
I N MWNNVOMPAVfl
junsocnx
l N M MN NY OH PA W!
JURSOCnON
PCB
W OH M M
«a»
3500
*00
s
| aw
2 *ta>
8
•«»
i N U MN m CM PA
0#
u
5
§
t **
y di
fti
11
LLJWLJ
t. m ' m " m'm m 'wk' w
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st, CENTURY: 277-292
Table 2. Loads of PCB resulting from an effluent limited by various analytical
detection levels used in the Great Lakes States.
EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATION
0*g/L) ,
LOAD (KG/YEAR)
LOAD
(POUNDS/YEAR)
0.6 (LOQ used by WI)
53.6
118.2
0.2 (LOD used by MN)
17.9
39.5
0.1 (LOD used by IL,
IN, MI, OH, PA)
-8.9
19.6
0.065 (LOD used by NY)
5.8 r
12.8
0.000079 (EPA WQC)
0.007
0.02
Criterion. These differences can occur even where States adopt and utilize identical human
health criteria for PCBs.
Background concentrations of a pollutant usually result in a reduction in the load of
pollutant that can be allocated to point source dischargers. However, when background
concentrations are above numeric Water Quality Criteria, States alter their discharge regulations
and, in some cases, allow elevated loads of pollutants to be discharged to an already polluted
receiving water. For example, the outcome of State policies on elevated background
concentrations, expressed as the load of pollutant discharged from a hypothetical industry, is
shown for lead in Figure 2. For this analysis, the background concentration for lead was
assumed to be two times the least stringent criterion in the Great Lakes States.
The load discharged to the receiving stream from a point source, where the background
concentration is zero, is calculated using the standard WLA derivation procedures and is
represented by the hatched bars in Figure 2.. The net load to the receiving stream discharged
where the background concentration is two times greater than the criterion, and where the
285
-------
J.A. FORAN
Figure2. Annual load of lead discharged by a hypothetical industry with an effluent flow
of 100 CFS and stream background concentrations set at 2x the least stringent
State chronic criterion. Loads are calculated by employing each State's policy to
address background concentrations in the derivation of the WQBEL for three
situations: (1) Background concentration = 0; (2) Background concentration >
WQC and the intake water is drawn from the receiving stream - RSS, and; (3)
Background concentration > WQC and the intake water is drawn from a
non-receiving stream source - NRS. See Foran, 1992, for a full description of
calculation procedures.
LEAD
8000
7000
6000
cc
a 5000-
0
^ 4000
D
o 300°"
—i
2000-
1000-
0-
IL
Background = 0
Background > WQC - RSS
Background > WQC - NRS
BAT
MI MN NY OH
JURISDICTION
receiving stream serves as the water source for the discharger, is indicated by the black bars.
In this case, States in the Great Lakes Basin do not allow any net increase in the load discharged
286
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS DM THE 21st CENTURY: 277-292
to the receiving stream. That is, point sources may discharge only as much pollutant as they
take in from the water source; thus the black bars (or their absence) indicate no net increase in
the load to the receiving stream. However, the load discharged by a point source to the
receiving stream when the intake water is from a nonreceiving stream source (NRS), and where
the background concentration of the pollutant in the receiving stream is two times greater than
the criterion, is indicated by the gray bars in Figure 2. In this case, the bars indicate the
increase in the load to the receiving stream above and beyond the pollutants already in the
receiving stream. This example demonstrates that the discharge of substantial pollutant loads
to an already polluted surface water system can result from the choice of policy decisions
associated with WLA development, without any interstate differences in human health criteria.
DISCUSSION
The adequacy of existing risk assessment techniques, particularly for carcinogens, has
dominated discussions of how such substances should be regulated. Generation of a potency
factor (q/) for carcinogens based on the linearized multistage model has caused considerable
concern, particularly for substances that may act through something other than a nonthreshold
mechanism (Roberts, 1991). The method to assess and regulate the risks of exposure to
threshold acting toxicants, through the development of a RfD, has also been criticized
(Goldstein, 1990).
The choice of risk level as well as the multitude of exposure factors used in the
calculation of human health criteria can result in differences of nearly four orders of magnitude
in derived criteria. Choices related to the bioconcentration factor (BCF) and use of a food-chain
multiplier (FM), and concurrent exposure to more than one toxicant will influence the criteria
further, perhaps by as much as three orders of magnitude. Criteria will be further reduced
where regulatory agencies consider concurrent exposure to more than one contaminant and
nonsurface water exposure routes.
A comprehensive evaluation of the impacts on human health of the regulatory process for
toxic pollutants requires an understanding not only of how criteria are developed, but of the
relationship between human health criteria, the wasteload allocation and its many components,
and other mechanisms that influence the control of pollutants that derive from point and nonpoint
sources. For example, examination of human health criteria in the Great Lakes Basin
demonstrates the substantial variation that exists between State criteria for pollutants such as
TCDD (dioxin), TCDF, PCB, mercury, and lead (Table 3). However, such a comparison does
not provide any indication of the loads of pollutants that may be discharged from point sources
to surface.
287
-------
CHEMICAL
STATE
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Wisconsin
TCDD
NA
. 1,0*E"7 (HT)
NA
NA
2.0*E't (HC)
1.0*E' (HC)
1.4*E'7 (HC)
3.0*E*« (HC)
TCDF
" NA
NA
NA
NA
50.0**
NA
NA
NA
PCB (TOT)
NA
7.9'E"4
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 277-292
A comparison of both numeric WQC and the processes used to apply numeric WQC in
the regulation of point sources through the WLA must be conducted to understand completely
how regulatory actions control the discharge of toxic pollutants to surface waters. Such a
comparison confirms that existing approaches to the regulation of point sources of toxic
pollutants result, in many cases, in the discharge of extremely large loads of persistent
pollutants, often to systems that are already polluted with these same toxicants.
A call for better (more scientifically justifiable?) risk assessment procedures, and
incorporation of those procedures in the derivation of human health criteria, is laudable.
However, such efforts will not necessarily result in adequate protection of human health, even
where criteria are more stringent. The entire regulatory process from criterion development to
source control must be considered as a package.
Traditional emphasis on end-of-pipe regulation for point sources, via reliance on human
health and other numeric criteria, has not eliminated discharges of toxic pollutants to surface
waters, particularly for those that are persistent and bioaccumulative. Nor has the existing point
source regulation process eliminated the impacts of persistent toxic pollutants in surface water
ecosystems. The ability of the end-of-pipe control process to achieve zero discharge is limited
by analytical detection capabilities and treatment technology. Further, the existing regulatory
process, which is based on human health and other criteria and on a recognition that receiving
waters provide dilution for toxic wastes, does not force continuing reductions in the mass and
concentrations of toxic substances in effluents. That is, the process does not force continuing
progress toward zero discharge—the goal of the Clean Water Act and of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement.
*
Achievement of zero discharge of toxic substances requires a new approach to pollutant
control. Such an approach is being developed, at least conceptually, and relies on control of
pollutants at their source rather than at the point of discharge. Source reduction, source control,
toxicant use reductions, or pollution prevention approaches have been incorporated into a few
State and Federal statutes including the Federal Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
Sections 13101 et seq.), the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act of 1989 (Chapter 265),
, and the New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act of 1991 (P.L. 1983, c. 315). A pollution
prevention approach to water quality protection and to the regulation of toxic pollutants in
surface waters has also been called for by the U.S. GAO (1991).
The basis for pollution prevention and source reduction is a net reduction of toxic
pollutants discharged to surface waters (and ultimately all media) through reduction of the use
of the chemical. Use reductions may be accomplished through industrial process changes, which
include more efficient chemical use, chemical substitutions, and recycling. Or reduction may
be accomplished through chemical bans or phase-outs, product changes or bans, and behavior
changes which affect product consumption or use.
289
-------
J.A. FORAN
' ' Reduction strategies as well as the source reduction concept should result in the reduction
of waste production and reduction of releases to surface waters and other environmental media.
As such, the concept will be effective in reducing discharges of toxic pollutants below levels
which can be accomplished by waste treatment processes alone, and below those that may be
limited by declaration of safe toxicant levels defined by human health and other criteria.
Ultimately, where a chemical is eliminated, from use in a process or product via substitution,
process change, or other mechanisms, the discharge of that chemical will also be eliminated;
thus, the zero discharge goal of the CWA will have been met without argument about the
scientific justifiability of human health criteria or about analytical detection capabilities, how
much (if any) dilution should be used to calculate the WLA, or implementation of increasingly
expensive treatment technologies.
As the Clean Water Act is reauthorized during 1992 and 1993, the opportunity is
presented to incoiporate pollution prevention and toxicant use reduction concepts into the statute.
This opportunity should be seized, bypassing comparatively trivial discussions associated with
how to modify risk-based human health criteria as well as bypassing expenditure of immense
resources devoted to those discussions. Gains in environmental improvement will occur much
more rapidly, and perhaps less expensively, if we cease our attempts to define more and more
precisely acceptable toxicant concentrations in surface waters and get to the business of achieving
zero discharge of toxic pollutants.
REFERENCES
Ames, B.N. and L.W. Gold. 1987. Pesticides, risk, and applesauce. Science. 244:755-757.
Ames, B.N. and L.W. Gold. 1990. Too many rodent carcinogens: Mitogenesis increases
mutagenesis. Science. 249:970-971.
Anderson, E.L. and the U.S. EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group. 1983. Quantitative
approaches in use to assess cancer risk. Risk Anal. 3:277-295.
Bailar, J.C. 1991. How dangerous is dioxin? N. Eng. J. Med. 324:260-262.
Barnes, D.G. and M. Dourson, 1988. Reference Dose (RfD): Description and use in health
risk assessments. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8:471-486.
Federal Register. 1980. 45,79318-79359.
Federal Register. 1986. 51,33992-34003.
290
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 277-292
Finkel, A. 1990. Confronting Uncertainty in Risk Management. Center for Risk Management,
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
Foran, J.A. 1990. Toxic substances in surface water: Protecting human health. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 24:604-608
Foran, J.A. 1992. The Control of Discharges of Toxic Pollutants: Development of
Benchmarks. U.S./Canadian International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. 51 pp.
Goldstein, B.D. 1990. The problem with the margin of safety: Toward the concept of
protection. Risk Anal. 10:7-10.
IOM. 1991. Institute of Medicine. Seafood Safety. In: Ahmed, F.E., ed. Report of the
Committee on Evaluation of the Safety of Fishery Products. Food and Nutrition Board, IOM,
National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NAS. 1983. National Academy of Sciences. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government:
Managing the Process. National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Passino, D.M. and S.B. Smith. 1987. Acute bioassay and hazard evaluation of representative
contaminants detected in Great Lakes fish. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:901-907.
Roberts, L. 1991. EPA moves to reassess the risk of dioxin. Science. 252:911.
Rupp, E.M. , F.L. Miller, and C.F. Baes. 1980. Some results of recent surveys of fish and
shellfish consumption by age and region of U.S. residents. Health Phys. 39:165-175.
Thomann, R.V. and J.P. Connolly. 1984. Model of PCB in the Lake Michigan lake trout food
chain. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:65-71.
Travis, C.C., S.A. Richter, E.A.C. Crouch, R. Wilson, and E.D. Klema. 1987. Cancer risk
management: A review of 132 Federal regulatory decisions. Environ. Sci. Technol.
21:415-420. '
U.S. EPA. 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-90-001. 145 pp.
U.S. GAO. 1991. Water Pollution: Stronger efforts needed by EPA to control toxic water
pollution. Report to the Chairman, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resource Subcommittee,
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives. Report #G AO/RCED-91 -154.
53pp.
• 291
-------
J.A. FORAN
Veith, G.D. and P. Kosian. 1983. Estimating bioconcentration potential from octanol/water
partition coefficients. In: MaCkay, D., R. Patterson, S. Eisenieich, and M. Simmons, eds.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Pubs.
292
-------
WQS for
Ephemeral and
Effluent-
Dependent
Streams
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 293-296
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR EPHEMERAL AND
EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT STREAMS
Harry Seraydarian (Moderator)
Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
San Francisco, California
PROBLEM STATEMENT: HOW TO STRIKE THE BALANCE IN THE
ARID WEST BETWEEN PROTECTION OF DESIGNATED USES,
PRESERVATION OF AQUATIC AND RIPARIAN HABITATS, AND THE
BENEFITS OF WATER RECLAMATION
Appropriateness and Feasibility of Meeting Toxic Standards
All States lire required to adopt new toxic standards to comply with a 1987 CWA
amendment.
Western states feel they face special challenges to meeting toxic standards because of low
dilution and waterbody types.
Dischargers argue that EPA's approach to water quality standards is costly, inappropriate
when applied to effluent-dependent streams, and offers little environmental benefit to the
waterbodies.
Unintended Effects of Standards on Instream Flows and Wastewater
Reclamation
Adoption of water quality standards may have unintended environmental impacts such
as drying up wetlands or riparian areas that are dependent upon municipal effluent
discharges. If EPA requires strict standards to be met, municipalities may find it more
economical to sell the treated effluent rather than upgrade sewage treatment plants.
293
-------
H, SERAYDARIAN
. -High treatment costs may also discourage reclamation projects that require some
discharge to the stream. In arid West, water reclamation is ah effective way of
augmenting the otherwise scarce water resources.
Protection of Ecological Values and Instream Flows
Many of West's water bodies are ephemeral and support aquatic uses in the stream for
only a few weeks of the year.
In many cases in the arid West, the riparian habitats are more diverse and ecologically
"valuable" than in-stream aquatic life.
Environmental groups criticize EPA's approach for failing to protect in-stream flows and
other ecological values. Requested a need to broaden scope of water quality regulation
to allow protection of valuable ecosystems and in-stream flows.
DOES THE CLEAN WATER ACT DEAL EFFECTIVELY WITH
EFFLUENT DOMINATED, EPHEMERAL AND INTERMITTENT
STREAMS?
Current Regulations Offer Flexibility
EPA's general policy is that water quality should be adequate to support designated uses
whenever there is water in the stream.
* Existing flexibility within current regulations including site-specific standards and
use-attainability provisions addresses ephemeral/effluent-dependent streams:
EPA's metals guidance allows a "translator mechanism" for metals.
States have option of tailoring standards to local water quality conditions using
site-specific standards. Arizona recently adopted alternate standards for ephemeral
streams based on resident species.
High treatment costs can be addressed through the use attainability provision. If meeting
standards will cause "widespread and substantial social and economic impact," standards,
may be adjusted.
294
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 293-296
EPA Region 9's Guidance Specifically Addresses Arid West Water Quality
Issues
"Net Ecological Benefit" recognizes and considers standards implications on instream
flow.
Guidance identifies how social and environmental benefits of wastewater reclamation may
be considered with standards.
Identifies flexibility in regulations in order to streamline the standards process.
Establishes framework that allows states and local governments to make decisions about
water quality standards, preserving valuable habitats, and water reclamation.
FUTURE STEPS
States Should Further Integrate Water Quality and Ecological Concerns
Western water law does not protect riparian corridors
Water quality and ecological concerns should be integrated into water appropriations
systems.
Flow standards, in-stream appropriations, public trust, and water marketing are tools that
States can use to preserve in-stream flows.
Solutions to flow related environmental problems should be tailored to each state's legal,
institutional and political composition.
EPA Should Assist States to Develop Methodology for Arid West
Biological studies of species present in arid areas.
EPA can offer technical support to review/develop the scientific methodology for arid
ecosystem criteria.
To better integrate water quality, economic, and ecological concerns, EPA can help
implement a "watershed approach".
295
-------
H. SERAYDARIAN
Additional Issues to Consider
Need to assess the future responsibility of maintaining flow to support the riparian
habitats;, particularly habitats that support threatened and endangered species.
Need to consider the benefits of creating a new riparian habitat versus benefit of
maintaining an existing one.
CASE STUDIES OF EFFLUENT-DEPENDENT WATERS
Phoenix; Existing Discharge
• Existing Discharge of 200 mgd to Salt Gila River;
• Supports 6 mile reach of riparian habitat including endangered species;
• Proposing total water reuse/reclamation;
• Environmentalists concerned about habitat loss;
• Pollutants of concern are ammonia, metals, phenol
Eastern Municipal Water District: Proposed Discharge
• Existing reclamation facility; proposing new discharge of 15 mgd to accommodate
urban growth;
• Santa Margarita River; free flowing river in Southern California;
• Provides valuable riparian habitat and supports endangered species;
• Santa Margarita River is primary groundwater recharge source for the basin;
• Pollutants: TDS, nutrients, freshwater flow to estuary
296
-------
WATER QUALITY jTANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: "297-305
SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
ARE NEEDED FOR ARID AREAS
George A. Brinsko, P.E., DEE
Director
Pima County Wastewater Management Department
Tucson; Arizona
INTRODUCTION
As director of a major municipal wastewater utility, much of my time and effort is spent
in meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act.1 The Act dictates that upon discharge into
the waters of the United States, effluent must meet the limits of our facilities' discharge permits,
and that industrial discharges to the treatment facilities must be regulated, all while generating
sufficient financial resources to efficiently operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system.
Additionally, operation and maintenance costs must be recovered through the assessment of user
fees that are equitable and, according to my Board, affordable by the community. It is a
formidable task anywhere, but in the arid west we face some particularly unique challenges in
implementing the directives of the Act.
CRITERIA DOCUMENTS FOR DIVERSE ECOSYSTEMS
The United States has a variety of aquatic and nonaquatic ecosystems. The coastal ~
regions have marine systems, the Great Lakes area has its own unique aquatic ecosystem, and
wetland ecosystems support a wide array of terrestrial and aquatic species. Each of these
ecosystems has specific criteria documents either established or in the process of being
developed. In 1986, water quality criteria for aquatic habitats and marine ecosystems were
published by EPA.2 These are commonly known as the Gold Book criteria. In 1990, EPA
published a guidance manual for wetlands.3 A joint State and Federal effort is now under way
to develop water quality criteria for the Great Lakes region.
Although there have been proposals to address ephemeral streams, which are typical of
arid regions, there are no substantiated water quality criteria documents for such ecosystems.
EPA Region 9, working with several western water and wastewater agencies, has developed an
297
-------
Q.A. BRINSKO
"interim final" guidance document for modifying water quality standards and protecting effluent-
dependent ecosystems.4 The guidance is a notable effort at addressing the unique water quality
conditions found in the arid west and could be beneficial in modifying a designated use,
adjusting Total Maximum Daily Load Allocations for a particular permit limit, or developing
alternative criteria for a particular stream segment. The Region 9 Guidance primarily focuses
on the use attainability process. This process allows the study of only one stream or small
ecosystem. Its findings cannot be applied regionally in the arid west.
In June, the Western Governors' Association passed a resolution supporting the
development of water quality criteria for ephemeral waterways and effluent-supported waters.5
The Association's policy also calls for the establishment of water quality criteria for the wide
variety of ecosystems that exist throughout the country.
There is recognition on a national level that water quality criteria specific to unique
regional ecosystems are needed. At its national meeting in Cleveland, Ohio, in May, the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) adopted a position statement
emphasizing the need for water quality criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams.6
AMSA requested that Congress and EPA consider the net benefits of effluent discharge in the
standards development process, modify the use attainability and site-specific standards processes,
establish peer review procedures, and fund an effort to develop water quality criteria documents
for ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams and other atypical water bodies.
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), a group of water and wastewater
agencies in California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, adopted a similar position at its July
meeting in San Diego.7 WESTCAS maintains that water quality standards and criteria should
be based on sound scientific data and common sense practices rather than on arbitrary
calculations that now exist. WESTCAS also believes there must be an adequate confidence level
in water quality criteria that are expected to protect species in the arid west. WESTCAS wants
water quality criteria developed for the arid west to provide realistic standards for water and
wastewater agencies in our region.
The State of California Water Quality Control Board has also found thai: the sound
science for appropriate water quality criteria is lacking. The board has requested a 5-year study
period in which to develop appropriate water quality standards for the areas under its
jurisdiction.
In all my recent discussions with congressional staff, EPA, and other agencies, there is
a consensus that specific water quality criteria documents are needed for the arid west. These
water quality criteria documents must be based on scientific research of indicator species native
to and representative of the arid west.
298
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
297-305
The Clean Water Act
The basic fundamentals of the Clean Water Act are both appropriate and commendable.
In 1972, when Congress approved the Clean Water Act, the main objective was to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters.
The goal of achieving technology-based standards (secondary treatment) has for the most
part been successful. Most major cities in the country now provide secondary treatment of
municipal wastewater. However, secondary treatment is not required in certain marine waters
that can demonstrate that the ecosystem is protected.
The Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987 introduced a new emphasis on water quality
standards. States were required to adopt numeric water quality standards to limit priority
pollutants in effluent by February 1992.
Development of Water Quality Standards
Effluent discharges to waters of the United States are regulated by the National Pollutant*
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The basis for the discharge limits in NPDES
permits is State water quality standards. In establishing these standards, the States use a
combination of two factors: designated uses and criteria data. Criteria data are supposed to be
used to calculate standards to protect the designated use. After a State has established acceptable
designated uses, the-sext step is to apply appropriate criteria and calculate standards to protect
each of the designated uses. The States are given ample flexibility in assigning designated uses
to stream segments, but availability of appropriate criteria is limited.
If an existing designated use is questioned, EPA advises the application of the use
attainability process to identify suitable designated uses. Many have expressed concern,
however, that EPA's process is difficult to implement; in response, EPA Region 9 is attempting
to develop a more workable process. But the problems of the arid west do not lie in the
reclassification of designated stream uses, but rather in the lack of criteria to protect actual uses.
Many States were under pressure to meet EPA's February 1992 deadline to develop water
quality standards that included numeric limits. The lack of criteria documents for regional
ecosystems forced those States without adopted standards to rely on Federal criteria documents
that are insensitive to unique ecosystems. States that missed EPA's deadline will be required
to use federally promulgated standards, which are based on national criteria rather than regional
criteria protective of representative ecosystems.
. During the triennial review process in Arizona, initial drafts of the water quality
standards included limits that were based on the protection of aquatic species that did not exist
299
-------
O,A. BRINSKO
in the ecosystem. The draft standards were proposed in the absence of scientific research on
species similar or native to those found in the streams of the arid west. A joint effort was
undertaken by municipalities and industry to develop criteria for priority pollutants to protect the
different beneficial uses that did exist in Arizona.8,9 EPA recognized the inapplicability of the
Gold Book criteria and approved the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality's use of
these criteria in the State water quality standards, EPA's approval of that State's standards is
contingent on the following:
¦ • The reevaluation of the species list for ephemeral waters to verify that the list is
comprehensive, to result—if necessary—in the modification of criteria for
ephemeral waters.
* An evaluation of the mercury risk for wildlife on effluent-dependent and
ephemeral waters to determine the effects of bioaccumulation.
* The reevaluation of technical assumptions on bioconcentration and human
exposure pathways for selected criteria for protection of human health.
* A review of incremental risk level for human health criteria for carcinogens.
Currently, individual States must extrapolate standards and NPDES limits from a limited
water quality criteria database that fails to recognize regional differences in ecosystems across
the country. Another option is for a State to develop its own site-specific scientific data for
water quality criteria. This means arid States developing water quality standards either must
utilize national criteria for their ecosystems, which will ultimately lead to inappropriate limits
for discharge permits, or must invest their limited financial and scientific resources to develop
site-specific data.
Toxicity testing also remains a contentious issue as EPA continues to include whole-
effluent toxicity in many discharge permits. The question of which aquatic species is appropriate
to utilize in the measurement of effluent toxicity has been of concern in the arid west, especially
when the effluent is discharged into ephemeral streams. In addition, the testing methodology,
which is under debate across the country, needs better testing protocols, control parameters, and
peer review.
How Is the Arid West Different?
When most people think of "fishable or swimmable" the picture that comes to mind is
a cool mountain babbling stream with a relaxed fisherman on the banks, or a lakeside retreat
with laughing children splashing water. However, a typical riverside setting in the arid west
consists of parched dry sandy washes, the constant humming of cicadas, and tire tracks from the
most recent all-terrain vehicle. During a summer monsoon evening, a typical western arroyo
300
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 297-305
flowing with rainfall runoff might also attract croaking toads, a great homed owl, or a wily
coyote stalking a tiny kangaroo rat.
A lush riparian ecosystem can develop along normally dry washes as a result of continued
effluent discharges. The habitat then becomes dependent on the effluent as the only reliable
source of water, which attracts many wildlife species and creates a diverse terrestrial biotic
community. It then becomes important to protect the biotic community that has been established
as a result of effluent discharges. The development of water quality criteria documents would
identify the species of plants and animals that need to be protected, and would produce
appropriate water quality limits for effluent-dependent habitats and streams.
Ecosystems that rely on ephemeral streams support a different kind of habitat than
perennial streams. Water quality criteria developed for full flowing, wet streams are
inappropriate for ephemeral streams.
Storm water in the arid west is often the only water that ever flows in an ephemeral
stream. Storm water data from non-urbanized areas should form the basis for background water
quality. The range of ecological habitats found in the basin, and the interaction of storm water
flows and ground water quality, should be identified to establish the level of water quality
protection required from urban storm water discharges. From these data, water quality criteria
could be developed to protect the arid ecosystem from urban storm water flows. Currently, the
database on ambient storm water quality for arid, ephemeral streams is inadequate. Data on the
impact of urban storm water on these habitats are also limited.
The development of water quality criteria to protect the arid ecosystem from urban storm
water flows should consist of an integrated environmental monitoring network. Such a network
would characterize the water quality of storm water flows from both urban and non-urban areas.'
The habitat that is dependent on these periodic storm water flows would be identified, and the
impacts of these storm water bursts on representative species could then be assessed. The
existing database on ambient storm water quality for arid, ephemeral streams is inadequate. The
range of ecological habitats found within a basin and the interaction of storm water flows and
groundwater quality should be identified to establish the level of water quality protection
required from storm water discharges.
In the arid west, manmade systems of canals or water transportation systems are used to
convey surface water for municipal, industrial, or agricultural uses. These artificial water bodies
are not intended to be fishable or swimmable. Water quality standards are needed to protect the
intended uses of water transported through manmade systems used for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural purposes. The water quality standards to protect these intended uses should take into
account water rights; protection of existing ephemeral, intermittent, and effluent-dependent water
bodies; and protection of designated uses as determined by the States.
301
-------
O.A. BRINSKO
, ' The water rights issue has provoked all-out war in the West. Hie West is very conscious
of water supply issues and for that reason has pioneered water use planning methods. In
Arizona, for example, Phoenix and Tucson are drafting plans to provide the present and future
populations assured supplies of water for the next 100 years. An important component in these
assured water supply plans is the utilization of effluent. Both cities are incorporating effluent
use on turf and/or agricultural irrigation, and both have long-range plans that include the
recharge of effluent for potable use.
Along with these ambitious plans for effluent, there is one important missing link: the
integration of water supply planning with water quality protection. Currently, there is no
consistency among many regulatory programs. Although State water rights allocations and uses
have been the driving factor in planning water uses, specific water quality standards that protect
those uses have not been developed. With EPA regulating surface water discharges, and State
agencies regulating groundwater protection and reuse standards for turf and agricultural
irrigation, the lack of scientific criteria and standards development becomes an even more acute
problem.
Criteria Objectives for the Arid West
The primary objective of water quality criteria is to protect ecosystems. When ,
developing water quality criteria for the arid west, the following tasks must be performed:
• Describe the existing biotic environment in ephemeral and effluent-dependent
streams.
• Identify wildlife uses of riparian habitats.
• Determine the effects of effluent on stream-side terrestrial plants.
• Determine what pollutants, if any, are moving through the food chain.
• Determine what wildlife populations, if any, show evidence of pollutant
contamination.
• Determine the effects of effluent, if any, on the wildlife population (e.g.,
abnormal behavior, birth defects, absence of "indicator" species that should be
present).
• Perform pollutant fate analysis for the biotic community found in ephemeral and
effluent-dependent streams.
• Develop criteria for representative species.
302
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 297-305
Research Followup
Water quality criteria would include technical studies, peer review protocols, and
technology transfers resulting in the publication of criteria documents that can be used by States
for the standards-setting process. Technical studies must include scientific analysis to determine
what must be protected, what levels of pollutants harm the habitat, and what limits are required.
An important aspect of the water quality criteria process is the development of peer
review protocols. Approved procedures are needed for receiving input and cornnients from the
scientific community on the analytical methodology used for criteria development. This peer
review process is vital. Other areas requiring peer review include analysis of the policy
implications and impacts of the new criteria. This would involve EPA, State regulators, and the
regulated community.
* x
Once water quality criteria have been developed and accepted, the information gathered
must be shared with regulators, regulated agencies, and others so that criteria can be applied to
ecosystems that support similar habitats. A final step in the development and implementation
of water quality criteria is the publication of criteria documents.
CONCLUSIONS
Environmental protection is our common goal.. Whether we are regulated agencies,
regulators, or concerned citizens, we all have a duty and responsibility to protect the
environment of the arid west. The arid west's unique ecosystem, now dependent on effluent,
must be protected. Protection cannot take place until water quality criteria developed specifically
for such ecosystems are implemented. These water quality criteria must be based on sound
scientific data. When appropriate criteria are developed, the States will be able to develop
appropriate water quality standards and effective treatment options.
Research must be conducted using full-scale models that replicate the arid environment.
Work should be performed in a location that typifies the arid west With respect to limited rainfall
and high evapo-transpiration rates. These conditions are important to facilitate control and
understanding of all factors in assessing pollutant impacts. The availability of infrastructure,
land, and a consistent effluent source are also important considerations, as is the availability of
research and analytical resources for scientists from other institutions across the West.
The unique ecosystems of the arid west are what we are trying to protect. In many
instances, these ecosystems have been created by effluent discharges and are dependent on the
presence of the effluent. The ecosystems here are so unique that water quality criteria
documents, not special use classifications, are needed. The objective is not to obtain less
303
-------
G.A. BRJNSKO
stringent water quality standards, but to develop regional criteria documents that are protective
of these ecosystems.
In this context, net environmental benefit means water quality criteria and standards that
protect the ecosystem already in place, so that the investment in wastewater treatment can
produce a tangible benefit to the ecosystem. This approach will not create Kestersons, but will
preserve the riparian valleys of the West.
Water rights and reclamation policies are complex and controversial issues in the West.
For EPA regional and national policy to be constructive, more dialogue and understanding are
needed.
Consideration should be given to the potential impacts on nonaquatic species and the
value of effluent ecosystems for wildlife and migratory birds. If water criteria documents
appropriate to the arid west are developed, other current or emerging Clean Water Act
requirements will be compatible with the potential changes resulting from the use of these
criteria.
The need for water quality criteria for regional ecosystems is a critical concern for water
and wastewater agencies nationwide. However, the impacts are currently most acute in the arid
west. Without water quality criteria based on sound science, high capital costs imposed on
treatment facilities will result in a "higher" quality of water that does nothing to benefit the arid
ecosystem-or worse, in the de-watering of desirable riparian habitats.
m
Criteria documents for the arid west would also assist EPA in implementing workable
approaches that are environmentally protective and scientifically defensible. More research and
resources should be devoted to the development of the data necessaiy to address this issue. Such
research should be done now rather than on an ad hoc basis.
The development of water quality criteria documents for the arid west offers no
guarantees for anyone; indeed, their establishment could very well result in more stringent water
quality standards. But whatever the outcome, criteria development specific to the environment
of the arid west will assure us and future generations that our unique ecosystems are protected
for those species and habitats that rely on ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams for survival.
FOOTNOTES
1. P.L. 92-500, The Clean Water Act 1972 and Amendments.
2. U.S. EPA. 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Witter Regulations
and Standards. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001. Washington, DC.
304
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 2Ut CENTURY: 297-305
3. 1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands-National Guidance. Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Office of Wetlands Protection, Washington, DC.
4. ¦ •. 1992. Guidance for Modifying Water Quality Standards and Protecting
Effluent-Dependent Ecosystems. Interim Final. Region 9. San Francisco, CA.
5. Western Governors'Association. 1992. Resolution 92-Q: Reauthorization of the Clean
Water Act. Jackson, WY; June 23.
6. Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. 1992. Board of Directors. Position
Statement No. 7: Water Quality Standards for Ephemera! and Effluent Dependent
Streams. Annual Meeting, May 17-22, Cleveland, OH.
7. Western Coalition of Arid States. 1992. Board of Directors. Resolution No. 1992-3;
Water Quality Standards for Ephemeral Streams. Quarterly Meeting, July 24, San
Diego, CA.
8. Carter, D. and L. Tischler, EBASCO Environmental. 1990. Proposed Human Health
Ambient Water Quality Standards for Arizona. Phoenix, AZ.
9. Parkhurst, B. 1990. Numeric and Narrative Water Quality Standards for Arizona
Aquatic and Wildlife Limited Waters. Phoenix, AZ.
305
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:
307-311
MORE TIME IS NEEDED TO APPROPRIATELY BALANCE WATER
QUALITY PROTECTION AND RECLAMATION
Mary Jane Forster
Board Member
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Diego, California
^Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires development of standards for toxic pollutants
by the States. Caution must be used in the development of these standards for water courses in
the arid West, where stream flows are low or non-existent for the majority of the year.
Inappropriate standards can result in unjustified costs to dischargers, impede vital water
reclamation projects, and actually impede implementation of programs that could improve water
quality. Our ongoing experience in the San Diego Region may, unfortunately, serve as an
example of the problems that occur when an effort is made to put standards in place
prematurely.
Water courses within the borders of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(Regional Board) are similar to those throughout most of the Southwest, being historically
ephemeral in most areas.. Dry season flows consist of a variety of "nuisance" waters that have
already been used at least once, including return irrigation flows, landscape and agricultural
irrigation runoff, swimming pool drainage, street and sidewalk wash-down water, and water
from car washing. Although recent data indicate these flows are of suiprisingly good quality,
volumes are usually low and, as a result, support limited aquatic life.
Many of the water courses in the San Diego Region received discharges of wastewater
in the past, some as late as the mid-1970s. These discharges were at best disinfected secondary
effluent without chlorination. All were eventually terminated because of water quality problems.
The problems were'exacerbated because of the generally low levels of treatment and the fact that
most of the streams in the San Diego Region terminate in landlocked coastal lagoons, which are
sensitive to nutrient and freshwater inputs and serve to concentrate pollutants during the dry
seasons. The Regional Board is particularly sensitive to the water quality issues involved with
discharges of wastewater to inland water courses because of this past experience.
In 1988, the Regional Board developed their "Live Stream" program. The concept is
simple. Natural water courses can be used to transport reclaimed water from point of production
307
-------
M J. FORSTER
to point of use. Also, water courses can be used for the discharge of excess reclaimed water
during the wet season, thereby avoiding the need for costly and hard-to-site wet weather storage
facilities or pipelines to ocean outfalls. As a further payoff, the reclaimed water flows will
enhance aquatic habitat and improve and restore beneficial uses in the streams.
To implement the "Live Stream" program, the Board envisioned a proactive role,
including making a number of specific changes to its adopted water quality control plan (Basin
Plan) to encourage dischargers to proceed. To avoid recurrence of the past problems, the Board
established conditions for regulatory approval of any projects including, but not limited to, the
following:
1. No changes in the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan for discharges
upstream of waters used for municipal water supplies.
2. Modifications to the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan for total dissolved
solids concentrations and concentrations of other mineral constituents to reflect
the concentrations of those constituents in the available water supply.
3. Wastewater treatment at all times to conform to all State Department of Health
Services' Title 22 requirements for unrestricted body contact.
4. Modifications to the water quality objectives of the Basin Plan for nutrients
(nitrogen and phosphorous) to reflect existing concentrations coupled with best
practicable treatment of wastewater.
5. Management programs to cope with potential problems that may arise as a result
of Basin Plan changes.
As a result of the Board's encouragement, planning began for a number of projects. One
of these, for the upper Santa Margarita River, has advanced almost to the point of
implementation. More on this project later.
Midway through implementation of the Board's "Live Stream" program, the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Board) began development of the "California Inland Surface
Waters Plan" (Inland Surface Waters Plan), the State's water quality control plan for the inland
surface waters of California. The primary purpose of the State Board's effort was to develop
water quality standards for toxic pollutants to meet the requirements of section 303 of the
Federal Clean Water Act.
As I am sure you are aware, California is a "Delegated" State under the Clean Water
Act. As a delegated State, California is responsible for establishing water quality standards for
the waters within its boundaries, subject to oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection
308
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 307-311
i
Agency (EPA). In adopting the Porter-Cologne Act, the enabling legislation for California's
water quality programs, the Legislature, in Section 13300, found that a statewide program for
water quality control could be most effectively administered regionally, within a framework of
statewide coordination and policy. Thus the regional boards were rightfully given wide latitude
to make decisions impacting water quality within their respective regions.
You may not be aware of some fundamental conflicts between California's water quality
planning process and that contained in the Clean Water Act. Clean Water Act section 303
indicates that standards are to protect public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water, and
serve the puiposes of the Clean Water Act. Hie language in section 303 goes on to specify that
standards are to take into consideration their use and value for protection of public water
supplies; propagation of fish and wildlife; recreational, agricultural, industrial, and other
puiposes; and navigation.
Section 13000 of the Porter-Cologne Act states the Legislative mandate that regulations
result in attaining the highest water quality reasonable, considering all demands on waters and
total values involved, beneficial and detrimental, economic and social, tangible and intangible.
Section 13241 of the Porter-Cologne Act states the factors to be considered in establishing
water quality objectives. These factors are to include past, present and probable future
beneficial uses of the waters involved; environmental characteristics of the hydrologic unit
involved; water quality that could be reasonably achieved with coordinated control of all factors
affecting water quality in the area; economic considerations: and the need for developing housing
within the region. These factors are to be considered by the State Board when adopting
statewide policy and by the regional boards when adopting water quality control plans or taking
other regulatory actions that impact waters within their respective regions.
During the development of the Inland Surface Waters Plan, the EPA applied considerable
pressure to have the so-called Gold Book standards for toxic pollutants adopted. These standards
are intended to apply to natural surface waters that have been minimally affected by man's
activities. There was considerable opposition to the blind adoption of these standards from many
segments of the regulated community and the "regulators" (the regional boards in this instance).
After considerable debate, the State Board adopted their Inland Surface Waters Plan, consistent
with the Porter-Cologne Act, and including provisions both protective of water quality and
consistent with beneficial water reclamation, projects.
Specifically, the State Board established Category (a), a special category of surface
waters. Category (a) applies to water courses that are not naturally perennial and that support,
or will support by April 1997, aquatic habitat beneficial uses during the diy season as a result
of the discharge of reclaimed water. In those cases, the stringent water quality objectives for
toxic pollutants in the Inland Surface Waters Plan do not automatically apply as they do to other
309
-------
MJ. FORSTER
surfacfc waters in the State. Instead, these water quality objectives will be considered as
"performance goals" for a 6-year period from the date of adoption of the Plan,
During this 6-year period, water quality investigations are to be performed and, where
appropriate, site-specific objectives are to be developed. Performance goals require the best
efforts of the dischargers to meet the objectives. As a result, dischargers to these bodies of
water would not be required to meet inappropriate waste discharge requirements during the
period in which truly appropriate, site-specific objectives are generated.
The designation of the water quality objectives for toxic pollutants as performance goals,
for discharges of reclaimed water to Category (a) water bodies, was one factor leading to EPA's
disapproval of the Inland Surface Waters Plan. Another was the inclusion of the so called due
diligence provisions for determining compliance with the water quality objectives for toxicity.
Under these provisions, dischargers exceeding effluent limits for acute or chronic toxicity are
required to perform toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs). Once the source of toxicity has been
identified, dischargers are required to take all reasonable steps necessary to reduce toxicity to
the required level. If these provisions are met, the discharger is considered to have implemented
the objectives for toxicity as required by the Inland Surface Waters Plan. The "due diligence"
provisions were strongly supported by the agencies promoting reclamation projects because of
the potentially chilling effect of fears of noncompliance for reasons beyond their control.
During their meeting on February 24, 1992, the Regional Board designated a number of
waier bodies, including the Santa Margarita River and its upper basin tributaries, Murrieta Creek
and Temecula Crlek, as Categoiy (a). In doing so, the Board concurred with the
recommendations of the proposed dischargers and designated the water quality objectives for all
of the toxic pollutants in the Inland Surface Waters Plan as inappropriate and candidates for site-
specific studies for these streams.
On May 18, 1992, at their regularly scheduled meeting, the Regional Board adopted
NPDES permits for the Eastern Municipal Water District and the Rancho California Water
District discharges of reclaimed water to the Santa Margarita River. Both of these permits
implemented the Inland Surface Waters Plan, including the designation of water quality
objectives as performance goals and inclusion of the "due diligence" provisions. They also
included river monitoring and management provisions in accord with the Regional Board's
previously established conditions for implementation of live stream programs. On May 15,
1992, the Regional Board received a letter from the EPA objecting to the permits for a variety
of reasons, including the inclusion of the aforementioned provisions of the Inland Surface Waters
Plan. The Regional Board will hold a hearing, to consider actions to take in light of the EPA
objections, on August 24, 1992. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Regional Board does
not modify the permits to satisfy the EPA objections, it is likely that EPA will assume
jurisdiction and issue the permits. The final chapter in this saga has yet to be written.
310
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY:'.
307-311
Implementation of the Inland Streams Policy, together with the Regional Board's Basin
Plan, will ensure protection of water quality in our region. Appropriate beneficial uses will be
clearly and specifically identified and protected. At the same time, allowances will be made for
generation of site-specific water quality objectives, which are not unnecessarily stringent, when
appropriate. However, the Regional Board is concerned that rushing to implement overly
stringent water quality objectives, which may be inappropriate in many instances, will have a
chilling effect on vital water reclamation projects in the San Diego Region and throughout the
Southwest.
311
-------
Intentionally Blank Page
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: ^313-318
ZERO DISCHARGE, ANTI-DEGRADATION, AND SOURCE
REDUCTION; REPLACING THE FAILED ASSIMILATIVE
CAPACITY MODEL WITH EFFECTIVE SURFACE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY AND BEYOND
Michael Gregory
Director
Arizona Toxics Information, Inc.
Bisbee, Arizona
The slides you saw a few minutes ago give a pretty good picture of what some of
Arizona's ephemeral riparian areas look like, but what the slides don't show are the "DON'T
EAT THE FISH" signs put up on the Gila River by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State
Game & Fish Department 50 miles downstream of the Phoenix wastewater treatment plants.
And the slides don't show the mostly low-income people fishing next to those signs, or people
catching turtles and frogs to eat, or people floating on those waters in inner tubes.
The Effluent Dependent Waters (EDW) problem is interesting in several ways; it is
representative of our continuing failure after years to achieve the primary goals of the Clean
Water Act. Obviously, if we had been serious about zero discharge, we wouldn't have to be
concerned with EDWs now.
The degree of our failure is indicated by the EPA's changing terminology. Where we
used to talk about effluent-dominated water, we're now supposed to talk, as indicated in Region
9's guidance document, about effluent-dependent waters. There was some hope of correction
in the old term, but "effluent-dependent waters" indicates that the Agency apparently has given
up.
A great deal of what we've heard in the past few days indicates that the new Region 9
guidance is consistent with the Agency's new nationwide policy, which rather than pointing the
way toward cleanup and prevention, toward maintenance and enhancement, would institutionalize
what many dischargers have come to think of as a right to pollute.
For example, in Arizona the Agency is routinely accepting discharge limits in NPDES
permits that are considerably lower than criteria levels. We've heard that 42 States now have
313
-------
M. GREGORY
their toxic standards approved by EPA, but I wonder how many of those States' standards are
under appeal—as Arizona's are-because (among other reasons) the Agency has allowed the State
to set toxics levels far below levels the Agency itself has identified as unprotective.
We obviously make a mockery of the process if we define progress simply as getting the
paperwork signed when we do it by lowering our standards.
Instead of pushing the process upstream, forcing cleanup at the source, what we've been
hearing for the past few days indicates what seems to be an upper-level decision to accept
contamination as inevitable and to continue the hopeless business of trying to control pollution
at the end of the pipe and then spending millions of dollars assessing the damage.
This approach, by which our agencies spend most of their time doing Risk Assessment
and Risk Management, is simply wrongheaded. It begins by asking the wrong questions. We
are asking: How much can I discharge? How much contamination can I get away with?
Instead, we should be asking: How much exposure can we prevent?
In general, the public doesn't care if the risk is one in a million or two in a million,
especially when we know that risk assessment is essentially a computer game that lets you come
up with any figures you want. What the public does want is for EPA to stop trying to figure
out how little of a substance it takes to kill us and figure out how to prevent exposure, to
eliminate unnecessary and avoidable risk.
We can go on forever assessing and prioritizing risks, and while that may be a good way
to keep a lot of consultants and lawyers employed, it does nothing to help those people like the
Native American nations in the Northwest we heard about yesterday. And it does nothing to
protect the people or fish and wildlife downstream from Phoenix, Tucson, and our other major
dischargers.
And it's a notoriously ineffective way to address noncancer problems. Cancer, in fact,
may be the least of our worries. Of far more concern in the long run are transgenerational
mutations and potential synergistic effects, and all the millions we are spending on risk
assessment don't get close to those issues.
Instead of policies that encourage us to pollute up to the level of our ignorance, which
is what quantitative risk assessment does, we should be actively applying what in other parts of
the world is called the Precautionary Principle. In the United States we generally translate this
as Pollution Prevention, a less satisfactory term since it is typically-especially, it seems, in the
Water Office—limited in practice to waste minimization and after-the-fact risk management. But
if we understand that what we really mean is source reduction, cutting down on toxics at the
front end of the system, banning those substances we really can control, and substituting benign
314
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 313-318
processes, then it's probably OK to call it Pollution Prevention. That term, at least, has the
benefit of already being in our regulatory lexicon—even if it is misused and underemployed.
As we've heard from several speakers during the conference, the preventive approach
is already being taken in the Great Lakes, and as we heard Dr. Foran and others say yesterday,
it is the operative principle behind the International Joint Commission (IJC) strategy for
addressing the otherwise intractable pollution problems there. I strongly recommend that the
EPA take a more active role in the IJC proceedings than they have. The IJC model is far
superior to the one the Agency has been operating under.
If we're serious about clean water, and we should be, then we have to dump the
disproved theory of Assimilative Capacity and stop relying on end-of-the-pipe remedies.
Instead, we need to move into the 21st century with water quality standards based on prevention
and the polluter pays principle.
The EDW problem in the Southwest is a good example of the failure of the Assimilative
Capacity model and illustrates our need to push standards upstream to the source.
As you know, Assimilative Capacity is the belief that we can keep dumping our garbage
into the environment and the environment will clean it up. But however well that theory might
have worked when applied to biological toxins, when it comes to toxics, and especially to
persistent and bioaccumulative toxics, the model obviously doesn't work and the policies based
on it are obviously bankrupt. As we know from bad examples like the Great Lakes, the New
River, the ColumblS, Boston Harbor, global warming, and the ozone layer (to name a few),
allowing a little bit here and a little bit there adds up to a lot, and in effect, we're
nickel-and-diming ourselves to death.
We all live downstream-both in time and in space. As the Earth Summit has made us
aware in focusing attention on the global environment, sustainability requires that we respect the
rights of future generations to an environment in at least as good a shape as the one we've
inherited—and hopefully better. We simply can't afford to continue the incremental loading of
toxics into our environment—into our streams.
Affordability, of course, is of major concern, but in our focus on site-specific costs, we
tend to miss the bigger picture. In fact, one of the biggest problems we have in attaining the
goals of the Act is that we have allowed ourselves more and more to let cost rather than
environmental health drive the process—not only in setting permit limits, but (contrary to statute
and common sense) in our standards-setting process.
By and large, the environmental community recognizes that we can't ignore costs, and
we're not generally opposed to the Use Attainability process, but if we're going to look at costs
315
-------
M.GREGORY .
they-have to be honest costs, and there has to be a full accounting including all costs and all
benefits. That's not what we usually see.
In the case of the Phoenix WWTPs, for instance, when we first started talking about
toxics standards during the triennial review, we were told that upgrading the plants would cost
somewhere around $180-$200 million. A few months later, after the public had some chance
„ to examine the figures, the cities' estimates dropped to about $140 million. A few months later,
after a little closer scrutiny, it turned out that most of those costs weren't really for toxics
controls, but were for upgrades that had been budgeted long ago to meet conventional pollutant
standards that had been in place for years. When we got right down to it, the real problem
wasn't toxics at all and the upgrades turned out to cost 40 to 60 percent less than the original
estimates. n
One of the nice things about living in Arizona is that you get pretty good at recognizing
scams. As it turns out, the. State and EPA were being subjected by the municipalities to a kind
of environmental blackmail, which said that if you make us meet these standards then we'll just
keep all our water out of the streambed and dry up your precious riparian area. Unfortunately,
the State and Federal agencies caved in to this outrageous demand.
But in fact, the issue had little to do with toxics or water quality of any land. The real
issue was water quantity and who was the highest bidder for the cities' effluent. As was made
clear later when NEB negotiations over proposed wetland creation as an alternative treatment
broke down because the cities would not commit to keeping water in the stream, the
municipalities were planning to cut off the flow in any case, no matter what the standards, as
soon as the price of water got high enough for them to sell it for agriculture or golf courses or
whatever.
The ethics and legality of the cities' plan to dry up some of the most important riparian
areas in the State is an important issue, but it's not generally a toxics issue.
I'm not saying that the municipalities are rich. It's obvious that the new federalism of
Reaganomics put incredible burdens on local communities with little funding. But if we're going
to get into processes like Region 9's NEB, let's be sure the costs are real.
Honest accounting is especially important in these times when more and more people are
being subjected to jobs vs. environment arguments—another form of the same blackmail. It's
not that there isn't any money. There's plenty of money. There's trillions in the Pentagon's
peacetime budget and we're spending billions on political saber-rattling in the Middle East. We
can spend millions on S&L bailouts and the likes of Michael Milliken and Ivan Boesky and my
friend Keating from Arizona, we can pay million dollar salaries to ballplayers and entertainers,
but we can't afford clean water? Nonsense.
316
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 313-318
The problem isn't lack of money, but lack of political will, which is part of the phony
accounting games of trickle-down economics (an especially appropriate term for water politics)
that has transferred so much public money into deep private pockets over the past 12 years that
the top 1 or 2 percent of our population now controls more wealth than the bottom 80 percent
together.
Part of the scam is the mislabeling of some costs, and part is the failure to identify other
costs at all. What, for instance, is the cost of drying up a river? What is the cost of continually
loading a streambed with toxics?
Another interesting point that came up in our discussions of standards in Arizona was that
although the incremental loading of toxics apparently had not yet caused violation of aquifer
standards downstream from major WWTPs, the downstream wells do show elevated levels of
toxics. There can be little doubt that if we keep it up, in time those wells will be contaminated
beyond standards. And what is the cost of ground water cleanup? The cost of providing clean
drinking water? And what are the savings to be had from really implementing Pollution
Prevention?
Again, in figuring the costs of polluting or drying up a stream, we typically think of
aquatic organisms and wildlife only as resources for humans to use. Our accounting is
unbearably anthropocentric. But animals and ecosystems have rights whether or not they are
of use to us. We have to have a biocentric—not just an anthropocentric—accounting. And I don't
mean just the warm cuddly creatures and the bright green ecosystems. We have to respect the
integrity of cold slimy critters too, those that live below the surface of the streams, even when
the water isn't running. And we have to recognize the appropriateness of natural ecosystems,
which may not display the features that urban populations, especially eastern urban populations,
tend to. value highly. In many western systems, year-round lush vegetation and high biotic
diversity are simply artificial, what one of my Forest Service supervisors used to call "natural
and park-like."
These questions point up another of the major problems with the way we do our
accounting. Traditional accounting calls such problems externalities and tends to discount them,
just as it discounts the future. But we live in a closed biosystem: Thbre are no externalities and
we simply cannot continue to discount the future, to put the burden of costs*on our grandchildren
and their grandchildren.
Instead, if we're going to have standards that really maintain and enhance our waters into
the 21st century and beyond, we have to get serious about the original goals of the Clean Water
Act, drop the contradiction of assimilative capacity and incremental loading, and insist on zero
discharge, antidegradation, and antibacksliding.
317
-------
M,GREGORY
*
- ' We have to protect ground water and wildlife and ecosystems, and we have to stop
making the taxpayer and the environment pay for cleaning up water that should bis cleaned up
at the source by the polluters. We have to insist that maximum Pollution Prevention and
Pre treatment programs are in place before we cave in to environmental blackmail and phony
economic arguments in the name of Net Environmental Benefit. And as we've heard in the past
few days, it doesn't matter how good our standards are if they're not implemented. We have
to insist on implementation and that means we have to have effective enforcement-at the
Federal, State, and local community levels.
And we have to have funding at all levels to carry out the program.
And while we have to make it clear that zero discharge of pollutants and contaminants
is one basic standard, that does not mean zero discharge of water. Maintaining minimum flow,
keeping water in the stream, is a water quality requirement. Whether we call it physical,
chemical, or biological, it's obvious that the quality of a stream is ruined if you take the water
out. The requirement to maintain flow is, I think, very clear in the Act, and if it's not, I assure
you the environmental community will be working to make it clear during reauthorization.
318
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 319-320
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT COMMENTS
Mary Ellen Harris , .
Regulatory Compliance Division
Eastern Municipal Water District ¦ j,
San Jacinto, California
Ecological risk assessment for the water quality program should in no way, shape, or
form resemble that developed for the Superfund program. There are several,reasons for this.
First of all, the division of areas in Superfund sites for study has little to do with natural
divisions of these sites, such as habitats or ecosystems. Sites are divided into Operable Units,
perhaps based on types of facilities such as landfills or storage tanks. Sites have to be redivided
to conduct ecological studies. Often Operable Units are studied by completely different
contractors using different methods. Cooixlination is not often achieved.
Second, the organisms selected for study are not the most important or representative
species. Rather, species for which there is the most toxicological and physiological information
are chosen. A "big worm" might be selected (usually by an engineer and not a biologist) over
a "little worm," although the "big worm" is a completely different organism and not relevant
to the ecosystem being studied.
Third, ecological risk assessments, if carried out completely according to the Superfund
guidance, are very complicated and expensive studies. The money is available in the Superfund
program for studies at the sites that require multiple models and risk calculations for several
different chemical compounds and species. Dischargers or regional management agencies for
water projects cannot afford these kinds of assessments.
My recommendations for development of ecological risk assessment, therefore, are as
follows: (1) before developing guidance, EPA should put money into getting a lot more
physiological/toxicological information on a variety of species that are "out there" in the
environment; and (2) ecological risk assessments should not even be considered at a "point
source" or "water project" level; they should be done at a waterbody or watershed level such
that several agencies or groups can coordinate methods and results, and contribute to funding.
319
-------
M.E. HARRIS
Two panel participants responded to my comments. Dr. Spyros Pavlou said that he felt
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal studies were coordinated and used representative species. He
agreed that the studies for this Superfund site were very sophisticated and expensive, well
beyond what even a smaller Superfund site would require. Joshua Lipton said that the panelists
had discussed funding options earlier that day and that these included the following: have the
Office of Water fund it all, have municipalities or groups thinking about site-specific objectives
pay for assessments, have the States pay, or, have industries pay ... or win in Vegas.
320
-------
Appendix A
Attendees
List
-------
WATEE QUALITY STANDARDS FOE THE 21st CENTURY
Sponsored by the
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 31-September 3, 1992 Riviera Hotel: Las Vegas, Nevada
ATTENDEES LIST
DUANE ANDERSON
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL
AGENCY
520 LAFAYETTE RD, NORTH
ST. PAUL, MN 55105
HARLAN AGNEW
PIMA COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
CIVIL DIVISION, ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
32 NORTH STONE, SUITE 1500
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1412
KEVIN AIELLO
MIDDLESEX COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY
CHEVALIER AVE
SAYREVTLLE, NJ 08872
EUGENE AKAZAWA
HAWAII STATE DEPT OF HEALTH
CLEAN WATER BRANCH
MONITORING SECTION
5 WATERFRONT PLAZA, 250A
500 ALA MONA BLVD
HONOLULU, HI 96813
GORDON ANDERSON
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD #8
2010 IOWA AVE, SUITE 100
RIVERSIDE, CA 92507
JERRY ANDERSON
U.S. EPA
REGION 7
WATER MONITORING SECTION
25 FUNSTON ROAD
KANSAS CITY, KS 66115
ADELE ALDERSON
NV DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
333 WEST NYE LANE
CARSON CITY, NV 89710
RACHEL ALLEN
GULF POWER COMPANY
500 BAYFRONT PARKWAY
P.O. BOX 1151
PENSACOLA, FL 32520-0328
WILLIAM ALSOP
ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING
35 NAGOG PARK
ACTON, MA 01720
PAUL ANDERSON
ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING
35 NAGOG PARK
ACTON, MA 01720
RODGES ANKRAH
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, OPPE
401 M ST, SW (PM-221)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BOB APRIL
U.S. EPA
HQ, ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
401 M ST, SW, (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
A-l
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
THOMAS ARMITAGE
U.S. EPA
HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID BAILEY
. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
1875 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 1016
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
RODGER BAIRD
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LA
COUNTY
1965 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL RD
WHITHER, CA 90601
BRUCE BAKER
WISCONSIN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
1755 ROLLINGWOOD
OREGON, WI 53575
KENT BALLENTINE
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS/SASD
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ALEX BARRON
VIRGINIA WATER CONTROL BOARD'
4900 COX RD
RICHMOND, VA 23230
PHIL BASS
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 10385
JACKSON/MS 39289-0385
ROBERT BAUMGARTNER
OREGON DEPARTMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
811 SW 6TH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
CHARLES BAYER
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 13087
AUSTIN, TX 78711
LAWRENCE BAZEL
BEVERIDGE AND DIAMOND
ONE SANSOME ST, SUITE 3400
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104
DANIEL BECKETT
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING DIVISION
P.O. BOX 13231, CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TX 78711-3231
WILLIAM BECKWITH
U.S. EPA
WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION
JFK FEDERAL BLDG (MAIL CODE WQP-425)
BOSTON, MA 02203
JOHN BENDER
NEBRASKA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
. P.O. BOX 98922
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8922
BOB BERGER
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 24055
OAKLAND, CA 94623
GREGORY BIDDINGER
EXXON BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES, INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION
METTLERS ROAD, CN-2350
EAST MILLSTONE, NJ 08875-2350
JEFFREY BIGLER
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF WATER
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SHIRLEY BIROSIK
CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
101 CENTRE PLAZA DR
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
HIRA BISWAS
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
VINCENT BLUBAUGH
'FTN ASSOCIATES LTD
#3 INNWOOD CIRCLE, SUITE 220
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72211
DEBRA BOLDING
CITY OF LAS VEGAS
6005 VEGAS VALLEY DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122
ARLENE BOSS
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL EMPLOYEE-EPA
422 WEST WASHINGTON
BOISE, ID 83702 :
ALAN BOYNTON
JAMES RIVER CORPORATION
100 TREDEGAR ST, P.O. BOX 2218
RICHMOND, VA 23217
D. KING BOYNTON
U,S. EPA
HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DONALD BRADY
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, OWOW, AWPD
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ROD BRAUER
CH2M HILL, NEVADA
2030 EAST FLAMINGO, SUITE 250
LAS VEGAS, NV 89119
EDWARD BREZINA
PA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 2063, FULTON BUILDING
HARRISBURG, PA 17105
GAIL BRIGGS MCPHERSON
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
5950 ACORN ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
GEORGE BRINSKO
PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
201 NORTH STONE #800
TUCSON, AZ 85701-1207
MELVIN BROWN
LAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
112 TOWNPARK DRIVE
KENNESAW, GA 30144
DALE BRYSON
U.S.EPA '
REGION 5, WATER DIVISION
77 WEST JACKSON BLVD
CHICAGO, IL 60604
GARD BURCHFIELD
COLUMBUS WATER WORKS
P.O. BOX 1600
COLUMBUS, GA 31993
JERRY CAIN
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER CONTROL
BRANCH
P.O. BOX 10385 .
JACKSON, MS 39289-0385
SEAN CALEY
THE ADVENT GROUP
1925 NORTH LYNN ST, SUITE 702
ROSSLYN, VA 22209
VICTORIA CARD
COLORADO SPRINGS UTILITIES
WASTEWATER DEPARTMENT
703 EAST LAS VEGAS ST
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
•A-3
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
CONNIE CAREY
RI DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL *
MANAGEMENT
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
291 PROMENADE STREET
PROVIDENCE, RI 02908-5767
JANICE CARR
NV DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
333 WEST NYE LANE
CARSON CITY, NV 89710
PATRICIA CARTER
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4401 NORTH FAIRFAX DR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
CHEE CHANG
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3268
JAMES CHASE
THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COMMISSION
555 MAIN ST, P.O. BOX 800
HARTFORD, CT 06142-0800
ELIZABETH (LIBBY) CHATFIELD
WV STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD
1615 WASHINGTON ST, EAST
CHARLESTON, WV 25311-2126
ALICE CHLAPEK
EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS
13501 KATY FREEWAY
HOUSTON, TX 77079
MARVIN CHLAPEK
EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS
13501 KATY FREEWAY
HOUSTON, TX 77079
JIM CHUDD
KODAK
COLORADO DIVISION
9952 EASTMAN PARK DR
WINDSON, CO 80551-1310
JOHN CICMANEC
U.S. EPA
ECAO, SYSTEMIC TOXICANTS
ASSESSMT BRANCH
26 WEST MARTIN LUTHER KING DR (MS-190)
CINCINNATI, OH 45268
DENNIS CLARK
INDIANA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
5500 WEST BRADBURY
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46241
DAVID CLARKE
INSIDE EPA WEEKLY REPORT
1225 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
JAMES CLAWSON
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
AGRONOMY AND RANGE SCIENCE DEPT
DAVIS, CA 95616-8515
DAVID CLOUGH
VERMONT DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
103 SOUTH MAIN ST
WATERBURY, VT 05671-0408
DAVID COHEN
CA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL
BOARD
901 P ST
SACRAMENTO, CA 95801
JERRY COLLINS
U.S. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
SCS/EPA
2604 ST. ALBANS
CARROLLTON, TX 75007
MIKE CONNOR
MWRA
100 FIRST AVE
BOSTON, MA
A-4
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
TERENCE COOKE
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
500 12TH ST, SUITE 100
OAKLAND, CA 94607-4014
MARJORIE COOMBS
U.S. EPA
HQ, SASD/OST/OW
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JIM COOPER
NV DIV OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
333 WEST NYE LANE
CARSON CITY, NV 89710
JOSEPH COUTURIER
PUBLIC UTILITIES
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, FL
1840 CEDAR BAY RD
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32218
JAMES COWAN
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF
ORANGE COUNTY
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92728
JANICE COX
TENNESSE VALLEY AUTHORITY
WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT
HANEY BUILDING 2C-C, 1101 MARKET ST
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402-2801
PATRICIA CUNNINGHAM
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
HOBBS BUILDING
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PK, NC 27709
GLENDA DANIEL
LAKE MICHIGAN FEDERATION
59 EAST VAN BUREN, SUITE 2215
CHICAGO, IL 60605
TUDOR DAVIES
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-551)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
PETER DE FUR
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
1875 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 1016
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
CHARLES DELOS
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
NICHOLAS DI PASQUALE
MISSOURI DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
DIV ENVIRON QUALITY/
WATER POLL CNTRL PRO
205 JEFFERSON ST
JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102
CLAYTON CREAGER
THE CADMUS GROUP
17050 HIGHWAY 128
CALISTOGA, CA 94515
ELLEN CROCKER
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
ROOM 575, TEN CAUSEWAY STREET
BOSTON, MA 02222
RODNEY CRUZE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE WQ CONTROL PLANT
5950 ACORN ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
WILLIAM DIAMOND;
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KENNETH DICKSON
NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY
INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCES
P.O. BOX 13078
DENTON, TX 76203
A-5
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
DAVE DILLON
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD
600 NORTH HARVEY, P.O. BOX 150
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101-0150
JOHN D1STIN
SQUIRE, SANDERS, AND DEMPSEY
4900 SOCIETY CENTER, 127 PUBLIC SQUARE
CLEVELAND, OH 44114-1304
ROGER DOLAN
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION
5019 IMHOFF PLACE
MARTINEZ, CA 94553
SEAN DONAHOE
TETRA TECH, INC.
10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
PHILIP DORN
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
P.O. BOX 1380
HOUSTON, TX 77251-1380
ELAINE DORWARD-KING
EBASCO ENVIRONMENTAL
10900 NE8TH
BELLEVUE, WA 98008
CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY
U.S. EPA
HQ, OW, OFFICE OF WASTEWATER
ENFORCE/COMPLIANCE
401 M ST, SW (EN-336)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
E.T. DOXEY
SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC UTILITIES
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84115
• *
HELENE DRAGO
U.S. EPA
REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING (3WM10)
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
MAUREEN DRISCOLL
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
10 CAUSEWAY ST, #575
• BOSTON, MA 02222
' SUZANNE DRUM
. ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE
1666 LOWER ELWHA ROAD
PORT ANGELES, WA 98362-9518
DOUGLAS DRURY
CHINO BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
8555 ARCHIBALD AVE
CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
ROLAND DUBOIS
U.S.EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
RICHARD DUCHROW
MISSOURI DEPT OF CONSERVATION
1110 SOUTH COLLEGE AVE
COLUMBIA, MO 65203
DAN DUDLEY
OHIO EPA
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS & TOXIC
SECTION
P.O. BOX 1049
COLUMBUS, OH 43246-0149
CHARLES DVORSKY
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 13087
AUSTIN, TX 78711
KENNETH EAGLESON
NC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
4401 REEDY CREEK ROAD
RALEIGH, NC 27607-6445
A-6
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
FRED ECHOHAWK
CENTRAL COLORADO WATER
CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT
3209 WEST 28TH ST
GREELEY, CO 80027
GENEVEIVE EDMO
SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES
P.O. BOX 306
FORT HALL, ID 83203
JIM EGAN
REGULATORY MANAGEMENT INC.
6190 LEHMAN DR, SUITE 106
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80918
WILLIAM ETIE
UTE MOUNTAIN UTE INDIAN TRIBE
P.O. BOX 52
TOWAOC, CO 81334
JOHN FEDKIW
U.S. DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY/OBPA
14TH AND INDEPENDENCE AVE, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20250
LYNN FELDPAUSGH
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MONA ELK SHOULDER
NATIVE AMERICAN FISH & WILDLIFE
SOCIETY
750 BURBANK
BROOMFIELD, CO 80220
LEE FICKS, JR.
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, WETLANDS DIVISION
401 M ST, SW (A-104F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
GREGG ELLIOT
SALT RIVER PROJECT
P.O. BOX 52025
PHOENIX, AZ 85072-2026
MOHAMED ELNABARAWY
3M ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER/POLLUTION
CONTROL
P.O: BOX 33331, BLDG 21-2W-05
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3331
ROBBIN FINCH
BOISE CITY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
150 NORTH CAPITOL BLVD, P.O. BOX 500
BOISE, ID 83701
MORRIS FLEXNER
U.S. EPA
. REGION 4
345 COURTLAND AVE, NE
ATLANTA, GA 30365
STEVEN ELSTEIN
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
441 G ST, NW, TECH WORLD, SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20548
JOHN FOLEY
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT
27500 LA PAZ RD
LAGUANA NIGUEL, CA 92656
BOB ERICKSON
U.S. EPA
REGION 8
999 18TH ST, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2466
JEFFREY FORAN
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
DEPT OF HEALTH CARE SCIENCE
2150 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW, ROOM 2B422
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
A-7
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
MARY JANE FORSTER
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OF ORANGE
CO
10500 ELLIS
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708
TAD FOSTER
LAW FIRM
104 SOUTH CASCADE AVE, SUITE 204
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
NORMAN FRANCINGUES
CORP OF ENGINEERS, WES
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION BRANCH
3909 HALLS FERRY RD
VICKSBURG, MS 39180
DAN FRASER
MONTANA DEPT HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE
ROOM A206, COGSWELL BUILDING
HELENA, MT 59620
JAMES FRASER
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3268
RONALD FRENCH
CAMP DRESSER AND MC KEE
1331 17TH ST, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
WILLIAM GALA
CHEVRON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CO
1003 WEST CUTTING BLVD
RICHMOND, CA 94804-0054
MELVIN GEORGE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
AGRONOMY AND RANGE SCIENCE DEPT
DAVIS, CA 95616-8515
JOHN GIFFORD
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT .
2045 SOUTH SAN JACINTO ST, P.O. BOX 8300
SAN JACINTO, CA 92581-8300
LAURA GIULIANO
CITY OF LAS VEGAS
6005 EAST VEGAS VALLEY DR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122 '
COLLEEN GOFF
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL
TRIBAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 503
HOOPA, CA 95546
FRANK GOSTOMSKI
U.S. EPA
HQ, SURFACE WATER HEALTH ASSESSMT
401 M ST, SW (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KATHERINE GOURDINE
U.S. EPA
HQ, OW/OST/SASD
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JONAS GRANT
UTE INDIAN TRIBE
P.O. BOX 190
FORT DUCHESNE, UT 84026
DAN GRANZ
U.S. EPA
REGION 1
60 WESTVIEW ST
LEXINGTON, MA 02173
SHARON GREEN
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS
1955 WORKMAN MILL RD, P.O. BOX 4998
WHITTIER, CA 90607
A-8
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
MICHAEL GREGORY
ARIZONA TOXICS INFORMATION
P.O. BOX 1896
BISBEE, AZ 85603
GUY GRIFFIN
POTLATCH CORPORATION
' 244 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 610
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
VIRGINIA GRIFFING
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI
TRIBES
P.O. BOX 278
PABLO, MT 59855
STEPHANIE GROGAN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
1400 16TH ST, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-2266
GREGORY GROSS
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
520 LAFAYETTE ROAD
ST. PAUL, MN 55155
GEOFFREY GRUBBS
U.S. EPA
HQ, ASSESSMENTS/WATERSHED PROT
401 M ST, SW (WH-556)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SAM HADEED
ASSN OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
AGENCIES
1000 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 1006
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
DONALD HAGUE
MAINE DEFT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
STATE HOUSE STATION #17
AUGUSTA, ME 04333
DAVID HAIRE
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI
TRIBE
P.O. BOX 278
PABLO, MT 59855
JOHN HALL
K3LPATRICK AND CODY
700 13TH ST, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005 /
RONALD HALL
OREGON HEALTH DIVISION
800 NE OREGON ST, #21, SUITE 608
PORTLAND, OR 97232
JAMES HANLON
U.S.EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-551)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID HANSEN
U.S. EPA
NARRAGANSETT LABORATORY
27 TARZWELL DRIVE
NARRAGANSETT, RI 02882
WARREN HARPER
USDA FOREST SERVICE
201 14TH ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20250
MARY ELLEN HARRIS
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2045 SOUTH SAN JACINTO ST, P.O. BOX 8300
SAN JACINTO, CA 92581-8300
CLAIRE HARRISON
EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
2045 SOUTH SAN JACINTO ST, P.O. BOX 8300
SAN JACINTO, CA 92581-8300
JIM HARRISON
U.S.EPA
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND ST
ATLANTA, GA 30365
A-9
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
KATHLEEN HARTNETT
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION
PRIVATE LANDS, WATER AND
ENVIRONMENT
1301 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW, SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-1701
KAY HARTUNG
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRIAL
HEALTH
3125 FERNWOOD AVE
ANN ARBOR, MI 48108-1955
ROLF HARTUNG
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENT/INDUSTRIAL
HEALTH
3125 FERNWOOD AVE
ANN ARBOR, MI 48108-1955
SUSAN HATFIELD
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST (W-3)
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
WANDA HAWKINS
U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
800 K ST, NW, TECHWORLD SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
MARGARETE HEBER
U.S. EPA
HO, AMBIENT WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BRUCE HERBOLD
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
MARION IIERRINGTON
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
3135 EASTON TURNPIKE W7B
FAIRFIELD, CT 06431
MARK HICKS
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
P.O. BOX 47600, MAIL STOP PV-11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7600
CRAIG HIGGASON
U.S. EPA
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND ST, NE •
ATLANTA, GA 30365
DAWN HILDRETH
CITY OR PORTLAND
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
1120 SW 5TH AVE, ROOM 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204-1972
PATRICIA HILL
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE
1250 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW, SUITE 210
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
STEWART HOLM
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
SCIENCE POLICY
1875 I ST, NW, SUITE 775
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
RICHARD HOPPERS
U.S. EPA
REGION 6, WATER QUALITY BRANCH
1401 ROSS AVE
DALLAS, TX 75201
EVAN HORNIG
U.S. EPA
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVE, MS GE-SA
DALLAS, TX 75202
ABE HORPESTAD
MONTANA DEPT HEALTH/ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE
WATER QUALITY BUREAU
COGSWELL BUILDING
HELENA, MT 59620
A-10
-------
WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
CLYDE HOUSEKNECHT
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
GEORGE HOWLETT, JR.
MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN
P.O. BOX 680, FORESTRY CENTER
KESHENA, WI 54135
DUANE HUMBLE
METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
DISTRICT
6450 YORK ST
DENVER, CO 80229
WILL HUMBLE
ARIZONA DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES
3008 NORTH 3RD ST
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
PAMELA HURT
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JOHN JACKSON
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY
155 NORTH FIRST AVE, SUITE 270
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
SUSAN JACKSON
U.S. EPA
HO, HEALTH/ECOLOGICAL CRITERIA DIV
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KENT JOHNSON
MWCC
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
230 EAST 5TH ST
ST. PAUL, MN 55101
SCOTT JOHNSON
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
12000 VISTA DEL MAR
PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293
DAVID JONES
SAN FRANCISCO DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS
1680 MISSION ST, 4TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
CHARLES KANETSKY
U.S. EPA
REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT BLDG
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
TIM KASTEN
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KENNETH KAUFFMAN
OREGON HEALTH DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND
CONSULTATION
800 NE OREGON ST, #21, SUITE 608
PORTLAND, OR 97232-2109
JOHN KENNEDY
GREEN BAY METRO SEWERAGE DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 19015
GREEN BAY, WI 54307-9015
BERNARD KERSEY
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL
WATER DEPT
300 NORTH D ST, P.O. BOX 710
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
ANDREA KIESERMAN
U.S. EPA
REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT ST (3WM10)
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
A-l 1
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
WARREN "KIMBALL
MASSACHUSETTS WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
1 WINTER ST, 8TH FLOOR
BOSTON, MA 02108
RUSSELL KINERSON
U.S. EPA
HQ, OW/OST/SASD/EAB
401 M ST, SW "
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KARL KLINGENSPOR
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL
TRIBAL PLANNING DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 503
HOOPA, CA 95546
GREGORY KNAPP
ASARCO INC.
3422 SOUTH 700 WEST
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84119
GERALD KRAUS
JAMES RIVER CORPORATION
1915 MARATHON AVE
NEENAH, WI 54956 *
CATHERINE KUIILMAN
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
RICHARD KUHLMAN
U.S. EPA
OFFICE WASTEWATER ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIANCE .
401 M ST, SW (WH-547)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ARNOLD KUZMACK
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-551)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARCIA LAGERLOEF .
U.S. EPA
REGION 10
1200 6TH AVE, (WD-139)
SEATTLE, WA 98101
GERALD LAVECK
U.S. EPA
HQ, WATERSHED MODELING SECTION
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
NORMAN LE BLANC
HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 5000
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23455
FORREST LEAF
CENTRAL COLORADO WATER
CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT
3209 WEST 28TH ST
GREELEY, CO 80027
MARTIN LEBO
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
PYRAMID LAKE WATER QUALITY PROJECT
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
DAVIS, CA 95616
FREDERICK LEUTNER
UlS. EPA
HQ, STANDARDS/APPL SCIENCE DIV
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MICHAEL LEWIS
U.S. EPA
SABINE ISLAND
GULF BREEZE, FL 32561
LEE LIEBENSTEIN
WISCONSIN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WATER QUALITY MONITORING UNIT
P.O. BOX. 7921, 101 SOUTH WEBSTER
MADISON, WI 53707
A-12
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTUjRY
HOWARD LIENERT
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY
6400 POPLAR AVE, TOWER II, FIFTH FLOOR
MEMPHIS, TN 38119
KEITH LINN
NE OHIO SEWER DISTRICT
4747 EAST 49TH ST
CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS, OH 44125
MARTIN LIPSCHULTZ
CITY OF LAS VEGAS
6005 VEGAS VALLEY DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122
JOSHUA LIPTON
RCG/HAGLER, BAILLY
1881 NINTH ST
BOULDER, CO 80302
FELIX LOCICERO
U.S. EPA
REGION 2, TECHNICAL EVALUATION SECT
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK, NY 10278
LINCOLN LOEHR m
HELLER, EHRMAN, WHITE & MCAULIFFE
6100 COLUMBIA CENTER, 701 FIFTH AVE
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7098
CHARLES LOGUE
CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
DEPT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
2221 BUCKMAN ST
JACKSONVILLE, FL 32206
RUBY LOSH-WARE
, MILLE LACS RESERVATION
NATURAL RESOURCES-BIOLOGICAL
P.O. BOX 194, HCR 67
ONAMIA, MN
ABRAHAM LOUDERMILK, JR.
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE DEPT
400 WEST SUMMIT HILL DR, WT 8B-K
KNOXVILLE, TX 37902
JAMES LUEY
U.S. EPA
REGION 8
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2466
SUZANNE LUSSIER
U.S. EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
27 TARZWELL DRIVE
NARRAGANSETT, RI 02882
MARY KAY LYNCH
U.S. EPA
REGION 4, WATER MANAGEMENT DIV
345 COURTLAND ST
ATLANTA, GA 30365
EVELYN MAC KNIGHT
U.S. EPA
REGION 3 I
841 CHESTNUT ST
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
CHARLIE MAC PHERSON
TETRA TECH
10306 EATON PL, #340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
LUCIA MACIIADO
AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
3033 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
CHARLES MACK
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE WATER RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 430
ROSEBUD, SD 57570
ROSE MAIN
FORT BELKNAP INDIAN COMMUNITY
RR 1, P.O. BOX 61
HARLEM, MT 59526
A-13
-------
ATTPNTlPFq 1 TOT
S Ik A X &*4O* JLrfulC^ X
SUZANNE MARCY
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SALLY MARQUIS
U.S. EPA
REGION 10
1200 6TH AVE, (WD-139)
SEATTLE, WA 98101
BURTON MARSHALL
VIRGINIA POWER
WATER QUALITY .
5000 DOMINION BLVD
GLEN ALLEN, VA 23080
WENDELL MC CURRY
NV DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
333 WEST NYE LANE
CARSON CITY, NV 89710
CHERYL MC GOVERN
VJS. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST (W-3-1)
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
GREG MC MURRAY
OREGON DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
811 SW SIXTH AVE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
WILLIAM MELVILLE
US. EPA
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON, WQS-16J
CHICAGO, IL 60604
MICHAEL MENGE
STATE OF ALASKA
DIV OF ENVIRON QUALITY, DEPT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
410 WILLOUGHBY AVE, SUITE 105
JUNEAU, AK 99801-1795
JOSEPH MESTER
KANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT
FORBES FIELD
TOPEKA, KS 66620
RICHARD MEYERHOFF
AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
3033 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
GILLIAN MITTELSTAEDT
TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON
6700 TOTEM BEACH ROAD
MARYSVILLE, WA 98271
DAVID MOON
U.S. EPA
REGION 8
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 500 (8WM-SP)
, DENVER, CO 80202-2405
DARLA MORGAN
SHOSHONE-BANNOCK TRIBES
P.O. BOX, 306
FORT HALL, ID 83203
PATH MORRIS
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, SASD
401 M STREET, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JOHN MOUSSEAU
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
P.O. BOX 320
PINE RIDGE, SD 57770
A-14
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
JUAN MUNIZ
CITY OF PORTLAND
5001 NORTH COLUMBIA BLVD
PORTLAND, OR 97203
BRYAN MUNSON
ARIZONA DEFT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
OFFICE OF WATER QUALITY
3033 NORTH CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
DAVID NAGAMINE
CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU
DIVISION OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
650 SOUTH KING ST
HONOLULU, HI 96813
MADONNA NARVAEZ
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
ARLEEN NAVARRET
SAN FRANCISCO BUREAU/WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
750 PHELPS ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124
DAVID NELSON
U.S. EPA
CERT
1999 BROADWAY
DENVER, CO 80202
GEORGE NESERKE
COORS BREWING CO
BC110
GOLDEN, CO 80401
INA NEZ PERCE
FORT BELKNAP TRIBE
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
RR #1, P.O. BOX 66
HARLEM, MT 59526
CHERYL NIEMI
WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY
PRUDENTIAL BLDG, LACOY
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
TERESA NORBERG-KING
U.S. EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
6201 CONGDON BLVD
DULUTH, MN 55804
ARACELI OAKES
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3268
EDWARD OHANIAN
U.S. EPA
HUMAN RISK ASSESSMENT BRANCH
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MELVIN OLESON
THE BOEING COMPANY
P.O. BOX 3707, MS 7E-ER
SEATTLE, WA 98124-2207
BOB OVERLY
JAMES RIVER CORP
500 DAY ST, P.O. BOX 23790
GREEN BAY, WI 54305-3790 .
CHERYL OVERSTREET
U.S. EPA
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE (6W-QT)
DALLAS, TX 75202-2733
PATRICK PADIA
COUNCIL OF ENERGY RESOURCE TRIBES
1999 BROADWAY, SUITE 2600
DENVER, CO 80202
WILLIAM PAINTER
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE POLICY ANALYSES, OPA, OPPE
401 M ST, SW (PM-221)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
A-15
-------
ATTFNTDFF9 I1QT
>mm, Jk A JGiM^IJLr 1WlOJI
RANDY PALACHEK
ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC.
7800 SHOAL CREEK DR, SUITE 222 W
AUSTIN, TX 78757
KYLE PALMER
AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
3033 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, 3RD FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
ADRIAN PALOMINO
US. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST W-3-1
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
LEWIS PAUL
NEZ PERCE TRIBE
WATER RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 365
LAPWAI, ID 83540
SPYROS PAVLOU
EBASCO ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK ASSESSMENT/RISK MANAGEMENT
PROGRAMS m
10900 NE 8TH ST
BELLEVUE, WA 98004-4405
JAMES PENDERGAST -
U.S. EPA
HQ, OWEC, WQ & INDUSTRIAL PERMITS
BRANCH
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
PAT PERGOLA
U.S. EPA
REGION 2
26 FEDERAL PLAZA (2WM)
NEW YORK, NY 10278
NANCY PERRY
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SAM PETROCELLI
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3268
DAVID PFEIFER
U.S. EPA
REGION 5
77 WEST JACKSON, WQS-16J
CHICAGO, IL 60604
STEVEN PAWLOWSKI
AZ DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
3033 NORTH CENTRAL AVE
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
DAVID PEELER
WA DEPT OF ECOLOGY
BASIN PLANNING AND STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 47600
OLYMP1A, WA 98504-7600
BILL PELTIER
U.S. EPA
REGION 4
COLLEGE STATION RD
ATHENS, GA 30605
QUANG PHAM
OKLAHOMA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
WATER QUALITY SERVICE-0207
1000 NE 10TH STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73117-1299
DALE PHENICIE
GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AFFAIRS
133 PEACHTREE ST, NE
ATLANTA, GA 30303
KEITH PHILLIPS
WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT UNIT
P.O. BOX 47703
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7703
A-16
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
DANIEL PICARD
NEZ PERCE TRIBE
P.O. BOX 365
LAPWAI, ID 83540
MARK PIFHER
ANDERSON, JOHNSON AND GIANUNZIO
104 SOUTH CASCADE AVE, SUITE 204
COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80903
MARJORIE PITTS
U.S.EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID PIVETFI
HDR ENGINEERING
5175 HILLSDALE CIRCLE
EL DORADO HILLS, CA 95672
MICHELLE PLA
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO/DEPT PUBUC
WORKS
SAN FRANCISCO CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
JAMES PLETL
HAMPTON ROADS SANITATION DISTRICT
1436 AIR RAIL AVE
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA 23455
RONALD POLTAK
NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
85 MERRIMAC STREET
BOSTON, MA 02114
GLORIA POSEY
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, OW/IO
401 M ST, SW (WH-556)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARTHA PROTHRO
U.S. EPA .
HEADQUARTERS, OFFICE OF WATER
401 M ST, SW (WH-556)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JERRY RAISCH
VRANESH AND RAISCH
P.O. BOX 871
BOULDER, CO 80306
MARIA REA
U.S.EPA
•REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
LINDA RECK
CITY OF LAS VEGAS
6005 EAST VEGAS VALLEY DR
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122
MICHAEL REICHERT
UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
288 NORTH, 1460 WEST, P.O. BOX 144870
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-4870
MARY REILEY
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF SCIENCE/TECHNOLOGY
401 M ST, SW (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JOHN REUTER
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-DAVIS
INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY
DIVISION-ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, UC
DAVIS
DAVIS, CA 95616
DALE RISLING
HOOPA VALLEY TRIBAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 503
HOOPA, CA 95546
A-17
-------
ATTFNTJFFS t tot
BARRY ROYALS
MISSISSIPPI DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. BOX 10385
JACKSON, MS 39289-0385
PETER RUFFIER
CITY OF EUGENE
METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
410 RIVER AVE
EUGENE, OR 97404
CARL ROTZ
ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE CO
1835 SOUTH BRAGAN ST, MS 538
ANCHORAGE, AK 99512
ANNE RYAN
U.S. EPA
HQ, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID SABOCK
VS. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 2046ft
CHARLIE SANCHEZ, JR.
VS. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINANTS
P.O. BOX 1306
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87103
ROBERTA (ROBBI) SAVAGE
ASSN OF STATE AND INTERSTATE WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS
750 FIRST ST, NE, #910
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
BRENDA SAYLES
MICHIGAN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SURFACE WATER QUALITY DIVISION
P.O. BOX 30028
LANSING, MI 48909
WILLIAM SCHATZ
NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER -
DISTRICT
3826 EUCLID AVENUE
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
PAUL SCHEIDIG
NEVADA MINING ASSOCIATION
RESOURCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
5250 SOUTH VIRGINIA ST, SUITE 220
RENO, NV 89502
WAYNE SCHMIDT
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL RESOURCE
CENTER
802 MONROE STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48103
DONALD SCHREGARDUS
OHIO EPA
P.O. BOX 1049, 1800 WATERMARK DRIVE
COLUMBUS, OH 43246-0149
DUANE SCHUETTPELZ
WI DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 7921
MADISON, WI 53707
HARRY SERAYDARIAN
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
ROBERT SEYFARTH
MISSISSIPPI OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 10385
JACKSON, MS 39289-0385
ROBERT SHANKS
SACRAMENTO REG COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT
9660 ECOLOGY LANE
SACRAMENTO, CA 95827
A-18
-------
LARRYSHEPARD
U.S. EPA
REGION 7
726 MINNESOTA AVE
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
LESLIE SHOEMAKER
TETRA TECH
10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
SHON SIMPSON
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD
600 NORTH HARVEY, P.O. BOX 150
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73101-0150
TIMOTHY SINNOTT
NY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
50 WOLF ROAD
ALBANY, NY 12233-4756
JONSJOBERG
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE
4747 VEGAS DRIVE
LAS VEGAS, NV 89108
DEBBIE SMITH
CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL
BOARD
LOS ANGELES REGION
101 CENTRE PLAZA DRIVE
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754-2156
IVAN SMITH
TONTO APACHE TRIBE
#19 TONTO APACHE RESERVATION
PAISON, AZ 85541
KATHRYN SMITH
U.S. EPA
HQ, OWEC, ENFORCEMENT DIVISION
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
QUALITY STANDARDS IFOR THE 21st CENTURY
LYLE SMITH
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TECHNICIAN-
< WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
P.O. BOX 73
LANTRY, SD 57636
STEPHEN SMITH
MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA TRIBE
P.O. BOX 217, 1ST AND SPRUCE
CASS LAKE, MN 56633
DAVID SNYDER
LA.C.S.D.
1955 WORKMAN MILL ROAD
WHITTIER, CA 90607
ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
THOMAS SPALDING
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT
LOUISVILLE AND JEFFERSON COUNTY
1825 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET
LOUISVILLE, KY 40208-1603
ROBERT SPEHAR
.U.S. EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB
6201 CONGDON BLVD
DULUTH, MN 55804
ALLAN STOKES
IOWA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
900 EAST GRAND AVE
DES MOINES, IA 50319
BOB SULLIVAN
LAS VEGAS VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
3700 WEST CHARLESTON BLVD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89153
A-19
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
TOM SWAN
RENO-SPARKS WWTF
8500 CLEAN WATER WAY
RENO, NV 89502
THOMAS SWIHART
FLORIDA DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
'REGULATION
2600 BLAIR STONE RD
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2400
DAVID TAGUE
NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
SURFACE WATER QUALITY BUREAU
1190 ST. FRANCIS DRIVE, P.O. BOX 26110
SANTA FE, NM 87502
DON TANG
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS, ORD/OEETD
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DENICE TAYLOR
METRO
821 SECOND AVE (MS 81)
SEATTLE, WA 98104
LYDIA TAYLOR
OREGON DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
811 SW 6TH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
STEVE TEDDER
NC DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
512 NORTH SALISBURY ST
RALEIGH, NC 27604
NELSON THOMAS
U.S. EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LAB-DULUTH
6201 CONGDON BLVD
DULUTH, MN 55804
STEVEN THOMPSON
OKLAHOMA DEPT OF POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 53504
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152
GREGORY THORPE
NC DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
WATER QUALITY SECTION
512 NORTH SALISBURY ST
RALEIGH, NC 27604
RUDOLPH THUT
WEYERHAEUSER CO
TECHNOLOGY CENTER
32901 WEYERHAEUSER WAY SOUTH
FEDERAL WAY, WA 98003
ERICK TOKAR
ITT RAYONIER INCORPORATED, RESEARCH
CENTER
409 EAST HARVARD
SHELTON, WA 98584
HEATHER TRIM
CA REGIONAL WQ CONTROL BOARD
LA REGION
2204 22ND ST
SANTA MONICA, CA 90405
REBECCA TUDEN
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
BARBARA TELLMAN
UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
WATER RESOURCES CENTER
350 NORTH CAMPBELL AVE
TUCSON, AZ 85721
STEPHEN TWIDWELL
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
1700 NORTH CONGRESS
AUSTIN, TX 78711
A-20
-------
GARY ULLINSKEY
CITY OF PHOENIX
3319 WEST EARLL DR
PHOENIX, AZ 85017
WILLARD UNDER BAGGAGE
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
WATER POLLUTION CONTRL-WATER
RESOURCE DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 883
PINE RIDGE, SD 57770
DEBORAH VERRELLI
U.S. EPA
ALASKA OPERATIONS OFFICE
410 WILLOUGHBY AVE, SUITE 100
JUNEAU, AK 99801
A. WADE VITALIS
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE
WATER RESOURCE DEPT
P.O. BOX 883
PINE RIDGE, SD 57770
DALE VODEHNAL
U.S. EPA
REGION 8
999 1STH ST, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2405
CHING VOLPP
NJ DEPT OF ENVIRON PROTECTION AND
ENERGY
401 EAST STATE ST
TRENTON, NJ 08625
MICHELE VUOTTO
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
2275 RESEARCH BLVD, SUITE 500
ROCKVILLE, MD 20850-3268
FRITZ WAGENER
U.S. EPA
REGION 4
345 COURTLAND ST
ATLANTA, GA 30365
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
ANTHONY WAGNER
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES ASSOCIATION
2501 M ST, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 22037
JOHN WAGNER
STATE OF WYOMING
DEPT OF ENV QUALITY-WATER QUALITY
DIV
HERSCHLER BLDG, 4 WEST
CHEYENNE, WY 82002
PAUL WAGNER
PYRAMID LAKE FISHERIES
STAR ROUTE
SUTCLIFFE, NV 89510
LARRY WALKER
LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES, INC.
509 4THST
DAVIS, CA 95616
ROBERT WALLUS
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
1101 MARKET ST, HB2C-C
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402-2801
GERALD WALTER
GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
2801 KENT AVE
WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906
CRAIG WALTON
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/WATER
QUALITY
P.O. BOX 7640
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120
KEVIN WANTTAJA
SALT RIVER PROJECT
WATER AND WASTE DIVISION/ENV SVCS
P.O. BOX 52025 (PAB352)
PHOENIX, AZ 85072-2025
A-21
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
JAMES WARCHALL
SIDLEY AND AUSTIN
ONE FIRST NATIONAL PLAZA
CHICAGO, IL 60603
RUBY WARE
MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
DNR/ENV
HCR 67, P.O. BOX 194
ONAMIA, MN 56359
THOMAS WARE
MILLE LACS BANDS OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS
WATER QUALITY, DNR/ENV
HCR 67, P.O. BOX 194
ONAMIA, MN 56359
ROBERT WEAVER
SAUL, EWING, REMICK AND SAUL
1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20004-2505
MARY WELCH
SAIC
1228 NORTH TAYLOR ST
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
MICHAEL WHEELER
PUGET SOUND WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY
P.O. BOX 40900
OLYMP1A, WA 98504-0900
DIANA WHITNEY
CITY OF RIVERSIDE
5950 ACORN ST
RIVERSIDE, CA 92504
LINDA WILBUR
VS. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW (WH-551)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KIRK WILES
TEXAS DEPT OF HEALTH
DIVISION OF SHELLFISH SANITATION
1100 WEST 49TH ST
AUSTIN, TX 78753
TERRY WILLIAMS
TULALIP FISHERIES OFFICE
7615 TOTEM BEACH ROAD
MARYVILLE, WA 98271
EILEEN WISSER
GEA
ASTRO SPACE DIVISION
230 GODDARD BLVD, V2704
KING OF PRUSSIA, PA 19406
PHIL WOODS
U.S. EPA
REGION 9
75 HAWTHORNE ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
FORREST WOODWICK
AZ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
3303 NORTH CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85012
DAVID WORD
GEORGIA DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTL PROT DIV, WATER PROT
BRANCH
205 BUTLER, SE-STE 1058, E. FLOYD TOWERS
ATLANTA GA 30334
JIM WREN-JARVIS
CLARK COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
5857 EAST FLAMINGO RD
LAS VEGAS, NV 89122
THOMAS WRIGHT
U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS
EXPERIMENT STATION (CEWES-ES-R)
3909 HALLS FERRY ROAD
VICKSBURG, MS 39180-6199
CHIEH WU
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
A-22
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
BILL WUERTHELE
U.S. EPA
REGION 8
999 18TH ST, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202-2466
ANDREW. ZACHERLE
TETRA TECH
10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
CHRIS ZARBA
U.S. EPA
HEADQUARTERS
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
PAUL ZUGGER
MICHIGAN DEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
SURFACE WATER QUALITY DIVISION
300 SOUTH WASHINGTON
LANSING, MI 48917
A-23
-------
Appendix B
Evaluation
Comments
-------
NATIONAL MEETING EVALUATION SUMMARY
Sixty-two evaluation forms were received. The meeting received an average score of 7.5 on
a scale of 1 to 10. The majority of attendees felt the objectives were clearly stated (47), and
all but one felt the objectives were completely or partially met. The top three sessions listed
as very useful were Independent Applicability, Biological Measures, and Effluent Dependent
Streams, respectively.
1. EPA RISK-BASED APPROACH/SOUND SCIENCE
Comments:
EPA needs to pay
more attention to this
policy throughout its
organization. Both
are necessary to
establish and maintain program credibility.
What is "sound science?" Is EPA really committed to such science? I don't remember these
issues being addressed.
Need to quit, having substitutes give speeches.
Probably best possible approach to absence of main speaker.
Not adequate, did not contain any practical information or potential methods.
Although perhaps unavoidable, message in LaJuana's absence not very positive (and strong to
some!)
Graphics and some "broad perspective" descriptions by Bill Diamond very relevant and
helpful.
I'm disappointed that this was omitted.
Too general, but good as introduction.
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
12
30
14
1
B-l
-------
2. LIFE AFTER TOXICS
Comments:
Not too much in the
way of "what
direction now?"
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
13
33
12
1
Regional flexibility is
essential to obtain "buy in" to nonpoint source program and to move to more stringent
standards affecting point source dischargers.
Toxics are not solved, major reexamination of the science and applicability are required.
With 1/3 of the States and territories not adopting, it is clear that a national initiatives range
of values for varying conditions is necessary to achieve a firm basis to regulate toxics.
3. BIOLOGICAL MEASURES
Comments:
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
26
23
7
Valuable and useful
tool*, however,
variability problem
requires caution and
discretionary judgment
when applied to compliance and enforcement activities.
Major emphasis on sewage systems and point source. Need more on NPS from agriculture
sources. This is a very important area, but after attending several EPA WQ workshops, I
have yet to see this area appropriately addressed.
The competing uses, especially in the West, must be resolved addressed at the National
policy level.' The WQ Criteria contain an eastern bias.
Harper speech was "slow."
Did not meet the stated puipose or include any detail on success.
Overall session well presented, well run. Forest Service presentation seemed too elementary
(but acknowledged), and too "party-line" regarding enforceable standards issues.
More time and speakers should have been allowed.
B-2
-------
Like It or not engineers, this the "wave" of the standards future!
Needed more specific description of biological measures to be considered.
4. CSOS/WET WEATHER
Comments:
Good presentations.
Not clear of EPA's
position or where
Congress may be
headed.
Need more discussion on CSO control programs that have been or are being built. Less on
CSO projects still in the early planning phase. San Francisco's presentation was excellent.
Focused only on technology-based approaches to CSO. Did not address relevancy of WQC
to CSOs or wet events.
5. WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY
Comments: *
Throw the engineers
out!
Good background for
someone who needed
it.
Good range of speakers, good presentations, some "counter-point" or perspective from
Regional EPA would be helpful.
I would have liked to have heard more about EPA's views.
NC is a demonstrated state in this field.
Old information.
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
4
7
3
1
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
13
20
2 .
B-3
-------
6. INDEPENDENT APPLICABILITY
Comments:
Better support for VC1* uspitil ^C1U1 "MUCt*Udlc
independent 31 22 2 1
applicability would I5=======±====s=====±===^^
have balanced the
presentation.
Good presentations, some concern with lack of active audience participation, not really very
complete discussion of issues.
Just opinions with no organization which develops direction.
Good background for someone who needed it.
Good to get EPA perspective and perception of concerned environmental groups.
Weight of evidence is the only approach that makes good public policy.
It did not really deal with the difference between independent applicability as a principle for
developing criteria or as a principle for applying criteria. The speakers and moderator talked
too long, did not have enough time for questions.
7. HUMAN HEALTH RISK MANAGEMENT
Comments:
Especially appreciated
participation of
Tribes. Hope EPA
was listening.
Informative to become aware of problems that exist in specific groups (e.g., Native
Americans) •
Not useful, strictly posturing by speakers.
Session needed more focus. Would have been helpful for moderator to present more detail
on EPA position and how it was derived.
Some speakers very good, particularly Wisconsin representative.
B-4
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
31
22
2
1
. Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
5
25
4
2
-------
Very disappointed with the shallowness of the presentations.
Good range, but lack of very clearly defined focus or any attempt to reach resolution.
8. SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT POLICY
Comments:
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
4
9
4
Moderator did not
leave enough time for
questions.
Chris Zarba saved the
discussion and did an excellent job of representing EPA's sediment activities. Yeah Chris!
Serious questions as to validity and need for sediment criteria. EPA strategy needs to go to
public comment.
9. ADVOCATES FORUM
Comments:
Too narrowly focused.
Kind of unfocused.
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
7
24
23
1
Good selection of
speakers, but failure to effectively interact with whole group; not sure how to change.
I had little expectations for this session, and they were met.
May have helped to cover more issues.
i
No questions were read from the cards handed in.
Totally useless - no one wants to have six people say what everybody knows and is old.
Too much rhetoric and little substance. 1
Well done! Congratulations to Dave Sabock and the whole panel. Do more of these.
B-5
-------
10. ECOLOGICAL RISK
Comments:
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
1
17
13
2
There was adequate
time for questions, but
speakers still could be
briefer. There was
not enough attention
to the issue of how Eco-Risk Assessment fits into CWA - standards regulatory structure.
The only speaker worth listening to was on uncertainty. The others put me to sleep with
their garbage.
./ ¦
The best session.
Way too theoretical.
An emerging "technology" with questionable credibility.
All presentations were too complex to be useful. There did not seem to be much progress
from 2 years ago.
Ecological Risk not beneficial; entirely too theoretical. Human Health session somewhat
better (I moved!).
Generally poor presentations.
Again, good diversity.
11 TTTTiyrAW TT1?AT TO DTC1T
XX* JjlIJIVL/VIN tliifAl.jXJdL XCX&jFk X
Comments:
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
3
7
5,
Since health criteria
may have an error of
plus/minus 104, why
do they exist?
Jeff Foran's comments on pollution prevention useful.
Very good AV work, somehow the presentations lacked spark.
B-6
-------
Professor Foran did an excellent job.
Old arguments and issues being restated does not help either regulators or dischargers.
Aspects of zero discharge discussed. This concept is fundamental to accomplishing the goals
of the Clean Water Act.
12. EFFLUENT DEPENDENT STREAMS
Comments:
Mr. Gregoiy stated in
20 minutes what has
concerned me in
Missouri for 20 yrs. I
support his views
fully.
A bit too much rambling!
The speakers were terrible and well below the quality of other panels.
Good example of the polarization that prevents environmental protection, through combined
efforts of all groups. Michael Gregory does not speak for all the public as he claims, and
doubtfully for the majority.
Other States besides western ones also have ephemeral stream dischargers—we have
addressed that. What is so special about western arid States? Phosphorus detergent bans-
have they been considered by the States.
Needs policy to bring wide range of issues into focus, i.e., what species should we protect
and what conditions should we promote? Should causes be undone?
Speakers did tend to ramble.
This was absent the technical info that makes development, support, or opposition possible
for these issues.
The level (i.e., technical sophistication) of several speakers was almost insulting to some in
the audience. Although appropriate to hear all perspectives, the speakers should be informed
of potential audience level of sophistication.
Liveliest session; good ending session.
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
20
15
15
2
B-7
-------
The issues raised by the speakers were the same issues that usually come up with WQS. Did
not demonstrate that EDS Issue is all that unique, or even that they understood the issue very
well, . '
This should have been a breakout, had limited applicability.
This was the best session/panel of the entire program!
Low only because does not have application to my geographic area.
Potentially the most important issue. Unfortunately the presentations by Brinsko and Forster
were not well focused on the issues.
13. ASK EPA
Comments;
Mostly EPA asking
EPA and political
speeches.
Worthwhile to hear
EPA goals direction and implementation plans.
Although I appreciate EPA's interest in our opinions via "Opinion Poll on Priority Activities"
the language used in reporting on the results indicates that EPA is not going to necessarily
change the priorities—"Surprised," "Interesting" that items which are being acted on ranked
low.
Additional Comments: ,
Increased EPA presence on panels would have been helpful to explain and, defend several
EPA programs and perspectives and, hopefully, to discuss at least obvious "red herrings."
Overall, the conference organizers are to be congratulated for the variety (and range of
perspectives) of speakers. Unfortunately, the size of the group did not allow the degree of
interaction with the larger group (not sure if, e.g., smaller breakout session would have
worked).
I work at EPA, so I didn't learn much new, but am sure it was helpful to others. Should
have been more "social hours" to enable people to "meet and mix" more. With such a large
conference, sending people for meals on their own meant most being out with folks they
already know.
Veiy Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
18
20
4
2
B-8
-------
Overall, too much of an "intra-EPA" conference-supporting each group's programs and
concepts; really needed to have more non-EPA representation in audience and spend time on
comments/questions-need smaller roundtable-type sessions.
Tell speakers to use readable visual aids - this is a big room.
Very much, very good information, I often wonder how much EPA listens to opposing
viewpoints, however, given that policy bears little resemblance to other viewpoints.
Tighten up the time for formal presentations. Leave more time for questions. We still need
more audience participation.
EPA's effort to do this is to be commended. Need more agriculture nonpoint source activity.
USDA-SCS initiated the National WQ Technology Development Staff (NWQTDS) based in
Fort Worth, TX, in FY 89 to address President's 5-year WQ Plan. This staff has been very
focused and very productive in area of NPS agriculture activities. Unfortunately, SCS has
axed this staff by end of FY 92 to support their Fort Collins, CO, boondoggle. It appears
they will be making veiy little contribution to technology in this area after FY 92. Does this
concern EPA? Does anyone in the Office of Water or Pesticides & Toxics care to ask Chief
Richards why they gave up this effort? Or what they intend to do (Fort Collins won't
suffice).
Generally Good Conference - Problem with entire conference is the representation, or lack
of it, from Great Basin State to discuss WQC/WQS issues as they relate to arid areas.
National Standards don't apply in Nevada and other Great Basin States.
~
Need list of participants early in meeting. Need opportunity for social interaction of EPA
staff.
The forjnat of the meeting this year is excellent; three different view points; regulator,
regulated, and environmental groups, all are represented in most of the panels.
Three-fourths of the workshop is rediscussing things from the previous two workshops. Why
do we keep going over Old information - These workshops should be geared to future work
and future ideas; not historic things that should have been implemented.
Las Vegas is a horrible choice for a setting (please include a "Poor" or "Unsatisfactory"
rating on your evaluation sheet).
More topics in Workshop format with general session reports would be more beneficial.
The basic format of the Breakout Sessions was a great way to show the spectrum of opinions
on the various issues. Speakers were generally excellent and gave strong support for their
viewpoints.
B-9
-------
You should limit questions from the audience to one per person. Also, EPA should prepare
response opposition papers on issues raised at this conference.
I cannot believe the shallowness and inadequacy of this meeting. Attending this conference .
has been a complete waste of time. It is no wonder we are having such difficulty nationwide
with WQ Protection. EPA can't or won't seriously address development of information and
options needs.
Overall the conference was very successful. Presentations were informative, presenting
different sides of every issue. The conference was well organized to allow enough time for
presentations and questions (comments). Excellent.
Overall very useful meeting, especially biocriteria-related discussions. EPA should
concentrate efforts in reviewing the criteria documents, the toxicity raw data, and the Priority
Pollutants list. EPA should also have the responsibility of dealing with the policy issues.
Human health criteria should be EPA's responsibility. States should have more responsibility
in developing the more progressive issues that characterize Regional concerns such as the
biocriteria development, sediment criteria, and the aquatic and wildlife numbers for the
different designated uses.
Most panels were pretty well balanced. Would be nice to have EPA speakers on each panel;
not just as moderators.
' Suggest that a participant list be provided in registration packet. Provide box for collecting
plastic badge holders for reuse.
You should restrict speakers to "make presentations" and communicate with the audience; not
read papers. Many poor presentations of generally good material.
Very informative. I enjoyed it.
Effort to create debate was very useful. Additional meetings should tiy to create further
debate.
Overall, the conference could have been improved by: (1) Moderators needed to be much
more concise—Most (except Harry Seraydarian and James Hanlon) spoke too long and did
not clearly lay out the problem to be addressed by the panel; (2) Better, clearer presentations
by many speakers-a handout (similar to that mailed out by Geological Society of America
for Conferences) might have helped people to prepare clearer, more concise overheads and
slides; (3) Moderators could have done a better job heading off excessive "comments" by the
audience—i.e., Human Health Risk Management; (4) I appreciated the wide range of points
of view that were presented. Although I appreciate EPA's interest in our opinions via
"Opinion Poll on Priority Activities," the language used in reporting on the results indicates
B-10
-------
that EPA is not going to necessarily change the priorities—"Surprised," "Interesting" that
items which are being acted on ranked low. /
More emphasis on Human Health issues.
Excellent conference. Suggest an annual event. Try to encourage "speakers" not to read
their talks. Speeches that are read are boring. Also encourage use of slides to break
monotony of some talks. Include canal issues on next agenda. Good job of keeping speakers
on time although there were some slip-ups. Sessions shouldn't go beyond 4:30. Schedule an
hour and 15 minutes for lunch. Las Vegas is a good location because it's cheap and we can
afford it on our chintzy State per diem.
Good conference. Poor notice of logistics, e.g., rendezvous point for tour, last minute
assignment of breakout session rooms, etc. Good substantive sessions, in particular,
Independent Applicability session.
Meeting only provided opinions. No indication of where EPA is going on these issues.
(1) Make name tags with first & last names in large print. Some of us know names, but
would like to lie able to put faces to those names. The last names are so small one must get
very close to someone to read the name tag. In certain situations that could be very rude. (2)
I appreciated the fact that the panels consisted of people with opposing views. This was
especially good for EDS and Biological measures.
I think I could have formulated .better questions (to ask presenters and EPA) if I had more
advance information prior to the conference. Perhaps sending out abstracts before the
meeting would serve this purpose. Also, 1 heard a lot about WQ problems that we face
today, but I'm not sure I'm clear on what lies ahead in the area of criteria (more stringent or
same?).
Thanks for making this a "free," i.e., no registration fee, conference! Format good.
Manageable number of topics. Appreciate the level of EPA management involvement.
Please choose a better location next time (e.g., Seattle, Minneapolis, Boston, etc.)!
It would be useful to have regional-based meetings more frequently than the 18-month
national meeting—where specific topics can be defined. National and regional EPA staff
could attend. Meetings should be set up without specific speakers, but with moderators.
Breakouts should all be on the same topics, but limited to a round table discussion of 25-30
people. Attendees should be prepared to discuss their specifics related to each topic so that
problems that EPA, States, dischargers, environmentalists face can be dealt with and regional
solutions can begin to be proposed. Once WQ solutions are proposed, there must be
interaction with solid waste and air quality groups before implementation.
B-ll
------- |