United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water (WH-553)
Washington, DC 20460
May 1991
&EPA WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Proceedings of a conference
•Pit- HP*" , .._,*
= - -JSS^
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JUN | 1991
OFFICE OF
WATER
Dear Colleague:
Enclosed is a copy of the Proceedings of the 2nd National
Water Quality Standards Conference held December 10 - 12, 1991,
in Arlington, Virginia. We very much appreciate your attendance
and participation in the spirited discussions.
The 3rd National Water Quality Standards Meeting will be
held during September, 1992, in Las Vegas, Nevada. I would like
your assistance in making the 1992 Water Quality Standards
Meeting as successful as the first two meetings by taking a few
moments to give us your views on the topics that should be
covered and on the format of the meeting.
In the first meeting, we asked that you help us define what
the breadth, scope and priorities of the evolving water quality
standards program should be as we proceed into the 21st Century.
Your suggestions included water quality standards for wetlands
and greater emphasis on sediment and biological criteria. We
adjusted the Agency's priorities for the water quality criteria
and standards programs to reflect your suggestions.
The Agency's budget for sediment criteria, biological
criteria and wildlife criteria has more than doubled over the
last three years. In addition, EPA's operating guidance to
States for the 1991 - 1993 water quality standards triennium
includes State adoption of wetland and estuary/near coastal water
quality standards and State adoption of narrative biological
criteria.
The second national water quality standards meeting had a
narrower focus. We sought your ideas on how best we can all
contribute to implementing the water quality standards program
priorities. The most prevalent suggestion was publication of
implementation guidance that focuses on practical solutions.
However, there is no practical way for us to respond
positively to all of the suggestions offered at the conference
nor as quickly on the principal suggestions as we would like. We
have initiated specific actions in response to suggestions from
the second conference. In April, 1991, the Agency published the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Control.
Revisions to the document reflect needs identified at the
PrattdonRteydtdPaptr
-------
conference for certain kinds of guidance, such as guidance on
mixing zones. We expect to have more definitive guidance
available this fall on narrative biological criteria. Through
the efforts of the States and Regions involved in the Great Lakes
Initiative, much work is underway on developing implementation
guidance in several areas, including application of the
antidegradation policy and use of economic analyses in the water
quality standards program. A policy statement on metals is
nearly completed and ready to be issued. The discussions on the
concept of national standards has been of assistance to the
Agency as we begin work on the reauthorization of the Clean Water
Act. In addition, as some of you may be aware, the Agency is
reviewing the potency of dioxin. This review may result in a
change in the dioxin criterion. Finally, the quarterly Criteria
and Standards Newsletter is now devoted to topics of special
interest, as suggested at the conference. Since the meeting in
December, 1991 we have published a Newsletter on biological
criteria and one on wetland water quality standards in which we
identified the different approaches States are taking.
The format for the first two conferences included several
featured speakers, panels on various topics, and an opportunity
for questions from the audience. Your evaluations of the second
conference included numerous suggestions for improvements based
on this format. Do you have any suggestions for a basic format
change or should we continue with the format of the first two
conferences?
I hope that you will take the time to suggest improvements
that we could make to ensure the success of the 3rd National
Water Quality Standards meetings.
Sincerel
I'
William R. Diamond, Director
Standards and Applied Sciences Division
Office of Science and Technology
-------
Proceedings
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
December 10-12, 1990 • Arlington, Virginia
Sponsored by
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
May 1991
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Soulevaid, l£th
-------
Prepared by JT&A, inc. and Dynamac Corporation under contract 68-O33538 for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or com-
mercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Editor: Gretchen H. Flock
Production Managers: Lura K. Svestka & Jaye D. Isham
Project Manager: Mark Southerland
To obtain copies, contact:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards & Applied Science Division
Washington, D.C. 20460
11
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
CONTENTS
Purpose and Objectives of the Conference 1
Martha G. Prothro
Keynote Address 3
Lajuana S. Wilcher
State Perspectives on Water Quality Standards 7
Bruce Baker
Questions, Answers, and Comments 11
Toxic POLLUTANT CRITERIA
Toxic Pollutant Criteria: The States' Perspective 13
John Howland
Toxic Pollutant Criteria—Industry's Perspective 17
Richard F. Schwer
Toxic Pollutant Criteria—Toward a More Comprehensive Agenda 23
Robert W. Adler
Questions, Answers, and Comments 29
SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A Strategy for Sediment 35
Arthur]. Newell
Sediment Standards Development in Washington State 37
G. Patrick Romberg
A National Sediment Strategy 41
Beth Millemann
Sediment Management at the Port of Oakland 43
James McGrath
INDUSTRY'S PERSPECTIVE ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Water Quality Criteria and Standards: An Industrial Viewpoint 51
Geraldine V. Cox
CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments 55
Sarah L Clark
Sediment Assessment for the 21st Century: An Integrated Biological and Chemical
Approach 59
William J. Adams, Richard A. Kimerle, and James W. Barnett, Jr.
Assessing Contaminated Sediments 67
Arthur]. Newell
ill
-------
WETLAND WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands 71
Bill Wilen
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands in Tennessee 75
Morris C. Flexnerand Larry C. Bowers
Wetland Water Quality Standards 81
Larry ]. Schmidt
Criteria to Protect Wetland Ecological Integrity 85
William Sanville
Protecting Wetland Water Quality Standards 89
Thomas Dawson
Questions, Answers, and Comments 91
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Answering Some Concerns About Biological Criteria Based on Experiences in Ohio 95
Orris O. Yoder
Biological Monitoring in the Wabash River and Its Tributaries 105
/. R. Gammon
Biological Criteria Issues in the Great Lakes 113
Tim Eder
Considerations in the Development and Implementation of Biocriteria 115
Reid Miner and Dennis Barton
Questions, Answers, and Comments 121
AMMONIA-CHLORIDE
Toxicity of Chlorine and Ammonia to Aquatic Life: Chemistry, Water Quality
Criteria, Recent Research, and Recommended Future Research 127
Brian D. Melzian and Norbert ]aworski
Should Ammonia and Chlorine Be Regulated as Toxic Pollutants? A POTW
Perspective 139
Rodger Baird and LeAnne Hamilton
Regulating Chlorinated Organic Pollutants 151
John Bonine
Are National Water Quality Standards Needed for Chlorine and Ammonia? 159
David B. Cohen
COASTAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The Development of Biocriteria in Marine and Estuarine Waters in Delaware 169
John R. Maxted
Water Quality Standards Based on Species' Habitat Requirements—A Case Study from
the Chesapeake Bay Using Submerged Aguatic Vegetation 177
Robert Orth, Kenneth Moore, Richard Batiuk, Patsy Heasly, William Dennison, J. Court Stevenson,
Lori Staver, Virginia Carter, Nancy Rybicki, Stan Kollar, R. Edward Hickman, and Steven Bieber
IV
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Water Quality Effects of Water Quality Standard Enforcement: Industrial
Pretreatment in Rhode Island 183
Clayton A. Penniman
What Makes Coastal Standards Effective 191
Robert Berger
Questions, Answers, and Comments 197
GEOGRAPHICAL TARGETING/GREAT LAKES INITIATIVE
The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative—Regional Water Quality Criteria 199
Sarah P. Fogler
BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTING WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Barriers to Water Quality Standards: One State's Perspective 203
Mary Jo Garreis
Beyond Implementation: Challenges to Complying with New Water Quality-based
Standards 207
Andrew H. Glickman
Protection of Reservation Environments in the 1990s 211
Richard A. Du Bey
Questions, Answers, and Comments 217
ENVIRONMENTALIST PERSPECTIVE ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
An Environmentalist's Perspective on Water Quality Standards 221
Freeman Allen
1992 REVISIONS TO CLEAN WATER ACT
Questions, Answers, and Comments 225
Jeff Peterson and Gabe Rozsa
Summary of Moderators' Reports 233
Conference Attendee List 237
Index of Authors 251
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 1-2
Purpose and Objectives of the Conference
Martha G. Prothro
Director, Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
Welcome to Washington! You are a large
and varied audience, and we eagerly
look forward to hearing what you have
to say about the water quality standards program.
We all recognize that this is the keystone of the
water quality-based control program and, in many
ways, the key to implementing a watershed protec-
tion program that focuses on ambient and ecological
protection rather than simple control of traditional
sources of pollution.
In our last national meeting held in Dallas in
March 1989, a variety of topics was discussed. From
that meeting and follow-up discussions with various
groups in and out of EPA, we decided on the nation-
al program priorities for fiscal years 1991 to 1993.
For the past three years our top priority has
been State adoption of numeric criteria for toxic pol-
lutants. While this remains a priority, other ele-
ments have been added. In the triennial-fiscal years
1991 to 1993-the States will be expected to adopt:
• Saltwater criteria for protection of aquatic
life and human health,
• Narrative biological criteria,
• Provisions to ensure that standards apply to
wetlands (just as standards apply to any
other waterbody),
• Additional criteria for toxic pollutants as
needed,
• Standards applicable to coastal and
estuarine waters, and
• Antidegradation policies and
implementation procedures.
At this year's conference, we want to discuss the
problems and issues confronting EPA, the States,
and others affected by standards in meeting these
program priorities. We also want to identify what
additional supporting guidance and policies are
needed from EPA to support the States in meeting
these objectives and to hear from environmental
groups and industry as to how they will participate
in State efforts on these tasks.
We believe you can help us identify the scien-
tific, technical, legal, policy, and resource needs and
impediments to achieving national program objec-
tives. Every one of our current objectives has al-
ready been accomplished by at least some States, so
we think our goals are realistic and appropriate.
But we want to hear from you.
We hope this conference will serve as a national
forum for States, Indian tribes, and environmental
and industry groups to exchange ideas on ways and
means to maintain and improve the standards pro-
gram as a solid foundation for implementing water
quality-based controls.
Water quality standards and the supporting
water quality criteria are constantly changing.
There will probably never be a time when we have
all the information or all the resources we may
need. Tbo often this becomes an excuse for lack of ac-
tion despite the fact that there is sufficient
knowledge and a need to act. We hope not only to
identify problems or additional research needs that
could be barriers to future program implementation
but also to identify what we can do now and in the
next few years, based on existing knowledge, law,
and information.
-------
M.G. PROTHRO
If our experience from the 1989 meeting in Dal-
las is any guide, you will probably give us many
more suggestions for program changes, research,
and guidance than EPA and the States can
reasonably deliver. Therefore, I ask that, as ideas
develop during the various discussion sessions, we
all try to think in terms of "doability" and rank
priorities on the basis of managing the highest
ecological and public health risks.
Subjects that we will be discussing at this con-
ference include:
• Derivation and application of sediment
criteria,
• Inclusion of wetlands and coastal area in
State standards,
• Geographical targeting of programs, as
illustrated by the experience gained to date
on the Great Lakes Program Initiative, and
• A possibly stronger focus on the control of
ammonia and chlorine.
We also will have an opportunity to discuss the
upcoming Clean Water Act reauthorization with
Congressional staff.
These are the near-term program objectives. We
expect that discussions on some of the newer areas
of consideration and the Clean Water Act
reauthorization will begin to set an agenda for the
national program beyond 1993.
As for potential new areas for standards, we can
consider wildlife and numeric biological criteria and
geographically targeting our programs on critical
watersheds. We expect to focus more on nontradi-
tional areas such as nonpoint sources, combined
sewer overflows, and stormwater. Other areas
where standards will either influence decisions or
be influenced by them include fish contamination
advisories, hydrologic modifications, 401 certifica-
tions, reductions of ecological and human health
risks, and, most important, pollution prevention.
This is a wide variety of possible issues for the
standards program. We need your views on which
areas are the most needed and the most promising
in terms of environmental protection and which
have the greatest need for additional research.
Our panelists represent a wide variety of inter-
ests and viewpoints. Each session is constructed to
allow adequate time for audience participation. I en-
courage you to share your thoughts and ideas
throughout the conference.
Welcome to all of you!
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 3-6
Keynote Address
Lajuana S. Wilcher
Assistant Administrator for Water
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.
(As presented by Martha Prothro due to
illness of Ms. Wilcher)
Welcome to our Nation's capital! I am
delighted to join you for the Second An-
nual National Water Quality Stand-
ards Conference and the 25th anniversary of the
water quality standards program. You are our
partners. Without you, we could not have achieved
the progress that has been made in improving our
Nation's water quality.
Each of you has played a role in this program.
Scientists have developed new methodologies and
data to enable us to understand and predict the ef-
fects on human health and the environment—even
very low amounts of toxics and other pollutants. The
Federal actors have given us new regulations,
policies, and guidance and have provided much
needed technical assistance. States have been on
the frontline, working with local interests to imple-
ment and generally ensure program operation. En-
vironmental organizations have served as the
conscience for the Nation, helping to foster a broad
national commitment to protect water resources.
And many others — lawyers, citizens, students —
have, in their own ways, contributed to our success.
Meetings such as this reaffirm our commitment to
improving the water quality standards program.
Your commitment is well worth the effort because
here, on the "water planet," every living thing
depends on it.
As William Blake said in 'The Book of Thel,"
"...everything that lives, / Lives not alone, nor for it-
self." We humans don't live in isolation. We are in-
tegrally related to our rivers, lakes, streams,
wetlands, and estuaries. Water covers two-thirds of
the earth's surface. Essential to all forms of life, it
plays the critical role in the functions and processes
of the earth's ecosystems. Water is the single most
common element uniting ecosystems: it links forest
ecosystems in interior mountain ranges with the es-
tuaries and bays along coasts. It transports food,
nutrients, and other biologically important or-
ganisms and materials. It removes waste, cools, and
maintains the climate conditions necessary to sus-
tain life. Clean water is essential to almost every in-
dustry in this country and provides a multiplicity of
recreational activities to our Nation. It is our
lifeblood.
In 1854, Indian Chief Seattle said, "This shining
water that moves in the streams and rivers is not
just water but the blood of our ancestors. The rivers
are our brothers, they quench our thirst. The rivers
carry our canoes and feed our children. And you
must henceforth give the rivers the kindness you
would give to any brother."
But we have not always treated our water so
kindly. In the past, we have taken water for granted.
We used our rivers as open sewers and open garbage
pits—as recipients of trash, waste oil, and even junk
cars. We have dumped industrial waste into our
water to be carried out of our sight. Out of sight, out
of mind!
That's why Congress established legislation 25
years ago creating a Federal-State partnership to
ensure strong and appropriate State water quality
standards. At that time, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act was the sole Federal basis for water pol-
lution control and enforcement. The Federal
Government approved the first State standards in
1968. Since that time, States have made great
progress in adopting and developing chemical-
specific criteria. We are still trying to get some
States to move forward with that job! But, we have
made progress—progress largely attributable to the
-------
L.S. WllCHER
partnership among all of us—cemented by our
vigilant efforts to protect water resources.
With these tools, along with others now afforded
to the Federal Government and States, we have
seen significant, meaningful improvement in water
quality. Just this month, there was a celebration of
"The Healing of the Potomac." At this event, the
Smithsonian opened a marvelous exhibit that vivid-
ly portrayed the process.
The Potomac, which is just up the road from us
here, was very troubled, largely from untreated
sewage and nonpoint runoff, as are many other
rivers across the country. In 1965, President
Johnson labeled the Potomac "a national disgrace."
People who lived here avoided the riverfront be-
cause of the stench and disease associated with its
gross pollution. However, armed in part with Clean
Water Act authorities, the Interstate Potomac River
Basin Commission, with lots of Federal, State, and
local effort, helped turned the tide.
Today, the Potomac is filled with fish and other
aquatic life. Sixty to 70 percent of the Washington
metropolitan area can rely on the river for safe
drinking water. There is a renaissance of recreation
and economic activity on and near the Potomac. In
1990, both President Bush and Justice Sandra Day
O'Connor caught fish from the Potomac. (The
president's was a three-pound bass.) Bass anglers
say that, over the last few years, the largemouth
bass fishing in the Potomac has been among the
best anywhere in the Nation. There are many other
examples across the United States where Federal,
State, tribal, and local efforts report similar
progress. And it has been awhile since anyone has
reported seeing a river on fire.
Remaining Problems
But is our work done? Are the Potomac and other
waters of the United States completely healed? We
can catch fish again, but are they safe to eat?
Development along our waterways brings its
own set of water quality problems. We need new ap-
proaches to meet today's challenges. As Oliver Wen-
dell Holmes wrote: "I find the great thing in this
world is not so much where we stand, as in what
direction we are moving...We must sail sometimes
with the wind and sometimes against it—but we
must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor. "
Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
So it is time to set our sails for new directions. Pollu-
tion persists from diffuse sources such as
stormwater runoff from agricultural and urban
areas. State-reported water quality information
tells us that nontraditional sources of pollution,
especially nonpoint sources of pollution coming from
diffuse areas and land use activities such as farm-
ing, timbering, and construction, are now the lead-
ing reasons for water quality problems. We are also
learning more about subtle risks to aquatic ecosys-
tems and human health resulting from toxic chemi-
cals and developing ways to address those risks.
Toxics
Toxic contamination in the environment is one of
the greatest problems facing the United States
today. Toxic substances such as PCBs and dioxin
have been discharged and dumped in our rivers,
where they remain and accumulate in the sedi-
ments and benthic communities, posing risks to
aquatic life, human health, and wildlife from fish
consumption. Reports indicate that elevated levels
of toxics exist in one-third of monitored rivers,
lakes, and coastal waters. Ninety percent of as-
sessed shorelines around the Great Lakes have
elevated levels of toxics. And toxics aren't always
easy to identify or control.
Congress, recognizing the critical risks toxics
were posing, reinvigorated our efforts in this area
by passing new amendments in 1987 to the Clean
Water Act that required States to adopt numeric
toxic water quality standards. Some States have
worked hard over the last three years to meet the
1987 Clean Water Act requirements. It's been a
tough job of great importance—a job that a disap-
pointing number of States have not completed.
While the States move on with their efforts, we at
EPA are preparing a proposal to establish Federal
toxic standards to apply in those States that have
not adopted their own criteria.
The effort to finally establish water quality
standards for toxic pollutants is essential to the suc-
cess of a number of Clean Water Act programs and
objectives, including permitting, enforcement, fish
tissue quality protection, coastal water quality im-
provement, prevention of sediment contamination,
certain nonpoint source controls, pollution preven-
tion planning, and ecological protection. There has
been no higher water quality standard program
priority for the past year. We have devoted exten-
sive staff and management resources at both head-
quarters and the regions to assist States in
developing draft standards and to prepare the
Federal proposal for States with deficient programs.
We are fully committed to do what it takes to bring
this effort to a successful conclusion. I heartily urge
you to continue to ensure that your State has
adopted its own toxics standards. Until every State
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 3-6
has all necessary numeric water quality standards
for the toxics for which EPA has promulgated
numeric criteria, our work in this area is not done!
Sediment Criteria
Another area of serious concern is the impact of con-
taminated in-place sediments. In many locations, in
all types of waterbodies, contaminated sediments
are degrading the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the water. Contaminated sediments rep-
resent the legacy of our past industrial waste dis-
posal practices as well as ongoing urban and
agricultural runoff. EPA is establishing sediment
criteria that will help us to establish regulatory
thresholds for these contaminated areas. We need
the criteria to guide us in preventing other pollution
and determining whether these unacceptably con-
taminated sediments can recover through natural
processes or should be removed from the Nation's
harbors and water systems.
Wetlands Water Quality
Standards
We also are focusing on water quality standards for
wetlands to ensure that provisions of the Clean
Water Act currently applied to other surface waters
also are being applied to wetlands. We recently is-
sued guidance entitled, National Guidance on Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands. By the end of fiscal
year 1993, the Agency intends that each State will
have included wetlands under its definition of "State
waters," established beneficial uses for wetlands,
adopted wetlands-related narrative biological
criteria, and applied antidegradation policies to wet-
lands. Since all of these topics are subjects of these
sessions, I'll move on to talk about broad Agency
themes that are the focus of our water quality
standards.
On Risk
The first theme is risk-based priority setting. We are
learning more about the existing risks to our en-
vironment and which ones we will likely run
aground on if we fail to heed the warning signals.
Under Administrator Reilly's leadership, we at EPA
have concluded that we can no longer send out the
Navy, ship-by-ship, on isolated missions. We must
assemble the fleet on a collective assignment tar-
geted to the greatest environmental risk.
The Administrator has made a commitment to
risk-based choices in environmental protection. A
report, Reducing Risk; Setting Priorities and
Strategies for Environmental Protection, was recent-
ly released by EPA's Science Advisory Board. We in
the water arena will have a critical role in respond-
ing to this report. The Science Advisory Board, made
up of non-EPA scientists and experts, identifies is-
sues such as habitat alteration and destruction (in-
cluding wetlands losses), loss of biological diversity,
and contaminated drinking water as relatively high-
risk problems. Protection of our water resources will
obviously remain an extremely vital task.
The report also includes a meaningful discus-
sion of the extraordinary value of natural systems.
It calls on the Agency to afford equal protection to
both ecosystems and public health. We must give
greater recognition to the vital link between human
life and natural ecosystems. The Office of Water is
attempting to do this in part through a new em-
phasis on biological, habitat, and wildlife criteria.
Our future course into the 21st century will be to
treat rivers, streams, estuaries, and wetlands as in-
tegrated ecosystems, intrinsically worth protecting
for their own sake, and for ours.
Better Science
The development of a solid scientific and technical
foundation is another Agency theme at the heart of
establishing sound water quality criteria and stand-
ards. As we improve our science, we must also im-
prove our ability to translate this knowledge into
practical tools that can be easily used to help estab-
lish the environmental ethic we want to instill in
our decisionmaking process.
Geographic Targeting
We at EPA believe geographic targeting of priority
watersheds will be the direction of the future. We
are committed to this approach in the Office of
Water. Our commitment does not mean that we will
neglect our base programs. We will have to find a
balance between addressing nationwide program re-
quirements and adopting geographically targeted
approaches for sensitive, threatened, or degraded
areas. Geographic targeting will provide us with a
framework to tackle the difficult and resource-inten-
sive management problems of nonpoint source pol-
lution, stormwater runoff, and habitat protection.
And we must better integrate our efforts as we do
this targeting.
Integrated Efforts
As Aldo Leopold said almost 50 years ago in his
Sand County Almanac, "Instead of learning more
and more about less and less, we must learn more
and more about the whole biotic landscape." We
-------
L.S. W/LCHER
must all look at every effect of our human actions
and use our tools in concert, not piecemeal.
You will be discussing one of the United States'
finest ecosystems, the Great Lakes. These five lakes
will serve as a national laboratory to learn what is
possible through multimedia, geographic targeting.
The Agency, recognizing the need to look at all sour-
ces of pollution entering these waters, initiated the
Great Lakes Multimedia Program under the leader-
ship of Administrator Reilly. In the Great Lakes, we
will break the mold of traditional pollution control
and cleanup programs. Our multimedia efforts in
the Great Lakes will pave the way we intend to go
in the years ahead. Not just the water program but
also the air, waste, toxics, and pesticide programs
will unite to tackle remaining problems impairing
lake water quality.
Pollution Prevention
Pollution prevention, the final Agency theme, will be
among our most effective tools in the coming years.
We can no longer be content to set standards, apply
them in permits, wait for violations to occur, and
then take enforcement actions.
Today, I'm glad to say, we do have better than a
90 percent major municipal compliance rate, and it
is even higher for major industrial sources. But we
must improve our early warning systems to identify
facilities on the path to trouble and mobilize in-
dustry to switch processes and produce fewer (and
less damaging) waste by-products. Individual
citizens must be mobilized to limit use of fertilizers
on lawns and gardens; properly dispose of used oil,
batteries, and paint cans; switch to less harmful
cleaning substances; and recycle paper, glass, and
aluminum. We must generate less pollution as a Na-
tion.
Conclusion
So, as we approach the 21st century, our work is not
completed. For the tough problems that remain, we
must change the way we think and act. All State
water quality standards must soon include criteria
for toxics or else they will include EPA-promulgated
standards. We must prevent pollution, not just clean
up after we have fouled our rivers and bays. We
must work in concert with each other, focusing our
efforts on problems posing the highest risks and in
geographic areas where we can realize the greatest
risk reduction.
In responding to the Science Advisory Board's
report recommendation to pay equal attention to
ecosystem risk, we must continue our work on es-
tablishing biocriteria, wildlife criteria, and other re-
lated science. We must think holistically and act
comprehensively. There will be challenges, but we
must meet them. We must succeed because we can't
afford to fail.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 7-9
State Perspectives on Water Quality
Standards
Bruce Baker
Director, Water Resources Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wisconsin
—and—
Chairman, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
Water Quality Standards Task Force
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Before I begin my remarks, I want to reemphasize
some points made here today. I agree almost word
for word with everything both LaJuana and Martha
said. The one point that I will keep making is that
the States are major actors in this effort. It is impor-
tant to remember our role as partners in the im-
plementation of water quality standards.
As you know, the water program across the
country has shifted over the last decade. We have
moved away from a technology-based approach,
where most of our efforts were focused on secon-
dary treatment, best available technology, and
technological approaches, to one that is based on
water quality standards. That shift is occurring in
relatively different time frames across the country,
on a State-by-State basis, and, in some cases, has
caught States—and dischargers—by surprise.
Many of the things you're talking about are ac-
tive issues in the States; in fact, all these issues
come up routinely when States get together to talk
about water quality standards. One issue that con-
tinually recurs in those discussions is the States'
hesitation to adopt standards in situations where
EPA has handed down draft regulations or
guidance that will be subject to change. Both situa-
tions put States in a difficult position; they can go
through a lengthy, expensive adoption process
(sometimes up to three years before a final rule is
in place), only to have the national guidance or ap-
proach change.
Challenges to water quality standards and per-
mits based on them have increased dramatically.
Challenges to the implementation of new standards,
which are very common, have aggravated the
States' workload. Not only is it difficult to put those
standards in place, but it is a tremendous job to
defend and sustain them during the implementation
and permitting process.
During 1990, EPA headquarters and regional
staff conducted forums that involved 37 States. In
those discussions, the lack of final guidance was
brought up as a critical issue. A theme that came out
of those forums was that EPA seems to be using dif-
ferent approaches, particularly for regional inter-
pretations of standards. We, as States, would like to
work with EPA to try to narrow the problems as-
sociated with that issue. We will never reach a time
when all the regions will take identical approaches
to every issue, but we need to strive toward greater
consistency across the country.
The States' "Christmas List"
Since this is the holiday season, I have prepared a
Christmas list from the perspective of the States.
• One area that is on the States' list is their
need for a final policy on which forms of me-
tals should be used in the definition of water
quality standards. The majority of States
would urge EPA to adopt an acid-soluble
method for metals analysis and allow it to be
-------
B. BAKER
used to measure compliance within National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit limits for metals. The States
also need a better method for metal analysis;
examples for that might be mercury as well
as some selected organic compounds.
Second on the list is mixing zones, an area
where clearly we need guidance that will pro-
vide additional clarity and a more defensible
position for their application and use. We are
not necessarily calling for a greater use of
mixing zones but need some clarity on where
they are appropriate (particularly important
because of the impact mixing zones have on
the application of toxic limits). States also
need better guidance on the zones of initial
pollution.
Not only are we looking at a shift where
numeric standards drive permit programs but
also to a new concept: applying antidegrada-
tion in situations where States are already
meeting water quality standards. It has taken
a great deal of time for some people to under-
stand that concept; therefore, we must con-
tinue to work with EPA to define what
antidegradation implementation means and
establish specific implementation procedures.
Although some States have moved ahead in
this area, we need to have a continuous shar-
ing of some of the successes and failures.
Clearly, everyone must understand that we're
talking about a narrative standard that would
apply in situations that are beyond the
numeric water quality standards. An example
of the use of antidegradation is the control and
limitation of persistent bioaccumulating sub-
stances in the Great Lakes.
I Next on the list is economic impact analysis.
Everyday, economic impact is an issue for
States, either in the adoption or implementa-
tion of water quality standards. The draft
revisions to the water quality standards
handbook contain a discussion on economics
that is somewhat helpful, but we need a final
version with additional information on apply-
ing discharger-specific variances and im-
plementing related antidegradation policies.
I EPA has targeted biological criteria in wet-
lands as a priority in the next triennial stand-
ards review. Therefore, we need a final,
expeditious completion of the "Biological
Criteria Technical Reference Guide" and
"Wetlands Use-Classification Methodology
Summary" from the Agency.
We would urge EPA to take a serious look at
moving beyond the outdated approach for
PCBs that is currently used across the Nation.
Dioxin is an issue everyone is familiar with.
Many States think the range of acceptability
in dioxin numbers is too great. We understand
EPA's position on this issue and the scientific
debate, but the bottom line from the States'
perspective is that the range of acceptability
places a great burden on States to defend
numbers that are significantly different across
the country. This creates tremendous
problems in terms of consistency in interstate
waters and from region to region across the
country. This is an area where we need to talk
about other things that should be taken into
account when standards are adopted—par-
ticularly issues such as the right public policy
associated with some of these standards.
Sometimes the numbers have to be comple-
mented with public policy debate on the chan-
ges and the situations they create.
I Approaches to dealing with ammonia differ
greatly across the country. EPA and the
States must solve the root problem associated
with ammonia to develop greater national
consistency.
I States attach great importance to the
development of sediment criteria and are
pleased to see that EPA also regards this as a
priority.
I One of the problems that States face con-
tinually is having a completely different num-
ber end up in a permit as a result of different
implementation procedures that exist from
State to State. You can have the same stand-
ard but end up with totally effluent-limit re-
quirements based upon those implementation
procedures. States think EPA should focus on
this area and produce more specific guidance
on implementation procedures. Water quality
in-take credits, limit of protection, limit of
quantification, compliance with water quality
standards, and the four-day, once-in-three-
years compliance for chronic aquatic life
criteria are a few examples of some areas that
are day-to-day problems for States.
I More thought needs to be given to the use of
water quality standards for some nontradi-
tional areas. As nonpoint sources are increas-
ing in importance and getting more attention
in the States, we need more dialogue on the
use of water quality standards for all these
problems, including stormwater.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 7-9
• Water quality standards should be developed
for lakes. This is a major gap because inland
lakes are important resources for many
States.
• Generically, a big problem is cross-program
communication on water quality standards.
We need better internal coordination within
EPA and the States on use of water quality
standards for programs such as Superfund.
How these standards apply and come into
play for air deposition situations are just two
examples that must be explored further to
make sure that new water quality standards
will not be used just for the NPDES but will
apply across the board.
The States and EPA
The States are not interested in just identifying
problems; we also want to participate in developing
solutions. In the last two years, there has been a
shift in State discussions: the majority of States
want tighter, more specific guidance from EPA on
water quality standards, even at the expense of
flexibility. Some States have even said that they are
willing to have EPA adopt their water quality stand-
ards, which is something I don't think you would
have heard five years ago.
EPA has made standards a higher priority,
which States believe is critical because of the
workload associated with them and their impor-
tance. We would like to see more resources for the
development of water quality standards and more
efforts toward the States' adoption process. We
would like to stress EPA's early involvement in the
adoption of water quality standards as opposed to
the Agency waiting until the package is completed
some two years later. It is much easier to respond to
EPA's views earlier in the process.
We also need help in defending those standards.
Because there are a growing number of challenges
to water quality standards, the States would like to
have a partnership role in defending them.
EPA should place a higher priority and more
resources on a national clearinghouse that will
facilitate technology transfer between the States on
water quality standards. More information is
needed on the standards—their adoption, successes,
and also their failures.
EPA researchers should be involved in the im-
plementation of water quality standards. What we
really are referring to here is a feedback loop, so
that research staff can see how standards are imple-
mented and what type of problems arise out of their
development. I think the States would be willing to
assist in that process. That feedback loop could be
critical to a successful standards program. An im-
plementation component would be part of each
standard guidance package so that recognition of
implementation issues is addressed up front as the
different packages come out.
I'll probably regret saying this, but States really
want to see greater risk-taking in standards
development. Sometimes guidance that's based on
EPA taking a risk is better than no guidance at all.
The States are willing to work with EPA, to en-
courage the Agency to take some risk and, instead of
implementing new policy on a case-by-case or State-
by-State basis, go forward with a consistent nation-
al approach.
We are also willing and anxious to work with
EPA to set priorities for the future. Critical to that
are schedules. We must be in concert on the
schedules for EPA's issuance of guidance so we can
plan our work at the State level. I also want to en-
courage EPA to sponsor more technical symposia re-
lated to water quality standards.
One of EPA's roles that is sometimes neglected
is emphasizing uniform standards for interstate
waters. Because water quality standards are such a
driving force in the programs today, greater atten-
tion must be paid to how we resolve differences on
interstate waters. This is a problem that has led
States to support the need for better national
guidance.
Lastly, States should be involved to a greater
degree in the development of water quality stand-
ards. An example of that is the Great Lakes Initia-
tive, where the States are taking a lead in in
developing water quality standards for the Great
Lakes.
Conclusion
In closing, I want to recognize the importance of
water quality standards. But we still need to take
advantage of technology-based approaches such as
best available treatment technology and not just
focus on water quality standards. As States, we ap-
plaud EPA's recent progress on and attention to
water quality standards. If LaJuana Wilcher were
here, I would thank her for attending to the States'
issues and spending time with States at some of the
national association get-togethers.
The States are major actors in this effort. We
are involved not only in developing water quality
standards but also in their implementation. We are
committed to working together with EPA and the
other partners in the water quality program to
make these standards happen.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. Comment about taking risks in the develop-
ment of water quality standards.
A. One of the examples from the regional
perspective is that we could spend more time trying
to flush the specific scientific issues associated with
PCBs as an approach for water quality standards.
There comes a time when you have to take the risk.
Maybe you don't have as much science as you would
like but enough to push the issue forward by not
waiting for another round of technical discussions.
Clearly, we are interested in basing standards on
sound science, but it isn't there for everything.
States are often put in the situation where they
have to adopt standards without either complete
EPA guidance, good science, or all the necessary
science. We take those risks and want to encourage
EPA and the national guidance to take some.
Q. (Harlan Agnew-Pima County, Arizona) We
heard the suggestion that water quality standards
should be developed for lakes. Is there anyone from
EPA who would like to comment on water quality
standards for dry washes?
A. (Martha Prothro) It is a very difficult issue.
We have to deal with a flow and a trade-off between
chemical or biological integrity of a waterbody.
When dischargers are making decisions about
whether to stop discharging, they are thinking of to-
tally killing the stream (because the discharge
makes the stream). These are difficult choices. I
can't predict what EPA is likely to do in this area.
We have a number of issues before us that re-
late to flow and some of them are not dry washes is-
sues. In the San Francisco Bay Delta, we have some
with regard to diversions of flow to agricultural and
urban sections in southern California. If we are
going to apply the Clean Water Act vigorously in the
arid West, these are issues we will have to grapple
with over the next few years.
Q. Please comment on taking the risk of con-
sidering biomonitoring as a higher priority in chemi-
cal criteria when there is conflict between the two.
A. (Martha Prothro) It is important to point out
the chemical if aquatic criteria for life protection
were, in fact, based on biomonitoring, so there is not
necessarily an inconsistency. We cannot expect ever
to be able to cover every chemical that could get into
the water and set a chemical-specific number for it;
therefore, we will always want to have some kinds
of biological approaches: biological effluent monitor-
ing, biomonitoring, ambient conditions, and ecosys-
tem reviews to determine whether or not there is a
balanced ecosystem in a specific watershed. Our
policy published in 1984 still holds that we see the
water quality program as being a three-legged stool
made up of technology-based standards, biomonitor-
ing, or whole effluent-type approaches and chemi-
cal-specific standards. They are all necessary. The
chemical-specific standards are probably the most
obviously necessary to protect a drinking water
supply or protect against fish contamination that
could affect human health. In those cases, where we
have pollutants of concern that are biocummulative,
there isn't any alternative to setting chemical-
specific numbers, but I think they are equally im-
portant.
Q. (Victoria Binetti-Region III EPA) Mr. Baker,
please speak to your comment that you would like to
see EPA put greater emphasis on uniform standards
for interstate waters.
A. (Bruce Baker) The Great Lakes States are
frustrated because each one of the Great Lakes has
different standards because different States sur-
round that particular lake. That case is a good ex-
ample of the leadership role that EPA can take in
facilitating discussion among all the parties toward
developing uniform guidance for those interstate
waters. It will take reprioritization within Regions
V and II and some resources to make that happen,
but it is an example of what needs to happen in
other interstate waters before we can resolve differ-
ing approaches and numbers that are naturally oc-
curring because of state-by-state development of
water quality standards. For us, the Great Lakes is
a priority place to begin that issue, at least for the
Midwest, but it's also an initiative that goes beyond
the Midwest.
C. (Dick Schwer-Du Pont) The regulatory com-
munity, particularly industrial municipal dis-
chargers, should be considered full partners in this
effort to improve our waters (even future waters)
and establish a program that will meet everyone's
needs for clean water.
Q. (Bruce Baker) What role will industry have
that it doesn't have now?
II
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
A. (Dick Schwer) The regulatory community
should be involved at an earlier point in the process
of developing regulations, particularly on the EPA
level, so that the input from this segment can be fac-
tored into the decisions that are made earlier on.
Then later on there won't be a tendency on the part
of some people to resist those regulations because
they haven't had a chance to participate in the
process.
C. (Martha Prothro) As I read LaJuana's
speech, I thought, there is one constituency here
that isn't on this note; however, I don't think it was
intentional because she probably wasn't aware of
how many industry people were participating in this
conference. We didn't have much of a turnout from
industry at the last one, so we welcome all of you. I
think it is healthy to have a good dialogue here. We
frequently publish draft criteria documents for com-
ments early in the process before States are re-
quired to develop standards based on these criteria,
and it surprises me how little participation we get in
that process, how few in the regulated community
and academia, for that matter, provide comments.
So I urge those of you who now are beginning to feel
the difficulty of facing and complying with the
standards to pay more attention in the future to the
criteria documents that are published in draft. Send
us your comments. Any data will be very much ap-
preciated, including information on impacts.
Q. I'd like to respond to your point about
availability of draft documents. We have par-
ticipated when we learn that draft documents are
available, but the procedures for distributing docu-
ments need to be improved, I recommend that you
put them in the Federal Register for a 45-day review
period and distribute them widely. For instance, to
the mailing list for this conference. The draft docu-
ment simply has not been distributed very well. I say
that as chairman of an organization that represents
more than 70 other organizations that often do not
receive any information.
A. (Bruce Baker) The notices for the criteria go
through a public comment period. The guidance
documents are published in the Federal Register.
Maybe the issue here is that we haven't been put-
ting out water quality criteria in the last couple of
years. We are trying to encourage people to get in-
volved earlier in the process proactively. We don't
want to deal with a lot of these science issues at the
tailend of the process when criteria are being
adopted if we could address them earlier on; it's
easier, quicker, and better for all to be involved in
the process, and we'll continue to try to involve all
who are interested as early as possible.
Q. (Mike Pifher-Colorado Springs) In develop-
ing your policy on hydrologic modifications as they
impact wetlands and water quality standards
downstream, what consideration are you giving to
the prior appropriation of States and the impact on
water rights?
A. (Martha Prothro) We must pay a great deal
of attention to that issue. The Clean Water Act
specifically provides that we have to be careful
about water rights throughout this entire process. I
think we have been sensitive to it, although we may
not always agree on where we come out on these is-
sues.
Q. (Paul Crowhart—Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission) I was struck by a difference in
the list provided by Martha (and some of her com-
ments) and the prospective State lists in terms of
potential areas for clarification in the water quality
standards program. EPA listed all areas, while the
State list was much more of a combination: some
new issues but a lot of the old areas such as metals
analysis, mixing zones, and ammonia. The metaphor
of a Christmas list is apt. EPA has a tendency each
year to play Santa Claus and bring us a lot of excit-
ing toys; however, some of us aren't done playing
with the old toys, and some haven't figured out how
they work yet.
C. A lot of implementation issues are coming to
the forefront now as States are adopting toxic stand-
ards. We are aware that these issues need attention;
we are hearing this from our regional offices as well
as the States. I'm not sure I can address everything
on Bruce's list; however, we are very concerned
about a great many of these issues.
C. (Edwin B. Erickson) Part of the logic that un-
derlined the reorganization of the Office of Water is
to improve our ability to deal with some aspects of
implementation that, in the past, have been secon-
dary, and, by having an organization devoted to
those types of things, we might be able to do our job
better.
12
-------
, '.• '•-',•• ' ^^U'.'::;;?v;!"'v"^'^--''>V:-v'CC;^"^"*
'• -'., v'1' .••;:''" ;;'.v,'',;.:i;X-;,1; ^' S-'»"-',"'{*1':"'^*^
" .•' ••"•',. !'',.'M-'-'-5.'"1-1'""^' L" "-"-'• i'"1'1'',1"'7"',,'••'"'"'•-,' v '• '.'-"v'"""— "-;•*!,»*.*•.i
'>> V /* \\- <)h . - ^' l-llv *v "I"^"A s'" i IXiV^'T1' t, ™\ ,,v-"•-" ^ .^r1^ "\!'u S ';n f JA,X%
. --/- -- ,; v; VV.*:;-; -;*? •„ .
.. ''-,"••"".'',: 'i-'';^'''*'^-^.^']':^
' '" ' >" ' ' -<\ 'v , '•" rV,'V.'''i' "' ''"I*V -\-I\ •!,',*''.' ~V! . 1--,-" •!' "''",t"'-S'"f'- S» ->v, ,-,-S "„"'•
-•••-- ;."••• "--1--- .,,--; :- M«, ;rK,, ,r.-vi"f. ".c,,-;- ,„,*••' -i-Or-* " W """«• **'?,"' •
;...'• ;^bi<'\'-v:;:^«VV^^%V«V'1f^
, Vl- •/ '?>• "'.V;'1,-1. •"':'!. - x.^:,'-"'':r', ":t,r 'jv1: 'fr, ;'/,'"'. 7'^v ^ V^K*^""^;^-
'• •'• '-;:i->'l?l";vIU;y-XH'^:^"-^^^^^
" '',' V?", ','•". • ''/''" v;>y,i".':*:,-''- '''-'' .'-""^:;^ ^s^r'^'-V-A
" • \:^>y-i>;4lJ:#R'*^
' ^'\ ,.-•'.;• •?",'. r'i r: ',", i V-' '""^ <>• \'%;/5t '"
' ' " '"
*
* •- ;-l 'v" "v -.?"'" - ' 'r-'-t '', ""- -1'"'1'* "5--"J'i V''
; <' "• ^ ^ , " «i','\',v^ -v ' . ,\ ,^y y,/, / ,'SSU-''"" ^" '„" '"^ -™ l^T "T"^-1"' ^ ^
'' ' ' '* '' ~ ' ' ^ s> (V* " ^'?*L.,,lf ^" > A*'/^Si't'^;1 ^ ,"'
'' v ," • ' i , '\.--'.' * '"'":— ;''-"V •'*,-':' V"T- ,""*:•"
" !"'~" '
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 13-16
Toxic Pollutant Criteria: The States'
Perspective
John Howland
Environmental Section Chief
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Jefferson City, Missouri
Introduction
States often find themselves sandwiched between
the proverbial rock and hard place when dealing
with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-
generated toxic criteria and regulated dischargers.
During the last 20 years, many of us in water
quality management have become comfortable with
traditional chemical-specific criteria for many
reasons, including but not limited to the large
amounts of chemical data, our experience in
measuring small amounts, quality assurance, and
reproducibility of results.
Toxicity Testing
Such is not the case with toxicity testing. Most
toxicity tests are performed at numerous dilutions
to statistically determine effluent concentrations
that will kill 50 percent of the test species. Varia-
tions on this theme have led to the concept of whole
effluent toxicity testing as a permit parameter.
However, researchers (most recently Warren-Hicks
and Parkhurst, 1990) have determined that extreme
variations occur in individual toxicity tests. Even
with multiple dilutions, toxicity testing varies 20 to
30 percent or more depending on the species used.
Mortality can vary by as much as 100 percent at a
single dilution; therefore, a 10 to 20 percent mor-
tality should not be considered a reliable indication
of toxicity.
Missouri does not believe in incorporating
toxicity units into permits, preferring to think of
toxicity as a condition, not a quantity. Biological
tests are considered most useful as screening proce-
dures that point to effluents or conditions where
more chemical testing is needed. Recently,
Missouri's Department of Natural Resources par-
ticipated in a water quality-based permit quality
review performed by EPA Headquarter's Permits
Division, which stressed Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations 122.44 (d): where adequate in-
formation exists to show that a reasonable potential
exists, toxicity limits must be placed in permits.
However, placing these limits presents problems be-
cause permittees do not always have ready access to
toxicity testing contractors and few testing
laboratories in Missouri have successfully mastered
the technique of rearing Ceriodaphnia dubia (water
fleas). More than once toxicity test summaries have
shown 100 percent mortality in the control.
An EPA-funded study by Battelle (DeGraeve et
al. 1989) verified this concern when it found that
some highly regarded laboratories were having
trouble completing bioassay tests successfully from
the standpoint of getting both acceptable control
survival and fecundity and enough test organisms of
the proper age to complete the test. Thus, anyone
who performs the test will probably use a laboratory
that will have difficulty running it, which translates
into higher testing costs for permittees, greater
numbers of test failures, and an increased tendency
to fake test results to keep from doing additional
tests or repeatedly report test failures.
The State has been told to use multiple species
when identifying the one that is sensitive to the ef-
fluent. Paraphrased, this seems to encourage
13
-------
;. HOWLWD
laboratories to pick a species that will not survive
an effluent toxicity test. EPA acknowledges that
rainbow trout are not suitable test species for warm-
water streams; however, C. dubla, typically a
lacustrine species, is just as inappropriate for small
midwestern streams that drain agricultural water-
sheds.
Whole effluent toxicity testing is still in its in-
fancy, as are other biological measures. Some day
biocriteria and other tools to evaluate biological in-
tegrity will be available, but many concerns must be
addressed before the regulated community should
be required to comply with these water quality
measures. Therefore, States should be cautious
when grappling with recommending toxicity reduc-
tion evaluations, which can cost up to $100,000 and
therefore should not be applied indiscriminately. It
is nearly impossible to do toxicity reduction evalua-
tions on discharges that are toxic infrequently or
episodically. One failed toxicity test is of limited
value, as is one discharge monitoring report that
shows a one-time exceedence of a permit limitation.
Fortunately, there is a growing body of informa-
tion on persistence of toxicity once it enters the
stream. Initial findings of some studies indicate that
physical factors such as riffles and a high amount of
water-substrate contact can substantially reduce
toxicity. These data certainly have implications for
dischargers to small streams.
304(a) Criteria
As for 304(a) criteria and their applicability to
States' water quality standards, while Federal
water quality criteria as published in the Gold Book
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1986) have sound scien-
tific basis, many of my counterparts in other States
would agree that wholesale acceptance by all State
and river basin water quality management agencies
could be unwise for the following reasons:
• There is little likelihood of finding some of
these pollutants in water. Sometimes, the
analytical detection limits are above the
recommended criteria.
During Missouri's last two triennial
standards reviews, the issue of detection
limits came up frequently. Our rationale for
adopting such low values is based on estab-
lishing permits for National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) outfalls
to large rivers such as the Missouri or Missis-
sippi. However, our attempts to determine at-
tainment of in-stream criteria will lead to
check marks in the "unknown" or "undeter-
mined" columns of 305(b) until laboratory
analysts can measure extremely small quan-
tities of some of these materials.
• Another dilemma involves background con-
centrations of substances that turn up in the
water column as a result of weathering. Mis-
souri has several waterbodies—the Missouri
River in particular—that, because of natural
conditions, are known to exceed suggested
Gold Book limits for mercury, arsenic, and
beryllium. Ambient fixed station monitoring
also shows dissolved lead to be two to three
times higher in Ozark and prairie streams
than in Missouri's two major rivers.
Recalculation of the Nation's database is one vi-
able alternative to wholesale acceptance of sug-
gested EPA criteria, particularly when sensitive
species that are not native to the State are used to
develop the recommended numbers. EPA has
pushed development of fish consumption criteria,
leading to questions of how States should make this
determination.
Fish Consumption Criteria
Fish consumption criteria should only apply to those
waters that are likely to produce edible fish on a
somewhat constant basis (that would allow for a 70-
year exposure). Missouri is proposing to include 10
fish consumption numbers to all aquatic life protec-
tion waters and is seeking comments on the
propriety of this action. Since many fish consump-
tion criteria are based on consumption rates of 6.5
grams per day over a 70-year lifespan, these human
health protection numbers should not apply to small
streams that cannot support fisheries of sufficient
magnitude to provide a 70-year supply of edible fish
for one person.
Another apparent dilemma in this area relates
to the use of raw fish as the basis for some of the
fish consumption numbers. Cooking undoubtedly
has some impact on the concentration of certain
substances in edible tissue, but there has been little
information that would indicate that this break-
down or decay was considered in the calculation of
human health criteria that are intended to protect
for both drinking water and fish consumption uses.
Research Priorities
Is more research needed on toxic pollutants? My
answer is a definite yes. Priority should be given to
chemicals that are precipitating regular actions—
typically trace toxicants that are believed to be a
problem for long-term health. Some chemicals that
14
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 13-16
come to mind include dioxins, dibenzofurans,
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, PCBs, THMs,
and commonly used pesticides. Priority toxic pol-
lutants are not the correct focus of EPA and State
activities. The list of 129 priority pollutants is close
to arbitrary. In Missouri, more attention should be
paid to atrazine, alachlor, and diazinon than butyl-
benzyl phthalate.
Water supply companies on the Missouri River
are anxiously awaiting (or dreading) a new atrazine
criteria. Since the States to the north and west of
Missouri are major atrazine users and water
samples routinely exceed the proposed standard,
particularly during spring runoff, Missouri's
Department of Natural Resources is once again
thrown into the unpleasant situation of reporting
new non-attainment waters as a result of criteria
written in Washington, B.C. And, unfortunately,
we're still scanning for 3,4, benzofluoranthene and
hexachlorobutadiene and coming up with non-
detects.
There are several appropriate sources of infor-
mation for determining those pollutants that
deserve greater attention than the list of 129. They
include:
• NPDES application forms and discharge
monitoring reports,
• Analysis of Toxic Release Inventory data,
• Follow-up chemical monitoring toxicity
identification evaluation after failed toxicity
tests,
• Investigation of fish kills,
• Pesticide use survey, and
• Ambient monitoring.
Data quality is the obvious drawback to using
these surrogate measures. Sources of information
can vary. We have all been frustrated too many
times by a priority pollutant scan that showed "not
detected" for 128 substances and an exceedence for
methylene chloride.
When considering Toxic Release Inventory in-
formation, data applicability becomes quite
relevant. Much to our chagrin, Missouri discharged
more toxic chemicals to public sewage treatment
plants in 1988 than any other State, primarily be-
cause one inorganic pigments industry discharges to
the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District. Routine
and required toxicity testing by the District, how-
ever, has never shown that specific pollutant to be a
problem, particularly in concentrations that result
after mixing in the Mississippi River.
Changes in Missouri's
Standards
Missouri has had some difficulties in implementing
some of EPA's desired toxics guidance issues, and
while this presentation has pointed to some of the
problems that need attention, recent changes to the
State's water quality standards regulation should be
effective in accomplishing State and Federal water
quality goals. These recent changes include:
• Addition of aquatic life and human health
criteria that would bring the State into
compliance with 303(c)(2)(B);
• Addition of 70 miles of "outstanding State
resource waters," including two unique
wetlands;
• Application of technical support document
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985)
provisions regarding mixing zones and
toxicity identification;
• Inclusion of wetlands and appropriate
numeric criteria for their protection.
We still have some work to do on implementa-
tion policies that are necessary to carry out the
provisions of these standards, but I am confident
that, working with EPA Region VII staff, we will
achieve our mutual goals.
Conclusions
In closing, here is a local experience involving
application of toxics criteria that involves the wise
or unwise expenditure of dollars to protect the
public: repainting bridges over large rivers. In St.
Louis, the State Highway and Transportation
Department was under fire recently for allowing
sand blast residue and paint chips to fall into the
Mississippi River. When asked if this activity was
consistent with State water quality standards,
Missouri's Department of Natural Resources' first
thought was to perform a simple wasteload alloca-
tion study. The following five-step rationale was ap-
plied:
1. A conservative estimate for flows in the
Mississippi at this time of year is 50,000
cubic feet per second.
2. We rounded an estimated 184 cubic feet of
paint off to 200.
3. We assumed that the paint to be removed
was 100 percent lead, although analyses
showed 20 percent.
15
-------
/. HOWLAND
4. We estimated that the project would take
100 working days at eight hours per day.
5. We allowed one-tenth of the river's flow to
be used as a mixing zone as per EPA's tech-
nical support document (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985).
The following reasoning was then applied:
• Two cubic feet of paint dust, flakes, and
chips will mix with 144 cubic feet of water
in the course of an eight-hour day.
• If this is elemental lead and all of it goes
into solution, there is still only 14 parts per
billion in the water column.
• Since our existing criteria for drinking
water sources was 50 parts per billion of
lead and our chronic aquatic life protection
limit for general warmwater sport fisheries
was 29, painting the bridge seemed like a
perfectly legitimate and approvable activity.
Not so. Since the paint chips went on to flunk
an EP toxicity test extraction procedure under
Federal and State Resource Conservation Recovery
Act provisions, they were determined to be hazard-
ous waste. The State has to catch and bag the paint
chips and transport the waste to an appropriate
landfill.
So much for toxics criteria and the Clean Water
Act.
References
DeGraeve, G.M. et al. 1989. Precision of the EPA Seven-day
Ceriodaphnia dubia Survival and Reproductive Test,
Intra- and Intel-laboratory Study. Prep. Battelle Colum-
bus Div., OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Technical Sup-
port Document for Water Quality. Washington, DC.
. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. Washington, DC.
Warren-Hicks, WJ. and B.R. Parkhurst. 1990. Regulatory im-
plications of inter- and intralaboratory survival
variability in effluent toxicity testing. Presented at Water
Pollut. Control Fed. Annu. Conf., Washington, DC.
16
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 17-21
Toxic Pollutant Criteria—Industry's
Perspective
Richard F. Schwer
Senior Consultant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company
Newark, Delaware
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
needs to address industry's concerns about regula-
tion of toxic pollutants. The Agency should en-
courage State water quality standards that support
high quality surface waters yet enable environmen-
tally responsible industrial discharges.
As an environmental engineer for Du Pont for
nearly 20 years, I take pride in my company's efforts
to improve the quality of its discharges. Du Pont has
expended considerable resources to install treat-
ment facilities, monitor effluents, and conduct en-
vironmental studies of the surface waters it enters.
What Has Been Done?
Let's review what industry has done to control toxics
in discharges. Both Du Pont and the Chemical
Manufacturers Association (CMA) have been in-
volved in developing comments on criteria docu-
ments that grew out of the 1965 Clean Water Act
(the Green Book in 1968, the Blue Book in 1973, and
the Red Book in 1976), and for years we have par-
ticipated in developing toxic pollutant criteria. From
1978 on, as EPA produced water quality criteria
documents for 307(a) priority pollutants, CMA and
many of its member companies submitted com-
ments. The chemical industry also has been in-
volved with incorporating criteria into State water
quality standards by providing comments, often
through State chemical industry councils.
Industry has made substantial progress in
reducing toxic pollutants from point source dis-
charges. Many industries have installed biological
treatment facilities to reduce biochemical oxygen
demand and total suspended solids in surface
waters, which has had the additional benefit of
removing significant amounts of toxic pollutants
from effluents.
More directly, many industrial sites have
reduced priority pollutant discharges to comply with
EPA's technically based effluent guidelines and
pretreatment standards. Certainly for the chemical
industry, compliance with the 1987 EPA organic
chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers regulations
over the next few years, as permits are renewed,
will achieve additional reductions.
Moreover, still further reductions in toxics can
be expected through recent EPA and State initia-
tives. Compliance with section 304(1) requirements
for individual control strategies will reduce toxics
from point sources that States and EPA have
declared are affecting certain waterbodies. These
waters are still not expected to achieve water
quality standards for priority pollutants even after
the best available technology that is economically
achievable is applied to industrial discharges. These
strategies must be met in June of either 1992 or
1993, depending on the selection method.
The original list published by EPA in June 1989
included 625 industrial sources but has since been
expanded. Specific dischargers have challenged cer-
tain of these determinations, which in some cases
were made with little data.
With broader impact, States are moving at an
accelerated pace to include section 307(a) toxic pol-
lutant criteria in their water quality standards in
compliance with the Clean Water Act, section
303(c)(2)(B). Most are greatly expanding the num-
ber of toxic pollutant criteria included in standards
17
-------
R. F. SCHWEK
that dischargers must meet when renewing dis-
charge permits.
To assess what has been done and what still
needs to be accomplished, you could consider the
available information on the current status of toxic
pollutant problems in surface waters. Unfortunate-
ly, these data are limited since they don't cover all
the potential adverse effects of toxic pollutants in
aquatic ecosystems. However, a review of existing
data can provide perspective on the toxic pollutant
problem and, indeed, may surprise you.
The National Water Quality
Inventory
The most recent National Water Quality Inventory,
published by EPA in April 1990 (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990a), contains general information on pol-
lution causes and sources in rivers, lakes, and es-
tuaries that was presented by the States in their
section 305(b) reports for 1988. The EPA inventory
shows that siltation and nutrients are the leading
pollution causes in rivers and streams. In cate-
gories that would include toxic pollutants, metals
and pesticides are the fifth and sixth most common-
ly reported pollution causes. Industrial pollution
ranked seventh among the sources of river and
stream impairment. For lakes and reservoirs,
nutrients and siltation again led the list of pollution
causes while organic priority pollutants, metals, and
pesticides were ranked seventh, ninth, and tenth,
respectively.
Among the pollution sources mentioned for lake
impairment, industrial sources ranked sixth. In the
data provided on estuaries and coastal waters,
nutrients and pathogens were the leading causes of
pollution, with metals, organic priority pollutants,
and pesticides ranked fifth, eighth, and ninth. For
estuaries and coastal waters, industrial pollution
was seventh on the list of sources mentioned.
Some implications can be drawn from this infor-
mation. It indicates that:
1. Progress has been made in reducing the ac-
knowledged toxic pollutants to surface
waters, and
2. Industry is not among the major sources of
pollution being identified by States.
This is a limited data set. It only addresses
water column toxics information; neither aquatic or-
ganism residues nor sediment quality are men-
tioned directly. This does not imply that toxics are
not a problem—only that they need to be viewed in
the context of resolving all the identified problems
impairing surface water uses.
Nonpoint sources are clearly the major cause of
pollutants impairing our Nation's waters. According
to most recent State data, nonpoint source pollution
is looming as an increasing concern that must be ad-
dressed if we are to make a step-change improve-
ment in overall water quality. Although EPA
continues to work on the difficult task of developing
stormwater regulations and States are beginning to
develop best management practices, much more
must be done to control nonpoint sources of toxics
and other pollutants.
What Still Needs To Be Done?
While much has been done to reduce priority pol-
lutants from point source discharges, water quality
problems from toxic pollutants still exist in some
waterbodies. We need to learn more about the fate
and effects of toxic pollutants and how to better as-
sess risks to human health and the environment.
Many other critical issues relate to toxic pollutant
criteria. Some that are of particular concern to in-
dustry, including issues related to the translation of
toxic pollutant criteria into discharge permit limits,
are addressed in the following paragraphs.
Comprehensive National Database
The United States must develop a comprehensive
national database for toxics in surface waters that
shows status, trends, and effects. The data received
from the States are not complete; furthermore, the
States are not consistently reporting whether
beneficial uses for surface waters are being met. Al-
though limited, these State results have value since
they usually come from areas of greatest concern,
such as industrialized waterbodies or highly valued
recreational waters. However, if we are to develop a
strong national consensus on controlling toxics, data
collection must be improved.
An integrated national monitoring and assess-
ment program is needed to better understand the
extent and impact of toxic pollutants in surface
waters. The EPA's Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) could provide such
data. Of particular value are the indicators that
EMAP uses to describe the overall condition of the
ecosystem and the effects of stresses (such as
toxicity) caused by pollutants (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990). However, EMAP is designed to look
at the health of ecosystems on a regional scale only,
which may preclude detailed information from
many specific waterbodies.
A program should produce more detailed infor-
mation on toxic pollutants in surface waters. The
U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality As-
18
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 17-21
sessment Program (NAWQA) is "designed to
describe the status and trends in the quality of the
Nation's ground- and surface-water resources and to
provide a sound understanding of the natural and
human factors that affect the quality of these
resources" (U.S. Geo. Surv. 1988).
However, Federal agencies must make long-
term commitments to these assessment programs if
useful information is to result. Moreover, these
programs appear to be proceeding independently of
each other when they should be complementary so
as not to duplicate effort.
Toxic Risks at Trace Levels
We also need to understand risks to human health
and aquatic ecosystems posed by toxics in surface
waters at trace levels. Analytical methods continue
to improve as detectors become increasingly sensi-
tive and preconcentration steps isolate extremely
low levels of substances. EPA should sponsor the re-
quired research and development that will deter-
mine the environmental significance of these
extremely low values. The presence of a substance
at a fractional part per billion concentration in sur-
face waters does not necessarily mean adverse im-
pact. Yet concern naturally arises when low levels of
toxics are detected with no information available to
the public and regulators on potential or actual
hazards. Detection accuracy and precision at these
low levels are other problems.
We need to better understand the fate and ef-
fects of toxic chemicals, especially as they relate to
exposure concerns that could adversely affect
human health and biota. The Agency is beginning to
address these questions, but much more laboratory
and field data must be developed as the basis for
deciding which toxics to control. When appropriate,
industry should contribute information.
Site-specific Criteria
Discharge permit limits are increasingly being
developed from water quality-based conditions that
include stringent State toxic pollutant standards.
These water quality standards are frequently the
same as the section 304(a) criteria recommended by
EPA because most States do not have the resources
or the incentive to develop specific standards that
differ from EPA's criteria. However, in many in-
stances site-specific criteria could be developed by
modifying the values in State standards for specific
surface waters to reflect local ambient water condi-
tions and resident aquatic species because sen-
sitivity of these species may differ from the criteria
basis and local water conditions can significantly af-
fect toxicity or bioavailability.
While EPA has developed guidelines for deriv-
ing site-specific water quality criteria (U. S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1984), the Agency has seldom
encouraged their use by the States. As a result, few
site-specific criteria have been developed. EPA and
the States should be more supportive of this ap-
proach.
Development of such criteria would involve min-
imum agency resources since the discharger would
have the burden to undertake laboratory and field
studies needed to support a request for site-specific
criteria. The problems have been the reluctance of
regulators to consider site-specific approaches and
the inadequate time available to develop proposals.
Agency support should include granting variances
when more time is needed to develop a technical
case for site-specific criteria.
Measurable Permit Limits
State water quality standards and criteria are
translated into discharge permit limits. The applica-
tion of extremely stringent criteria, particularly for
human health, often results in a calculated permit
limit that is below the analytical detection limit for
the method employed. Accepting such non-
measurable limits can result in a serious problem
for permittees who are not able to demonstrate com-
pliance. In the latest draft of the Technical Support
Document, the Agency recommends that, in such
cases, the permit writer should use the method
detection limit concentration as the permit limit,
with a note in the permit that a monitoring result of
"non-detected" be considered in compliance. An un-
measurable numerical limit in a permit serves no
useful purpose and should be avoided.
In comments on the draft Technical Support
Document (Chem. Manuf. Ass. 1990), the Chemical
Manufacturers Association suggested one possible
solution to this problem: an unmeasurable permit
limit should be narrative and specify that no detect-
able amount be present. Also, the permit would ref-
erence the analytical method to be used to measure
the pollutant and would specify the practical quan-
titation level as the reporting level.
This level would be determined by multiplying
the matrix-specific method detection limit developed
by using protocols published in Appendix B of 40
CFR 136 by a factor of 10. While I also have some
concerns about this approach, it does recognize that
permit limits should not be set below the practical
quantitation level.
Watershed Management Approach
EPA should actively develop a watershed manage-
ment approach for State water quality procedures to
19
-------
R. F. SCHWER
enable a comprehensive evaluation of total impacts
from point and nonpoint sources of toxics in river
basins, estuaries, or other natural aquatic ecosys-
tems. Then wasteload allocations could be developed
in conjunction with combined permitting for point
sources and best management practices for non-
point sources. This approach is used already by
some States, most recently in North Carolina,
where basin management plans are being
developed.
Implementation for
Bioavailable Metals
In addition, EPA should provide States with clear
technical guidance compliance procedures for me-
tals criteria that will define the bioavailable metal
portion to be used as a basis for water quality
criteria and discharge limits. The Agency has given
only general guidance on the four analytical tech-
niques (total, total recoverable, acid soluble, and
dissolved metal measurements) that are acceptable
for implementing water quality criteria (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, May 1990c). However, the Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
regulations specify that only total recoverable metal
can be used to express effluent limitations.
Agency guidance is vague on how to translate
from soluble and bioavailable metals concentration
in the surface waters into total recoverable metals
concentration in the discharge. Specific guidance
should be provided to States since this is a major
concern that both permit writers and permittees
must address. In 1990, EPA began research on
developing a technical basis for establishing a policy
on metals criteria compliance. Hopefully, this effort
is an EPA priority.
Risk-based Toxics Control
The validity of the mixing zone concept has been
questioned. However, mixing zones remain a neces-
sary interface between discharge points and am-
bient water conditions. Mixing zones for toxics
should be allowed for discharges as long as the zone
is limited and clearly defined on a site-specific basis
to assure protection of the aquatic ecosystem. It is
appropriate to allow mixing zones for all types of
outfall configurations provided that each configura-
tion can achieve adequate dispersion.
Numerical chronic criteria should be applied at
the edge of the mixing zone. Allowing a zone of ini-
tial dilution as a small fraction of the mixing zone in
which the acute criteria can be exceeded without
causing adverse impacts on aquatic life is environ-
mentally supportable. Mixing zones also should be
allowed for bioconcentratable substances, with ade-
quate safeguards to protect human health and the
environment.
Priority Pollutant List
In the future, it would be more effective to solve
water quality problems by using a scalpel instead of
a shotgun. Therefore, EPA should develop a smaller
and more focused list of toxics and use it as the
basis for criteria development and source control in-
stead of the broad spectrum 126-substance priority
pollutant list. This list should be reworked since it
includes substances of little concern today in surface
waters and ignores known toxics of real environ-
mental concern. Additional toxics that are serious
problems to the environment and human health
must be identified for control.
I strongly support a program that would iden-
tify these toxics in an approach similar to the
method used in listing substances for water quality
criteria development. EPA Administrator Bill Reilly
has called for a risk-based approach to setting
priorities in tune with the Science Advisory Board's
proposals. I think this approach might provide a key
management tool to focus Agency attention on the
remaining truly serious toxics problems.
Antibacksliding
Another concern that EPA must address is antiback-
sliding. This provision makes it difficult for dis-
chargers to accept permit limits based on water
quality criteria that involve a limited database and
correspondingly large safety factor. The scenario of
concern is the following.
• The discharger installs costly treatment
facilities to meet a tight water quality
criterion based on little data and a large
safety factor, only to have this criterion
relaxed when additional toxicity results are
included.
• However, the discharger is locked into
continuing to meet the overly stringent
limits because antibacksliding provisions do
not allow relief.
• Therefore, dischargers may be unwilling to
accept water quality-based limits other than
those resulting from EPA-recommended
criteria that already have a large toxicity
database and are unlikely to change, which
discourages development of new criteria.
The Agency should incorporate more flexibility
into its guidance for implementation of section
402(o) antibacksliding rules for water quality-based
20
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 17-21
permits. Industry would more readily accept limits
based on water quality criteria developed from
limited toxicity data if it knew that some relief
would be possible if criteria are deemed too strin-
gent. Also, the Agency should address this problem
in positions it develops for reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act.
Biological Measures of Toxicity
Whole effluent toxicity and other biological
measures of toxicity, such as biocriteria, are addi-
tional approaches for viewing the potential toxic ef-
fects of effluents and the health of the aquatic
ecosystem into which they discharge. However,
whole effluent toxicity probably does not relate
directly to in-stream effects in many instances be-
cause of the aquatic environment's complexity.
Moreover, a single exceedance of a permit require-
ment should not be viewed as a violation. Biological
variability is such that a single exceedance fre-
quently is not significant nor can the cause be readi-
ly determined.
The permit writer should consider all the chemi-
cal and biological data for a specific discharge as
well as the ambient waterbody conditions in an in-
tegrated approach to determine protective limits for
the discharge. None of the three potential sources of
information—chemical analysis, whole effluent
toxicity, or in-stream biocriteria—should be
evaluated alone in establishing water quality-based
requirements.
Conclusion
To summarize, we need a comprehensive national
database for toxics in surface waters and a better
understanding of the risks to human health and the
environment posed by toxics in trace levels and how
they relate to exposure.
Industry must have a wider opportunity to use
site-specific criteria to obtain measurable permit
limits. EPA should develop guidance for a watershed
management approach. The Agency should also
develop an implementation policy for bioavailable
metals based on sound science.
Industry believes that the mixing zone should
remain an important concept in water quality-based
permitting. EPA must develop a risk-based ap-
proach in setting priorities for control of toxic pol-
lutants and should address problems in water
quality-based permitting that result from antiback-
sliding prohibitions. Finally, EPA should use priority
pollutant chemical analysis along with biological ap-
proaches such as whole effluent toxicity and
biocriteria in an integrated approach that considers
all data.
Adoption of such measures will enable both high
quality waters and environmentally responsible in-
dustrial discharge activity.
References
Chemical Manufacturers Association. 1990. Comments on the
EPA's Draft Guidance lechnical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Guidelines for
Deriving Numerical Aquatic Site-specific Water Quality
Criteria by Modifying National Criteria. EPA 600/3-84-
099. Off Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth, MN.
. 1990a. National Water Quality Inventory 1988 Report
to Congress. EPA 440-4-90-003. Off. Water, Washington,
DC.
. 1990b. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program Overview. EPA600-9-90-001. Off. Res. Dev., En-
viron. Res. Lab., Duluth, MN.
-. 1990c. Draft memo. Metals analytical methods for use
with water quality criteria. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1988. Concepts for a National Water
Quality Assessment Program. Circular 1021. Reston, VA.
21
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 23-28
Toxic Pollutant Criteria—Toward a More
Comprehensive Agenda
Robert W. Adler
Senior Attorney, Clean Water Project Director
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
has been involved in the implementation of the
water quality standards program for almost 20
years. We look forward to the development of water
quality standards for the 21st century with a mix-
ture of satisfaction and disappointment. Although
substantial credit is due to State and U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) officials who have
labored to implement the Federal Water Pollution
Control (now Clean Water) Act's requirements since
1972, the promise of that law has been only partial-
ly fulfilled in many areas and unfulfilled in others.
The area of water quality standards for toxics is
no exception. Criteria have been developed by EPA
and adopted by some States for a number of toxic
pollutants. New procedures have been developed to
measure and control whole effluent toxicity. New
techniques have been devised to detect toxics in
smaller quantities and to measure acute and
chronic toxicity and human health effects with
greater precision. However, criteria exist for only a
fraction of toxic and nonconventional pollutants—
not even all of the so-called priority pollutants are
covered. Even where some criteria exist, they often
address only certain effects and ecosystems. Cur-
rent criteria apply only in the water column and not
in sediment or biota.
EPA Issuance of Water
Quality Criteria
EPA's role in establishing water quality standards is
specified in sections 303(c) and 304(a) of the Clean
Water Act. Within one year after the act's enact-
ment, EPA's administrator was required to develop,
publish, and "from time to time thereafter revise,"
•water quality criteria:
. . . accurately reflecting the latest scien-
tific knowledge (A) on the kind and extent of all
identifiable effects on health and welfare in-
cluding, 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, including ground water} (B) on the
concentration and dispersal of pollutants,
or their byproducts, through biological,
physical, and chemical processes; and (C) on
the effects of pollutants on biological community
diversity, productivity, and stability, including
information on the factors affecting rates of
eutrophication and rates of organic and inor-
ganic sedimentation for varying types of receiving
waters [Clean Water Act §304(a)(l), 33 U.S.C.
§1314(a)(l) (emphasis added)].
The three boldfaced portions warrant emphasis.
First, criteria were supposed to address "all identifi-
able effects on health and welfare." Thus, criteria
that address human health but not aquatic life, or
cancer but not other human health effects, do not
meet this mandate. Second, criteria were supposed
to address "any body [all types] of water, including
ground water." Criteria that address freshwater but
not marine water, flowing water but not lakes or
wetlands, or surface water but not groundwater, do
not fully comply with the statute. Third, criteria
were supposed to address "concentration and disper-
sal of pollutants, or their byproducts, through
chemical, physical, and biological systems." Criteria
that apply to the water column but fail to account
23
-------
R. W. ADLER
for contamination of sediment, biota, or other sys-
tems, do not fully meet the statutory command.
With respect to toxic pollutants, EPA's duty to
promulgate water quality criteria was specified fur-
ther in a Consent Decree filed in NRDC, et al. v.
Train, 8 ERC 2120 (D.D.C. 1976), modified, 12 ERC
1833 (D.D.C. 1979). Paragraph 11 of the Consent
Decree provides, in relevant part:
The Administrator shall publish, under Sec-
tion 304(a) of the Act, water quality criteria ac-
curately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge
on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
aquatic organisms and human health of each of
the pollutants listed in Appendix A. Such water
quality criteria shall state, inter alia, for each of
the pollutants listed in Appendix A, the recom-
mended maximum permissible concentrations
(including where appropriate zero) consistent
with the protection of aquatic organisms, human
health and recreational activities [12 ERC 1843
(as modified) (emphasis added)].
Of course, the pollutants listed in Appendix A to the
Consent Decree define the list of toxic priority pol-
lutants.
The following statement also deserves special
focus. EPA expressly recognized that zero concentra-
tions might be appropriate for some highly toxic pol-
lutants based on water quality as opposed to
technology-based factors. Of course, water quality
standards are intended only to serve as a way sta-
tion on the road to the Clean Water Act's ultimate
zero discharge goal.
Pursuant to this paragraph of the NRDC Con-
sent Decree, initial promulgation of water quality
criteria for these priority toxics was to be completed
by December 31, 1979. Almost 11 years after the
revised deadline established in the Consent Decree,
EPA has issued water quality criteria in some form
for 109 priority pollutants. Thus, criteria are still
lacking altogether for 17 of the priority pollutants.
Moreover, these criteria are incomplete: they do not
address "all identifiable effects on aquatic or-
ganisms and human health," for many more pol-
lutants. Some address human health but not
aquatic toxicity, freshwater but not marine toxicity,
or acute but not chronic toxicity, or vice versa.
Notably, not a single EPA criterion is set at zero.
More disturbing is EPA's pace filling these gaps.
According to the Gold Book summary chart, only 12
new toxics criteria were published between 1980-86,
when a large number of criteria were established to
achieve partial compliance with the NRDC Consent
Decree—a rate of just over two per year! (This es-
timate is actually charitable, as it counts multiple
valence states of some metals, such as pentavalent
and trivalent arsenic, as separate pollutants.)
Unfortunately, this simple numeric analysis
does not tell the full picture, as EPA has defined the
universe of its responsibilities far too narrowly. EPA
must move beyond its current agenda in at least six
ways with respect to water quality criteria for
toxics. Each of these concepts is discussed in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
• EPA must complete and move beyond the
priority pollutants. The list of priority pollutants
served an extremely useful purpose in 1976; it
focused EPA's resources on those pollutants that,
based on information available at that time, were
most critical to protecting human health and the en-
vironment. But 14 years have brought new chemical
products and new wastes, additional ambient
monitoring data, better effluent characterization
data, and new information on the effects of various
pollutants. A good example is the lack of water
quality criteria for a wide range of toxic pesticides
that are currently widely in use. Pesticides on the
priority pollutant list focused on chemicals widely in
use in or before the 1970s, some of which are no
longer used.
• EPA must address the full range of human
health and environmental effects. Until the
Agency has done so, it must enforce its most
sensitive criterion strictly. Typically, EPA estab-
lishes its human health-based criteria based on the
most sensitive human health or environmental end
point. This approach would be acceptable under
three conditions: if it is clear that the health or en-
vironmental effect that forms the basis of the
criterion in fact represents the most sensitive end
point; if these criteria represented mandatory mini-
ma (if States could only promulgate criteria at least
as strict as the most sensitive EPA criteria); and if
these criteria were always applied using a low flow
estimate.
This is not always the case, however, as indi-
cated by the recent controversy over 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin). EPA's criteria document for dioxin recom-
mends a criterion of zero to achieve complete protec-
tion, based on the assumption that dioxin is a
nonthreshold carcinogen (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agen-
cy, 1984). But this recommendation is not taken
seriously either by EPA or the States. Instead, EPA
presents potential criteria to address lifetime cancer
health risks of 10-5 to 10-7, ranging from 0.13 parts
per quadrillion (ppq) (pg/L) to .0013 ppq (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1984). (These figures are for fish
and water consumption.)
While the criteria document and other EPA
documents present information on other human
health effects of dioxin at slightly higher levels, no
actual numeric criteria have been developed for
human health end points such as reproductive
24
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 23-28
toxicity and liver damage. Thus, when some States
elected to promulgate dioxin criteria an order of
magnitude weaker than EPA's 10-5 criterion, based
only on a reanalysis of EPA's cancer risk assess-
ment, they may have jumped over levels at which
other health and environmental effects occur.
This problem is exacerbated by the fact that
some States are using a measure of average
streamflow (such as mean or harmonic mean),
rather than an estimate of low flow such as 7Q10, to
apply human health criteria designed to protect
against lifetime cancer risk. This practice will result
in in-stream concentrations that will be even higher
during low flow periods and may pose other health
risks, such as reproductive toxicity, that are based
on short-term rather than lifetime exposure. For ex-
ample, an ambient dioxin criteria of 1.2 ppq applied
at mean flow will result in ambient levels in excess
of 2 ppq under many flow regimes. EPA reports
health effects as a result of reproductive toxicity at 2
ppq based on short-term exposure. So even if mean
flow adequately addresses carcinogenicity, we may
be putting our unborn children at risk by using this
standard.
A similar situation exists with respect to
aquatic toxicity. When EPA issued its dioxin criteria
document in 1984, it had information showing that
chronic aquatic toxicity occurred at less than .001
|ig/L for rainbow trout: approximately 1,000 ppq.
Based on this information, even Maryland's
criterion of 1.2 ppq is well below the level at which
aquatic toxicity is of concern, and EPA never issued
recommended criteria to protect aquatic life.
But in its recent integrated risk assessment
analysis of dioxins and furans from pulp and paper
mills, EPA reported that an estimated chronic
aquatic effects levels for 2,3,7,8-TCDD of 0.038 ppq
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). (This figure
was based on an observed effect level at 0.038 ng/L,
with a factor of 1,000 to account for acute versus
chronic exposure, differences in species' sen-
sitivities, and differences in field versus laboratory
effects. No safety factor was added.) This level is
only slightly higher than EPA's recommended
criterion to protect against cancer risk at the 10-6
cancer risk level, somewhat lower than EPA's 10-5
cancer risk level, and considerably lower than
Maryland's 1.2 ppq criterion, which was based only
on cancer risk with no consideration of aquatic
toxicity.
One solution to this problem, of course, is for
EPA simply to reject State water quality criteria
weaker than EPA's recommended criterion based on
its view as to the most sensitive human health risk.
In approving Maryland's dioxin criterion, EPA ob-
viously rejected this approach. Alternatively, EPA
could impose on the State a heavy burden to
demonstrate that, by second-guessing EPA's judg-
ment with respect to carcinogenicity, it is not caus-
ing noncancer human health or environmental risks
at levels between 0.013 ppq and 1.2 ppq. (NRDC
believes this analysis is legally required by the
Clean Water Act and 40 CFR § 131.11.) But EPA im-
posed no such burden on Maryland, whose dioxin
submittal included no analysis whatsoever of non-
cancer health risks. However, to our knowledge,
neither did submittal s by other States. We discuss
Maryland only because it was the first State to
receive recent EPA approval of a dioxin criterion of
1.2 ppq.
The bottom line is that EPA is legally obligated
to consider all identifiable human health effects and
has not done so for many toxics, particularly those
where criteria are based on risk assessment for non-
threshold carcinogens.
• EPA is required to revise criteria to reflect
the latest scientific information. Most of EPA's
water quality criteria for toxics are now at least 10
years old. For many of these criteria, data on health
and environmental effects may not have changed
significantly; therefore, revisions are not needed.
Clearly, however, this is not the case for some pol-
lutants. Two examples—one specific and one
generic—demonstrate this point.
For dioxin (focused on because of recent interest
and regulatory activity), EPA's cancer risk analysis
is based, in part, on an assumed bioconcentration
factor of 5,000. Recent EPA evidence, however,
reports bioconcentration factor levels for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD more than an order of magnitude higher
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). Clearly, EPA is
required by section 304(a) to revise its dioxin
criterion based on this new information (some of
which was published in a peer-reviewed journal two
years ago) (Mehrle et al. 1988).
A more far-reaching example is EPA's use of an
assumed average human fish consumption rate of
6.5 grams per day for its risk assessments for all
nonthreshold carcinogens. As a preliminary matter,
NRDC believes that EPA is legally obligated to
protect subpopulations that consume higher than
average amounts of fish, such as recreational and
subsistence fishers. Equally important, EPA's as-
sumption is based on survey data that are more
than 10 years old (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1990a). More recent data indicate significantly
higher consumption rates, particularly by certain
subpopulations (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1984).
Section 304(a) requires EPA to revise its estimated
human health risks based on these new data.
• EPA must address a wider range of water-
bodies. EPA has a long way to go in issuing water
25
-------
R. W. ADLER
quality criteria that fully address acute and chronic
toxicity in both freshwater and marine systems.
However, inland rivers and the open ocean do not
cover the full range of aquatic ecosystems, and spe-
cial consideration must be given to toxicity in wet-
lands, estuaries, and lakes. Lakes and wetlands, for
example, typically exhibit far longer retention times
than flowing rivers and may demand stricter
criteria on persistent toxics—in many cases, zero.
This comment is made with some reservations, as
flowing rivers simply transfer pollutants
downstream to lakes, estuaries, and marine sys-
tems. Nevertheless, as shown by our experience
with the Great Lakes, systems with high residence
times can accumulate dangerous concentrations of
toxics in water, sediment, and biota. The high
productivity and different and varying tempera-
tures and salinity conditions in estuaries similarly
require special consideration when issuing water
quality criteria. Finally, section 304(a) expressly
mandates that EPA establish criteria for
groundwater—obviously a significant gap in EPA's
efforts to date under the Clean Water Act.
• EPA must move beyond water column
criteria. One of the most glaring omissions in EPA's
water quality standards program is that, historical-
ly, it focused almost exclusively on water column
concentration. This approach only partially takes
into account the statutory command that EPA con-
sider "the concentration and dispersal of pollutants,
or their byproducts, through biological, physical,
and chemical processes." This problem has been
mitigated in part in recent years by EPA's promotion
of whole effluent toxicity and its more recent and
highly commendable move to supplement numeric
water quality criteria and whole effluent toxicity
with biological criteria.
By ignoring or partially ignoring such factors as
contamination of sediment and biota, EPA's ap-
proach fails to protect against the full range of
human health and environmental impacts of toxic
pollutants. It also fails to move us sufficiently
toward the Clean Water Act's ultimate zero dis-
charge goal and the underlying objective of restor-
ing and maintaining the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
An exclusive focus on water column concentra-
tion assumes, for the most part, that toxic pol-
lutants remain in the water column. Under this
analysis, a municipal or industrial discharger of
wastewater or runoff can discharge extremely large
mass loadings of toxic pollutants so long as the con-
centration of the effluent is sufficiently low. This is
problematic, particularly for large volume dis-
charges and for discharges of runoff during high
flow (and therefore high dilution) conditions.
However, all toxic pollutants do not remain in
the water column; many toxics are sediment-bound
rather than soluble and, over time, can accumulate
in the sediment in dangerous amounts. Without the
issuance of enforceable sediment quality criteria,
which can be translated into stricter criteria-based
effluent limitations and runoff controls, this prob-
lem will continue. EPA is working on the develop-
ment of sediment quality criteria, but progress has
been slow.
Similarly, pollutants in the water column can
concentrate or accumulate in fish and other aquatic
organisms. Theoretically, this factor is taken into ac-
count in the promulgation of ambient water column
criteria. But as discussed in the context of the ap-
propriate bioconcentration factor for dioxin, our
understanding of bioaccumulation and biocon-
centration is incomplete at best. Establishing
criteria governing the presence of toxics in the biota
themselves would provide an important second line
of defense. If contamination of biota above the
specified criteria occurs despite compliance with
water column criteria, stricter permit limits can still
be written (thereby better defining the limitations of
the assumptions underlying the water column
criteria), and the criteria can be revised accordingly.
Moreover, in writing water column criteria,
bioconcentration and bioaccumulation are con-
sidered largely to address human health effects
from consuming contaminated fish and shellfish.
Omitted from the analysis are acute and chronic ef-
fects on wildlife, including not only fish and aquatic
life but birds, mammals, and other species that con-
sume contaminated aquatic life or are otherwise ex-
posed to toxics in the aquatic environment.
Returning again to the dioxin example, EPA's
integrated risk assessment noted that 2,3,7,8-TCDD
in effluent from chlorine-bleaching pulp and paper
mills "could be exerting significant adverse effects
on aquatic life and on avian and mammalian
predators feeding on aquatic life." Yet no numeric
criteria have been issued to address these risks.
• EPA should pursue measures of whole
toxicity more vigorously. NRDC strongly sup-
ports EPA and State promotion and use of whole ef-
fluent toxicity to account for toxicity based on
cumulative, synergistic, or other effects that are dif-
ficult to measure through numeric criteria alone. In
fact, we believe that EPA should promulgate
separate criteria for whole effluent toxicity under
section 304(a).
Moreover, it is ironic that we are moving for-
ward with techniques to address human health ef-
fects from cumulative or synergistic exposure to
toxics in seafood and drinking water. EPA and
26
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 23-28
States should view this issue as an important chal-
lenge for the future.
State Adoption of Toxics
Criteria
EPA performance alone does not result in environ-
mental gains. States have the initial responsibility
to adopt and to enforce water quality criteria for
toxics. Only when States fail to perform this role
must EPA step in.
Prior to the 1987 Water Quality Act, State per-
formance in adopting water quality criteria for
toxics was inconsistent and, overall, extremely
sketchy. Few States had more than a handful of
toxics criteria. As part of its beyond best available
technology strategy for additional water quality-
based toxics control, Congress in 1987 required all
States to adopt numerical water quality criteria:
. . . for all [priority] toxic pollutants. . .
for which [EPA] criteria have been published . .
. the discharge or presence of which in the af-
fected waters could reasonably be expected to in-
terfere with those designated uses adopted by the
State, as necessary to support such designated
uses [CWA section 303 (c)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. §
Of course, State responsibility to adopt water
quality criteria for toxics does not end here. Even
before 1987, States were under a general obligation
to adopt all water quality criteria necessary to
protect designated water uses and otherwise meet
the goals and requirements of the Clean Water Act
(CWA § 303(c); 40 CFR § 131.6, 131.11). Thus, the
State duty to issue water quality criteria for toxics is
limited neither to priority pollutants nor to the
precise definition in section 303(c)(2)(B). The new
provision only imposed a more specific requirement
during a particular triennial review to dovetail with
the 304(1) process.
Congress' 1987 directive represented a last
chance for States to implement their responsibilities
to establish water quality criteria for toxics. Never-
theless, State compliance with even the more
limited agenda set forth in section 303(c)(2)(B) has
been extremely poor. According to EPA's most recent
analysis, only 15 States are in full compliance with
that section and another 34 are in partial com-
pliance (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990b).
Of course, NRDC does not see eye-to-eye with
EPA on what constitutes full compliance with this
provision. According to EPA's October 1990 analysis,
at least six States have adopted a translator
mechanism, at least in part. While NRDC supports
such procedures to supplement numeric criteria, we
continue to believe that exclusive use of translator
procedures violates Congress" express command
that States must adopt numeric water quality
criteria (Nat. Resour. Def. Counc. 1988). Notably,
however, a large number of States adopted all avail-
able EPA criteria, taking advantage of EPA's years
of research in developing them.
EPA has been quite patient with States that
have been slow to comply with their statutory
obligations. But EPA's patience is also constrained
by law. Under section 303(c)(4) of the Clean Water
Act, EPA now has a mandatory duty to promulgate
water quality criteria for those States that fail to do
so.
Streamlining the Criteria
Process
Because primary responsibility for water quality
standards has rested traditionally with the States,
the concept of moving toward baseline national
water quality standards has been considered con-
troversial. But given the cost and complexity of
developing defensible toxics criteria, it is time to
reexamine this issue. Some States have been reluc-
tant to cede their authority in this important area.
Somewhat inconsistently, however, States often
complain that they lack sufficient resources to per-
form all the Clean Water Act functions demanded of
them.
NRDC believes that EPA water quality criteria
promulgated under section 304(a) should be given
the force and effect of law. This would give EPA
water quality criteria the same status as EPA ef-
fluent guidelines issued under section 304(b). How-
ever, as with technology-based guidelines, States (or
interstate entities) should not be preempted from
promulgating additional criteria or those that are
stricter than criteria issued by EPA. In fact, States
would continue to be responsible for protecting
water quality from pollutants not yet addressed by
EPA. Obviously, such criteria would undergo the
same formal notice and comment rulemaking proce-
dure required of EPA criteria. This proposal would
have the following related benefits, among others:
• It would focus and conserve resources. EPA
devotes considerable resources to developing and is-
suing water quality criteria. Currently, States are
required to duplicate these efforts in adopting their
own criteria as formal regulations, even if they
adopt standards based entirely on EPA guidance.
These criteria then are subject to potential judicial
challenge in every State, rather than when first is-
sued by EPA. Moreover, 10 separate EPA offices
then are required to review and approve water
27
-------
R. W. /IDLER
quality standards in every State, consuming yet
more limited resources and promulgating EPA
criteria when State criteria are inadequate. State
and Federal resources saved by eliminating duplica-
tion of effort can be devoted to implementation and
enforcement of water quality criteria. The sig-
nificant number of States that opted for wholesale
adoption of EPA criteria evidences some support for
this notion.
• It would promote consistency and equity
while preserving State flexibility where ap-
propriate. NRDC believes that serious questions of
equity are raised when different States promulgate
significantly different water quality criteria for
toxics, particularly with regard to human health.
While the sensitivity of aquatic species to pollutants
varies, human sensitivities do not vary when con-
sidering whole State populations. It is fundamental-
ly inequitable that citizens in some States should be
exposed to risks of cancer or other health effects
that are, in some cases, orders of magnitude higher
than in other States. A fundamental tenet of the
Clean Water Act is violated when States are en-
couraged to compete for industrial growth by
weakening environmental standards.
Consistency is particularly desirable in such
interstate waters as the Great Lakes and
Chesapeake Bay. Currently, different criteria often
apply across artificial political boundaries that bear
no relationship to hydrologic or ecological realities.
Nevertheless, State flexibility is appropriate in
some cases and should be preserved. States should
be required to address toxics that are not covered by
EPA criteria. Particular pollutants, such as pes-
ticides used only for certain crops, may be a serious
problem only in a few States, and therefore not high
on EPA's list of priorities. However, relieving States
of the obligation to promulgate criteria for more
common pollutants addressed by EPA will allow
them to concentrate resources on those toxics that
are unique to, and perhaps more important to, their
area.
In addition, States should be free to enact more
stringent criteria where necessary to address par-
ticular conditions, such as more sensitive species or
particularly high fish consumption levels. EPA
criteria must be based on data from a range of
species and must consider those that are pollutant-
sensitive. However, it will not be possible for EPA to
consider every possible species or environmental
condition.
Conclusion
While considerable progress has been made since
1972 in developing water quality criteria for toxic
pollutants, much more remains to be done. This can
be accomplished best by eliminating duplication of
effort between EPA and the States. EPA resources
should be focused on completing water quality
criteria for priority pollutants; addressing the full
range of human health and environmental effects;
revising criteria to reflect the latest scientific infor-
mation; moving on to other common toxic pol-
lutants, such as commonly used pesticides;
developing criteria for the full range of waterbodies;
and developing criteria to address contamination of
sediment and biota. States should be freed of the
burden of duplicating EPA efforts in issuing water
quality criteria for toxics so that their resources can
be concentrated on addressing local pollutants and
conditions and on implementation and enforcement
of water quality criteria.
References
Mehrle, P.M. et al. 1988. Tbxicity and bioconcentration of
2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF in rainbow trout. En-
viron. Tbxicol. Chem. 7(l):47-62.
Natural Resources Defense Council. 1988. Comments on EPA's
Draft Guidance for State Implementation of Water
Quality Standards for CWA 303(c)(2)(B). Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin.
Pages x; xi; C-14. EPA 440/5-84-007. Washington, DC.
. 1989. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically
Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A Guidance Manual.
App. F. EPA-503/8-89-002. Washington, DC.
. 1990a. Integrated Risk Assessment for Dioxins and
Furans from Chlorine Bleaching in Pulp and Paper Mills.
Pages 15,69; 34-37; 35; 70. EPA 560/5-90-011. Wash-
ington, DC.
. 1990b. State Water Criteria for Tbxic Pollutants, Com-
pliance with CWA Section 303(c)(2)(B). Washington, DC.
28
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. (Randy Palachek—Texas Water Commission)
I'm interested in the concept of applying human
health criteria to small streams, or, as in our case
sometimes, in midstream where pools still have an
aquatic life use. Are there any flows, carrying
capacities, or stream orders that you have evaluated
of an appropriate level to apply these criteria?
A. (John Rowland) In Missouri, we classified for
aquatic life protection those streams that have any
type of permanent or semipermanent flow through-
out the year. Streams that we have not classified or
given the aquatic life designation are dry stream
beds. We classified everything that has permanent
pools and applied human health numbers to them.
I'm not certain that this was appropriate because
there probably aren't enough fish growing in some of
these small streams to be of any health significance
to people eating them. A lot of these streams don't
get any angling whatsoever.
I was surprised that, during the water quality
standards triennial review, we did not get any more
opposition on that matter. We did get one suggestion
from the regulated community, that we should allow
for site-specific criteria development in those
streams where there was no productive edible
fishery so we would have a variance process.
C. (Mark Van Putten—National Wildlife
Federation, Great Lakes Office) I would like to
second Bob Adler's comments about the importance
of the Act's technology base requirements, a par-
ticularly critical feature because technology based
on effluent guidelines are probably one of the most
immediate and best opportunities EPA has to imple-
ment pollution prevention.
My two comments both pertain to implementa-
tion of criteria. The first is the issue of whole ef-
fluent toxicity testing, which has been developed as
a supplement to chemical-specific limitations. My
concern is the use of effluent toxicity testing as an
alternative to chemical-specific limitations. For in-
stance, in the past, Michigan assumed additivity
when developing effluent limitations for certain me-
tals and, using that formula, put effluent limitations
in the permit for each metal. However, the State has
recently substituted an effluent toxicity testing re-
quirement for those metals. We think that toxicity
testing should be put in permits as an enforceable
effluent limitation if it is going to substitute for
chemical-specific limits, so if you violate the toxicity
test, you violate the permit. It is not just give us in-
formation and, if we are having a toxic effect, we'll
go back and put back in the limit.
My second point is on analytical limits of detec-
tion, where compliance monitoring is confused with
environmental effects. We have a process, in place,
with criteria to develop effluent limitations. Then
we face a monitoring issue: how do we detect a viola-
tion? It's not appropriate to let the compliance
monitoring question drive the application of criteria.
There are different ways of monitoring compliance
at the end of a process waste stream, using fish to
bioaccumulate the pollutant. The uncertainty in-
volved in analytical limits of detection should work
toward minimizing pollution discharges. The dis-
charger ought to worry that a new method will be
developed during the pendency of the permit and
therefore document violations to make every effort
to achieve water quality base effluent limitations
and not the safe harbor offered by analytical limit-
ing detection. There is an environmental concern
that nobody has data on: the accumulative effect of
dioxin from each of the pulp mills having an adverse
impact on Lake Superior or Lake Michigan. This is a
very important point and one of the many examples
of how important the application of criteria is in
technical support documents.
C. It's a real dilemma that is tied to the fact that
we have more and more main criteria set to such
low levels. What we have to recognize is that a per-
mittee is liable for that permit. Every violation can
put a permittee into a situation where an action can
be brought by the agency. At Du Pont, we adopt the
position that we really want to know whether we
can be in compliance with that discharge permit. We
want to have methods that we can tie compliance to,
so we know whether we are indeed meeting require-
ments to discharge an effluent and are in com-
pliance with the permit limit. This sort of a problem
has not been resolved yet, and it's becoming more
and more of a concern to us—and also to permit
writers in many of the States. It's something that
has to be looked at from a practical point of view, yet
at the same time, I recognize that assurances have
to be made that the discharge will not adversely im-
pact the environment.
C. Water quality is not supposed to be limited
by achieved ability or economics but technology,
which forces it to meet limits. I would argue that of
29
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
monitoring compliance with the limits, so I would
not advocate raising the water quality base on ef-
fluent limits to the current level of measurability.
As to enforcement, obviously you can't bring an
action against someone if you can't prove that they
are in violation. If the detection limits are not suffi-
cient to measure that low, the discharger is not li-
able for prosecution. You've got to prove the
violation.
C. (John Howland) Mark's first point was on
toxicity testing or the chemical-specific criteria. I
would like to go back to that three-legged stool. I
agree that biocriteria, toxicity testing, and chemical
permit limits are all necessary, I just happen to be a
little bit more comfortable putting all my weight on
one of those legs right now rather than the other
two with the experience we have, but certainly it
gives you prosecutorial discretion to use any one of
those three if you need to go after a discharger.
Q. Two of the speakers discussed the concept of a
mixing zone in the context of application to chemi-
cals that bioaccumulate in the food chain. I imagine
there is some logic to the concept of a mixing zone
though I've never explored it, but I've had trouble un-
derstanding how it can possibly be applied to com-
pounds that bioaccumulate.
A. I am not implying that a mixing is ap-
propriate every time. There are, no doubt, some
chemicals for which a mixing zone is not ap-
propriate. Mixing has to be determined by looking
at what happens to that chemical in the environ-
ment, and if we come to a conclusion based on avail-
able information that that chemical is accumulating
in the food chain in concentrations, then the
decision may well be made that a mixing zone is not
appropriate for that particular chemical.
C. I'm not in a good position to answer because I
do not believe in mixing zones. The focus of your
question could have been broader, but if you believe
in mixing zones or not, EPA water quality standards
advise against mixing zones for bioaccumulative or
persistent chemicals.
Q. As 7 understood Mr. Schwer, he was advocat-
ing mixing zones for some bioconcentrative sub-
stances with precaution. What kind of precaution
can one take and still have a mixing zone for a
bioconcentrative chemical?
A. (Richard Schwer) Precaution means to look
at the fate and effects of a particular chemical to as-
sure that it's not getting into our food chain and
creating a potential adverse impact on human
health or biota.
Q. Would you advocate this for very specific
types of water systems?
A. (Schwer) I'm advocating that you take a look
at the type of ecosystem and the possibility for
bioaccumulation to a point where you have adverse
impacts.
Q. (Don Armstrong—Pima County, Arizona) Mr.
Adler, I understand your point, but science tells us
that a number needs to go down and we have to be
able to incorporate that. How about when science
tells us that further testing says the number is too
low at this point? Are you as willing for us to move
the level up?
A. (Robert Adler) Yes. I believe that good science
ought to be applied in writing water quality stand-
ards.
Q. (Mary Kelly—Austin, Texas) Please comment
on the legality of site-specific variances for water
quality standards that are not subject to EPA ap-
proval, as part of setting that type of specific stand-
ards. (If the site-specific standards are set during a
permit process that is not subject to EPA approval, is
that water quality standard legal under the Clean
Water Act?)
A. I would say yes if the water quality stand-
ards regulations allow for setting those site-specific
water quality standards, providing that EPA proce-
dures are followed.
The ones that I know of are approved through
the regional office. I think we should distinguish be-
tween site-specific water quality standards, which
are legal if they protect the designated use in the ac-
tual or potential use of the water and meet the other
requirements of the Water Quality Act. Your ques-
tion went more to variances from water quality
standards, which we have accepted as appropriate
in the context of variances from water quality-based
effluent limitations, not variances from water
quality standards.
Q. (Kevin Brubaker—Save the Bay) I was struck
by Mr. Adler's comment that water quality standards
should be used merely as a stepping-stone to zero dis-
charge. All three commentators suggested that we
needed more research to promulgate more water
quality standards. With 60,000 chemicals being
produced right now and a short-term goal of creating
standards for 126, I'm wondering whether the
speakers can respond on how far they think we can
get by continuing to promulgate chemical-specific
standards?
A. I believe that technology-based standards
ought to drive pollution prevention. Water quality
standards play a critical role in that process; you
might have a set of effluent guidelines for an in-
dustry, five percent of which might be subject to
stricter effluent limitations if based on water
30
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
quality standards. When EPA revises the effluent
guidelines (as it is required to do under the statute),
it has to find a new level of BAT, so a lot of water
quality standards can play a fundamental role in
driving pollution prevention as well.
C. I'm pessimistic that we'll continue to look for
criteria for new materials. I believe we are manufac-
turing these materials so quickly that we'll always
be a step behind the ones that really need the
criteria. I don't see how we'll ever catch up.
C. We are giving short shrift to the other
regulatory programs, such as TSCA and FIFRA,
that are specifically designed to make sure that new
chemicals coming out into the market are checked in
an effort to head off environmental problems. In the
past, we suddenly discovered that DDT or some
other chemical had created environmental
problems. You have to take a holistic approach
toward trying to evaluate potential impacts, par-
ticularly from new chemicals, and not just rely on
water quality standards.
C. (Adler) We are trying to make the new set of
requirements similar to our requirements for the
water quality criteria. I think that would help fill up
the gaps.
Q. (Steve Pawlowski—Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality) Mr. Adler, you mentioned
that you felt that the water quality standards should
be technology-forcing. Could the panel comment on
what role (if any) economic analysis or technology
feasibility has in the development of water quality
standards for toxic pollutants? Is there a rule for
that type of analysis in criteria development, or
should criteria simply be based on what is necessary
to protect human health and aquatic life?
A. (Adler) Legally, economics are not supposed
to play a role in writing water quality standards or
determining their achievability—with two very nar-
row exceptions in the EPA regulations. One is the
use attainability, part of the use attainability
analysis in Part 131. And the second is to determine
variances from water quality-based effluent limita-
tions.
C. I think I disagree with Bob (Adler) on the
answer he gave to one question. The question was:
If new science demonstrates that water quality
standards can be relaxed, are you prepared to follow
the good science? And I took Bob's answer to be yes,
but I think my answer would be no. If we have ef-
fluent limits in place based on the previous stand-
ards or other control requirements (BMPs), I'm not
prepared to follow the good science because scien-
tists can only argue about how much pollution is too
much and we will create incentives for consultants,
permittees, and other regulated parties to
demonstrate that the Kalamzoo River really has a
little more assimilative capacity for this and that
toxic than we thought last time and, therefore, the
water quality standards-based effluent limitations
ought to be relaxed. There is a rationality to an-
tibacksliding, and it is that if we have treatment
capacity in place, whether it's put there to meet
water quality-based or technology-based limits, we
ought to keep operating that treatment and get ad-
ditional benefits. Water quality standards are the
minimum, not the maximum. They are not the
desired condition—zero discharge is. Antibackslid-
ing is the key element to move towards zero dis-
charge, to force technology and keep the scientific
arguments about new criteria for new pollutants
from becoming arguments about whether we are
regulating too stringently for a given pollutant and
a given stream.
Finally, on the LOD limited detection discus-
sion; there is one party that we are forgetting. The
discussion has been in terms of State enforcement
and that an agency won't enforce if it can't prove
there are violations. But the Clean Water Act gives
independent enforcement rights to citizens like all of
us here and also groups like the one I represent.
When a State agency or EPA puts an LOD safe har-
bor in a permit, they are cutting off my enforcement
rights as well as saying up front that they are choos-
ing not to enforce. If a citizens' group or an environ-
mental organization wants to be crazy enough to
take some contaminated fish data downstream, go
in the Federal court, and argue to a judge that a per-
mit violation is occurring, I think that they ought to
have that option and the agencies not be precluded
with that safe harbor.
C. (Richard Schwer) First of all, I think our
major concern regarding antibacksliding is criteria
that have been developed with an extremely limited
database because of concerns about what you are
protecting with that criteria and the time and
money (lots of money sometimes) to develop criteria
based on really broad databases. In cases like that,
there ought to be some opportunity to relax the
criteria if they are appropriately based on a broader
database that is more representative.
The second point regards treatment facilities
that are in place already. It is expensive to operate
those treatment facilities, particularly when you're
talking about advance treatment; so, it is a tremen-
dous burden to continue to operate that treatment
facility, using the appropriate chemicals and
monitoring to an extremely low level. If that's really
not necessary to protect water quality, it should be
taken into consideration, too, because that's part of
the whole equation.
31
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
Q. (Mike Kadlec—Mohawk Tribe) I agree with
Mr. Adler's speech that technology should be a
motivating factor for criteria. What would be the
motivating force for technology to increase, thus in-
creasing the quality of the criteria?
A. I'm not sure I understand the question.
There are two motivating factors for driving tech-
nology. First, if you are a discharger and you are not
doing as well as the rest of the industry, then the
technology-based standard will force you to come up
to par. Second, if a certain subsection of the industry
is required to do better based on water quality
standards and comes up with better technology,
then EPA should apply that across the board by
rewriting the technology in their standards.
Q. But won't it be a disadvantage for industries
to put money into advancing technology when it al-
ready applies to criteria set out by EPA?
A. If you apply a stricter water quality-based
criteria, you are forced to come up with a better
technology or to spend more money.
Q. So what you are saying is EPA should always
have criteria that are slightly better than the technol-
ogy at the time?
A. Technology-based criteria are defined as the
highest achievable technology according to various
statutory criteria for the industry, but a water
quality-based limit can go stricter and will then
force technology to move forward.
C. In response to Mark Van Putten's statement
on antibacksliding from a State agency perspective,
it seems to me that policy developed in the mid-
1970s had a logical basis as applied to the technol-
ogy based permit limit. If a discharger was already
able to meet a certain level, then that had some-
thing to do with requiring that discharger to meet
levels that were supposed to be based on technologi-
cal achievability.
That same logical relationship does not exist
with respect to water quality standards-based per-
mit limits. I am concerned that, if antibacksliding is
pushed too hard from the water quality standards
standpoint, it will have negative environmental con-
sequences. It makes State agencies hesitate to act
on the best current information, which tends to be
not very complete in many cases; they hesitate to
adopt stringent standards because if they've made a
mistake, it's too late, they can't ever change them ef-
fectively. We are much better off if we rely on the
best current science and adopt stringent standards
in the face of uncertainty when that's appropriate. If
we get better information later on, we should be
willing to abide by it with respect to water quality
standards, now that technology-based limits are a
separate issue.
C. I have two responses to that. One is that
Congress expressly adopted an antibacksliding
provision in the 1987 act, so it certainly can't be true
that antibacksliding is a concept of the past—at
least Congress didn't think so. But there are excep-
tions to antibacksliding, including exceptions for
mistakes in factual or other information, so I think
the point is overstated.
A. (Larry Shephard—U.S. EPA Region V,
Chicago) Would the speaker suggest that maybe the
direction we should be taking is national water
quality standards? Bruce Baker made several com-
ments that maybe all the States would be willing to
give up some flexibility to address the problems.
What do people see as arguments for supporting or
opposing national water quality standards?
A. There would be a problem with the regional
characteristics of water (for example, where you
have high selenium in Wyoming), but I am all for it.
If EPA can develop national numbers, put them in
place in all 50 states, and add some regional
specificity to them, that would be fine with Mis-
souri.
A. I'm not sure how I'll come down on national
water quality standards. I can see some pluses in
terms of both industry and the States; however, I
can also see some negatives. My big concern would
be requiring specific criteria that aren't appropriate
in certain sections of the country and may result in
the need for a lot more variances or emphasis on
site-specific water quality criteria to develop relief
from the national numbers.
A. I understand that about 35 states have ac-
cepted the national water quality criteria. There are
interstate standards but very little variation.
A. Generally, nationalization of water quality
standards could be worse than nationalization in
eastern Europe. It should be a last resort when all
else fails.
C. When the Great Lakes governors worked out
their toxic control strategy, one of the issues that
came up was whether to use a lowest common
denominator. Everybody agrees that identical
standards could weaken some, and, if such a thing
happens, that States can have stronger require-
ments.
C. (Bob Adler) EPA is supposed to look at a
reasonable range of sensitive species in coming up
with criteria. That is supposed to be conservative,
supposed to apply with a margin of safety, but we
ought to have presentably applicable Federal water
quality standards without preventing the right of
States to promulgate stricter criteria if they think
they can justify them.
32
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
C. (Lee Dunbar—State of Connecticut) If you
look at the various States, you'll find that most have
criteria that are very close, and many have adopted
identical numbers. However, if you were to operate a
manufacturing facility in each of those individual
States, you would find a wide range of permit condi-
tions, a wide range of limits, and wide range of
treatment requirements from State to State because
the mixing zone policy is how much pollution is al-
lowed. The water quality permitting program has
evolved from a State-by-State issue back in the
Reagan years, where everybody was told "Here is
the objective, States, figure out if there's a way to do
it." So we wound up with a lot of different programs
with not much consistency. Each State is trying to
take advantage of the strong point in their resources
to develop the most effective program, and stand-
ards are just one part of an integrated water quality
program. If you were to implement across-the-board
numbers, you would reap the same havoc because of
other policies that had to key into them. You can't
just change one aspect of the program. There are
some serious issues that we should be paying atten-
tion to and none of us should forget what we are
really trying to do: we are trying to protect water
quality. Sometimes we get a little bit too fine, and
the work is not getting done on time.
C. On the national applicability of standards,
when I made my statement that Missouri would
favor that, I was speaking from the standpoint of a
program manager. If all the States have the same
numbers in the same implementation policies, there
would be no quibbling: everybody would have the
same groundwork, the same rules to go by, and it
would allow me as the program manager to deal
with those real issues.
C. My concern would come when the rubber
meets the road, when the permittee decides what to
accept in the proposed permit and what to try to ap-
peal. If the permittee is faced with national stand-
ards that have been mandated across the country, I
think he may justifiably question whether these
particular criteria are really applicable in that body
of water for that particular region. National stand-
ards may not make the water quality section job and
the permits section job any easier; in fact, they may
make both more difficult.
A. Maryland is one of the States that has opted
for the EPA criteria, and we are currently being
legislated. As a followup to the previous speaker's
question, we come from different States and have
found that, generally, most of the States had indeed
adopted EPA criteria, but when we try to get more in-
formation about implementation policies and proce-
dures, we weren't so successful. We were told by some
of our industries that neighboring States had dif-
ferent permit limits. My question is to EPA: I find
that although standards are EPA-approved, there
generally isnt a formal approval of implementation
policy and procedures. Is that going to occur in the
future? Will information be available from EPA as
States that have adopted water quality criteria
translate standards into permits?
A. (Nelson Thomas) I know available informa-
tion is being updated in the technical support docu-
ment that gives general guidance on implementing
criteria; but, as far as summarizing how States have
put it together, only the actual criteria that have
been developed have been summarized.
A. (Bill Diamond) Nelson is right as to the
source of guidance and information we put out.
When EPA regions review the water quality stand-
ards program, they not only look at criteria and
numbers but also implementation procedures. It's
an evolving situation. Recently in Maryland, for in-
stance, we disapproved a water quality standards
program because implementation procedures were
not acceptable. In Maryland, we were concerned
about an antidegradation policy and a mixing zone.
In terms of guidance that comes out, there is
flexibility. Implementation procedures come out
under the Clean Water Act just as often as numeri-
cal criteria. That's why you have the disparity, and
we do not have a summary on each aspect of those
implementation procedures.
The question was, is that something that will be
developed? Over the last couple of years, we will be
doing audits on particular aspects of a program. A
couple of years ago, we did audits of all State an-
tidegradation procedures with a report that was
state- and region-specific and sent back followup in-
formation that we wanted to address in the next
final review We have just completed an assessment
of variances across all the States, and we are doing
the same thing as far as sending information back to
our regions.
C. (Bob Campaigne—The Upjohn Co.) We are
beginning to get to the real issue. We have adopted,
by science, some numbers that cannot be met.
States are being forced to implement those numbers
and then are playing games in order not to end up
with permit conditions that shut the whole society
down. I'm not talking about chemical plants, I'm
talking about residential parking lots and apart-
ment buildings that discharge pollution in excess of
scientifically derived water quality standards.
We as a society do not have the technology (not
even close to it) to meet Hartford quadrillion limits
of many of these compounds. I think that's the crux
of the matter. The States are adopting a standard
based on EPA guidance and trying to find some
mechanism so they can live with it, and that
33
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
mechanism is a way to try to get around that stand-
ard. We have to face up to that and try to deal with
it.
C. (Bob Adler) There are more variance
mechanism loopholes in the exceptions in the Clean
Water Act and Regulations than I can certainly keep
track of, and more than ample room for flexibility
when an adequate case can be made that a limit
cannot be met. But I've heard for many years about
what can and can't be met. In Alaska where I used
to work, our expert witness argued to EPA in 1975
that total cycling for placer mining effluent was pos-
sible. It took us some six to eight years of ad-
ministrative adjudication before EPA knew where
we stood and finally promulgated a national effluent
guideline for placer mining. And guess what? Total
recycling was the chosen technology for most mines.
So where there's a will, there's a way; if you keep
pushing, you'll force technology to meet the limits.
Q. (John Jackson) Bob Adler, you made a com-
ment about the water quality base forcing technology
to occur. Could you comment on the time period be-
tween when water quality-based standards are set
and the technology is updated to meet them. What do
you do in the interim?
A. (Bob Adler) That takes us to the decision
about whether or not you will give a schedule for
compliance with water quality-based standards. I
wish I could give you the Natural Resources Defense
Council's view of that, but the decision and the im-
plications are fairly new and, to be quite honest, we
are discussing whether it is preferable to allow a
compliance schedule for water quality-based stand-
ards limits or to make that mandatory requirement
immediately, which would encourage States either
to weaken water quality standards or to write a
compliance schedule into their regulations. I'm not
yet sure where we come down on this.
Q. (Robin Garibay—The Advent Group) You
gave a specific example of a way to modify water
quality standards—dry technology—and I'll give you
another: where you have specific mercury in water
quality standards and there is no technology to
remove mercury from, say, a municipal ethlyn dis-
charge, so a permit holder would be required to fol-
low a variance procedure. Instead, why not take that
water quality standard back before promulgating it
and take into account that there is no technology to
achieve a nondetected mercury, particularly in
municipal and industrial efforts?
Q. (Adler) Is this a POTW that's meeting a mer-
cury limit?
A. (Robin Garibay) For example, there are also
going to be industrial dischargers that will have
nondetector mercury limits. Mercury is there, basi-
cally coming into the participating POTW, so it may
come in at a level of 2 to 3 parts per billion but there
is no technology to take 2 to 3 parts per billion
wastewater down to nondetect.
A. (Adler) I guess a definition of industrial use
of that material would depend a lot on the source.
There is a difference (in my mind) between na-
tional background and background that is caused by
nonpoint source runoffs—sources of industrial pollu-
tion that are supposed to be taken into account as
part of the wasteload allocations process in Parts
130 and 131 of the regulations. We could probably
have a whole panel discussion on how to implement
wasteload allocations, taking into account deposi-
tions and background sources.
34
-------
,-•-,;,• .••' --- ,•,..'.,••. < •-, - ..v ,.' ,,-\.;; ,,,,-•. j - ,n- , .,-,-' .-•
.-*,•:-,' ;'-,»..:•.•*;?'.'•"'-, .;--"'"k-;',v.-: svf •{••-:,.•" '",%•.• ,. vV;t, * - < v ;'• -:,;"':r-- > '•,;•"'" V •'
- ,..', c<^'' 'I'/r'-V'"'-; • > >',' - "">-;-..'''>,'.'," '-'••;,, \^' ,'-,f:-''.-N v\>, ,•>.>?••>• v,-';s^y-r „;?,',.;",,'
• "' V'v ,'•'",'. ji'/''"-?A':;'.',:>'V'l-Ji;V-'V'-' ''/;•'£"',"'-'"! •'''''"•*".-• ~^"'1''*- ..:,''•>•*:, Xl'V'"""''•,*-.' 'i~*•'"'•''•*'*• 4!''-'^"•"••"'l',.,""•'"" r'\' V -
•'••••'•"/; *•,„ > i'!"*"',•< '',-1 '".",»'*',;"",..'' '*r'-:'.v' l',1'1^ ... -V i'L>-»r-V"' '• '"''•„ *'•'--»•;';':';: '..iV T .••*•*. •' «."*'•','*
' ?" ~,,' ^^ ", • , - V~ v „ i^t™ '^, ^ :>> lVv i ,^ • L'^< > \gu , , ,V * - v, , <'. . , ^" 5 ^ C-. t >-' - ^vc" » ^ v - '"
'^ <*'*' s- '^''- ~. i \ ,' -'. ,'x \ ^ H. , s ,",«»''" "'^ ^"*ei> '»-^' -.> ,' gp> ' '^ ( fa'^ l" , ' >. f {-k ™ { ;«~ '% "' ™ * ««« '' ™f"*'^ i* "^ , 4,
" 1 5' "" l° " ~ ' '"'h'''
- •• „;">.\\vl:.:•: ' >.,;'''• ;':,Vv-1'-iV^'r'o'^"'-.'"'.• ••''v":' • "'v}•'•'''•••*•
•?---0', A'VV'.,:' ^sr;;'^;"X7i^-v^./;,f;';/^^v^'^Vlc'"''^;^'';;';-'''^ '" ' '• ' "•"' '':-"•-"''- '
• -V'';1' ^'r-fV V.?"^ -"•-.' '^Xlv:;i'v':VN>>r:l>'\-X!u--''^ ' Y-^.-'-''''^°. '''XX:- ' /^ ' '•'" k>: '-/ '"^
^"' ". '' -"-'•' -,;'''',-\\-. ,,-•',.•;••.•""' . • .'•' , ,'' i»^",', ' »,V- ."'r'-1 '"",1 ''i- '. , - .•.'.'••-.' 1',;-
' '"' ,^ :. >A •''>• \ •;!;".''r^\ :•.'"-<•--,••-,-•-•.,= .v.- -,'.,'.">•.'. - '••'•'•:• ';v> v v«'-\- :> - :-' • •''$'"• .
,' '- __i 'r;-, ^'.\ ,..';. T'1'-'""'"-;i'T»".'. '?••". "^'-'V. -'<-',,'\',-!;:\'' '"' ''-''* '"'; •;'''"'^"''^ v ,'!;'"'"'"* '* ^.'.":''•.:•-„'' '"'••> Jl''*',':''
„,''•' " ">,'-)-,.,<'•„'-OA" ;\v^/;'r !•'-"*.'%, ',,•-•"•';; •" •-!-';>-\'1'tii,j" •'"-,»' ,,-'<">l|':"r'":'A 'V'^, «v. -.''•',., U,'. V1' M..'/n\'.'''"-•'"••"•
* A, , ,f, ,.'>•!,,'.' ».,• •", •" " ' ' , " ". ,.! .; ' ' ' f> "*-,», -i .j »• V,-«,,'. , Iv'li^ ," , ;- *Ji," ,>-„,,"
,'' •' 'V ,'• " >\i I'-^iC, !-i",V. "'r'1, i ", >- • s •'•, * -' •• •-' ' ~- '•>"•'',-., t, ..,; ,s-> • ,- . „__ . ;•}* ,_',-' _'_• . , _ ^ ; f.' \> ; , •' .,•
•" -' ,'., *. -"\ ? '"*'.'*•'"',,. ' '•"'!""'"' «L.V'" • ,"" ".'''''"f-'" r v" .'>,'••' •' ^ -•''',' '''I' -" "'*• - ", "'•''''''','!1,' '"""'-',','"'" '*''>.*"v-i'"''•-(• 1 " ' >: '-'', i''!-"1'i'"."' ' **
, ' , , ,"",-^',1 ';'•_" •' " -' cC" '•',',, '; v" * "i'">=''<,'",", '>" • -~i!^ ':-'.'*'"'"'" "J"'~"'kl V' -*-'\f'«»" '",,'*","'*" !s'"" •'*' -.' ''•''? •.-'•""'" !','i' "•"" '','>' "
• ^>^&\-'^~[./4^r*r'^s-'\^f ;-~-^ ':,•' \
. :-','; ,-V.;.- '• vvi..'." >\-:, v ;"''« V...VHv- ';''^:> ->'^'.4,",'/" :• v !.-,Vv.;; ';"•- ' ;.V ,-.- .,<; '.Vr <•>-•>'.. ;'.:;/
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 35-36
A Strategy for Sediment
Arthur J. Newell
Assistant Director, Division of Marine Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Stony Brook, New York
Introduction
Over the past 10 years, quite a bit of sediment data
has been collected in New York State to support
proposals for dredging, areas of concern in the Great
Lakes, water-related construction projects, and in-
active hazardous waste sites. In general, either
through program requirements or growing initia-
tives to pursue possible sediment contaminant
problems, there is a high frequency of projects with
data available at early stages of review. However,
most data offered are bulk sediment analyses of me-
tals and persistent organics. When biological testing
is done, it is usually for acute toxicity. These kinds of
data are often found wanting when perceived use
impairments are being explained.
Where sediments receive pollutants from urban
areas or what might be described as "conventional
industry," more attention must be paid to the Jess
exotic chemicals (such as monoaromatics, chloroben-
zenes, petroleum, and chlorinated solvents), which
are discharged in runoff as nonpoint source pol-
lutants in much greater amounts than the exotics
(such as PCBs, dioxins and furans, and or-
ganochlorine pesticides). In addition, there should
be much more chronic toxicity testing of sediments.
Of course, to do this, we must support development
of standard chronic or early life stage tests and fol-
low-up validation. An array of chronic or early life
stage sediment toxicity tests are available, but the
best should be selected, tested, and promoted, as the
seven-day fathead minnow and Ceriodaphnia water
column tests were six years ago.
Natural Recovery
Contaminated sediments can undergo a natural
recovery (or self-cleansing), a perfectly viable option
to select in certain situations. In New York State,
the Divisions of Fish and Wildlife and Marine
Resources recommend conducting a fate assessment
for pollutants found in sediments in excess of State
sediment criteria guidance. Included in the
guidelines are a number of nonpersistent organics,
including the haloalkane and haloalkene solvents
that are often found in sediments adjacent to haz-
ardous waste sites. The divisions recommend that a
determination be made of the time it will take to
achieve a natural recovery to acceptable levels, and
if that time is found to be acceptable, then sediment
remediation may not be necessary. Of course, the
source of the sediment contamination would have to
be eliminated. Perhaps the most useful part of this
regulatory exercise when dealing with nonpersis-
tent organics is obtaining a guarantee of source
elimination because even with chemicals that rapid-
ly degrade, unacceptable levels can remain in-
definitely in sediments with an ongoing source.
For persistent organics and metals that are
causing use impairments, evaluation of the natural
recovery alternative is considerably more
problematic. If sources of these pollutants are
eliminated, most environmental fate models predict
a decline over time of the bioavailable amount of
pollutants in sediments. This natural recovery may
be an acceptable remedial alternative if several con-
ditions are met:
35
-------
A.]. NEWELL
• Reduction of the amounts of bioavailable
contaminants in the sediments should not be
a result of contaminants being washed
downstream and simply diluted throughout
the system;
• Recovery once achieved must be expected to
be permanent and cannot be stirred up again
by predictable high flows, storms, or human
activity; and
• Time to recovery must be "acceptable." Is 20
years an "acceptable" time to wait for
contaminants such as PCB or dioxin to be
buried by sedimentation and result in
reductions of fish flesh residues to safe
levels?
Permanent versus Temporary
Solutions
Most proposed solutions are generally temporary.
However, there are some areas (at least in New York
State) where sediment contamination is so great (for
example, in percent levels of persistent organics)
that fixation and/or containment either in-place or
off-site is probably not the most sensible solution. In
these situations, a permanent solution would be
best.
Some permanent solutions are available that
hold promise for immediate use. For example, haz-
ardous waste incinerators that are run at maximum
efficiency and with all available emission controls
can achieve high destruction and low toxic pollutant
emission levels. Where incineration is proposed, risk
to humans and natural resources from emissions
should be fully assessed and a determination made
as to acceptability of the emissions. How to make
that determination is another story.
National Sediment Criteria
Funding
It is easy to imagine a scenario in which national
sediment criteria are adopted and programs imple-
mented to ensure that clean sediments do not ex-
ceed criteria and to require that contaminated
sediments are cleaned up, to some extent. Full
Federal funding would make such a program easy to
bear. However, it is probably safer to assume that
funding would involve some sort of a
Federal/State/local cost-share program.
In the Northeast where, in 1991, recession is
quite deep, States and local governments would
probably have great difficulty in coming up with
funding. Industry's ability to pay for any respon-
sibilities mandated by a new sediment quality pro-
gram may also vary greatly.
Given these limited resources, what should
States do? One way to get more for our dollars is to
bypass some of the costly sediment assessment work
in certain situations. For example, where there are
ongoing loads from either point or nonpoint sources
of nonpersistent pollutants that are known to con-
taminate sediments, States can cut right to develop-
ing control and prevention programs. EPA should
take the lead for making the generic case that any
discharge of such pollutants causes sediment con-
tamination and waterbody use impairments and
that prevention and control programs are necessary
and should be implemented immediately. These
should be adequate measures to take since many
nonpersistents will respond to "natural recovery."
There are some other funding and resource im-
plications when it comes to remediation of con-
taminated sediments. Through the Federal
Superfund, and in New York State, the State super-
fund, some contaminated sediments will be cleaned
up. Presumably these programs will not clean up all
contaminated sediments but will deal only with
those considered most polluted. Once we remediate
the most contaminated sediments, perhaps we
should consider cleaning up only those that cause
some significant threat or whose costs from use im-
pairments outweigh remedial costs. In other words,
we should be judicious when expending public funds
for remedial activities.
Where private parties are found responsible for
sediment contamination, we should still be careful
when requiring remediation expenditures. When
remediation is not considered feasible, possible, or
cost effective, an additional course can be followed:
damage claims can be pursued to compensate for
lost use of resources as a result of sediment con-
tamination caused by private parties.
Conclusion
At least one theme seems to emerge from the Sedi-
ment Management Strategy panel: sediment
criteria will probably indicate that many or most
sediments are contaminated. Sediment manage-
ment strategies must prioritize sediments for
cleanup and help determine how many get cleaned
up and the consequences that may result from those
that are not remediated.
36
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 37-40
Sediment Standards Development in
Washington State
G. Patrick Romberg
Water Quality Planner
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
Seattle, Washington
Introduction
Washington is one of the first States to adopt official
standards for regulating the concentration of toxic
chemicals allowed in underwater sediments.
Less than three years ago, the Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority directed the State Depart-
ment of Ecology to develop sediment standards that
could be used to regulate sources of sediment pollu-
tion and prioritize existing problem areas. Hard
work by the Department of Ecology and consultants
resulted in the 120-page regulation (WAG 173-204),
adopted March 1991, that will be administered
through the Federal National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits that the
Department of Ecology issues to industrial and
municipal dischargers.
Currently, these standards will be applied only
to marine sediments in the Puget Sound region be-
cause site-specific data were used to generate the
values. Specific values will be added for freshwater
and other marine sediments as these criteria are
developed.
A unique feature of the proposed regulation is
that it defines both a "no adverse effects" level and
an acceptable "minor adverse effects" level that are
used to guide sediment management decisions
regarding source control and cleanup. The no effects
level, the recommended goal set for all sediments, is
defined as the official sediment quality standard.
A maximum minor effects level is used to set an
upper limit for conditions that are allowed to exist
in sediment impact zones established as part of
source control standards. Sediments that exceed
this level are required to undergo a remedial inves-
tigation as defined by the sediment cleanup stand-
ards.
Representatives from numerous regulated dis-
charge sources participated in sediment advisory
committees and endorsed the idea of prioritizing
sediment cleanup efforts and allowing sediment im-
pact zones. However, the regulated members of
these advisory groups believe that Washington's
Department of Ecology is moving too fast to adopt
sediment standards without proper verification of
proposed methods.
This presentation provides an overview of the
new regulation and recommends areas for research.
Sediment Contamination in
Fuget Sound
Sediment contamination in the Puget Sound region
has been partially assessed by numerous surveys
that measured sediment chemistry values and per-
formed biological sediment tests. Results of these
studies showed that problem areas are primarily lo-
cated in embayments near urban industrial centers.
Several areas within Puget Sound that have been
designated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Superfund sites are in various stages of inves-
tigation and potential remediation.
Results of two previous activities played a major
role in the approach Washington's Department of
Ecology selected to develop sediment standards.
Studies at the Superfund site in Commencement
Bay resulted in the development of the apparent ef-
37
-------
G.P. ROMBERG
fects threshold (AET) approach for deriving numeric
chemical values that would be expected to produce a
detrimental biological response. The AET approach
was then employed in the Puget Sound Dredge Dis-
posal Analysis to develop a regulatory framework
for determining suitability of dredge material for
open water disposal. Extensive public review and
acceptance of this process, along with biological test-
ing methods, served as guides for developing sedi-
ment management standards.
New Sediment Management
Standards
The proposed regulation includes three separate
standards for managing the quality of sediments:
• Sediment quality standards,
• Source control standards, and
• Sediment cleanup standards.
Each is defined by a list of numeric chemical
values and specific biological testing responses.
These sediment quality standards define condi-
tions that would be considered acceptable anywhere
in Puget Sound. They are based on the desired goal:
that no adverse effects should occur to biological
resources or to human health. Currently, the regula-
tion defines only no effects criteria for environmen-
tal protection; human health criteria have not been
established. No effects criteria for environmental
protection are the same whether specified by
numeric chemical values or biological testing, as il-
lustrated in Figure 1.
"NO EFFECTS" CRITERIA
NUMERIC CHEMICAL VALUES
Ref.
Cone.
I
t
High
Cone.
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Figure 1.—Numerical chemical values and biological
tests are used to define a no effects level set as the
sediment standards goal. The horizontal arrow repre-
sents the level of sediment contamination Increasing
from reference area concentrations to high level sedi-
ment concentrations.
The AET Approach
The AET approach was chosen by Washington's
Department of Ecology as the method for deriving
numeric chemical values for environmental protec-
tion. The lowest AET value for four biological tests
was used to derive no effects values for 47 chemi-
cals, including eight metals and 39 organics. Sedi-
ment concentrations must pass all 47 numeric
criteria to comply with the no effects sediment
standard. The Department of Ecology prefers to use
the AET approach because it is based on local data
and allows definition of a large number of chemical
criteria. The disadvantages of AET are that the
values are not true cause and effect values, nor do
they define a specific level of environmental protec-
tion.
The AET approach is only one of several
methods that can be used to define numeric chemi-
cal criteria, as indicated by the listing in Table 1. A
different approach, equilibrium partitioning, is
being used by EPA headquarters to develop national
sediment standards. There are potential problems
in the fact that Washington State's and EPA's na-
tional programs use different approaches to estab-
lishing sediment standards. Moreover, all of the
regulated discharge source representatives par-
ticipating on the two sediment standards advisory
committees have unanimously opposed using the
AET approach because the values are not based on
demonstrated cause and effects.
Table 1.—Five approaches for developing numeric
chemical criteria for environmental protection.
Apparent effects threshold (AET)
Equilibrium partitioning (EP)
Screening level (SL)
Spiked sediment bioassay (SSB)
Reference area concentration
Biological Testing
Biological testing can confirm or overrule the sedi-
ment quality classification established by using
numeric chemical criteria. A specified protocol re-
quires three separate biological tests: two acute and
one chronic. The no effects criteria is met only if all
three biological tests pass. If only one biological test
fails, then the sample is considered a minor effect
and could be allowed in a sediment impact zone, as
shown in Figure 2. If more than one biological test
fails, the sample would exceed the minor effects
level, which would indicate that a sediment cleanup
evaluation is required.
The concept of minor effects is a critical factor in
successfully implementing sediment standards.
This approach assumes some level of minor effect
that is acceptable for a period of time while other
higher priority sediments are addressed. Figure 2 il-
lustrates how the two criteria levels relate to in-
creasing sediment concentration and different
38
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 37-40
No
Effect
Level
Maximum
Minor
Effect
Level
Ref.
Cone.
I
I
Sediment
Impact
Zone
Sediment
Clean Up
Required
Figure 2.—Sediment management options are Increased
by establishing both a no effects level and an accept-
able minor effects level. This approach allows the large
task of sediment clean up to be prioritized In a logical
and workable manner.
management options. Even if a perfect no effects
level can be defined for all chemicals, the values will
be so low that large geographic areas of sediment
will exceed these standards.
Since it is impractical to clean up all these sedi-
ments simultaneously, concentrations must be
prioritized into ones that must be cleaned up and
ones that can be managed in place. Sediment con-
centrations between the no effects and maximum
minor effects levels would be eligible for a sediment
impact zone, while sediments above these levels
would be required to be cleaned up.
Sediment Impact Zones
Sediment impact zones are administered as part of
the sediment source control standards designed to
limit discharge loading so that all sediments even-
tually achieve standards. This approach provides a
way to regulate sediments that exceed the no effects
level but where concentrations are not high enough
to warrant immediate cleanup.
An acceptable size for a sediment impact zone is
predicted by using mathematical dispersion models.
The overall goal is to keep the area of influence as
small as possible and, eventually, eliminate it.
Eligibility for obtaining a sediment impact zone is
limited to discharges that receive all known, avail-
able, and reasonable treatment (AKART). Substan-
tial monitoring is necessary to comply with specific
sediment impact zone size requirements included in
the Federal NPDES permit.
Maximum conditions allowed in a sediment im-
pact zone are set at the maximum minor effects
level. Biological testing protocols define this level as
allowing no more than one of three biological tests
(two acute and one chronic) to fail. Corresponding
chemical criteria were derived by selecting the max-
imum concentration that would allow only one of the
AET biological tests to fail. Numeric criteria values
listed for maximum minor effects are generally
higher than values listed for no effects levels. How-
ever, correlations in the AET database resulted in
10 of the 47 compounds having identical values for
both standards.
All the representatives of regulated discharge
sources supported the idea of prioritizing sediment
cleanup efforts and allowing lower priority sedi-
ments to be regulated by monitoring in-place sedi-
ments. However, they are concerned that the
modeling approach used to define sediment impact
zones might be too complicated and therefore want
the methods validated before adoption.
The Department of Ecology plans to use two
EPA mathematical models (CORMIX and WASP4),
which may lack the required accuracy for defining
sediment impact zones.
Sediment Cleanup Standards
Sediment cleanup standards define the maximum
sediment concentration allowed before triggering a
mandated requirement to perform both a sediment
cleanup evaluation and a sediment cleanup action.
These same trigger values define the maximum
sediment concentration that can be left on the bot-
tom after remediation and therefore are called the
minimum cleanup level.
The goal of every remediation project is to
achieve the no effects level specified in the sediment
quality standards. However, some flexibility is
available during project design to consider both cost
and feasibility. A modified design is allowed if it is
justified and final sediment cleanup levels do not ex-
ceed the minimum cleanup level values. The sedi-
ment cleanup trigger value is set equal to the
maximum minor effects level allowed in the sedi-
ment impact zone, to avoid overlapping the two
standards. As a result, both standards contain the
same list of numeric chemical values and biological
criteria. Provisions are allowed for achieveing sedi-
ment standards through natural recovery, provided
this process occurs within 10 years.
Washington's State Department of Ecology cur-
rently views the maximum minor effects level as a
fixed number that cannot be exceeded during any
cleanup action. This strict interpretation was op-
posed by all representatives of regulated discharge
sources, who believe there should be more flexibility
in administering the minor effects level. Some dis-
chargers are recommending a risk assessment/risk
management approach for making decisions about
cleanup levels. Risk management is routinely used
at Superfund sites to guide decisions about cleaning
up contaminated terrestrial sediment and could be
applied to marine sediments.
39
-------
G.P. ROMBERG
An alternative methods provision is included in
the regulation that would allow the use of risk
management if prior approval is granted. However,
results of this analysis will not be cause to allow
values to exceed the established maximum minor ef-
fects level.
Table 2.—Six issues that need appropriate criteria.
"No effects" numeric sediment standard
Meaningful biological tests
Acceptable "minor effects" level
Time period to achieve compliance
Trigger for starting clean up evaluation
Approach for using risk management decisions
Conclusion
The experience gained during development of sedi-
ment standards for Washington State indicates that
research is needed in several areas. Recommended
research topics for EPA (summarized in Table 2) in-
clude:
• EPA should verify that numeric sediment
standards are set at an appropriate level to
define the no effects level for both environ-
mental and human health. Several areas of
the country are already developing these
values based on the apparent effects
threshold approach, which cannot define a
true cause-effect relationship for specific
chemicals. A different equilibrium partition-
ing approach is being used by EPA head-
quarters to develop proposed national
sediment standards in coordination as
needed.
• EPA should ensure that standard biological
test methods are developed and verified as
alternatives to numeric sediment criteria.
Validation is necessary to ensure that these
biological tests are indicative of a true en-
vironmental effect in the local receiving
water where they are applied. Tests should
not be selected just because they are quick
and relatively inexpensive to run (for in-
stance, Microtox). Critical decisions regard-
ing expensive sediment remediation projects
require meaningful tests.
EPA should establish an acceptable maxi-
mum minor effects level that can be used to
prioritize sediment cleanup actions. It is un-
reasonable to expect all areas to comply with
an ideal no effects level, especially in heavily
urbanized embayments.
EPA should establish an appropriate period
to reach compliance. This approach would
take advantage of natural recovery proces-
ses and help prioritize resources for active
cleanup projects. Also, EPA should develop
and validate mathematical models to predict
sediment recovery rates.
EPA should establish appropriate chemical
and/or biological criteria values that could
serve as triggers to initiate a cleanup inves-
tigation. Provisions should be developed to
allow consideration of both cost and techni-
cal feasibility in determining the ap-
propriate cleanup level.
EPA should develop a risk assessment-risk
management approach to making decisions
about maximum concentrations for sediment
impact zones and minimum concentrations
for sediment cleanup levels. Ideally, this ap-
proach should be consistent with the risk
management decision process used to direct
cleanup at contaminated terrestrial sites.
40
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 41-42
A National Sediment Strategy
Beth Millemann
Executive Director
Coast Alliance
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
The Coast Alliance is a national coalition of coastal
activists who are dedicated to protecting and wisely
managing the resources of this Nation's four coasts:
Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico.
We chair a working group of environmental leaders,
formed in response to citizen concerns about threats
to human health and the environment, that sup-
ports creation of a national program to identify,
safely manage, and clean up contaminated sedi-
ments.
In January 1990, at 13 concurrent press events
around the United States, the Coast Alliance and
other environmental organizations released a
citizens' charter calling for a national program to
address problems posed by contaminated sediments.
Two hundred and thirty-five local, State, national,
and international organizations, representing labor
unions and health, fishing, sporting, environmental,
and citizen groups, have endorsed this charter.
This presentation briefly outlines the com-
ponents that citizens believe must be included in a
national sediment management strategy that would
be implemented by regulatory agencies. Many
citizens also believe that these components should
be articulated in new national legislation that would
provide further direction to Federal and State agen-
cies.
The Six Basic Objectives
Legislation was introduced in the 101st Congress
that would have required action on contaminated
sediments. The 102nd Congress will probably
review this legislation when it begins reauthorizing
the Clean Water Act and examining other environ-
mental laws that directly impact sediment quality.
Citizen groups have outlined — and the Coast Al-
liance has endorsed — six basic objectives that
should be included in this legislation.
• Agencies should compile a basic inven-
tory of contaminated sediment sites in
coastal, Great Lakes, and riverine
waterbodies to get a better grasp of the ex-
tent of sediment contamination. According to
An Overview of Sediment Quality in the
United States, a 1987 study conducted for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
"there are hundreds of sites in the United
States with in-place pollutants at concentra-
tion levels that are of concern to environ-
mental scientists and managers. These sites
include all types of water bodies and are
found in all regions of the country."
The study also states that every major
harbor in the United States is contaminated
from sources upstream, in the adjacent area,
and from ship traffic. Therefore, the study
concludes, in-place pollutants probably occur
in all types of waterbodies within the United
States.
Research conducted by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) echoes this report. Since 1986,
NOAA's National Status and Trends Program
has been systematically monitoring 200 es-
tuarine and coastal sites, checking mussels,
oysters, and sediments for different pol-
lutants. According to testimony given by
NOAA in July 1989, 'This data reveals the
truly national extent of the problem of toxic
contamination of sediment, fish and shellfish
41
-------
B. M1LLEMANN
throughout the Nation's coastal waters." In
the U. S. portion of the Great Lakes alone, 27
areas have contaminated sediment, and work
done by NOAA and other agencies indicates
that our marine coasts are experiencing
similar difficulties.
The National Research Council's (NEC)
Committee on Contaminated Marine Sedi-
ments has concluded, in its 1989 report, that
"sediment contamination is widespread
throughout U.S. coastal waters and poten-
tially far-reaching in its environmental and
public health significance." The NEC listed
effects from contaminated sediments in at
least two broad arenas: impacts to the
aquatic environment and resident or
migratory fish, shellfish, birds, and other
animals, and human health impacts from a
contaminated food chain and direct exposure.
Citizen groups also urge creation of an
EPA-administered national program to
clean up and remediate contaminated
sediments. As part of this program, EPA
would develop strategies and incentives that
encourage use of new and emerging tech-
nologies. Some technologies are being
developed by EPA's Assessment and
Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
Program through its Great Lakes National
Program office, as well as the Superfund In-
novative Technology Evaluation Program.
However, decontamination technologies
must be developed alongside those for dis-
posal. Confining research and development
to in-place capping and other containment
techniques is not sufficient. EPA and other
agencies must pay attention to decontamina-
tion technologies in the work underway on
the five priority areas of concern within the
Great Lakes. Demonstration projects should
be authorized at sites on the marine coasts,
as well, to further develop decontamination
techniques for marine sediments.
Citizen groups believe that sediment
quality criteria and standards must be
developed to help protect clean sediments,
remediate contaminated sediments, and bet-
ter manage disposal of sediments in confined
disposal facilities and at ocean dumpsites.
Strong sediment quality criteria and stand-
ards should form the backbone of our nation-
al sediment management strategy.
As part of a management strategy, citizen
groups advocate phasing out open water
disposal of contaminated sediments
over, at the maximum, 20 years. Harbor
muds are dumped at more than 100 licensed
ocean dumpsites annually. Moreover, ade-
quate sediment quality criteria will reveal
that contaminated muds are currently
ocean-dumped. A phase out must occur if
aquatic ecosystems and the important
fisheries, wildlife, and recreation values
they support are to be fully protected from
contaminants.
Methods to greatly increase implemen-
tation of source control, •waste pre-
treatment, and pollution prevention
measures must be implemented. Citizen
groups recommend provisions in the Clean
Water Act to control poison runoff and direct
discharges into riverine and coastal waters.
Lastly, a coordinated funding mech-
anism to pay for removal and cleanup of
sediments must be created. Different
financing mechanisms should be con-
templated, including user fees, State and
local matching grants, fines for spills and
other unintentional releases and discharges,
court revenues from actions taken against
Clean Water Act and Ocean Dumping Act
violators, and creation of a National Con-
taminated Sediment Restoration Trust
Fund.
Conclusion
The need for a comprehensive national sediment
strategy that includes these six basic steps has been
endorsed by 235 citizen groups. Growing concern
over the impacts to the aquatic environment and
human health from exposure to contaminated sedi-
ments makes the creation and implementation of
such a strategy critically important.
42
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 43-49
Sediment Management at the Port
of Oakland
James McGrath
Environmental Manager
Port of Oakland, California
Introduction
The Port of Oakland must deal with sediment
deposited in its berths and navigational channels
and dispose of that material in a time of increasing
environmental awareness. There are a number of
different legislative and regulatory efforts moving
toward water quality criteria for marine sediments,
including the Torres Bill in California (S.B. 479) and
the Mitchell Bill (S.B. 1178), which was considered
in the 1990 Congress. The port's efforts and respon-
sibilities provide an in-practice example of the im-
plications of sediment regulation.
The Harbor Deepening Project
The Port of Oakland was one of the innovators of the
container trade and at one time accounted for 80
percent of the West Coast traffic in containers. Now,
since it is the only major harbor on the Pacific Rim
that does not have a depth of -44 mean lower low
water, the port's share has slipped to 15 percent of
the West Coast traffic. Although there are other
reasons for this loss of share, our cargo throughput
could be 25 to 33 percent higher with a deeper har-
bor.
The port began planning for harbor deepening
in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers in
1974, when deep draft vessels too large for the
Panama Canal but ideally suited for the Pacific Rim
trade were being planned by shipping companies.
Although Congress has authorized and funded the
deepening project, neither the port nor the Corps
has been able to complete it because of controversy
over marine disposal of the dredging material.
Nevertheless, shippers have built these larger ves-
sels, which now serve the Pacific Rim, and the port's
inability to harbor those vessels has cost it dearly
through the loss of shipping traffic.
The controversy over disposal sediment involves
the approximately 7 million cubic yards of material
that must be removed to deepen the inner and outer
harbors (Figs. 1 and 2). Disposal of material dredged
from navigational channels in San Francisco Bay
has been controversial since the mid-1980s when ac-
cumulated sediment at the approved aquatic dis-
posal site near Alcatraz Island started to affect
navigation.
Efforts to reduce the mounding by slurrying has
reduced the amounts accumulated but has exacer-
bated concerns about turbidity and bioaccumulation
at the site and surrounding areas. In addition, past
disposals have left high levels of contaminants, par-
ticularly polycyclic aromatic hydro-carbons (PAHs),
and there is concern about the potential effects of
bioaccumulation in the benthic community and at
higher trophic levels.
There are no ocean disposal sites designated
within 50 miles of the entrance to San Francisco
Bay. A site at the 100 fathom line west of the coast
can no longer be used because it is within the boun-
daries of the Gulf of the Farallons National Marine
Sanctuary. Thus, the port is without marine sites for
disposal, regardless of the quality of the material.
San Francisco Bay and its estuarine extension
into the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
43
-------
/. McGRATH
BASM
OAKLAND NCR HARBOR
Figure V.—Oakland Inner harbor, Phase I dredging project.
. X7S «*ASEI
•,"*y.& MEDGMGAAEA
1200'(XA.
TURNMGBASM
OAKLAND WNER HARBOR
PHASE I
DBBWMGAHEA
Figure 2.—Oakland Inner harbor, Phase II dredging project
44
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY' 43-49
<
O
o
LY
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
11628
4056
1221
831
702
353
NOTE: Bars represent tonnes per year of
calculated pollutant loads from
identified sources. It should be noted,
however, that because of inadequate data
the loads for some important categories
of pollutants were not calculated for the
sources shown and are therefore not included
in this figure. Due to the varying toxicity
of different pollutants, bar heights do not
reflect either the toxicity of the pollutants
or their impacts on beneficial uses.
183
139
123
12
72
RIVERINE NONURBAN URBAN POINT DREDGING/ SPILLS ATMOSPHERIC
RUNOFF RUNOFF SOURCE SPOIL DISPOSAL DEPOSITION
SOURCES (S;F' BAY)
| I MINIMUV I I MAXIMUM
Figure 3.—Pollutant loadings to the bay delta estuary (Source: Calif. State Water Resour. Control Board, 1988).
rivers have been badly stressed by human interven-
tion. Fish populations are declining rapidly: the
chinook salmon has been listed as an endangered
species because of its 98 percent decline from his-
toric levels despite hatchery efforts; the striped bass
population is now less than one-quarter the popula-
tion level observed in the 1960s; efforts are under-
way to list the delta smelt as an endangered species;
and populations of American shad have also
dropped dramatically.
The State Water Resources Control Board
(1990) has identified mercury, selenium, and metals
contamination, dioxins, organic contamination, and
aquatic toxicity as critical water quality problems
for the bay and the delta. Mercury, selenium, DDT,
and PCBs have bioaccumulated to levels of concern
in the estuary. Many problems of the bay and delta
appear related to freshwater diversions and habitat
losses, but return flow from agricultural irrigation
and urban runoff have exacerbated the situation.
The loadings from dredging and disposal are rela-
tively small; perhaps 123 metric tonnes out of a
total influx of 17,000 metric tonnes annually (0.7
percent) (Calif. State Water Resour. Control Board,
1988), but the public's concern over these contribu-
tions remains high.
Contaminants in Dredged
Sediment
The levels of contaminants present in dredged sedi-
ment are generally fairly slight; however, some con-
tamination will always be present if pollutants are
discharged into the estuary. Clay particles float
around the estuary and accumulate metal ions and
polar organics until they are so large that they set-
tle. There are three general levels of contaminated
material: material clean enough to dispose of in the
ocean; material that needs some type of manage-
ment for disposal (confined aquatic disposal); and
material that should not be put back into the
marine environment, regardless of management.
Virtually any polar organic or metal discharged
into an estuary will be found in dredged material,
generally at about the same levels as in other
sedimentary sites within the estuary. For example,
mercury is ubiquitous in San Francisco Bay as a
45
-------
/. McGRATH
result of gold mining activities during the late 19th
century; however, there are no good estimates of
how much mercury is tied up in sediments.
For ports, the contaminants of most concern are
those discharged directly into the harbor presently
and within the past 100 years. For the Port of Oak-
land, that includes materials associated with ship-
building (arsenic, copper, and lead from historic
paint operations, and tributyl tin from current
ships), smelting, petroleum transportation, and fuel
burning, particularly coal gassification between the
1860s and 1920s. For ports involved in shipping of
petroleum, these products, usually expressed as
total recoverable petroleum hydrocarbons, are found
at varying levels. PAHs, also found at varying
levels, include a wide array of products such as
those in urban runoff and the preservative creosote
used to treat wood pilings.
Although the public image of polluted material
(particularly in the Port of Oakland) is that it is
commonly found in and around navigational chan-
nels, lakes and estuaries usually contain the worst
areas of contaminated sediments. The Great Lakes
have serious problems with PCB-contaminated sedi-
ments, a significant portion of which reach these
waterbodies through aerial deposition.
In California, the most serious problems of con-
taminated sediments are those associated with dis-
charge of DDT through municipal sewers and the
persistence of mercury in sediments from historic
mining, particularly gold mining. More than 200
metric tonnes of DDT are still present in the sedi-
ments in Southern California. DDT is showing up in
fish tissue at alarming levels, as is mercury in San
Francisco Bay (Calif. State Water Resour. Control
Board, 1990).
As a general rule, navigational channels are
less contaminated than a number of areas within
the estuary because they have been maintained at
-35 feet or more since the 1920s. The Port of Oak-
land has sampled dredged material repeatedly and
is currently awaiting test results completed under
the new ocean disposal protocols (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency/U.S. Army Corps. Eng. 1990). Past
tests on the inner harbor sediments resulted in ap-
proval of all but 27,000 cubic yards of material for
ocean disposal. However, review of those tests and
those for maintenance dredging show that there are
u
O
tc
id
0.
70
60 -
50 -
4O
30
20
10
48.7
37
0 0
59.3
4.6
0
6.7
Riverine Non-Urban Urban Point Dredging and Spills Atmospheric
Runoff Runoff Source Spoil Disposal Deposition
SOURCES
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
Figure 4. —Pollutant loadings In San Francisco bay delta—hydrocarbons (PAHs) (Source: Calif. State Water Resour.
Control Board, 1988).
46
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE Zlst CENTURY: 43-49
Ul
Ld
O
£t
LJ
a.
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
4O
30
20
10
O
98.6
93.9
0 O
0 0
5.9
0
0.2 0.4
Riverine Non-Urban Urban Point Dredging and Spills Atmospheric
RunofC Runoff Source Spoil Disposal Deposition
SOURCES
pggj^l MINIMUM ESS9 MAXIMUM
Ffgur* 5. —Pollutant loading* in San Francisco bay delta—total hydrocarbon* (oil and grease) (Source: Calif. State
Water Reaour. Control Board, 1988).
elevated levels of copper, zinc, nickel, and lead in
some of the sediments (Battelle Pacific Northw. Lab.
1988; Harding Lawson Ass. 1989).
A small amount (2,500 cubic yards) of sediment
that was considered too contaminated for ocean dis-
posal was placed behind the levees at Twitchell Is-
land in the delta formed by the Sacramento and San
Joaquin rivers. Monitoring of that sediment
revealed that "the total concentrations of heavy me-
tals in the Oakland Inner Harbor sediment are far
below the Ibtal Threshold Limiting Concentra-
tion. . . It is apparent from all of these comparisons
that the degree of contamination of the Oakland
Inner Harbor sediment is slight" (Patrick, 1990).
More recent tests of Oakland Harbor sediment
show the effects of contaminants in bioassay tests,
particularly tributyl tin and PAHs. At times, the
sediments routinely removed in maintenance dredg-
ing include total PAH levels between 0.5 and 5 parts
per million, levels of concern to California because of
the potential for bioaccumulation that may, in turn,
have significant effects. Therefore, many of the
port's current analytical efforts are directed toward
evaluating PAH levels.
Sources of Contaminants
There are three general sources of contaminants
within a harbor that are different from those
generally present in an estuary.
1. Historic land uses have left material direct-
ly or indirectly deposited in the estuary.
Shipbuilding and coal gassification are the
most significant of these uses, but the ef-
fects of historic mining activities can still be
found in the high levels of mercury.
2. Material is spilled into the harbor from
shipping activities, such as loading and
fueling. In Oakland, this is less of problem
than at any time in the past; petroleum
shipping has been phased out as Oakland
has become almost exclusively a container
port. The advent of larger vessels into Oak-
land and other ports may mean that older
sediment deposits buried under more recent
sediments are being pushed around and
recycled through biological activity, tides,
and currents.
3. Perhaps most significantly, urban runoff is
still flowing into our harbors. Relatively lit-
47
-------
J. McGRATH
tie is known about the sources of PAHs, but
research indicates that they could be com-
ing from urban runoff. As Figures 3 to 5
demonstrate, about 48 percent of the PAHs
are coming from urban runoff and about 4
percent from dredged material disposal
(Calif. State Water Resour. Control Board,
1988).
The levels of PAH often measured—0.5 to 5
parts per million—may be entirely associated with
urban runoff. The contamination might originate in
runoff from the port, but the terminal area of the
Port of Oakland is just over a square mile, a trivial
portion of the urban drainage to the Oakland es-
tuary, much less the bay. Thus, most of this material
must be coming from the streets and parking lots of
the developed urban areas surrounding San Fran-
cisco Bay.
Disposal of Dredged Material
A number of beneficial uses have promise for
dredged material: reinforcement of levees in the
delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers,
construction of marshes, construction fill, and daily
cover in a landfill. The Port of Oakland is presently
examining more than eight upland sites as alterna-
tives to marine disposal for the 560,000 cubic yards
we seek to dredge to deepen the inner harbor (Fig.
6). Obviously, the quality of the material, both in
terms of geophysical properties and contaminants,
plays a major role in determining which of these
sites is suitable, and the lack of clear guidance or
standards on the quality requirements for these
beneficial uses complicates our analysis.
California is moving toward sediment criteria
rather than standards, and we are working with the
State in several projects that would allow upland
placement of sediments with elevated concentration
of PAHs. However, the bottom line for upland dis-
posal, as with ocean and in-bay disposal, is that no
one seems to want this material in his/her backyard.
Despite nearly three years of effort, we are not cer-
tain that any upland disposal sites will actually be
permitted by the end of 1991, when our deepening
project is scheduled to begin.
The greatest concern is sediment that contains
such high levels of contaminants that it requires
management. This sediment has historically been
deposited in our waterways and has contributed to
our bioaccumulation problems. Just before I left
EPA, we were developing the elutriate test, which
we thought was the answer to sediment testing
questions. Since then, we have dumped a lot of
APPROXIMATE SCALE
IN MILES
Figure 6.—Upland sites considered for disposal of dredged material.
48
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 43-49
material high in PAHs in San Francisco Bay that
met that test, and those materials that didn't stay at
the disposal sites have been recycled through the es-
tuary. When we search for answers, we also must
recall that the worst sites are not in the navigation-
al channels but at various places where historic dis-
charge took place.
The chemistry of contaminant movement is fair-
ly elementary. High levels of contaminated metals,
and to a lesser extent organics, should be kept
saturated. As long as they are saturated, they are
bound as low solubility ions and are relatively un-
available except through ingestion and resuspen-
sion. The mechanics of movement and resuspension
are a little more complicated. Wind, waves, and
ships can and do disturb these sediments. We need
to make sure that any site used for dredged material
reduces the redistribution and biological uptake of
these material. We need to consider marine stability
as well; seafloor landslides may be the biggest risk
for spreading DDT sediments in Santa Monica Bay.
The economic picture is most complicated for
ports, given their role as keepers of channels.
Dredging with disposal in San Francisco Bay costs
the Port of Oakland about $2 per cubic yard when
economies of scale are achieved. Disposal at an ap-
proved site at 50 fathoms 23 miles offshore was con-
tracted at a cost of $3.50 per cubic yard. Our best
estimates for marsh creation is $13.50 per cubic
yard, and upland disposal as daily cover in a
landfill, $20 to $30 per cubic yard—if any landfill
will accept the material.
Disposal of hazardous waste costs over $300 a
cubic yard, but we have not found any hazardous
material in the areas to be dredged. However, estab-
lishment of a new upland disposal site for dredged
material may involve many aspects of siting a new
sanitary landfill. Certainly some upland disposal
will be required of some material found in naviga-
tional channels. However, for the Port of Oakland,
pressures to seek upland disposal of material that
would meet the criteria for ocean or bay disposal
might render harbor deepening economically in-
feasible because upland disposal could add as much
as $70 million to the cost of a project presently es-
timated at $80 million. The port could not afford to
deepen the harbor if the project cost increased by
$70 million. If that happens, contaminated material
that would have been removed to an upland site in
harbor deepening will, in fact, be left in the water.
Conclusions
To my mind, the only solution that will reduce the
exposure of marine organisms to contaminants in
the next 20 years is confined aquatic disposal. In
San Francisco Bay, there is a pit from which
22,000,000 cubic yards of sand were mined. This pit
could be used for disposal of dredged material at an
estimated cost of $2 to $6 per cubic yard. The site is
located where wave and currents would not
redistribute dredge material.
To the San Francisco Bay environmental com-
munity, suggesting use of this site for dredge dis-
posal is synonymous with heresy. However, only
through solutions in an economic range that allow
cleanup of existing problems can the nation's ports,
through their navigation projects, be part of the
solution. The regulatory and the regulated com-
munities must cooperate to find creative solutions to
the problems of contaminants that are already in
our waterways, to prevent new contaminants from
reaching those waters, and to remediate sites that
are contributing to contamination. We must also
recognize that sediments already in the water must
be managed.
When accomplishing that task, if we panic over
evaluation and regulation of sediments that contain
small concentrations of contaminants but need
management, then the real problem, the badly con-
taminated sediments, stay in the water while we
argue. The current stalemate serves neither the
shipping industry nor the environment.
References
Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. 1988 Confirmatory
Sediment Analyses and Solid and Suspended Particulate
Phase Bioassays on Sediment from Oakland Inner Har-
bor, San Francisco, California. Sequim, WA.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1988. Pol-
lutant Policy Document, San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta Estuary. Sacramento.
. 1990. Functional Equivalent Document, Development
of Water Quality Control Plans For: Inland Surface
Waters of California and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of
California. Sacramento.
Harding Lawson Associates. 1989. Final Water Quality Impact
Evaluation Land Disposal of Dredged Sediments from the
Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda County, California. Rep.
prep, for Port of Oakland. Novato, CA.
Patrick, W.H., Jr. 1990. A Field and Laboratory Investigation
of Toxic Heavy Metal Release from Oakland Inner Harbor
Sediments. Baton Rouge, LA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. 1990. Draft Ecological Evaluation of Proposed
Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Water.
Washington, DC.
49
-------
f;t;f^J;|f^^li:^i»
" " -
,. .
-------
WATER QLMUTY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 51-53
Water Quality Criteria and Standards: An
Industrial Viewpoint
Geraldine V. Cox
Vice President-Technical Director
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Water quality in the United States has improved
significantly in the past 20 years. Industrial pollu-
tion is now less than 10 percent of the remaining
contamination in the Nation's waters (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990). Nonpoint sources, combined
stormsewer overflows, and municipal wastewater
treatment facilities remain the major sources of
water pollution. We should pause and recognize this
progress as we address the remaining contamina-
tion.
Water quality criteria and water quality stand-
ards have been fundamental to the Clean Water Act
from the beginning. The first criteria were
developed by a group of external experts; only later
did the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) assume this role.
Problems of setting acceptable levels for criteria
have continuously plagued scientists. In the begin-
ning, few toxicological or environmental data ex-
isted to support the levels set by criteria documents.
Later, levels of toxic materials were set at or below
levels of detection with little regard to the actual
toxicity of the materials in question. The theory was
that any level of a toxicant was too much; yet,
toxicity is the combination of the inherent proper-
ties of the material, the concentration of the
material, and the exposure. All too often these fac-
tors are not considered in conjunction with each
other.
The practice of risk assessment has matured
considerably since the original water quality criteria
were developed, and the latest versions of the
human health criteria, now 10 years old, do not
reflect this greater understanding of risk assess-
ment technology.
States' use of water quality standards is often in
conflict with the discharge permits. The assumption
is that control of point discharges will result in con-
trol of water quality. When the water quality stand-
ards are not met, regulators and the public often
expect additional controls on the level of industrial
discharges. However, if industrial point discharges
represent less than 12 percent of the remaining
water pollution (Counc. Environ. Qual. 1987), total
removal will still not address the remaining 88 per-
cent. Furthermore, standards should not be set at
levels below analytical detection because they can-
not be enforced.
Risk Assessment
Methodology
Risk assessment methodology is a viable tool in set-
ting water quality criteria. EPA should review the
standards based on proper risk assessment
methodology. Furthermore, current risk assessment
procedures used by the EPA should be modified in
the following areas:
• Risk assessment should be purged of
conservatism or margins of safety that are
clearly risk management decisions. No policy
assumptions should be made in calculating
risks.
• The linear multistage model is unjustified as
a method of scientific risk assessment. Risk
assessments should use most likely estimates
of risk and exposure, not worst case
assumptions.
• When available, human epidemiological data
that are valid should be incorporated into the
51
-------
G.V.COX
risk assessment and given more weight than
animal toxicological studies.
• Animal extrapolations are problematic and
may be misleading when animal tests are
conducted under the maximum tolerated dose
requirement. Combining benign and
malignant tumors when not scientifically
justified and preferentially using surface area
over body weight for extrapolation factors are
questionable practices for quantifying
potential risks.
• Risk assessments should shift to a weight of
the evidence approach by incorporating data
from positive and negative studies.
Uncertainty in a risk assessment should be
quantified. Full disclosure of assumptions
and their implications for risk management
decisions should be provided.
Many experts are calling for improvements in
the practice of risk assessment. The EPA is aware of
these changes, and they are changing their older
practices of risk assessment in many areas. Water
quality criteria are due for a reevaluation based on
the improved techniques.
Should the list of priority pollutants be
evaluated against a risk assessment background?
Current data on their toxicity might indicate that
many pollutants may not belong on the list. Perhaps
others should be added. Once again, the change in
the list should be based on scientific risk assessment
technology.
Public Participation in
Developing Criteria
Currently, industry and other interested groups con-
tribute to the development of supporting materials
for the water quality criteria and standards. They
provide information on the compounds' toxicology
and, in some cases, epidemiology. When industry is
only invited to comment on the proposed final docu-
ment, its ability to provide useful input is limited.
By the time that industry provides comments, the
Agency is less inclined to incorporate the informa-
tion. The comment period is often too short, which
affects the quality of the input.
States should use the industrial groups in their
area to get support for standards development. For
example, many States have chemical industry coun-
cils and all States have State chambers of com-
merce. The overall quality of the product would
benefit from cooperation between industry and
other groups with State governments.
State Standards
States should set their water quality standards ac-
cording to local conditions. The law is structured so
that the States can issue their own standards, with
EPA approval. EPA should not usurp their authority
by imposing its proposed toxics rule.
Setting criteria at levels that cannot be
measured is unreasonable. Levels should be set on
the basis of risk—not on the levels on nondetection,
an approach that lacks all scientific support. Forc-
ing States to incorporate this scientifically unsup-
portable approach does little to improve water
quality.
The Clean Water Act's national policy is "that
the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts
are prohibited." Using criteria set below the detec-
tion limit is not addressing the issue scientifically
because these "detectable limits" levels are general-
ly below toxic amounts.
Watershed-based Standards
Less than 10 percent of the remaining water pollu-
tion comes from all industrial sources (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990). Between 1960 and 1988, this
Nation reduced the population served by less than
secondary wastewater treatment from 36 million to
26.5 million, but the population not served at all is
essentially the same as it was in 1960: 70 million
(Table 1) (Counc. Environ. Qual. 1990). While this is
a significant improvement, it does not meet the
Nation's needs.
Further tightening of industrial point source
permits will do little to improve overall water
Table 1.—Population served by municipal wastewater treatment systems, by level of treatment, 1960-88.
(MILLIONS OF PEOPLE)
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
Not served
No discharge
Raw discharge
Less ftian secondary treatment
Secondary treatment
Greater than secondary treatment
1960
70.0
na*
na
36.0
na
4.0
1978
66.0
na
na
237.0
56.0
49.0
1982
62.0
na
na
37.0
63.0
53.0
1986
67.8
5.7
1.6
28.8
72.3
54.9
1988
69.9
6.1
1.4
26.5
78.0
65.7
* Not available.
Source Council on Environmental Quality, 1990.
52
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 51-53
quality while increasing costs considerably. The
chemical industry spent $650 million in capital costs
for wastewater treatment in 1989, and gross costs
for water treatment were $1.5 billion. Capital costs
grew 25.1 percent annually between 1984 and 1989.
(Chem. Manuf. Ass. 1990). The primary way that
water quality should be approached at this point is
on a watershed basis. The entire area should be
studied and controls for water quality should be
based on the sources of contamination.
Section 208 of the 1972 Amendments to the
Clean Water Act was designed to coordinate water
quality programs. Over time, many documents were
produced but State governments failed to coordinate
programs or set priorities for investment based on
watersheds.
Sediment Criteria
EPA's sediment studies have lacked field data sup-
port; therefore, the current attempt to develop sedi-
ment criteria needs additional validation before
these standards are applied in a regulatory environ-
ment. Sediment chemistry is quite complex; many
laboratories are unprepared to do analyses with the
level of confidence necessary for regulatory applica-
tion. The methods must be tested in a variety of
sediment types and salinity variations.
Conclusions
Water quality criteria and standards played a large
part in helping to clean our Nation's waters. It is
time to reexamine the foundation of the criteria on
the basis of the new risk assessment structures. The
water quality criteria and standards process could
be improved by more participation by industry and
other groups with technical information and ex-
perience at an earlier point in the process.
Future water improvements must focus on the
remaining significant sources of the problem—non-
point sources, municipal wastewater treatment
facilities, and combined storm overflows.
References
Chemical Manufacturers Association. 1990. U.S. Chemical In-
dustry Statistical Handbook. Washington, DC.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1990. Twentieth Annual
Report to Congress. Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Meeting the En-
vironmental Challenge: EPA's Review of Progress and
New Directions in Environmental Protection. EPA 21K-
2001. Washington, DC.
53
-------
"V- •_' „'!"'-'">;>\ ''k -v ;"*-,; ;"c'.,;/'/'j"-''<.!t'i!.''i'r 'r ^•••Hi'":""'-^i-r""r,;»,:^f,""'""'"'''
', n " ' ' i " « i > >' l ' I; *• h I*1 ^ ' ' i* ' * 'i 'v'"'"'''* ',• * i* "*,* 'l \. T" \ <• '" ' ^*, (» ii' \ ^ " J V 1'°*^ '' " '"^rfc™"*'"1 **U m.
'* V IL . a' ^<''FV , '' '"l i" '., n\ tn I*1 I f * "i ', ll*,1l> ^ V(> i I' | i"llM '!,> »\ il "l* \ f "'','* * ,»\%l,;l> * V-'''"/1!' ^''^M" ,>>' \: ^'^ i: -^ ^ Jt"/-'9 '". * , I^TT/V^ \ vtft- *•" j^"'
lv', ' '>^i,'"''" 'v -^ ,-'% "' * s^'11 ' -' ' ! ^*\\^ I",1'"' '"''C i- ' CV™ -^°>!,\i>-' !' i,"' 'v 'S^ /„/* - U, ! lfS ,H «^«, t ^> r,l''™'t "L»\I^ n"'*1 ' '^f"'° «"*1°"^jJt\"""
i- .;' ;, ;<: '.' -•••
f'
,
,' -71''-'"'•'•''„' '-.,„' ;•"„ ,; ' ',".' •/«!;!" *\' ',';"'"*'••'"~~~"
'"'..- '•;'$''/- ^/^''f'^^'i'^'".'*•"' ?~"
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY; 55-58
Assessment of Contaminated Sediments
Sarah L. Clark
Staff Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund
New York, New Yorfc
Introduction
There is no longer any doubt that contaminated
sediments are found throughout this Nation's fresh-
water and marine coasts and within our lakes and
rivers. And there is little disagreement that
remedial action should be taken where sediments
are severely contaminated. Despite this fact, money
or appropriate management options are usually ex-
tremely limited. The difficulty lies in knowing at
what point sediment-bound toxicants begin affecting
the environment adversely. Because of this problem,
identification and remediation of these areas have
been limited. However, contaminated sediments
must be identified for appropriate management and
remedial action and be incorporated into the water
quality framework that government regulators and
private sector managers work with every day. Ul-
timately, the impact of sediment quality on the en-
vironment and public health should be assessed to
protect clean sediments sufficiently and allow clean
up of already contaminated sediments by increasing
pollution control and natural sedimentation. Other-
wise, this Nation will never meet the Congressional
mandate to restore the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of our waterways.
The increasing number of Federal, State, and
local research and management programs under-
way to characterize the quality of coastal areas and
identify and implement necessary remedies make
sediment assessments mandatory. Metropolitan
New York City alone haa three major Federal
programs: the Long Island Sound Study, the New
York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, and the
New York Bight Restoration Program. In addition,
combined sewer overflow abatement and
stormwater controls are being planned, direct dis-
charge permits are being renewed with tighter
limits, and pretreatment programs are slowly being
implemented, all with the objective of meeting State
water quality standards in coastal receiving waters.
The issue of sediment quality is just beginning to
weigh in — and only on a very limited basis.
Lack of Federal Standards
Thus far, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has done little to promote sediment quality
assessment in such regulatory programs as the
Federal Estuary Program. The longer EPA pursues
this course, the stronger the likelihood that all types
of Federal, State, and local agency programs will be
implemented without considering the impacts on
sediment quality.
The lack of Federal numeric criteria or stand-
ards is a commonly cited reason for not assessing
sediments or factoring them into environmental
programs. Without an enforceable, legally defen-
sible standard, there is substantial institutional
reluctance to require remedies. Also, until recently,
no appropriate benchmarks existed that could even
indicate potential adverse effects caused by pol-
lutants in sediments. Consequently, sediment
chemistry data collected by universities and
regulatory agencies are mostly ignored because of
this gap in knowledge. Pollutant concentrations in
sediments are compared to other data sets from
around the country to gauge a degree of contamina-
tion, but even that kind of analysis convinces few
agencies that a problem even exists, much less that
something needs to be done.
This is particularly troubling for areas such as
the New York-New Jersey Harbor because, out of all
55
-------
S.L. CLARK
the problems it is experiencing, toxics (particularly
heavy metals) have been identified as a major
priority. Metals tend to be in particulate form and
accumulate predominantly in sediments. The major
source of toxic pollutants entering the New York
Bight is dredged sediments from the New York-New
Jersey Harbor that have been deposited in the open
ocean off the New Jersey coast. Therefore, a huge
opportunity will be missed if management plans
and water quality control measures devised for
these coastal areas do not include solutions that will
clean up those contaminated sediments.
Assessment Methods
How can we overcome this problem? Despite the
lack of Federal criteria, other States and regions are
setting standards to assess sediments and guide
policy on managing contaminated sediment. Cur-
rent methods include the apparent effect threshold
approach (AET), used to quantify sediment con-
centrations above which statistically significant
biological effects always occur. These values have
been used by the Puget Sound Dredge Disposal
Analysis to prepare screening and maximum levels
and are the basis for Washington State sediment
quality standards.
The screening level concentrations and bioef-
fects/contaminant co-occurrence analyses ap-
proaches are similar to AET in that they rely on
field-collected data. The spiked-sediment bioassay
approach is a laboratory-based method whereby or-
ganisms are exposed to pristine sediments that have
been spiked with known amounts of pollutants.
Other approaches include the background ap-
proach, where criteria are set at some specified level
above background concentrations, and lastly, the
sediment-water equilibrium partitioning approach,
which sets criteria at the sediment concentration in
interstitial water that does not exceed EPA water
quality criteria. EPA used this method to develop its
recent interim criteria for non-polar organic chemi-
cals and is researching and refining this approach to
develop criteria for metals. However, these regional
or State criteria are not used in areas other than
those they were developed for because of their many
shortcomings.
Federal Surveys
Despite the absence of Federal numeric criteria,
several surveys have been conducted by EPA and
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA) to determine the extent of con-
taminated sediments. NOAA's National Status and
Trends program is the best Federal effort currently
being made to document the quality of marine coas-
tal sediments. This program surveys 200 marine
coastal sites around the United States yearly and
reports on the concentration of heavy metals and or-
ganic chemicals in sediments and the tissues of
mussels and oysters. Major findings of this ongoing
survey have included identification of urban harbors
on both coasts with the highest levels of pollutants
(Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admn. 1988) as well as in-
creasing and decreasing trends indicated by three
years of data on levels of pollutants in mussel and
oyster tissues (Natl. Ocean. Atmos. Admn. 1989).
In March 1990, NOAA's Seattle office issued a
report that shed substantial light on which sites
have the highest potential for adverse biological ef-
fects (Long and Morgan, 1990). By reviewing data
derived from these methods and approaches, infor-
mal guidelines were identified that indicate con-
centrations at which biological effects are likely to
be observed. The report included lower 10 percen-
tile and median concentrations and an overall ap-
parent effects threshold concentration for 11 metals,
total PCBs, 11 pesticides, and 20 polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons. These guidelines were
developed specifically to help interpret the National
Status and Trends program sediment data.
NOAA now ranks the program's 150 sites ac-
cording to those with the highest potential for toxic
effects. A site in the Hudson-Raritan estuary that
topped the list of the 30 most contaminated areas is
followed closely by four others in the same water-
body.
How can these guidelines be useful outside of
the National Status and Trends program? Although
they have no regulatory authority, the guidelines do
provide a starting point for ascertaining where in a
waterbody biological effects occur when sediments
are contaminated. In other words, if a waterbody
has levels of a pollutant in its sediments that are
higher than the guidelines and there is a good de-
gree of confidence in that guideline, there is reason
to recognize that a problem may exist and to con-
sider possible strategies to address it.
Conducting such an exercise can also highlight
which pollutants may be posing the most risk and
which areas of a waterbody should be given priority
if there are many pollutants above the guidelines.
Lastly, it can be used to check against the bulk
chemistry data for pollutants in sediments found
suitable for dredging and open ocean disposal
through the bioeffects tests currently used by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. All in all,
the guidelines provide a means of doing some sort of
assessment until Federal sediment quality criteria
are available. Serious consideration should be given
56
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 55-58
to using these guidelines in a national inventory of
sediment quality to help characterize this environ-
mental problem on a wider scale.
Potential Uses for Criteria
Cleanups
One of the main concerns the Environmental
Defense Fund has with the development of Federal
sediment quality criteria is how potential uses drive
their stringency. Sediment quality criteria must be
fully protective of the most sensitive of aquatic or-
ganisms and should protect unpolluted sites. This
premium on sensitivity demands that only those
pollutant levels with some degree of certain safety
be allowed to build up.
When sediment criteria are used to justify
clean-ups, the premium is on demonstrable
evidence; only those sediments that are known with
some degree of certainty to be contaminated will
warrant the expense of cleanup. Because of scien-
tific uncertainty, the gap between a demonstrable
standard and a sensitive standard can be quite
large. The concentration of a chemical that has
demonstrable effects is generally going to be dif-
ferent from the one that is known to be safe. Thus,
the size of the gray area in between is likely to be
significant.
Federal EPA sediment criteria should not repre-
sent a compromise between demonstrability and
sensitivity. They should be set to protect clean sedi-
ments. Thus, numeric sediment criteria should be
used to drive pollution controls to an appropriate
level that will protect clean sediments and also ul-
timately improve sediment quality by effectively
reducing pollutant discharges. Detoxifying every
ounce of sediment that exceeds the criteria is non-
sensical; instead, agencies should be ratcheting
down on pollutant discharges so that their con-
centration in sediments eventually meets the
numeric criteria. Sediment quality criteria should
be used as water quality standards are: to
strengthen discharge permits and nonpoint source
abatement requirements.
For that matter, sediment quality criteria
should also be used to develop limits on air emission
which are a dominant source of sediment con-
tamination in many regions, among them the Great
Lakes. Meeting and maintaining sediment quality
should be one of the driving forces in wasteload al-
location models that determine which level of pol-
lutant discharge by all sources is allowable in a
waterbody.
This general idea is being incorporated into
policy by the California State Water Resources
Board to establish mass emissions for pollutants to
control accumulation in sediments and biota (Calif.
State Water Resour. Control Board, 1989). Addition-
ally, when feasible, emissions will be frozen to cur-
rent loading levels to prevent increases in sediment
or biota contamination. The Environmental Defense
Fund has advocated use of available indicators of
potentially harmful contamination levels to trigger
this type of emissions strategy (Environ. Def. Fund,
1989). Other States and regions would substantially
benefit from studying this strategy and using it as a
model to guide policies on improving and restoring
waterbodies from all types of pollutant sources.
Open Ocean Disposal
Sediment quality criteria also must be used to deter-
mine which sediments are appropriate for open
ocean disposal. The effects-based tests devised by
EPA and the Corps are no substitute for numeric
criteria, which must be incorporated into the
decisionmaking process. In fact, the Environmental
Defense Fund maintains that the current effects-
based approach fails to protect oceans and aquatic
organisms from contaminated sediments and
numeric criteria are urgently needed to provide a
better measure of environmental protection. Ul-
timately, contaminated sediments should not be dis-
posed of in the ocean, and numeric criteria should be
used to assess what is and is not contaminated so
that dredge material of varying quality is more
properly managed.
There is substantial disagreement about the de-
gree to which sediments are contaminated in the
New York-New Jersey Harbor, in large part because
of the Corps' position on sediment testing and open
ocean dumping criteria. According to the Corps, 95
percent of all sediments tested meet the appropriate
criteria and are deemed suitable for open ocean dis-
posal, because "it will not cause adverse environ-
mental impact." Rather infrequently does the Army
Corps find sediments from navigational projects
that need capping.
It is difficult to reconcile this position with the
evidence that:
• Dredge material constitutes the largest
source of pollutants entering the New York
Bight;
• Sediments and biota at the mud dump site
have elevated levels of pollutants; and
• NOAA has documented sites in the
Hudson-Raritan rivers to have some of the
most enriched sediments nationwide at levels
that have the potential to cause adverse
biological effects.
57
-------
S.L CLARK
This is a case where numeric sediment quality
criteria would substantially help put to rest the
debate over which dredged sediments in the New
York-New Jersey Harbor are appropriate for open
ocean disposal.
Conclusions
The Environmental Defense Fund believes present
indicators of sediment contamination can be used
now to assess sediments and guide policy about
their management. EPA's numeric criteria should
benefit from these indicators and, once they are
derived, be the basis for standards that apply to a
variety of regulatory contexts. Setting numeric
criteria and standards is a major research and
regulatory undertaking that is breaking new scien-
tific ground in the field of environmental science.
Applying sediment quality criteria and standards
and effecting better environmental protection of our
Nation's waters will be one of EPA's biggest challen-
ges.
References
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1989. Pol-
lutant Policy Document: San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Draft). Sacramento.
Environmental Defense Fund. 1989. Summary of Testimony
by Terry F. Young, Ph.D., on the proposed mass emissions
strategy before the State Water Resour. Control Board.
Sacramento.
Long, E.R. and L. Morgan. 1990. The Potential for Biological
Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in the
National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Tech.
Memo. NOS OMA 52. Seattle, WA.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1988. Na-
tional Status and Trends Program Progress Report: A
Summary of Selected Data on Chemical Contaminants in
Sediments Collected During 1984-1987. Tech. Memo.
NOS OMA 44. Rockville, MD.
. 1989. National Status and Trends Program Progress
Report: A Summary of Data on Tissue Contamination
from the First Three Years (1986-1988) of the Mussel
Watch Project. Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 49. Rockville, MD.
58
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 59-66
Sediment Assessment for the 21st
Century: An Integrated Biological and
Chemical Approach
William J. Adams*
Fellow
Richard A. Kimerle
Senior Fellow
James W. Barnett, Jr.
Environmental Toxicology Manager
Monsanto Company
St. Louis, Missouri
Introduction
As we look forward to the 21st century, assessment
of sediment quality appears to be one of several
critical environmental issues. This issue is docu-
mented by a wealth of sediment monitoring data in
the STORET database (Bolton et al. 1985), Super-
fund monitoring activities, and numerous individual
sediment monitoring publications (Lyman et al.
1987). However, the extent and significance of sedi-
ment contamination have not been explored in any
concerted, national manner (Natl. Res. Counc.
1989), and there is considerable uncertainty as to
the potential impact on the aquatic environment. In
response to the concerns about contamination, re-
search underway in government, academia, and in-
dustry is aimed at understanding the mechanisms
of chemical transport, fate, and aquatic toxicity as-
sociated with sediments.
Do We Need Sediment
Quality Criteria?
The answer to this question depends to a large ex-
tent on whether existing regulations under the
Clean Water Act (such as water quality standards
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)) are adequate to protect the
aquatic environment. The most common reasons
given for establishing sediment quality criteria are
to provide additional statutory authority and/or to
establish uniform national standards (Cowan and
Zarba, 1987). Table 1 has summarized previously
reported reasons for establishing sediment criteria.
The information in Table 1 suggests that sedi-
ment quality criteria may not be needed or may not
be appropriate. Foremost among the reasons for this
conclusion are that present methods for deriving
these criteria result in too much uncertainty as-
sociated with the resulting values to use them for
sediment quality standards in regulatory actions.
Numbers derived by any of the present methods
should be considered qualitative, not quantitative.
Additionally, the word "criteria" carries with it a
certain statutory connotation that hinders use of
sediment quality criteria numbers as screening level
tools. We believe that the numbers derived by
present methods for sediments are best represented
as sediment assessment values that could be used
for screening to determine whether additional
toxicological and chemical investigations are
needed.
"William Adams Is now vice president of Aquatic Toxicology Programs at ABC Laboratories, Columbia, Missouri.
59
-------
W./. ADAMS, R.A. K1MERLE, &J.W. BARNETT, JR.
Table 1.—Sediment quality criteria—are they needed?
PERCEIVED NEED
WHY THEY ARE NOT NEEDED
To protect the environment by establishing
national sediment quality objectives
To provide cleanup standards
To afford a means of controlling end-of-pipe
chemical concentrations
To provide regulation of open water disposal of
sediments
There is too much uncertainty associated with sediment quality criteria
derived by current methods.
Sediment contamination is primarily the result of historical events that are
now regulated.
Cleanup decisions can be made using integrated chemical and biological
sediment assessment methods. Decisions based upon cleanup standards or
criteria are only as good as the standards.
Chemicals in effluents are currently regulated by NPDES permits, water
quality criteria, effluent guidelines, whole effluent toxicity tests, and the
reportable quantities statutes. Additional regulations would be redundant and
unnecessary. Regulatory authority exists to control levels of chemicals in
effluents.
Open water disposal of sediments is regulated by the Clean Water Act,
Dumping Permit Criteria, section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act, and the
London Dumping Accords. Issuance of permits currently requires bioassays
to demonstrate lack of toxicity and bioaccumulation before a permit is
issued.
Our review of present regulatory authorities
further indicates that means exist to adequately
control releases of substances to the environment.
Discharge of chemicals are currently regulated
through NPDES permits, water quality standards,
effluent guidelines, whole effluent toxicity tests, and
reportable quantities regulations. Additionally, com-
pliance with section 404(b)(l) of the Clean Water
Act, dumping permit criteria, and section 103 of the
Ocean Dumping Act require the avoidance of "unac-
ceptable adverse effects" when disposing of dredged
sediment. Therefore, the need for additional regula-
tion does not appear to be overwhelmingly obvious.
What is obvious is that sediments must be
protected. It is our contention that this can be
achieved within the existing framework of regula-
tions, statutes, and assessment methods.
Can Sediment Standards
Protect Sediment-dwelling
Organisms?
Sediment standards have been proposed to control
point source discharges by requiring that sediment
levels below a permitted discharge point not exceed
some stated levels and also that suspended solids in
water leaving a permitted facility not contain
chemical concentrations above sediment standards.
Excessive amounts of chemicals in aquatic sedi-
ments near permitted discharges most often result
from one or more releases of chemicals that stem
from a failure of the treatment equipment or some
other event. Sediment standards, like those for
water quality criteria, will not protect against
episodic discharges of chemicals in permitted out-
falls.
There are significant consequences of further
controlling chemicals on suspended solids con-
centrations through effluent particulate limits. Most
permitted effluents have stringent suspended solid
permit limits (10 to 20 mg/L). Further restrictions
will require additional technology, such as sand fil-
ters. Implementation of this technology across the
United States will not eliminate the discharge of
chemicals and would require a major expenditure of
millions of dollars by industry, government, and
municipalities. The amount of discharged solids
would be reduced, but the total benefit to the en-
vironment in terms of load to the ecosystem and
concentrations in sediments below an outfall could
not be expected to improve significantly. This is
primarily because the largest contributor to sedi-
ment chemical concentrations is effluent excursions.
EPA recognizes that the best available source
control will still result in suspended solid deposition
near the discharge point (PIT Environ. Serv. 1988).
EPA also knows that a sediment dilution zone is
needed near the discharge point to accommodate
permitted daily discharges. Therefore, we contend
that promulgation of sediment standards to control
point source chemical discharges will be of little aid
for environmental protection.
Do Existing Water Quality
Criteria Adequately Protect
Sediment-dwelling
Organisms?
Existing water quality criteria and standards do
protect sediment-dwelling organisms—when they
are not exceeded. This premise is based on a wealth
of experience dealing with laboratory and field data
60
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 59-66
and on the thermodynamic laws that govern adsorp-
tion and desorption of chemicals to and from sedi-
ments.
In brief, the theory associated with adsorption
and desorption can be summarized as follows. The
bioavailability of compounds in sediments and their
potential to interact with benthic organisms are
directly related to the extent these compounds are
adsorbed to sediment and controlled by the equi-
libria established between sediment, pore water,
and surface water. The extent of adsorption is a
function of the compounds' chemical properties and
the sediment's physical and chemical properties.
Non-ionic organics, which comprise a majority of
commercial chemicals, will adsorb to sediments in
inverse proportion to their water solubility. Their af-
finity for sediments can be measured experimental-
ly by batch sediment adsorption isotherm studies,
which provide a measure of the sediment—water
partition coefficient (Kp). This value is predictive for
most sediment types if it is normalized for the or-
ganic carbon content of different sediments (Kp=Koc
x Foe; where Koc=carbon normalized sediment partition
coefficient and Foc=fraction organic carbon) (Karickhoff
et al. 1979). Chemical affinity for sediments can be
estimated from a chemical's octanol—water partition
coefficient (Kow).
For ionic organic compounds, adsorption to sedi-
ment is thought to be a function of the sediment's
carbon content and cation exchange capacity (Di-
Toro et al. 1989). With respect to ionic inorganics,
such as metals, an estimate of adsorptive capacity
potentially can be derived from a measure of the
acid-volatile sulfide content of the sediment (DiToro
et al. 1990). As the previous discussion describes,
there are experimental and theoretical methods for
measuring or estimating sediment water partition
coefficients and the resulting equilibria between
sediment and water.
The sediment-water partition coefficient
describes the extent of partitioning that can be ex-
pected for a specific type of sediment for a particular
chemical. When a chemical is discharged in an ef-
fluent into a receiving water over an extended
period, partitioning to the sediment can be expected
in general accordance with the partition coefficient.
Chemicals behave according to the laws that govern
sorption. There is a point of equilibrium where the
desorption rate equals the adsorption rate and no
further net gain of the chemical to the sediment is
expected as long as the chemical concentration
remains constant in the water phase. If an assump-
tion is made that the chemical concentration in the
water is always at or below the water quality
criteria specified for that chemical, then the con-
centration in the sediment should always be at or
below one that would be toxic to benthic organisms.
Therefore, if the water phase concentration is al-
ways below the criteria, chemicals would not be ex-
pected to accumulate in sediments over long periods
until the concentration becomes toxic to benthic or-
ganisms.
The equilibrium partition theory would also
predict that, when chemical concentrations in sur-
face waters are excessive and toxic for an extended
period, the equilibria established between the sedi-
ment and the sediment pore water may also result
in toxic pore water concentrations. Conversely, low
or acceptable concentrations, such as water quality
criteria, would not pose hazards to sediment-dwell-
ing organisms.
This is the linchpin assumption of the equi-
librium approach. Should this assumption be proven
incorrect, reliance on a single approach for deriving
sediment quality criteria from water quality criteria
may result in both underestimations and overes-
timations of the potential effects on benthic species.
As EPA pursues the appropriate use of equi-
librium partitioning (EP) theory and models, it
should recognize that a corollary of the EP theory is
that concentrations of chemicals in effluents at or
below 30-day average water quality criteria are
protective of sediment-dwelling organisms. How-
ever, because of the qualitative nature of the
parameter estimation, equilibrium partitioning
results in a sediment assessment value that is best
used as a screening tool to assess whether adequate
safety can be assured for sediments.
Should the Water Quality
Criteria Concept or Another
Approach Be Applied to
Sediments?
The water quality criteria concept was developed in
the 1960s and early 1970s to protect our Nation's
surface waters by regulating ambient water con-
centrations of individual chemicals. An ambient con-
centration protective of aquatic life has been derived
through extensive acute and chronic aquatic testing
of many different species. The test results comprise
a data set called "water quality criteria." These
criteria are, in turn, used to establish water quality
standards. The question now arises, should we use
this established approach to regulate chemical con-
centrations in our Nation's sediments?
It is our contention that direct use of water
quality criteria for developing sediment quality
criteria is not the best or only way to protect sedi-
ments. While we believe that the water quality
61
-------
WJ, ADAMS, R.A. KIMERLE, &/.VV. BARNETT, JR.
criteria concept has protected surface waters
(Kimerle, 1988; Kimerle et al. 1989), direct applica-
tion of this approach for sediments will be cumber-
some and not as scientifically sound. The water
quality criteria approach is a lengthy and slow
process, requiring 16 acute toxicity tests plus three
chronic tests and a measure of bioconcentration for
at least one species.
For the past 15 years, it has been EPA's intent
to develop criteria for most if not all of the 129
priority pollutants. To date, only 24 water quality
criteria have been promulgated. The slow rate of
criteria development suggests that future efforts to
promulgate sediment quality criteria will be no
faster and probably will be limited to the same set of
chemicals. Many of the 129 priority pollutants are
no longer produced, and releases to the aquatic en-
vironment of those remaining have been significant-
ly reduced.
Use of chemical-specific criteria for water was
facilitated by the fact that chemicals in water are
generally believed to be bioavailable. Further, there
is a good theoretical basis for extrapolating
laboratory toxicity data to effects in the field for a
relatively simple, single-phase system. Chemical
concentrations in water are readily measurable—or
can be readily estimated from flow rates, dilution,
and solubility parameters. Lastly, water is a rela-
tively uniform media.
Estimations of sediment concentrations and
biological effects are much more complex and dif-
ficult. When sorbed to sediments, chemicals are
generally not thought to be bioavailable. Typically, if
a chemical is found in sediment, it has greater af-
finity for sediment than water and only a small frac-
tion is available for biological uptake. Predicting or
measuring the amount that is bioavailable becomes
the critical factor.
Even more problematic is accounting for the
numerous factors involved in the liquid-solid phase
interactions of water and sediments that may have
significant impact on the fate, concentration,
bioavailability, and toxicity of particular chemicals
in different sediments. These factors (Table 2)
reflect the realities that sediment is not a uniform
media and that physical, chemical, physico-chemi-
cal, and site-specific properties may be important in
overall evaluation of sediment quality. Since many
of these factors and their interactions are only
beginning to be investigated and understood, ap-
plication of sediment quality criteria and national
sediment standards in the near future to particular
sites or regions is highly questionable.
Several methods are being developed to
evaluate various aspects of sediment quality. The
equilibrium partitioning approach for developing
criteria is frequently cited as having the advantage
that the existing water quality criteria can be
directly converted to sediment criteria without fur-
ther testing if the octanol—water (Kow) or sediment-
water (Koc) partition coefficient is known for
non-ionic chemicals (U.S. Environ, Prot. Agency,
1989a). This is shown in the following equation;
WQC x Koc=SQC (ocj. This provides a sediment
Table 2.—Factors affecting fate, concentration, and bioavailability of chemicals In sediments.
PROPERTIES CHEMICAL FACTORS SEDIMENT FACTORS
Physical properties
Chemical properties
Physico-chemical properties
Other site- or region-specific
considerations and properties
Solid, liquid, or gas and ionic state
Structure, chemical reactivity
Density
Solubility
Volatility
Partition coefficient (adsorption/desorption)
Dissociation constant
Photolysis
Hydrolysis
Discharge concentration
Discharge volume
Discharge pathway
Discharge variability
Discharge excursion history
Sediment-chemical contact time
Surface area
Particle size
Permeability
Porosity
Specific gravity
Inorganic matrix
Organic content
Ion exchange capacity
Temperature
Oxygen content
pH
Redox potential
Salinity
Sediment depth
Sediment profile
Sedimentation rate
Sediment age
Leaching rates
Water flow rate variability
Water currents
Water exchange/transport
Nutrient inputs
Flow perturbation
Biodegradation
62
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE Zlst CENTURY: 59-66
quality criterion that is normalized for the organic
carbon content of the sediment.
This method assumes that ecological systems
are in equilibrium and kinetic rates of diffusion and
transport are not limiting. It has also been primari-
ly demonstrated for sediments with an organic con-
tent of 0.5 percent or more. Presently, it is unclear
how well the EP approach for sediment criteria ex-
trapolates to real world effect levels. The method as-
sumes that interstitial water is the primary route of
uptake for most sediment-dwelling organisms. Un-
fortunately, there has been no concerted effort to
measure sediment interstitial water chemical con-
centrations in contaminated sediments to confirm
that predicted sediment quality criteria values can
be predicted using equilibrium partitioning theory.
The method appears to be promising and may ul-
timately be validated but now should be primarily
used as a screening level tool.
Other methods (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1990) for assessing sediments, such as the apparent
effects threshold and sediment bioassay approaches,
may also provide ways to develop sediment quality
criteria, following additional development and field
validation. Recently, both the Sediment Criteria
Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board (1989,
1990a,b) and Kimerle et al. (1991) have reviewed
the advantages and limitations of these methods.
This discussion began by asking, should the
water quality criteria approach be used to regulate
chemical concentrations in our Nation's sediments?
We believe the answer is no. The methodology is
lengthy and costly and the potential number of
criteria will be few and then mainly for chemicals,
which are highly regulated already. Confidence in
the scientific accuracy of the predicted sediment
quality criteria will be low. Therefore, we present an
alternative approach in the following section.
How Can We Better Assess
Contaminated Sediments?
A wealth of experience has been obtained on en-
vironmental hazard assessment since a 1977
workshop at Pelleston, Michigan (Cairns et al. 1978)
focused on chemical assessment. Many papers and
books have been published on the subject of hazard
and risk assessment techniques currently being
used by EPA to regulate pesticides and toxic chemi-
cals. The conceptual framework within most of the
current approaches for assessing chemical hazards
makes use of data on chemical exposure and biologi-
cal effects on organisms. The collection and inter-
pretation of these data are usually done in tiers that
allow for periodic decisions to stop if adequate safety
is demonstrated or toxicity is well characterized—or
to collect more data if significant questions still
remain. This approach has proven to be a robust
paradigm for safety assessment that is cost effective
and scientifically sound. We have used this concep-
tual framework to develop an approach for assess-
ing the significance of chemicals sorbed to
sediments (Fig. 1).
A sediment assessment would begin with Tier 1
using sediment assessment values (SAVs) that could
be obtained in a number of ways. For instance, equi-
librium partitioning theory could be used to develop
SAVs for non-ionic organics by normalizing for sedi-
ment organic carbon, or potentially for metals by
acid volatile sulfide normalization (DiToro et al.
1990), or for ionic organics by incorporating cation
exchange capacity (DiToro et al. 1989). In addition,
the apparent effects threshold (AET) method could
be used to develop SAVs. Several other methods are
in the developmental stage.
The Tier 1 SAVs would be used as screening
level concentrations to be compared against en-
vironmental sediment concentrations. If the SAV is
exceeded by the sediment concentration, then addi-
tional sediment assessment is required (Tier 2). If
the value is not exceeded and the margin of safety is
adequate (the ratio between the sediment field con-
centration and the SAV is 2 10), one would not con-
duct additional testing. Limited chronic aquatic
toxicity testing and bioaccumulation estimation may
be desired in some cases where the margin of safety
is small (<10). If no SAV can be calculated for a par-
ticular chemical, then you would conduct Tier 1
screening toxicity tests.
Tier 2 is called an "investigative tier." In this
part of the assessment, the determination is made
whether or not the sediment contains chemicals in
amounts toxic to aquatic organisms or if chemicals
with a high potential to bioaccumulate are below
levels of concern. Additional testing may be required
to define the zone or magnitude of the area impacted
by the chemicals in the sediments (PTI Environ.
Serv. 1988).
It is proposed that the zone-of-impact study
would include both chemical and biological meas-
urements (Fig. 1). If the zone of impact is deter-
mined to be large, then additional testing would be
required, with confirmatory tests (Tier 3). If the
zone-of-impact is small, a decision could be made
that no further action is required or to perform
limited remediation.
Tier 3 is that part of the assessment approach
that would provide in-depth testing of the sediments
in the zone of impact to confirm the significance of
the chemicals to aquatic life and their potential to
move through the food web to other organisms.
63
-------
W./. ADAMS, R.A. K1MERLE, &/.W. BARNE7T, /R.
Sediment Assessment Value (SAV) Available
Tlerl
(Screening)
SAV Comparison With
Sediment Chemical Cone.
Sediment Assessment
Value Not Exceeded:
Margin of Safety Is Large
Sediment Assessment
Value Exceeded or Small
Margin of Safety
STOP ASSESSMENT
• No Toxicity
Tier 2
(Investigative)
Zone of Impact Definition
- Bulk Chemical Measurements to
Define Spatial Area Impact
- Chronic / Subchronlc Bulk
Sediment Bloassays
No Sediment Assessment Value
1
STOP ASSESSMENT
• Zone is Small
Acute Toxicity test / Chronic Bioassay
(or subchronic)
- Bulk Sediment or Pore Water Bioassays
- Bioaccumulation measurement
Toxicity
Zone is Large
Continue Testing
No Toxicity
STOP ASSESSMENT
• No Toxicity
• No Bioaccumulation
Tier 3
(Confirmatory)
Confirmatory Testing Alternatives
• Chronic Sediment Toxicity Testing
- Multi-Species
• Spatial and Depth Toxicity Confirmation
• Infaunal Biological Measurements
• Bioaccumulation (tissue residue)
• Toxicity Identification Evaluation
• Spiked Sediment Toxicity Test
• AET / Triad Evaluation
Site Specific Sediment
Quality Criteria
Figure 1.—Integrated biological and chemical field sediment assessment.
Multi-species chronic toxicity tests, spiked sediment
bioassays, bioaccumulation measurements, and
toxicity identification evaluations could be per-
formed as well as infaunal investigation to deter-
mine impacts on the aquatic life in the zone of
impact. Sufficient data might be collected to perform
an apparent effect threshold evaluation and calcu-
late a site-specific sediment quality criterion.
This integrated biological and chemical sedi-
ment assessment attempts to provide a comprehen-
sive approach by using existing tools to evaluate the
significance of chemicals on sediments without
making use of inflexible criteria. The state of the art
of assessing sediment contamination is not at the
point where a single value can be generated and
used to regulate end-of-the-pipe discharges or site
cleanup levels. While this approach is not entirely
novel and previous investigators have recommended
the use of tiers for assessing sediments (Dickson,
1987), it does provide a comprehensive review of
how existing methodologies can be used to assess
and protect sediments. It is the authors' hope that
this approach can be used to form the framework of
a working approach that will be adopted by EPA.
Conclusion
As we look forward to the 21st century and begin
making plans for further protecting aquatic
resources, we must learn to develop strategies for
evaluating, reducing, or containing sediment con-
tamination. This is neither a simple nor an insur-
mountable task. What is needed is a clear
understanding of our objectives, goals, and proce-
dures. Rapid development of any one procedure or
paradigm does not seem the wisest choice.
Since the passage of the Toxic Substance Con-
trol Act in 1976, the U.S. has evolved an elaborate
set of regulations to control and use industrial
chemicals and pesticides that has been guided by a
general set of principles of hazard assessment
(Cairns et al. 1978). This past approach can provide
a valuable guide as we make plans to protect our
sediments. Similarly, establishing scientific prin-
ciples of sediment assessment can provide guidance
for developing new sediment assessment tools for
control and remediation of chemical releases. The
principles presented in Table 3 are a first attempt to
64
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 59-66
Table 3.—Principles of sediment assessment.
• Many chemicals have an affinity for aquatic sediments, and
past releases have resulted in contaminated aquatic
sediments.
• Our long-term goal must be to protect the environment and
keep excessive amounts of chemicals out of sediments.
• We must learn to assess the significance of sediment
contamination and concentrate efforts on reduction and
remediation of contamination in areas that have the highest
potential to affect humans or the environment.
• Tiered sediment assessment provides a powerful tool for
evaluating the significance of sediment contamination.
• Tiered sediment assessment allows integration of biological
and chemical data.
• A stepwise comparison of sediment concentrations with
biological effect concentrations through a series of tiers can
form the basis for sediment assessment.
• Integrated biological and chemical sediment assessment
procedures provide the opportunity to develop site-specific
sediment quality criteria and, over the long term, develop the
data needed to establish sediment quality criteria.
• Risk, benefit, and cost analyses should be an integral part of
sediment quality assessment and any necessary remediation
activity.
summarize a set of guiding principles for the 21st
century.
There is no consensus within the scientific com-
munity on the best method for developing sediment
quality criteria or whether such criteria are the best
way to protect aquatic resources. Ocean and fresh-
water dumping regulations, sediment bioassays,
and site-specific risk assessment methods are a few
of the methods currently being used to control dis-
position and cleanup of contaminated sediments.
Site-specific risk assessment methods may ultimate-
ly prove more useful than national criteria for
decisionmaking.
Some States and the EPA want to develop
criteria or regulatory levels for sediments before
consensus is reached on the validity of these
methods. We need to proceed carefully with well-
considered science before any single method or
group of methods is selected to develop sediment
criteria. The need to develop sediment quality
standards for end-of-the-pipe control and site
cleanup standards are the primary reasons given for
the urgency to develop criteria; however, it would be
premature. No single method is developed enough to
allow for defensible sediment quality criteria.
We believe that using sediment quality criteria
is not the most effective way to control sediment
chemical concentrations and protect the environ-
ment. However, an integrated biological and chemi-
cal risk assessment approach together with existing
regulations and statutes offer a workable solution.
In this context, it is important to remember that
most sediment contamination problems result from
historic chemical discharges. The conditions that
have allowed this to happen have, for the most part,
been corrected though stricter discharge permits
and by controlling and reporting spills and improv-
ing process controls. When water quality standards
were instituted, they were envisioned as values that
could be used to protect the environment from fur-
ther damage. It was recognized that environmental
concentrations were frequently higher in surface
waters than the criteria that were derived, and it
was perceived that using water quality criteria to
derive effluent standards would be an effective and
scientifically sound way to control concentrations of
chemicals in point source discharges and, ultimate-
ly, the receiving water.
Unfortunately, the establishment of sediment
quality standards will not produce the same results.
Chemicals are already highly controlled at the point
of discharge and further control will provide little
environmental improvement. Development of sedi-
ment quality standards using existing method-
ologies will result in values that are much lower
than currently exist in many of our waterways and
coastal zones. Mandating implementation of these
standards will not reduce environmental sediment
chemical concentrations that have resulted from
past releases, especially for persistent chemicals.
National remediation of aquatic environments
on a broad scale to achieve sediment standards is
not practical nor feasible. The impact of deriving
criteria for point source control, remediation stand-
ards, and open water disposal of sediments with im-
precise methods could have major economic
consequences without appreciably reducing the
risks to the environment. Therefore, the approach
that is used to protect and improve sediments must
be scientifically sound and cost effective, and must
provide environmental and societal benefits.
EPA's Office of Water is reviewing how sediment
criteria might be implemented under the Clean
Water, Marine Resources, and Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery acts, and Superfund (CERCLA).
It would seem that this is an opportune time for
scientists from government, academia, and industry
to work together to develop a workable set of regula-
tions. This type of relationship would be consistent
with the goals set forth in the Clean Water Act and
Office of Water 21st century goals document (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989b).
References
Bolton, H.S. et al. 1985. National Perspective on Sediment
Quality. EPA 68-01-6986. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Criteria/Stand. Div., Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington,
DC.
Cairns, J. Jr., K.L. Dickson, and A.W. Maki. 1978. Estimating
the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life. Spec.
Tech. Pub. 657. Am. Soc. Test. Mater. Philadelphia, PA.
65
-------
WJ. ADAMS, R.A. KIMERLE, & J.W. BARNETT, ]R.
Cowan, C.E. and C.S. Zabra. 1987. Regulatory Applications of
Sediment Quality Criteria—Final Report, Prep, U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Off. Water Reg. Stand., Criteria
Stand. Div., Washington, DC.
Dickson, K.L. 1987. Pages 136-47 in Fate and Effects of Sedi-
ment-bound Chemicals in Aquatic systems. Pergamon
Press, New York.
DiToro, D.M., L.J. Dodge, and V.C. Hand. 1989. A model for
anionic surfactant sorption. Environ. Sci. Tech. 24:1013-
020.
DiToro, D.M. et al. 1990. Toxicity of cadmium in sediments: the
role of acid volatile sulfide. Environ. Toxicol. Chern.
9:1487-502.
Karickhoff, S.W., D.S. Brown, and JA. Scott. 1979. Sorption of
hydrophobic pollutants on natural sediments. Water Res.
13:241-48.
Kimerle, R.A. 1988. Has the water quality criteria concept out-
lived its usefulness? Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 5:113-15.
Kimerle, R.A., D.R. Grothe, and WJ. Adams. 1989. Looking
backward and forward at the water quality programs.
Pages 65-69 in Proc. Water Qual. Stand. 21st Century,
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
Kimerle, R.A., WJ. Adams, and J.W. Barnett, Jr. 1991. An in-
tegrated biological and chemical approach for sediment
assessment. Environ. Sci. Tech. (in prep.).
Lyman, W.J., A.E. Glarer, J.H. Ong, and S.F. Coons. 1987. An
Overview of Sediment Quality in the United States. EPA
68-01-6951. Arthur D. Little, Cambridge, MA.
National Research Council. 1989. Contaminated Marine Sedi-
ments-Assessment and Remediation. Comrn. Contain.
Mar. Sediments, Mar. Board, Comm. Eng. Tech. Systems.
Nad. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
PTI Environmental Services. 1988. Toxic Sediments-Ap-
proaches to Management (Draft workshop proc.). EPA 68-
01-7002. Branch Off. Policy Anal. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Bellevue, WA.
Science Advisory Board. 1989. Report of the Sediment Sub-
committee of the Ecological Processes and Effects Com-
mittee: Evaluation of the Apparent Effects Threshold
(AET) Approach for Assessing Sediment Quality. SAB-
EETFC-89-027. Off. Admin., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC.
. 1990a. Report of the Sediment Subcommittee of the
Ecological Processes and Effects Committee: Evaluation
of the Equilibrium Partitioning (EqP) Approach for As-
sessing Sediment Quality. EPA-SAB-EPEC-90-006. Off.
Admin., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Briefing Report
to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium
Partitioning Approach to Generating Sediment Quality
Criteria. EPA 440/5-89-002. Off. Water Reg. Stand.,
Criteria Stand. Div., Washington, DC.
. 1989b. Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century.
Off. Water, Washington, DC.
. 1990. Sediment Classification Methods Compendium.
Off. Water Reg. Stand., Criteria Stand. Div., Washington,
DC.
66
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 67-69
Assessing Contaminated Sediments
Arthur J. Newell
Assistant Director, Division of Marine Resources
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Stony Brook, New York
Introduction
Sediment criteria are most useful for establishing a
best judgment of contaminant levels below which no
adverse effects resulting in a use impairment can be
expected and above which an onset of use impair-
ments should be expected. In other words, sediment
criteria should have the same resource assessment
objective as water quality standards.
However, since most contaminated sediment ac-
tivities focus on in-place contaminants from past
releases for management and purposes we must
determine the level of sediment impairment, we
must be able to use criteria to do more than just
decide if a sediment is clean. If sediments are below
criteria, then we don't have to do a thing but
prevent further contamination. But what if criteria
are exceeded? Can we expect significant use impair-
ment just a bit above criteria? Do all sediments that
exceed criteria have to be remediated? While these
sorts of questions are also raised in water quality
programs, answers are not often given or even ex-
pected since achievement of water quality standards
is the single objective.
More will be expected from sediment criteria.
Some sediments will not be remediated unless
noticeable effects are expected when criteria are ex-
ceeded, and, for other sediments, not until effects
become quite severe. Sediment criteria will have to
be more than a single number representing a
threshold of effects. There must be a series of higher
numbers or a system for interpreting criteria that
will enable users to predict the magnitude of effects
at 10 times, 100 times, or even 1,000 times the
criteria.
Also, until sediment criteria methods are con-
sidered as accurate as water quality criteria
methods at hitting thresholds of effects, we will
need some estimate of criteria variance. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is doing
this with its equilibrium partitioning criteria. Some
guidance on figuring the implications of decisions at
either end of the variance would also be helpful. For
example, if we consider the upper 95 percent con-
fidence limit for a criterion acceptable, what are the
possible effects that are associated with that con-
centration?
Sediment Criteria Guidelines
Guidance for sediment criteria used in New York
State by the Divisions of Marine Resources and Fish
and Wildlife is not simply a list of numbers. It lays
out a process by which staff can assess risk of con-
taminants in sediments at a particular site and
make recommendations about remediation.
There are two types of criteria in the guidance:
equilibrium partition criteria for non-polar organics
and criteria for metals. There are 101 criteria for 53
individual non-polar organic chemicals and classes
of chemicals. There are more criteria than chemicals
because as few as one criterion exist for some and as
many as six for others. Included are separate fresh-
water and saltwater criteria and individual criteria
for three environmental protection objectives
stipulating protection of:
• Aquatic life from the toxic effects of
sediments,
• Human health, at the 1 in 1,000,000 cancer
risk level, from consumption of fish and
shellfish taken from waters with
contaminated sediments, and
67
-------
A.J. NEWELL
• Protection of wildlife from the toxic effects of
consuming biota taken from waters with
contaminated sediments.
All of the non-polar organic criteria were calcu-
lated as described in EPA's 1989 "Briefing Report to
the EPA Science Advisory Board on the Equilibrium
Partitioning Approach to Generating Sediment
Quality Criteria" by multiplying water quality
standards by the octanol/water partition coefficient
and the organic carbon concentration in the sedi-
ment. Virtually every available water quality stand-
ard or criteria based on aquatic life use protection
was used to calculate sediment criteria, including a
number of water quality criteria that were
generated just for use in developing sediment
criteria.
After all these sediment criteria were calcu-
lated, one little quirk became apparent. For non-
polar organics with a partition coefficient less than
100, the resultant sediment criteria are less than
the water quality standards. To implement these
low numbers is senseless, so until a better way to
assess risk of low partition coefficient non-polar or-
ganics in sediments is developed, we have set their
sediment criteria equal to their associated water
quality standards criteria.
For metals, a different approach was taken. As
everyone else, we are waiting for EPA to produce a
list of metals sediment criteria or a method to calcu-
late them, but until then are using some criteria
derived from scientific literature on the effects of
metals on benthic organisms in sediments.
The Ontario Ministry of the Environment con-
tracted to develop sediment criteria by several alter-
native methods (Ont. Ministry Environ. 1988). The
contractor's report contained results of the litera-
ture review on effects of metals in sediments. The
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (Persaud,
1989) then derived from the contractor's report no-
effect, lowest effect, and limits of tolerance levels for
metals in sediments. The geometric mean of the no-
effect and lowest effect levels was calculated to
derive sediment criteria for metals for use in New
York State. In addition, the contractor's report (Ont.
Ministry Environ. 1988) contained upper 95 percent
confidence limit values of preindustrial metal con-
centrations in Great Lakes sediments, which were
considered reasonable estimates of background con-
centrations.
The result is that our guidance document con-
tains sediment criteria for 10 metals, along with
background, no-effect, lowest effect, and limits of
tolerance concentrations for each. Staff reviewing
sediment data for a specific site have a menu to
select from to assess potential risk from the metals
at that site.
Exceedance of sediment criteria can be expected
to result in some specific adverse effects. The
volume and location of sediment exceeding the
criterion, the magnitude of the effect expected, the
length of time sediments will be contaminated, and
the certainty that the effect will occur will all play a
role in making decisions about how much sediment
to clean up to eliminate or minimize the adverse ef-
fects.
In consideration of these factors, a number of
instructions have been developed, including the fol-
lowing:
1. Compare sediment concentrations with
unimpacted, local background concentra-
tions and consider the significance of
criteria exceedances in light of background
concentrations, in particular for naturally
occurring substances such as metals. This
caution is necessary because all of thejne-
tals criteria in the guidance are less than
the upper 95 percent confidence limit of
preindustrial metal concentrations in Great
Lakes sediments. This can be interpreted to
mean that, in some sediments, relatively
low levels of metals, even below "high"
background (the upper 95 percent con-
centration) are toxic, whereas in other sedi-
ments, fairly high levels (up to and possibly
even above "high" background) may not be
toxic.
2. For non-polar organic chemicals with parti-
tion coefficients less than 1000 that exceed
criteria, neither further remedial investiga-
tion nor sediment remediation will be
necessary if the State can demonstrate that
the source of sediment contamination will
be eliminated and the sediment will cleanse
itself within one year. For these chemicals,
documentation of a significant release that
needs to be controlled may be the greatest
value of sediment criteria.
3. For organics, exceedance of aquatic toxicity-
based criteria by 100 times in significant
portions of the ecosystem indicates a
likelihood that biota are impaired and
remediation would be necessary. The value
of 100 is the product of the 10-fold uncer-
tainty about the partition coefficients used
to calculate the criteria multiplied by
another factor of 10, which is a typical ratio
between acute and chronic water quality
criteria. In other words, at 100 times the
sediment criteria, one would expect onset of
acute toxicity.
68
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 67-69
For metals, if the limits of tolerance
values are exceeded in significant portions
of the ecosystem of concern, it is highly like-
ly that biota are impaired and remediation
should be considered necessary. The On-
tario Ministry of the Environment now
refers to the limits of tolerance as "severe
effect levels." For all the metals (except
iron), the limit of tolerance exceeds the 95
percent confidence limit "high" background,
and at these levels, significant and notice-
able toxicity would be expected in all sedi-
ments.
Options are also suggested in the guidance to
conduct toxicity testing, residue analyses, or assess-
ments of ecological communities to confirm impair-
ment predictions based on criteria exceedances.
Conclusions
These criteria and associated guidance have been
useful for developing staff positions on the need for
remediation of contaminated sediments. If nothing
else, the criteria have been very helpful as a screen-
ing tool, allowing the Divisions of Marine Resources
and Fish and Wildlife to review the reams of data
often generated for sediments at a site and state
with some certainty that impairments are not likely
when criteria are not exceeded. However, the
divisions still need (and look forward to) national
sediment criteria to lend support to our recommen-
dations that any nationally accepted criteria can be
expected to convey. In addition, national criteria
should have associated guidance to enable users to
interpret the significance of exceedances and aid in
making decisions on when remediation is necessary
and how much.
Finally, it appears from the various presenta-
tions given at this conference that a number of
people with different backgrounds are arriving at
similar methods for assessing contaminated sedi-
ments—which is probably a good sign. It shows that
our ideas are crystallizing into a unified approach
for dealing with contaminated sediments.
References
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1988. Development of
Sediment Quality Guidelines. Phase II: Guideline
Development. Prep. Beak Consultants Ltd., Mississauga,
ON.
Persaud, D. 1989. Personal communication about development
of provincial sediment quality guidelines. Ontario Minis-
try of the Environment, Tbronto.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Briefing report
to the EPA Science Advisory Board on the equilibrium
partitioning approach to generating sediment quantity
criteria. EPA 440/5-89-002. Off. Water Reg. Stand.,
Washington, DC.
69
-------
vtc'.'''''-:"'",«i,!''^''C'.i'i'~?v!v-''1^-•*<'' •'*•<•'''.''
i,..--..-.... ,^ .., .
^^fT'&P?:^.^ -.v^;-x*? '
• >» .»' •, -. .
ir''^^^?^* V':-"': vV ;••'* \"'V}1";-, .;-•>'•.,, "v^ „, e 't";.;-:,-':-, "•;;',,-.>;-•,*,".'•''-';;',"•','' \''*"' ^-f ,''
'*--!•;, r'. >i;%j -u ', -Jf ..... -,»',;•; J, .'/.-'', JV.'^''V "••••v;.''\v .••'.-~>"-"',V;. •:/> ' •- .>,,'•''' ; ,-,, '! ''-•..' «- ,-J,> ,-"
fil|^P^^;|^^:^^^^ /•;;; " - : •;',s\",l-:vV^:
IX '^^ ; " N-!?'^' ^::--/^(
i^ir^i^v^ / v,; ,^^;\ .^
^'i^^f^S''^^''^
^^*^>''^^ ^:S-;Xy- '" ' • •'• ••'• "?-' ' - ' •' ?-i^ ; :i>> V: ;• .'; >/:
^4^^^;^*^^^ ,:•:;,- '•; v -;v. •,-/"•': r ^ -;.^ v
.;" ••&?, -i?i4«" .;,/"••" ^ >!;•:" lf r\ "^"C1 ;-"-.;',. -;-\^'^- ,-''•'' ^4 " -;/ "'^'<: ' " -.' u"> -- ''V''^- """'/', " '''"'" J.;". l'!
l-.,,,,;^,*^!^^'^,^^ >.-..^ ; ,\ ; U,t;" ;0 '. X^v'l .,,, -•. ; V.^,_';v
:- ";"'^ ':'-' :. • v '' - "• :> '• " ' '"'••- >:"v "::A'';
'"v?'1''-*"* '* ''*'' '*"
"'
/'•,'c 4i!!v, :-':-•..,.>"'.;'.-'•;''' ;'l'\>" *;"'•" vv1-' v" i , ,:
iv"'.;,.';;Vi.-"-'1-'-.'- '^V-.v" V'1 -vl"••' '"•'"'•.,• •..- " '
'/•,,-;:ii'*Jr J^-- ,,.?.;.'?;>•*,'• x" •'",•-;". - „ V
vY.,";i,*"ir;]'f''f"''"''£,t,",^\, -,'';'¥!„'; - ''f\ -'-•''/ , -.. '
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 71-73
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands
Bill Wilen (Moderator)
Project Leader, National Wetlands Inventory
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of the Interior
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
Over a year ago, I was asked to review the first draft
of a publication on water quality standards on wet-
lands. My first reaction was extremely negative. I
thought there were no water quality standards for
wetlands and did not see a logical or theoretical
basis for using existing surface water quality stand-
ards. Because of the temporal and spatial dynamics
of wetlands, I scoffed at the idea of using numeric,
chemical-specific, surface water standards (such as
pH, turbidity, color, and hydrogen sulfide). Wetlands
can have levels well above or below normal ranges
for surface water and still be normal or even excep-
tional. Consequently, my comments were extensive
and critical; hopefully, they were also constructive.
In July 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency's (EPA's) Office of Water Regulations
and Standards' Office of Wetlands Protection pub-
lished national guidance on water quality standards
for wetlands (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990). The
following is a short summary taken from that docu-
ment, which provides program guidance on how to
ensure effective application of water quality stand-
ards to wetlands.
The basic requirements for applying water
quality standards to wetlands include the following:
1. Include wetlands in the definition of "State
waters."
2. Designate uses for all wetlands.
3. Adopt aesthetic narrative criteria (the "free
forms") and appropriate numeric criteria for
wetlands.
4. Adopt narrative biological criteria for wet-
lands.
5. Apply the State's antidegradation policy
and implementation methods to wetlands.
Include Wetlands in the Definition
of State Waters
The first, and most important step, is ensuring that
wetlands are legally included in the scope of States'
water quality standards programs. EPA expects the
States to accomplish this by 1993; however, States
may need to remove or modify regulatory language
that explicitly or implicitly limits the authority of
water quality standards over wetlands. States may
choose to include riparian or floodplain ecosystems
as a whole in the definition of "waters of the State"
or to designate these areas for protection in their
water quality standards.
Designate Uses for All Wetlands
At a minimum, all wetlands must have uses desig-
nated that meet the goals of section 101(a)(2) of the
Clean Water Act by providing for the protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and for
recreation in and on the water unless the results of
a use attainability analysis show that the goals of
that section cannot be achieved.
When designating uses for wetlands, States
may choose to use their existing general and water-
specific classification systems, or they may set up an
entirely different system for wetlands reflecting uni-
que functions. Wetland functions directly relate to
71
-------
B. WILEN
the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
wetlands. Examples of wetland classifications, func-
tions, values, and beneficial uses are provided in the
national guidance.
Adopt Aesthetic Narrative and
Appropriate Numeric Criteria
Narrative criteria are particularly important for
wetlands because numeric criteria have not been
fully developed. Narrative criteria should be written
to protect the most sensitive designated use and to
support existing uses under State antidegradation
policies. Narrative biological criteria are general
statements of attainable (or attained) conditions of
biological integrity and water quality for a given use
designation.
Narrative statements may prohibit certain ac-
tions or conditions ("free forms") or may be positive
statements about what is expected to occur. They
are used to identify impacts on designated uses and
as a regulatory basis for controlling a variety of im-
pacts to State waters.
Numeric criteria are specific numeric values for
chemical constituents, physical parameters, or
biological conditions that are adapted in State
standards. Human health water quality criteria are
based on the toxicity of a contaminant and the
amount consumed through ingestion of water and
fish regardless of the type of water. Therefore, EPA's
chemical-specific human health criteria are directly
applicable to wetlands.
EPA also develops chemical-specific numeric
criteria recommendations to protect freshwater and
saltwater aquatic life. The numeric aquatic life
criteria, although not designated specifically for
wetlands, were designed to be protective of aquatic
life and are generally applicable to most wetland
types. Numeric criteria are needed to protect the in-
tegrity of wetland functions, not only for aquatic
and benthic organisms, but also vegetation and
wildlife.
A note of caution: before existing chemical-
specific numeric criteria are applied to wetlands,
they must pass some logic checks. Can the stand-
ards be achieved by any. wetlands? At what time of
the year? Does the standard relate to protecting the
designated use of the specific wetland type in a
given location?
Adopt Narrative Biological Criteria
for Wetlands
Narrative biological criteria are general statements
of attainable or attained conditions of biological in-
tegrity and water quality for a given use designa-
tion. Narrative biological criteria can take a number
of forms. The criteria could read "free from activities
that would substantially impair the biological com-
munity as it naturally occurs due to physical, chemi-
cal, and hydrologic changes," or the criteria may
contain positive statements about the biological
community existing or attainable in wetlands.
Narrative biological criteria should contain at-
tributes that support the goals of the Clean Water
Act that provide for the protection and propagation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife. Since hydrology is the
driving force behind the type and location of wet-
lands, maintaining their hydrology is critical to
maintaining their health, functions, and values.
Hydrologic manipulations occur in such forms as
flow alterations (including any activity that results
in impairing or reducing flow, circulation, or reach
of water) and diversions, disposal of fill materials,
ditches, canals, dikes, and levees.
Apply State's Antidegradation
Policy
The antidegradation policies contained in all State
water quality standards provide a powerful tool for
the protection of wetlands and can be used to regu-
late point and nonpoint source discharges to wet-
lands the same as other surface waters. In
conjunction with beneficial uses and narrative
criteria, antidegradation can be used to deal with
impacts to wetlands that cannot be fully addressed
by chemical criteria, such as physical and hydrologic
modifications.
With the inclusion of wetlands as "waters of the
State," State antidegradation policies and their im-
plementation methods will apply to wetlands in the
same way as other surface waters. State an-
tidegradation policies should provide for the protec-
tion of existing uses in wetlands and the level of
water quality necessary to protect those uses in the
same manner as provided for other surface waters.
In the case of fills, EPA interprets protection of ex-
isting uses to be met if there is no significant
degradation as defined according to the section
404(b)l guidelines. State antidegradation policies
also provide special protection for outstanding
natural resource waters.
The national guidance document also has chap-
ters on implementation and future direction. The
appendices provide definitions of "waters of the
U.S.," information on the assessment of wetland
functions and values, and examples of State cer-
tification action including wetlands under section
401 of the Clean Water Act. Maybe most important-
ly, the national guidance provides the names, ad-
dresses, and phone numbers for the EPA Regional
72
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS IN THE 21st CENTURY: 71-73
Wetland Coordinators and U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's National Wetlands Inventories' regional
wetland coordinators.
The Fish and Wildlife Service's National Wet-
lands Inventory has produced over 30,000 detailed
wetland maps, which cover 70 percent of the conter-
minous United States, 22 percent of Alaska, and all
of Hawaii. Wetland maps are complete for 21 States;
mapping is ongoing in the remaining 28 States (wet-
land mapping has not been initiated in Wisconsin).
Ibtal dissemination reached one million wetland
maps in June 1990.
Copies of the maps are sold through the toll-free
number, 1-800-USA-MAPS; in Virginia at (703) 684-
6045; and through 27 state-run distribution centers.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in coopera-
tion with the States, has computerized (digitized)
more than 6,916 of its wetland maps, representing
12.8 percent of the continental United States.
Statewide digital databases have been built for New
Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Washington
and Indiana and are in progress for Virginia, Min-
nesota, and South Dakota. National Wetlands In-
ventory digital data are also available for portions of
25 other States.
The report entitled 'Wetlands Losses in the
United States: 1780's to 1980's," which has been
completed and sent to Congress, presents wetland
acreage and losses by State. Copies of the report can
be obtained by writing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's publications unit at Room 130, Arlington
Square, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240
or calling the Agency at (703) 358-1711.
Reference
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. National
Guidance: Water Quality Standards for Wetlands. Off.
Water Reg. Stand., Off. Wetlands Prot., Washington, DC.
73
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 75-79
Water Quality Standards for Wetlands in
Tennessee
Morris C. Flexner
Biologist/Water Quality Standards Coordinator
Larry C. Bowers
Environmental Manager
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment
Division of Water Pollution Control
Nashville, Tennessee
Introduction
In the late 1600s, there were over 200 million acres
of wetlands in the lower 48 States; today, less than
half—95 million acres—still exist. From 1950 to
1980, over 11 million acres—an area more than two
times the size of New Jersey—were lost (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1988a).
In Tennessee, where an estimated 3 million
acres of wetlands once existed, the State's Depart-
ment of Conservation estimates between 500,000
and 800,000 acres remain (Tenn. Dep. Conserv.
1987), while national wetlands inventory maps
show Tennessee's wetlands at 787,000 acres or
about 3 percent of the State's land area (Wilen,
1989). All of this information translates into a loss of
approximately 75 percent of Tennessee's wetlands
over the last 60 years.
About 571,000 wetland acres (almost three-
fourths of the existing acreage) are found in west
Tennessee, which is one of the most suitable regions
for agriculture (Smith et al. 1987). A major chal-
lenge that Tennessee and other States continue to
face is the need to develop ways to permit or
mitigate wetlands in a no net loss to the resource
fashion and, at the same time, allow continued and
often increased agricultural production.
Over the last few years, Federal, State, local,
and other citizen and environmental entities have
been working together in Tennessee to resolve
and/or mitigate conflicts over wetlands issues. The
Natural Resources Section of the Tennessee Division
of Water Pollution Control must continue to explore
workable suggestions and responses to why water
quality standards are needed for wetlands. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
wetland protection backgrounder lists the following
benefits derived from wetlands (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1988b):
• Physical Protection: Wetlands protect
shorelines from erosion by dissipating wave or
storm energy and downstream areas from damaging
flood flows by slowing and temporarily storing flood-
waters, thus reducing peak flows.
• Water Quality Enhancement: Wetlands
remove pollution from waters that flow through
them by physical adsorption to plants or bottom
sediments, chemical precipitation, or biochemical
breakdown or uptake. In effect, they function as
biological sewage treatment plants.
• Groundwater Recharge: In some areas, wet-
lands serve as groundwater recharge zones for un-
derlying or adjacent aquifers. Many areas store
water during the wetter parts of the year and
release it at relatively constant rates, helping to
maintain regular stream flows.
• Wildlife Habitat: Wetlands provide critical
breeding, nesting, rearing, and wintering habitat for
many species of fish and wildlife. Forty-five percent
of federally listed threatened or endangered animals
75
-------
M.C. FLEXNER & L.C. BOWERS
and 26 percent of such plants depend directly or in-
directly on wetlands to complete their life cycle suc-
cessfully.
• Food Chain Support: Coastal and riverine
wetlands produce large quantities of plant-derived
food that are exported to estuaries and other coastal
areas where they support marine ecosystems, many
of which are critical to commercial fisheries.
• Commercial Products: Wetlands are a
habitat for fish, shellfish, furbearers, timber, forage,
wild rice, cranberries, blueberries, and other useful
materials. Over $10 billion annually is spent on na-
ture study, fishing, hunting, and other outdoor ac-
tivities in wetlands.
• Recreation and Aesthetics: Wetlands provide
places to hunt, fish, study nature, photograph,
canoe, and receive outdoor education. Wetlands are
also coming to be viewed as valuable simply for
their natural beauty.
• Climatic Influences: Wetlands play an impor-
tant role in global cycles of nitrogen, sulfur,
methane, and carbon dioxide. They may help control
atmospheric pollution by removing excess nitrogen
and carbon produced through human activities.
According to EPA's Office of Wetlands Protec-
tion, the first step in developing water quality
standards for wetlands is to include these areas in
the State's definition of waters. Tennessee is one of
30 States that do not specifically mention wetlands
in State water quality standards (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1989a). Although Tennessee has not
formally defined the term "wetlands" in its water
quality standards, the State regulates and protects
these areas through the section 401 certification
program, which is administered by the Natural
Resources Section of Tennessee's Division of Water
Pollution Control, and a strong State water quality
act.
The promulgation of section 401 and other wet-
lands-specific regulations is underway, with the
division's goal to have these additional regulations
in place by spring of 1991. In the absence of regula-
tions, a liberal interpretation of the Tennessee
Water Quality Control Act of 1977 (Tenn. Dep.
Health Environ. 1988) and the intent of a guber-
natorial executive order for the protection of wet-
lands is used for program guidance. The executive
order directs that uses of wetlands—including sur-
face water supply, floodwater storage, purification of
surface and groundwater, plant and animal habitat,
recreation, and aesthetic uses—be "protected
against unnecessary despoliation."
In the governor's executive order, wetlands are
defined as areas that have hydric soils and a
dominance (defined as a 50 percent stem count) of
obligate hydrophytes ("plants that occur almost al-
ways in wetlands under natural conditions" [Train.
Inst., Inc. 1989]). The executive order specifically in-
cludes "freshwater meadows, shallow freshwater
marshes, shrub swamps with semi-permanent
water regimes most of the year, and wooded swamps
and bogs." In addition, an area with only one of two
factors (hydric soils or obligate hydrophytes) can be
defined as a wetland after it is evaluated by State
agencies. However, the executive order also contains
unclear language that exempts farmland inundated
by "improper river channel maintenance."
Tennessee has relied on broad prohibitory lan-
guage in its water quality standards to deny water
quality certification for wetland fill projects. This
ruling was upheld in court in a suit, Hollis versus
Tennessee Water Quality Control Board, that was
brought by an applicant who proposed to dump fill
along the southeastern shoreline of Tennessee's only
natural swamp lake, Reelfoot Lake (Chancery
Court, 1984).
In the ruling, two important considerations
were upheld concerning the relationship of wetlands
permitting to the State's Water Quality Control Act:
that Reelfoot Lake and the wetlands adjoining it are
"waters of the State" and that a permit was required
to discharge fill material under the Water Control
Act. (Therefore, Hollis was in violation of permitting
requirements.)
The following Tennessee Water Quality Act
definition strengthens the concept that wetlands are
waters of the State:
"Waters" means any and all water, public or
private, on or beneath the surface of the ground,
which are contained within, flow through, or bor-
der upon Tbnnessee or any portion thereof except
those bodies of water confined to and retained
within the limits of private property in single
ownership which do not combine or effect a junc-
tion with natural surface or underground waters.
[Acts 1971, ch. 164 § 3; 1977, ch. 366, § 1; T.CA, §
70-326; Acts 1984, ch. 804, § 1; 1987, ch. Ill, § 1.]
(Ifenn. Dep. Health Environ. 1988).
However, Tennessee's definition of waters does
not specifically mention wetlands, as the Federal
definition does (40 CFR section 232.2 (q)): "(2) All in-
terstate waters including interstate wetlands;..."
Therefore, Tennessee should consider adding
specific similar language to further define wetlands
as "waters of the State" in its water quality stand-
ards.
The Tennessee Water Quality Control Act's
definition of pollution has also helped clarify wet-
lands permitting issues. According to the act, the
commissioner cannot issue a permit for an activity
that would cause pollution either by itself or in com-
76
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 75-79
bination with other activities. The act defines pollu-
tion as follows:
(22) "Pollution" means such alteration of the
physical, chemical, biological, bacteriological, or
radiological properties of the waters of this state
including but not limited to changes in tempera-
ture, taste, color, turbidity, or odor of the waters:
(A) As will result or will likely result in harm,
potential harm, or detriment to the public health,
safety, or welfare;
(B) As will result or will likely result in harm,
potential harm, or detriment to the health of
animals, birds, fish, or aquatic life;
(C) As will render or will likely render the waters
substantially less useful for domestic, municipal,
industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other
reasonable uses; or
(D) As will leave or will likely leave the waters in
such condition as to violate any standards of
water quality established by the board: (Tenn.
Dep. Health Environ. 1988).
Under (22) (B), the phrase "detriment to the
health of animals, birds, fish, or aquatic life" has
been applied in cases to protect wetlands.
In 1988, 44 of all 401 certification requests were
denied and some form of mitigation was required on
the remaining 56 percent. The Natural Resources
Section of the Division of Water Pollution Control
has been issuing permits and making permit
decisions but has not been enforcing permit-related
cases effectively. State water quality standards for
wetlands would strengthen the division's enforce-
ment capabilities.
Wisconsin is proposing to protect a range of wet-
land functional values (including stormwater and
floodwater storage, hydrologic functions, filtration
or storage of sediments, shoreline protection against
erosion, and water quality and quantity support for
aquatic organisms) with the following narrative lan-
guage in its draft water quality standards:
NR 103.04 Wetland Water Quality
Standards
(1) lb preserve and enhance the quality of waters
in wetlands and other waters of the state in-
fluenced by wetlands, the department shall
protect the following water quality related func-
tional values of wetlands, within the range of
natural variation:....
Tennessee is proposing to follow Wisconsin's
lead through the State's permit regulations under
1200-4-7.03(4)(c)l-3;(f)l-7 by protecting the same
wetland functional values through permitting
regulations as follows:
1200-4-7.03 Permits
(4) Terms and Conditions of Permits.
(c) No permits shall be issued for activities which
will or will likely result in any of the following:
1. a net loss of wetland functions;
2. a violation of Chapter 1200-4-3; or,
3. pollution as defined by the Act.
(0 Permits issued for wetland alterations shall be
conditioned to protect the following wetland func-
tions ....
States must begin to consider the minimum
EPA requirements for wetland water quality stand-
ards for fiscal year 1993, as issued in a recent na-
tional guidance document (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990):
FY 1993 Minimum Requirements for
State Water Quality Standards for
Wetlands—EPA Guidance
• Include wetlands in the definition of State
waters.
• Designate uses or establish beneficial uses for
all wetlands.
• Adopt existing narrative ("free froms") and
appropriate numeric criteria for wetlands.
• Adopt narrative biological criteria for
wetlands.
• Apply the State's antidegradation policy and
implementation methods to wetlands.
To meet these requirements, Tennessee's
Natural Resources Section proposed the following
additional narrative regulations for the State's
water quality standards, as well as 401 permit re-
lated regulations, which were presented at a public
rulemaking hearing January 10,1991.
Draft Proposal
Add new language to 1200-4-3, General Water
Quality Criteria as follows:
1200-4-3.02 General Considerations.
(9)Waters designated as swamped out bottom-
land hardwoods or swamped out cropland shall
be protective of wildlife and humans that may
come in contact with them but shall not be clas-
sified for the protection offish and aquatic life.
1200-4-3.04 Definitions.
(3) Swamped out bottomland hardwoods means
those areas where living bottomland timber is
subject to stress due to ponded water and areas of
dead timber. Swamped out bottomland
hardwoods shall not include areas with a
dominance of cypress or tupelo gum or areas in
77
-------
M.C FLEXNER & L.C. BOWERS
which the majority of the timber died prior to
1977.
(4) Swamped out cropland means those areas
which were previously in row crops but cannot
now be cultivated due to ponded water. Swamped
out cropland shall not include wetland areas
which have reverted from cropland prior to 1977.
At the public hearing, there was widespread op-
position from both the environmental and
regulatory communities to various sections of these
proposed rules. The Division of Water Pollution
Control, the Tennessee Farm Bureau, and other con-
cerned agencies have held several meetings and
hours of discussion over this draft proposal. Follow-
ing a 30-day comment period, the Division of Water
Pollution Control will consider having another
public rulemaking hearing. The revised regulations
will then be submitted to the State's water quality
board.
The division continues to refine its antidegrada-
tion policy, especially as it relates to wetlands
protection. The Natural Resources Section has used
the current antidegradation statement frequently in
denials of 401 certification and has been successful
through a liberal interpretation of the phrase
"waters of exceptional recreational or ecological sig-
nificance." Projects have been denied on State scenic
rivers, on streams that serve as critical habitat for
endangered species, and on streams and wetlands
whose overall quality was exceptionally ecologically
significant.
The antidegradation policy was the primary
factor in denying the Tuscumbia River Project,
which would have channelized 7.4 miles of that
river, a major tributary of the Hatchie River, which
is a State scenic river and the only unchannelized
Mississippi River tributary in Tennessee. It was
determined that the Hatchie River would be adver-
sely affected by this U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
project and the wetlands of the Tuscumbia River
were waters of outstanding ecological significance.
However, Tennessee's policy on determining consis-
tency with the antidegradation statement for all
wetland projects still needs to be clarified.
Some States have developed a list of outstand-
ing national resource waters that, when wetlands
are included, has helped to regulate and protect
these areas more effectively. However, attempts to
produce a list of these waters for Tennessee, which
has meant developing a consensus among various
agencies and entities as to which waters of the State
should be included, has proved to be politically in-
feasible. However, it is an option that many States
may want to explore.
In Tennessee's 1987 water quality standards, 10
numeric criteria were established for domestic
water supply (Tenn. Dep. Health Environ. 1987).
The division is currently proposing numeric criteria
for 86 toxic pollutants in Tennessee's 1990 water
quality standards that fall under three categories:
18 for domestic water supply, 31 for freshwater fish
and aquatic life, and 70 for human health and
recreation. The addition of these numeric criteria
has served as a major stumbling block in the at-
tempt to expedite promulgation of these water
quality standards. A similar fate is anticipated for
numeric criteria and narrative biological criteria for
wetlands. A database for biocriteria must be
developed before Tennessee can set narrative or
numeric biological criteria.
A major impetus for promulgation of water
quality standards, however, will be the estab-
lishment of national numeric criteria in 1991 for
States that have failed to comply with 303(c)(2)(B)
(Fed. Register, 1990).
3312. Water Quality Standards for
Toxic Pollutants
Abstract: This action may establish on a national
basis, numeric water quality criteria for toxic pol-
lutants that will become part of the water quality
standards of states that have failed to comply
with Sections 303 (c) (2) (B) of the CWA [Clean
Water Act], thus, bringing those standards into
compliance with the CWA, as amended.
Tennessee's water quality standards can serve
as the driving force and guidance in many of the
Division of Water Pollution Control's activities.
Water quality assessment and standards affect
nearly all of the division's other major programs, in-
cluding municipal and industrial wastewater,
aquatic resource protection, enforcement and com-
pliance, and nonpoint source control. Developing a
workable set of water quality standards for wet-
lands that can be promulgated in a reasonable
amount of time is therefore vitally important to any
State water pollution agency. The narrative ap-
proach for developing water quality standards for
wetlands is, at this point, the preferred alternative
in Tennessee simply because narrative language
probably can be implemented quicker and used
more effectively.
Lack of funding is a major factor that will con-
tinue to affect the division's efforts. The Natural
Resources staff has been reduced from 10 to 6, and
the division has lost 20 technical positions over the
last five years. In 1990, the Natural Resources Sec-
tion issued over 400 permits: 145 for Corps of En-
gineers-related 404 projects, 170 for aquatic
resource alteration projects, and 100 for gravel
dredging projects. These numbers translate into 69
permits per staff person, annually. Tennessee is
proposing a fee-based permitting system as an op-
78
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 75-79
tion to remedy this problem. However, over $2 mil-
lion must be generated annually to fund the new
staff needed to accomplish these goals.
Conclusions
Tennessee should develop water quality stand-
ards for wetlands because:
• Wetlands are beneficial areas.
• Federal requirements mandate State action.
• Standards help States protect a dwindling
resource.
• The State permitting process is made easier
because enforcement is strengthened.
The Division of Water Pollution Control's
Natural Resources Section has been successful in is-
suing 401 certification for 404 dredge and fill
projects but has not been as successful in enforcing
certain permits related to these projects.
Wetlands can and have been incorporated into
the definition of State waters. However, adopting
numeric criteria and narrative biological criteria for
wetlands may pose difficulties similar to those en-
countered with several of Tennessee's proposed
numeric criteria for toxic pollutants.
Tennessee should develop a database for
biocriteria and a list of outstanding national
resource waters to protect wetlands. Tennessees's
proposed antidegradation statement can and has
been applied to the 401 certification process to
protect wetlands.
References
Chancery Court. 1984. No. 83-1352-1 (unpub. opinion). 7th
Div., Davidson County, Nashville, TN.
Smith, R. et al. 1987. Alternative Approaches to the Protection
and Management of Wetlands in Tennessee. Res. Proj.
Tech. Completion Rep. #115., Nashville.
Tennessee Department of Conservation. 1987. Wetlands: Ad-
dendum to the 1984 Tennessee State Outdoor Recreation
Planning Report. Recreation Serv. Div. Rep., Nashville.
Tennessee Department of Health and Environment. 1987.
Tennessee's General Water Quality Criteria and Stream
Use Classifications for Interstate and Intrastate Streams.
Water Qual. Control Board, Nashville.
. 1988. The Tennessee Water Quality Control Act of 1977
and 1987 Amendments. §§ 69-3-101—69-3-129. Nash-
ville.
Training Institute, Inc. 1989. Page 7 in Field Guide for
Delineating Wetlands: Federal Method. WTI89-1. Pooles-
ville.MD.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988a. Environmental
Backgrounder—Wetlands. Off. Pub. Affairs, Washington,
DC.
. 1988b. Wetlands Protection. EPA OWP-1/2-88. Off.
Wetlands Prot., Washington, DC.
. 1989a. Criteria and Standards Division Newsletter.
Vol. 1, No. 2. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington, DC.
. 1989b. Wetlands and 401 Certification, Opportunities
and Guidelines for States and Eligible Indian Tribes. Off.
Water, Washington, DC.
-. 1990. Water Quality Standards for Wetlands—Nation-
al Guidance. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington, DC.
U.S. Federal Register. 1990. Part XXII, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Semiannual Regulatory Agenda. 55
209):45158.
Wilen, B. 1989. Special Report—National Wetlands Inventory.
U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Washington, DC.
79
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 81-83
Wetland Water Quality Standards
Larry J. Schmidt
Manager, Riparian and Watershed Improvement Program
Watershed and Air Management
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Introduction
The Forest Service manages wetland and riparian
areas following principles of wise use. A primary
focus is maintenance of water quality to support
downstream beneficial uses and sustain wetland
ecosystems. The Forest Service believes that water
quality criteria developed for wetlands should focus
on those additional criteria necessary to protect the
water component of these vital ecosystems.
This agency's experience is with nonpoint
source issues, since most National Forest System
lands lie at the headwaters of drainages; therefore,
it has not had to deal with many major point source
pollution issues. This is not the case for other
Federal land managers of wetlands that face serious
threats from upstream water quality problems. The
Forest Service's experience does provide some over-
all perspectives on narrative criteria, however, par-
ticularly as they relate to nonpoint sources.
Standing water ecosystems usually require a
different standard of protection because of pollutant
accumulation and lengthy retention times. Wet-
lands are unique in being located at the lower end of
the watershed and thus cumulatively reflecting
what is happening in tributaries. This relationship
should be recognized in addressing numerical
criteria for upstream segments. In many cases, im-
portant wetlands may be the key designated use
that needs protection.
Time-delayed Impacts
Setting numeric criteria to provide adequate protec-
tion can be a challenge. For one thing, the cause and
effect relationship between pollutant and beneficial
use may be so widely separated in time that
numeric criteria alone will not provide adequate
protection. Lick Creek in Idaho provides an example
of delayed and cumulative impacts (Schmidt and
DeBano, 1990).
In the late 1940s, the small headwater
tributaries of Lick Creek were the scene of a logging
operation. In the early 1970s, catastrophic erosion of
wet meadows occurred, the result of ignorance 30
years earlier about the importance of altering chan-
nel systems. A small channel, which had been ac-
cidentally diverted down a skid road during the
logging, generated sediment that was moved
downstream and created additional erosion. When
the sediment eventually reached a culvert at a criti-
cal road crossing, it accumulated and blocked the
area, diverting the high stream flow down the road.
Thus, sediment produced years ago at a point high
in the watershed ultimately caused major erosion
and damage.
The key points of this example are:
• It was 30 years until a significant water
quality impact was noted.
• It is unlikely that current water quality
criteria, especially turbidity, would have
detected the problem.
• Hindsight shows the importance of
designing and applying best management
practices (BMPs) to prevent problems rather
than relying on water quality standards.
Developing criteria for wetland hydrology and
streamside riparian areas may prove to be impor-
tant in protecting proper function; however, iden-
tifying what to protect will be a challenge.
81
-------
L.J. SCHMIDT
Hydrologic and Geomorphic
Criteria
Turbidity measurements are of little value as
measures of water quality in bedload sediment-
dominated stream systems. Rosgen and Leopold
(1990) have demonstrated that accelerated channel
erosion problems usually are caused when some dis-
ruption affects a stream's ability to move the
naturally occurring supply of sediment. Bedload
material is particularly important, especially excess
amounts from disturbances that lack proper conser-
vation measures or BMPs.
Channel characteristics, including width versus
depth ratio, sinuosity, and bankfull flow, are vital in
understanding stable channel conditions and in
developing successful restoration projects. These
and similar factors for each stream type should be
considered in developing hydrology criteria for
riparian wetlands.
By contrast, some approaches that specify a no
activity zone for 100 feet on either side of a water-
body often fail to serve water quality or wise use of
wetland resources. This approach is overly simplis-
tic and neglects the principles, origins, and path-
ways of pollution. Wisely applied measures based on
science and technology are needed rather than a
rigid cookie-cutter approach to applying restrictive
criteria, because such fixed limits are often exces-
sive in areas of little threat and deficient where
greater threats exist.
A specific purpose should be identified for such
buffers and criteria developed to make the no ac-
tivity zone serve its function. For example, a buffer
of trees that regulates water temperature by shad-
ing the stream course functions differently than a
soil erosion buffer, created by placing woody residue
from forestry operations on the land surface to filter
sediment from overland runoff.
Best Management Practices
Use of water quality standards as a management
technique to control impacts of land use activities
can only provide after-the-fact information. These
data, however, are valuable and necessary in deter-
mining the effectiveness of management programs,
including BMPs. Defining BMPs is key to prevent-
ing problems from occurring in the first place. For
nonpoint sources, this is particularly important be-
cause it is usually not possible to rapidly terminate
the discharge after a water quality problem is dis-
covered.
If prevention is the goal, then BMPs must serve
as the performance standard for land managers,
and properly defined water quality standards can be
used to assess the effectiveness of required BMPs.
When monitoring indicates a problem with specific
BMPs, mitigation should correct it to the extent pos-
sible and change future design criteria so the prob-
lem will not reoccur.
Many nonpoint impacts to riparian and wetland
systems can be substantially controlled by BMPs,
especially if they focus on particular problems. Some
people who are disappointed and frustrated with
BMPs feel the answer is greater emphasis on
numeric criteria. Our reviews give a slightly dif-
ferent picture. We find that BMPs are effective, hut:
• They must be integral considerations in
project planning, not afterthoughts,
• Applications must be timely,
• The prescription must be followed
completely,
• Follow-up actions to fix or supplement
BMPs should be taken as necessary, and
• All activities in a basin should conform to
the required standard of performance.
A successful application of BMPs is not just a
concept. Before establishing additional numeric
criteria, States should insist that landowners
deliver on promised BMPs.
A Water Quality Focus
Focus on water quality when dealing with wetlands,
but do not expect to resolve all wetlands issues
through this parameter. Issues that are not directly
water quality-related should be dealt with in a
separate forum. The pitfalls can be best illustrated
by a recent Forest Service project to restore wet-
lands where preference rather than clearly neces-
sary criteria were applied, nearly defeating a
beneficial wetlands restoration project (Rector,
1990).
In 1976, the Forest Service exchanged 1,970
acres for 17,800 acres that contained potential wet-
lands and developed a plan to restore wetland
values. These rangeland acres had been wetlands
prior to being drained in the early 1900s. In the
1980s, the Forest Service began restoring these
areas by seasonally rewetting 890 hectares (2,200
acres).
In 1990, 17.2 hectares (43 acres) of nesting is-
lands were designed and a contract let for their con-
struction during the dry season.
These nesting islands enhanced the value of the
wetlands. There was no decrease in the wetland
water volumes because the islands were constructed
from wetland sediments from the former lake bed.
82
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 81-83
However, the Army Corps of Engineers determined
that these were "waters of the United States" and
required a permit. In addition, the Fish and Wildlife
Service consultation suggested that:
• Mitigation was needed for 43 acres of the
islands,
• The islands were too symmetrical and
uniformly distributed, and
• Riprap was not acceptable as protection
against nesting island erosion, despite an
identified need based on experience with
previous restoration.
The Forest Service temporarily suspended the
project and may have to pay penalties to the con-
tractor. The concerns causing the delay focused on
esthetics, riprap, and mitigation. There was no
water quality purpose or beneficial use protection
served in nearly defeating this wetland improve-
ment project, yet water quality concerns provided
the basis for the applied criteria. Fortunately, the
Corps of Engineers recognized the importance of the
project and expedited the permit process, avoiding
the potential loss of project funding (Smith, 1991).
Artificial Wetlands
The Forest Service is using artificial wetlands to
reduce metals from acid mine drainage in Kentucky
and municipal effluent to support a new wetland in
Arizona. The current National Guidance on Water
Quality Standards for Wetlands, issued July 1990
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990), recognized that
these areas should not be considered waters of the
United States for regulatory purposes.
Other existing incidental wetlands, such as
those associated with stock ponds, farm ponds, and
small irrigation ditches, also should not be subject
to regulation as waters of the United States. There
are more important issues in protecting wetland
water quality. Regulating these waters as wetlands
might alienate people who would otherwise support
important water quality controls to protect wet-
lands.
There is an increasing need for water to support
quality wetland and riparian ecosystems. Most of
the available water has already been allocated
through State authorizations or court adjudications.
Agencies restoring wetlands or riparian areas will
have to determine the amount and timing of water
needed to sustain the function and value of these
areas. Necessary water must be acquired through
State procedures or by lease or purchase of existing
water rights. Failure to provide the necessary water
can undermine wetland improvements.
Conclusions
• Wetlands should be recognized as a
beneficial use to be protected.
• Water from tributary segments must be of
sufficient quality to meet the needs of
downstream wetland beneficial uses.
• Artificial wetlands for treating water quality
should continue to be exempt. This
exemption should be expanded to existing
stock ponds and similar small incidental
wetlands that exist only as a result of
human activities.
• Hydrology criteria for the physical
landscape (geomorphology), flow regimes,
and water availability must be addressed.
• Best management practices need emphasis
and follow-up. One size fits all, cookie-cutter
restrictions should be avoided in efforts to
protect wetlands.
• Water quality criteria should not be used to
solve wetland habitat and aesthetic
concerns.
References
Rector, J. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Dep. Agric.
Forest Serv., San Francisco, CA.
Rosgen, D. and L.B. Leopold. 1990. Personal communication.
Pagosa Springs, CO.
Schmidt, L.J. and L.F. DeBano. 1990. Delayed erosion threats
to channel and riparian. Pages 67-73 in Erosion Control:
Technology in Transition. Proc. Conf. XXI, Intl. Erosion
Control Ass., Washington, DC.
Smith, D. 1991. Personal communication. Alturas, CA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Water Quality
Standards for Wetlands—National Guidance. Off. Water
Reg. Stand., Off. Wetlands Prot., Washington, DC.
83
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 85-88
Criteria to Protect Wetland
Ecological Integrity
William Sanville
Team Leader, Wetlands and Geological Assessment Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Duluth, Minnesota
Introduction
Wetlands are complex ecological systems that range
from riverine and lacustrine wetlands associated
with rivers and lakes, respectively, to isolated wet
meadows. Most are covered with surface water
during part of the year; others are flooded for a
short time, with varying periods of soil saturation.
Wetlands, which frequently occupy depressions in
the landscape where surface and ground waters ac-
cumulate, are readily polluted by a variety of
anthropogenic sources.
A minor element in EPA's water quality
regulatory frame, wetlands' importance as regulated
waterbodies will expand after 1993, following their
mandatory inclusion into "Waters of the States"
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990). Historically, wet-
lands have been regulated under section 404 of the
Clean Water Act, and although water quality is an
issue in 404 decisions, it has not been the driving
variable. The no net loss of wetland area and func-
tion as proposed by the Conservation Foundation
(1988) and advocated by the president will also af-
fect wetland regulations.
The goal of regulation is to protect wetland
ecological integrity. (Figure 1 is a simplified diagram
that illustrates this relationship.) The ultimate
management objective is to achieve a state of
ecological integrity, an acceptable condition of wet-
land health—the central circle in Figure 1. The mid-
Physical Disturbance
Pesticides
Toxicants
Nutrients
Suspended Sediments
Figure 1.—A simplified diagram relating environmental
stressors, wetland blogeochemlcal charaeterletles, and
ecological Integrity.
die circle represents factors that define ecological in-
tegrity. In a healthy wetland, these factors are at
some level of collective acceptability. The outer ring
represents stressors that affect elements in the mid-
dle ring. Ecological integrity is threatened when one
stressor (or any combination) impedes the wetland's
capacity to maintain a healthy condition.
This presentation is based on the premise that a
range of criteria are necessary to protect wetland
ecological integrity from a variety of stressors.
85
-------
W. SANVILLE
Protective Criteria for
Wetlands
Biological Criteria
Biological criteria are a necessary part of wetland
standards and criteria development. Existing
aquatic life numeric criteria protect wetlands from
specific contaminants, while biological criteria as-
sess wetland biological conditions — they are the
measures of regulatory success. Biological criteria
also offer techniques to quantify effects of distur-
bance other than traditional contaminants, such as
habitat alteration.
Biological criteria are being developed for sur-
face waters and are included in several States'
water quality standards. The approach used will
likely follow that for other surface waters.
Simplified, it usually includes:
• Wetland classification,
• Selection of reference sites based on spatial
considerations and/or wetland types,
• Collection of biological data from the
reference wetlands,
• Development of biological measures to
analyze the reference sites, and
• Assignment of a range of acceptability to the
biological measures.
However, distribution of wetlands and their
relationship to the landscape are not as clearly
defined as for other surface waters. Wetland macro-
invertebrates and fish communities are less well
documented. Extensive research will be required to
develop community standards that use these or-
ganisms. Since wetlands are frequently dominated
by vegetation, biological criteria should also include
vegetative characteristics.
In addition, biological criteria can be developed
for specific functional processes. For example,
nitrification and denitrification rates may provide a
means to estimate the health of the microbiota,
which could be related to general wetland health.
Bird indices can provide measures to integrate
trophic levels for wetlands similar to fish com-
munity structure and trophic information for sur-
face waters. Biological criteria will be necessary to
protect habitats and biological diversity.
More research should be done to:
• Classify wetlands to determine reference
sites,
• Assess biological diversity of reference sites,
• Develop biological measures of ecological
integrity, and
• Test biological criteria over a range of
wetland types.
Aquatic Life Criteria
The existing aquatic life numeric criteria are the
primary surface water effluent regulatory tools.
Generally chemical-specific, they are derived using
specific test protocols (Stephan et al. 1985). Ques-
tions have been raised on the applicability of these
criteria to wetlands because of some important
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
that differ between wetlands and many other sur-
face waters. Differences that have caused concern
include a wider pH range, higher organic carbon
content, water level fluctuations ranging from
flooded to dry, a different faunal composition, and a
biomass dominated by higher plants.
Because of the complexity of deriving numeric
criteria and the differences in quality between many
surface waters and wetlands, numeric criteria must
be carefully evaluated and not indiscriminately ap-
plied to wetlands. An initial evaluation of numeric
criteria application to wetlands was done at the En-
vironmental Research Laboratory-Duluth (Min-
nesota) by Hagley and Taylor (1990), who concluded
that numeric criteria are probably protective of
most wetland types with standing surface waters.
Their determination is based primarily on the
method used to derive numeric criteria. The testing
is designed to maximize toxicity to the test or-
ganisms, and the tests create conditions where
toxicity is most likely to be expressed.
Many of the physical and chemical conditions
present in the wetlands would likely reduce the
predicted toxicity, as determined by the laboratory
bioassays. For example, the high dissolved carbon
content in wetland waters would likely reduce the
toxicity of many nonpolar organic substances.
Where there are questions on the application of the
existing numeric criteria, existing site-specific
guidelines may provide options to adjust them.
These adjustments may be as simple as using or-
ganisms common to wetlands in the criteria
development data set or may (in an extreme case)
involve a complete toxicological analysis and
development of new numeric criteria specific to wet-
lands.
Whole effluent toxicity testing protocols that are
also being used to regulate surface water quality
could be extended to wetlands. This procedure
employs a standard toxicity test to assess effluent
quality. An additional tool is the toxicity identifica-
tion evaluation (TIE), a tiered approach to identify-
86
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 85-88
ing classes of toxicants. However, before effluent
testing and TIE can be applied, they will have to be
tested using physical and chemical conditions typi-
cal of wetlands.
More research should be done to:
• Evaluate existing aquatic life numeric
criteria to determine their level of protection
for wetlands,
• Determine through toxicological testing, if
the exposure, duration, and effects of
toxicants on wetland organisms are similar
to those of surface water organisms, and
• Develop toxicological testing protocols
specific to wetland macrophytic vegetation.
Hydrologic Criteria
There are no surface water criteria for the protec-
tion of wetland hydrology. Yet, in terms of actual im-
pacts, hydrologic change is the agent most
responsible for ecological damage. Both insufficient
and excess water should be considered when deter-
mining hydrologic criteria. With either condition,
major wetlands changes will occur. Similarly, it is
important to consider the hydroperiod because
variations can produce serious structural and func-
tional impacts. Hydrology is complex to monitor be-
cause both surface and ground waters must be
measured continuously. However, techniques are
being developed that relate long-term hydrologic
measures and U.S. Geological Survey river sam-
pling data to surface water and groundwater
monitoring sites.
Because the knowledge and/or tools to develop
hydrologic criteria are only just being developed, it
will be necessary to regulate hydrology through a
narrative criteria framework at first.
More research should be done to:
• Develop a theoretical basis for hydrologic
criteria,
• Develop relationships between hydrology
and wetland structural and functional
integrity,
• Develop relationships between hydrology
and the effects of other anthropogenic inputs
(agricultural chemical runoff), and
• Develop indicators to assess the hydrologic
state of a wetland.
Sediment Criteria
Both wetland sediment quality and quantity must
be managed. Excess sedimentation can modify wet-
land hydrology. Also, it is necessary to determine if a
sediment is likely to be toxic and therefore affect or-
ganisms for whom it is a normal habitat or through
sediment manipulation, such as dredge and fill ac-
tivities.
Sediment toxicity criteria differ somewhat from
traditional, surface water, numeric aquatic life
criteria because they are being developed for classes
of contaminants and sediment types rather than
specific chemicals. An example of this approach is
the following: Acid volatile sulfide (AVS) (Di Toro et
al. 1991) concentration in sediment is related to the
capacity of the sediment to retain heavy metals.
With increasing AVS, sediments can retain addition-
al heavy metals. Thus, it is possible to determine
sediment carrying capacity for heavy metals and as-
sess whether this capacity is being exceeded.
AVS analysis also includes a toxicity identifica-
tion component similar to whole effluent testing pro-
cedure's TIE. Where significantly different redox
conditions exist, similar relationships in wetlands
must be defined before similar criteria can be
presumed applicable.
More research should be done to:
• Determine the effects of alternating
sediment redox conditions on wetland
sediment heavy metal retention,
• Verify TIE approaches to toxicant
identification for wetland sediments, and
• Develop procedures relating sediment carbon
content and the toxicity of nonpolar organic
substances.
Wildlife Criteria
Wildlife support is one of the most visible and social-
ly important wetland functional attributes; there-
fore, protective criteria are critical. Existing wildlife
criteria focus on migratory waterfowl toxicity but
are being expanded to include additional avian and
mammalian species. Criteria being developed for
wildlife endemic to wetlands should have direct ap-
plication to wetland organisms. Wildlife criteria
may also represent a means to establish toxicity
criteria for those wetlands lacking standing water.
These wetlands may require criteria more similar to
terrestrial systems — that is, criteria that depend
on chemical body burdens.
More research should be done to:
• Develop a toxicity database for wildlife
specific to wetlands.
Indicators of Wetland Health
During the development of wetland protective
criteria, "indicators" of wetland health should be
87
-------
W. SANVILLE
defined so a wetland's condition can be assessed
without extensive process level investigations.
Ecological integrity could be determined by measur-
ing the health of surrogates of vegetation, hydrol-
ogy, sediment, or macroinvertebrates. Research in
this area is being supported by EPA's Environmen-
tal Monitoring and Assessment Program and the Of-
fice of Research and Development's Wetland
Research Program.
An approach that integrates wetland protective
criteria into a larger landscape management
philosophy is being developed by using landscape
ecology principles (Gosslink et al. 1990). Studies as-
sessing the importance of wetlands to improving
landscape water quality are being conducted at
EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory in Cor-
vallis, Oregon. Their approach uses a very general
synoptic model, which initially focuses on mapped
data. Data derived while developing wetlands
protective criteria will be an important model data
source. The process will be iterative; the model's
ability to estimate the water quality improvement
function of wetlands on a broad spatial scale will be-
come more precise as more of the data required for
criteria development become available.
Conclusion
Crucial to all aspects of wetland standards and
criteria programs is integration of a variety of ap-
proaches into protocols that protect wetlands.
Biological criteria are critical, and their develop-
ment is a high research priority. These criteria will
be extremely important in determining regulatory
success and protecting ecological factors that cur-
rently lack protective criteria, such as habitat.
Analysis of existing chemical-specific numeric
criteria suggests they are probably as protective of
wetland water quality as they are of other surface
waters. For those criteria that are not, mechanisms
within the existing criteria development framework
should be evaluated to adjust the criteria.
Hydrology is a primary driving variable for wet-
lands, and criteria to protect wetlands from human-
induced hydrologic modifications are critical.
Narrative criteria must be developed because the
experimental frame for numeric hydrologic criteria
is lacking. Research into the development of sedi-
ment and wildlife criteria must include wetland en-
vironmental conditions. Further landscape model
development is essential to extrapolate from the
protection of a single wetland to the protection of
the wetland resource.
References
Conservation Foundation, Inc. 1988. Protecting America's
Wetlands: An Action Agenda. Final Rep. Natl. Wetlands
Policy Forum. Washington, DC.
Di Tbro, D.M. et al. 1991. Acid volatile sulfide predicts the
acute toxicity of cadmium and nickel in sediments. En-
viron. Sci. Technol. 25 (in press).
Gosselink, J.G. et al. 1990. Landscape conservation in a
forested wetland watershed. Bioscience 40(8).
Hagley, C-A. and D.L. Taylor. 1990. An Approach for Evaluat-
ing Numeric Water Quality Criteria for Wetlands Protec-
tion. Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Duluth, MN.
Stephan, C.E. et al. 1985. Guidelines for Deriving Numeric
National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of
Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. PB85-227049. Natl.
Tech. Inf. Serv. Springfield, VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. National
Guidance, Water Quality Standards for Wetlands. Off.
Water Reg. Stand. Off., Wetlands Prot., Washington, DC.
88
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 89-90
Protecting Wetland Water
Quality Standards
Thomas Dawson
Wisconsin Public Intervenor
Wisconsin Department of Justice
Madison, Wisconsin
A; an environmental advocate for the State
>f Wisconsin, I have been involved in wet-
ands issues for years. I speak on behalf of
the Wisconsin Office of Public Intervenor, not the at-
torney general, the Department of Justice, nor,
especially, the Department of Natural Resources.
We have been given a good summary of the re-
quirements of the Clean Water Act with regard to
developing water quality standards for the wet-
lands. This is your primer for developing water
quality standards. However, it certainly is not the
end word because it is lacking a model set of stand-
ards, one of the things I would like to see in a docu-
ment like this. However, the summary is a starting
point. I would encourage everyone to get a copy be-
cause, if you want to protect wetlands, you'll need
information on 401 water quality certification.
In most States, there are no regulatory
programs to protect wetlands. We all know that the
regulatory handle lies in 404 of the Clean Water Act,
which the Army Corps of Engineers administers. We
also know that the Corps has a dismal record of
protecting wetlands under 404 and that 401 is the
way for the States to veto these permits, one of the
primary reasons why 401 certification is necessary
if States seriously intend to protect wetlands.
I will give you a quick look at portions of rules
that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resour-
ces (DNR) is currently proposing. On December 10,
1990, the Wisconsin DNR went to public hearings
on Chapter NR103 entitled "Water Quality Cer-
tification for Wetlands"—rules that our office, as
well as environmental groups in Wisconsin, peti-
tioned for in 1979 and again in 1983.
I reject the notion that developing narrative
water quality standards for wetlands is a difficult
thing to do from a technical standpoint. To me, the
major obstacle for the development of an effective
401 certification program in any State is political.
Standards can (and are being) developed, and they
can be administered effectively.
Now let's look briefly at Wisconsin's proposed
rules. Wisconsin's first mention of wetland water
quality standards is in proposed section NR103. It
says that the State DNR shall protect water quality-
related functional values of wetlands within the
range of natural variation—whatever that means.
Some of the various values listed are stormwater
and floodwater storage, hydrologic functions, filtra-
tion, storage of sediment, shoreline protection, and
water quality and quantity support. In the proposal,
there is a section entitled "Wetlands in Areas of Spe-
cial Natural Resource Interest." Now, we know that
all wetlands are of special interest, but these are the
"more special" ones that are adjacent to trout
streams, near Lake Michigan, and close to wild and
scenic rivers. This list is similar to the outstanding
waters noted in many State antidegradation
policies.
The critical part of our rule is the decisionmak-
ing standards. It is one thing to consider various
values that will be impacted, but, as an environmen-
tal advocate, I want to know the basis for an
agency's decision, as does the regulated community.
The basis for decisionmaking should be a presump-
tion that wetlands should not be adversely impacted
or destroyed. The DNR is to protect all present and
prospective future uses of wetlands and, to do so,
89
-------
T. DAWSON
should consider factors including water dependency,
practicable alternatives, and impacts that may
result.
The decisionmaking standard states that when-
ever the DNR determines an activity is not water
dependent and a practicable alternative exists that
will not adversely impact wetlands and/or result in
other significant adverse environmental consequen-
ces, the DNR shall make a finding that the require-
ments of this chapter are not satisfied. In other
words, certification will be denied. And, for all ac-
tivities that do not meet the conditions in this para-
graph, the DNR shall determine whether the
activity will result in "significant adverse impacts."
This narrative standard gives pause to environmen-
talists and industry alike—what does it mean?
Let me give you a short critique. The burden of
proof is on the DNR—and I don't think it should be.
One of the most useful documents in the EPA
guidance is the very last item, Appendix E, which is
an example of a State certification decision denying
certification and, in numerous paragraphs, there is
language such as the following: "All affected wet-
land areas are important, and to the extent that the
loss of these wetlands can be mitigated, the ap-
plicant has failed to demonstrate that the mitiga-
tion proposed is inadequate. The applicant has
failed to demonstrate that there will not be an ad-
verse water quality and related habitat impact. The
applicant has failed to demonstrate that there will
not be any adverse water quality impacts from in-
creased groundwater levels."
When you go back to your States, make sure the
burden of proof lies in the proper place—with the
applicant, not on the agency. It is the applicant that
should be forced to make the required showing to
get a permit and overcome the presumption that fill-
ing in wetlands is prohibited.
With regard to the definition of "practicable al-
ternative," consider the concept in the 404(b)(l)
guidelines on practicable alternatives. Do not write
a rule that allows applicants to paint themselves
into a corner and then claim that they have no alter-
native for their project than to fill the wetland. The
404(b)(l) guidelines do not legitimize that idea, and
401 certification rules should not legitimize allowing
buyers to claim hardship that they created for them-
selves in the event the project fill application is
denied. And this also applies to water dependency.
Keep the 404(b)(l) concept of practicable alterna-
tives in mind.
The Public Intervenor's office would amend the
decisionmaking standards to say the following:
• Whenever the DNR determines that a
practicable alternative exists that will
neither affect wetlands adversely nor result
in other significant adverse impacts, it will
deny the permit.
• Whenever the DNR determines an activity is
not water-dependent, it will presume that a
practicable alternative exists that will avoid
adverse impacts on wetlands, unless clearly
demonstrated otherwise by a rigorous
investigation. (The burden of proof belongs
on the applicant.)
• For all activities, the DNR shall determine if
the provisions of this chapter are met.
Whenever the DNR finds that there is no
reasonable assurance of significant adverse
impact on wetlands, the permit shall be
denied.
Again, keeping the burden of proof on the ap-
plicant is essential in decisionmaking. There should
be a heavy presumption against nonwater-depend-
ent activities and for which there are practicable al-
ternatives that will not significantly affect water
quality.
In Wisconsin, we are adopting these standards
to deny 404 permits and, thereby, protect wetlands.
Also, we are proposing a department self-audit.
Before the program goes into effect, we must deter-
mine how many wetland acres are being lost; after-
ward, we should audit to determine how effective
the rules are. We should send these reports to the
legislature or the governor and publicize the effec-
tiveness of the program.
90
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. (John Bender—Nebraska Department of En-
vironmental Control) This panel has called for
hydrologic criteria, and in Nebraska, hydrologic
modification (filling or draining of wetlands) is the
big problem. Everything else—nonpoint sources,
chemical contamination, point sources—make up
less than 5 percent of the problem for our wetlands.
Please address these two questions: The preamble of
the Clean Water Act says something about "States
rights for appropriation of flows and quantities" and
pretty much segregates quantity issues from the
quality issues. How do you get around that with
hydrologic criteria? Assuming that we can get
around that, what do you do with these hydrologic
criteria when curve engineers do not take jurisdic-
tion and it's a drainage project, not a fill?
A. The quantity and quality issue is really criti-
cal. If you don't have the water regime necessary to
maintain that wetland, you will suffer some
damages, either accumulations of sediment or ac-
cumulation of sediment followed by downcutting. A
lot of our areas have been damaged in that way
through diversions either of new water into the sys-
tem or water out of the system. States will have to
resolve that issue because of the way their water al-
location laws are set up.
C. If the court does not have jurisdiction, States
don't have jurisdiction; if they can't find a Federal
handle, then 401 certification doesn't apply. If the
handle exists (somebody is digging a ditch and dis-
charging spoil right into the wetlands), then I really
don't see a serious problem dealing with quantity
and quality issues. As groundwater and surface
water ecologists and hydrogeologists have told me,
you really can't separate quality and quantity issues
and should be able to find ways to draw the linkage
between the two.
Q. I think that's our real concern. Is there any
solution to where 404 doesn't apply?
A. (Mary Jo Garreis—State of Maryland
Department of the Environment) There is because I
have experienced it. Maryland probably has the
most aggressive 401 certification program in the
country, but early on we ran into a problem: if you
excavate and don't fill, then you're not covered by
401, at least by current interpretations. However,
under the 401 interpretation, you are covered by
anything that has potential to carve a discharge or
to violate a water quality standard. We take water
quality standards interpretation probably to the
maximum; our basic use standards say that our
water quality standards protect fish and other
aquatic life (we declare wetlands other aquatic life)
and just take off from there. We have used that
quite successfully; if you are digging a wetland, you
are disturbing other aquatic life.
In 1989, Maryland passed a nontitled wetlands
protective act that requires a permit for any work in
wetlands. It goes further than 401 certification in
that it covers any activity in wetlands. We have re-
quired titled permits (required permits in titled wet-
lands) since 1983, so we have two laws in the book.
In 1983, we began using the Water Quality Cer-
tification Program to geographically protect par-
ticularly nontitled wetlands until we could get the
Wetlands Protective Act on the book. A State like
Maryland that has a whole set of laws to protect
titled and another set for nontitled wetlands has a
good grasp of the 401 water quality program that
has been using our water quality standards.
As for general narrative language, we see no ad-
vantage in using the recommended EPA approach;
in fact, if I tried to use that approach in my State, I
would be crucified on the grounds that it is another
bureaucratic move in what is already an extremely
complicated process. We have had meetings to
eliminate duplications of authority and activity with
the Army Corps, EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and our three State agencies. How does the EPA
guidance intend to account for States that have
elected to protect wetlands in other ways than using
specific water quality standards (in other words
have specific acts directed to wetland protection)? A
lot of States are going about it in different ways and
could actually put the process backward, instead of
forward, by causing confusion.
C. That's the kind of exemption from the pro-
gram I'd like to have to worry about.
C. (Mary Jo Garreis) Well I'm worried because
it could be a real political nightmare for me.
C. I work with the water quality standards pro-
gram at EPA headquarters. Our view of water
quality standards for wetlands is based on our
responsibility under the Clean Water Act, which re-
quires that water quality standards be set for all
waters of the United States and based on the
91
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
regulatory definition of waters of the United States,
which can include wetlands. At the State level,
programs might be duplicated when other means
were adopted earlier. However, this does not allow
our program to say that we are not required to carry
out that responsibility under the Clean Water Act.
I'll bring this issue to my management—to find out
how EPA can work with States that have used other
regulatory programs to protect the water quality of
their wetlands.
C. (Mary Jo Garreis) In a time of limited re-
sources and duplication of efforts where everybody
is touchy about over-regulations, you'd better come
up with a solution. Nobody is going to buy that ar-
gument.
C. (Jaime Kooser—Wetlands Section of the
Washington State Department of Ecology) I have
spent the last 11 months writing wetlands water
quality standards for the State of Washington. I
would be happy to send you a copy of our draft rule.
We are participating in the triennial review of
Washington State. Wetlands are only one of the
many important issues that are being handled.
Filing of the Wetland Water Quality Standards
would be part of that process. But our schedule is
dictated by the triennial review rather than by just
being able to have a leisurely amount of time to
develop standards. Obviously, Washington is getting
a head start. Most States will be dealing with this
on the next triennium. Hopefully, what Washington
has done, as well as Wisconsin and other States, will
give you all a good head start.
There are a couple of things that you should pay
attention to in writing such standards. First,
develop a mitigation policy. One question that sur-
faced quickly was, what is the relationship between
mitigation and the antidegradation implementation
plan? Clearly, activities that degrade wetlands will
continue, and they will have to be mitigated. Figure
out how a mitigation policy for wetlands would fit in
with your antidegradation plan. In particular, this
means that States must pay more attention to their
outstanding resource waters program. In
Washington State, no such waters are presently
designated, but we are working on this in the an-
tidegradation plan. It is an important way to protect
wetlands that are designated "pristine."
People must also pay attention to stormwater.
In Washington State, we have a research project
called the Puget Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Management Research Program, which is determin-
ing how wetlands can be used appropriately in deal-
ing with stormwater. Wetlands receive much
nonpoint source pollution either by design or by ac-
cident—what should be done? Nonpoint sources,
which are difficult to deal with, will not be covered
under 401 certification processes.
The major battle is a political one; that's going
to be true for all those things that are not 401 cer-
tification problems in your State. I can share some
of the results from that stormwater research group.
Hopefully, we can make the task of writing such
standards an easier one for other States.
C. You have to be very serious about mitigation
so that it doesn't degenerate into a mechanism by
which developers say let's make a deal. That's hap-
pened at the Army Corps of Engineers level, and it
can happen at the State level. You must link mitiga-
tion directly to decisionmaking standards; you've
got to have a strong standard so that people don't
try to trade a duckpond for a wetlands. Developers
are doing this now. I would hate to see States get
into that same problem.
C. (Jaime Kooser) Our mitigation policy clearly
states no net loss for both function and acreage.
That may cost us a lot in some areas, but it's clearly
stated because we don't want the developers to be in
that position. And although I agree with you that
the application needs to show the burden of proof,
it's very clear in our mitigation policy that ap-
propriateness is determined by the department. In
other words, it will be up to the Department of Ecol-
ogy to decide if the mitigation being proposed is ap-
propriate or acceptable. The standard method of
going through that has to be crystal clear in the
policy.
C. Within our program, stormwater research
has one of the highest priorities. It's likely that we
will begin some type of stormwater research pro-
gram, really extending the work done by EPA.
Q. / have a question for Larry Schmidt. You had
good ideas on what might be done by the Forest Ser-
vice. What is its commitment (in terms of resources)
to ensure that there are appropriate BMPs, that they
are applied properly, and that there is follow-up to
assure consistent improvement? Have you considered
any program to actively involve citizen groups in the
follow-up work?
A. (Larry Schmidt) We do have a limited staff.
We try to get the BMPs designed and implemented
as part of the ongoing programs and go out and
check them by a sampling type of process. However,
we don't have a complete idea of what's being
delivered out there, and that is a concern.
Q. Has the Forest Service as an agency made a
resource commitment to follow up?
A. I think we have, within our capacity.
Q. In other words, fairly little?
A. Yes.
92
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Q. Would the Forest Service actively recruit
public citizen groups?
A. We haven't actively recruited the public, al-
though we have involved citizens in some of the
monitoring review.
Q. Would you be willing to go back to the Forest
Service and propose this as a method for increasing
your manpower?
A. It's one course we've considered, and we are
using volunteers. We need more of that kind of effort
for BMPs, but monitoring would help.
C. (Marge Coomb—Florida Department of En-
vironmental Regulation) Florida's Standards and
Monitoring Section is looking at specific water
quality standards for wetlands. There are other
ways besides 401 certification to protect wetlands;
as a matter of fact, I was with the Wetlands Permit-
ting Section for a year before I knew there was any-
thing called 401 certification.
Florida has a separate permitting program for
those who need a permit for dredging or filling in, on
or over waters of the State to a landward extent—
and we have definitions of what constitutes
landward extent and waters of the State based on
soil, hydrology, and vegetation.
For any dredge and fill activity—and now for
any discharges as part of our antidegradation pro-
gram—we have permitting criteria that are based
on impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitats,
including threatened and endangered species,
hydrologic impacts, and marine productivity. These
criteria are not water quality standards per se but
rules in the statutes. For reasonable assurance, the
burden of proof is based on the applicant, and all
projects have to go through a public interest criteria
test.
C. Those people who do not want water quality
standards for wetlands to move forward will use the
argument that you should have quantitative water
quality standards. There is no such thing as a
"quantitative standard" or fill in a wetland, it's
either you do or you don't. With respect to
stormwater, however, I think EPA is headed in the
right direction. However, the things EPA is doing at
the research level are not appropriate for developing
quantitative standards as they might apply to
dredge and fill programs because they just don't
work.
C. I don't want to give the impression that you
don't need water quality standards, but I do find it
ironic that, in some States, if you stick a pipe into
wetland, the Agency would say you need a permit to
discharge wastewater. You can argue how applicable
the standards are but at least the regulators would
jump forward; however, if somebody backs another
point source—a dump truck—up to the wetland and
obliterates it, those same regulators don't have a
way to handle that. The dump truck is violating the
suspended solid standards.
If you really want numerical standards, you
don't need linkage between water quality and
numeric and narrative standards. Numeric stand-
ards should not be an excuse for not going forward
with narrative standards, doing what you can while
developing strategies that take into account the
water quality regime from wetlands as opposed to
surface waters. Agricultural industries are going to
complain about the rules; well, I'm perfectly willing
to talk to them about numeric standards, about the
quality water that should come out of their ditches,
but they have an exemption in water standards that
they don't like to talk about.
Q. Since the first action for States to take is to
include wetlands in the definition of State waters,
and two speakers have talked about having develop-
ing State definitions of wetlands, I'm wondering how
you can reconcile those definitions with the Federal
ones? Are your boundaries more or less inclusive and
is it or is it not acceptable to EPA?
A. Somebody told me once that there were 50
definitions for wetlands. In the criteria, it says that
the "State may choose to include riparian and flood
complaint ecosystems as a whole in the definitions
of water of the State," and it may seem that we are
going beyond the classical definition of wetlands.
The Corps, EPA, and Fish and Wildlife Service
have argued about the Federal definition for years.
The value of the manual was in a set of rules we had
to follow so people couldn't put in their own inter-
pretations.
Q. (John Bonine—Environmental Law Clinic,
University of Oregon) Tom, doesn't Wisconsin require
that dump trucks get NPDES permits ? It was held in
AUL Sportsmen vs. Alexander that dump trucks are
point sources of water pollution under NPDES;
maybe some NPDES suits should be brought against
those dump trucks.
A. (Thomas Dawson) I have argued for years
that that situation exists but I've gotten resistance
from the legal staff at the Department of Natural
Resources who argue that you separate 301 from
404 and that separation could co-exist in State law. I
disagree with that. It's one thing to talk about bring-
ing a lawsuit and it's another to take it to the cur-
rent Wisconsin court where we probably will lose.
I'll wait until a transition and then maybe think
about bringing up that case.
Q. (Bill Wilen) What does the audience think is
the single most important need from EPA? They had
93
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
the manual; you want to draft water quality stand-
ards. Is there one overriding need that EPA could
provide to help States head down the road to water
quality standards?
A, Spend money.
C, I don't think it's what EPA has to do neces-
sarily with respect to water quality standards.
Again, going back to the 404 permit program, EPA
has to start working with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers because it has not fulfilled the mandate
they have under the Clean Water Act. EPA is sort of
a partner with the Corps in the implementation of
the act. We need EPA's support to bolster or backup
the Corps' program to make sure that it is operating
to fulfill the mission of the Clean Water Act as op-
posed to caving in to any permittee that walks in the
door.
C. This time, I agree with you 100 percent,
Duane.
Q. What's the most important step for a State
when it wants to enact water quality standards for
wetlands?
A. The most important thing is being able to
consider habitat values prior to the 1984 Wetlands
Protection Act, The only thing we could do was link
private decisions with water quality standards. We
had a lot of bluffing before that but being able to
specifically look at habitat is the biggest step.
Q. How did you overcome that?
A, By including it in the statutes as far as deter-
mining criteria as part of the public interest.
Q, For the State?
A, Yes. In Washington State, the driving factor
was a desire to improve the use of the 401 certifica-
tion process. Wetlands have always been considered
waters of the State in Washington, although they
are not specifically included in our definitions of
water of the State. An attorney general option is in-
cluded in Canadian legislation.
However, there's been confusion because of
what was not specifically listed, so we do need to in-
clude wetlands. Because they have always been con-
sidered waters of the State, they have been
protected. The problem is that, because the 401
process isn't as clear as it should be, the State has
been using the water quality standards as it is cur-
rently written, which is a lot harder. We are for-
tunate because we haven't been challenged in court
on our 401 certifications.
The problem in Washington State is that, for
the last three years, our wetlands bill has died in
the legislature. We now have an executive order
from Governor Gardner that directs us to do a lot of
wetlands protection, but it also says specifically to
"get wetland standards." As States together, we
need to talk about how to put together the most ef-
fective package deal. Smaller states like Connec-
ticut already have completed inventories and some
legislation. In Washington State, there isn't a com-
plete inventory; we don't know where all the wet-
lands are. You have to think about how to organize
your package deal. Wetlands water quality stand-
ards are one element in a larger package—you can't
expect them to solve every problem. But the first
and biggest problem is getting the 401 process into
water quality because that would go a long way in
getting the other pieces of the puzzle to fit.
C. I'd like to go back to the comment that the
most critical issue is dredge and fill, the presence of
water. For that reason, I would urge that you not
give up on your State legislation because I would
hate to see you try to corrupt old-time water quality
standards with new concepts. Let's get the State
laws that say "Thou shalt not dredge and fill wet-
lands" and continue to work on that being the big
tool.
C. But that's easier said than done and the fact
is Wisconsin, which is considered an environmental-
ly progressive State, has for years attempted to get
wetlands legislation, and it has been consistently
defeated; 401 is one of the few handles we already
have and can implement. Since the department al-
ready has the authority to adopt them, let's go out
there and work for wetland bills, but there are
things we can do that are realistic that can go into
place now, and that's 401 certification.
One thing you need to recognize, though, is that
401 does not cross-reference the line with section
404 in the Clean Water Act and, therefore, there is a
serious jurisdictional problem when we talk about
using 401 to regulate what is more than an acre of
land and what should be local determination of 401
with the water quality standards effluent limita-
tions. Legislative control is another topic entirely
and is actively addressed by local legislation.
C. I disagree. Even when we are talking about
wetlands, we are talking about waters of the United
States and you are only playing on the developers'
turf when you allow them to emphasize the word
'land." What the Clean Water Act is all about is
protecting the physical, biological, and chemical in-
tegrity of water. We are not talking about land use—
we are talking about the integrity of water and what
water gives us in the quality of our life, I disagree
strongly with the view that this is some sort of sub-
versive land use conspiracy, that we protect water
and cannot separate water in wetlands from
hydrologic systems.
94
-------
;^.V---^VH',--'r •"'••'•'
,,
p; -•-"•:'";"v ' :""
~' ^T^ y V •„'<;',' mJ '".-'^V1;,, ./^ s\,
"'if' ''-,""• ','l''tt 'V',-;'^ ; ,'i'"'.•-'!,-,>
,,.._, .' •- • ..—
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 95-104
Answering Some Concerns
About Biological Criteria
Based on Experiences in Ohio
Chris O. Yoder
Manager, Ecological Assessment
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment
Columbus, Ohio
Introduction
Biological criteria have been receiving increased na-
tional attention among the States and from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Agen-
cy has published national program guidance for
biological criteria (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990)
and will require States to develop narrative biologi-
cal criteria by 1993, evidence that this is a priority
in its water quality program.
In Ohio, biological assessments and correspond-
ing evaluation criteria have been used extensively
since 1980. Use and evaluation of ambient biological
data underwent an evolutionary process, from nar-
rative descriptions of community attributes in the
early 1980s to the numerical biological criteria
adopted into Ohio's water quality standards regula-
tions in February 1990.
The way regulatory agencies have assessed and
managed surface water resources has undergone
significant changes in the past 10 years. What was
primarily a system of simple chemical criteria that
served as surrogates for the biological integrity goal
of the Clean Water Act has matured into a multidis-
ciplinary process that includes complex chemical
criteria and standards for whole effluent toxicity
and biological community performance. This in-
tegrated approach has allowed surface water
management programs to focus beyond water
quality and consider the surface water resource as a
whole.
Simply stated, controlling chemical water
quality alone does not assure the integrity of water
resources (Karr et al. 1986; Ohio Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990a); this results from the combination of
chemical, physical, and biological processes (Fig. 1).
To be truly successful in meeting this goal, we need
monitoring and assessment tools that measure both
the interacting processes and integrated result of
these processes. Biological criteria offer a way to
measure the end result of water quality manage-
ment efforts and successfully protect surface water
resources.
In addition to accurately assessing water
resource health, the challenge of accounting for the
landscape's natural variability was addressed
through the use of ecoregions (Omernik, 1987) and
regional reference sites (Hughes et al. 1986, 1990).
Ecoregions delineate variability in major landscape
features at a level of resolution that is easy to apply
in statewide water quality standards (Gallant et al.
1989). Ecoregions in Ohio are transitional; they
range from the flat, extensively farmed northwest
section to the highly dissected, unglaciated east and
southeast part of the State (Omernik and Gallant,
1988). In Ohio, numerical biological criteria are or-
ganized by ecoregion, organism group, site type, and
use designation (Yoder, 1989; Ohio Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990b).
95
-------
CO. YODER
Biological Criteria: Questions
and Concerns
Although biological assessments have been a part of
some State monitoring efforts for many years, only
recently has the need for and acceptance of ambient
biological criteria been recognized. In many tradi-
tional water quality circles, the validity and efficacy
of biological criteria are often questioned or
misunderstood. This presents a paradox because
biological criteria directly express what water
quality criteria are designed to achieve.
In an effort to address some of these concerns,
we have posed the following five questions about
biological criteria and answered them with real
world examples from our experiences in Ohio.
1. Are ambient biological measures
too variable to use in assessing sur-
face water resources?
A frequent criticism of ambient biological data is
that it is subject to natural and anthropogenic
variations and therefore too "noisy" to function as a
reliable component of surface water resource
management. Natural biological systems are vari-
able and seemingly "noisy," but no more than the
chemical and physical components that exist within
them. Certain components of ambient biological
data are quite variable, particularly those measures
at the population or sub-population level.
Single dimension community measures can also
be quite variable. However, the advent of new
generation community evaluation mechanisms such
as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr, 1981;
Karr et al. 1986) have provided sufficient redundan-
cy as to compress and dampen some of this
variability. Rankin and Yoder (1990) examined repli-
cate variability of the IBI from nearly 1,000 sites in
Ohio and found it to be quite low at least-impacted
sites (Fig. 2). Coefficient of variation (CV) values
were less than 10 percent at IBI ranges indicative of
exceptional biological performance, which is lower
than that reported for chemical laboratory analyses
and interlaboratory bioassay variability (Mount,
1987). Variability as portrayed by CV values in-
creased at the IBI ranges indicative of impaired
Adsorption
Solubilities
Alkalinit
Nutrients
Organics
Chemical
Variables
Turbidity
1
Hardness
rDis(
71 I
•Disease
- Parasitism ^\ Reproduction
s*
C
Biotic
Factors
Ceding /
WATER RESOURCE
INTEGRITY
-Predation
Nutrients
I ^—Width/Depth
/ /Bank
J / Stability
Habitat
Structure
1*and
Production
Channel
Morphology
Gradient
Sinuosity
Current
t \ *. >^-^
I X^/v Instream
\ Substrate^ \Cover
CanopyJ
Figure 1.—The five principal factors, with some of their Important chemical, physical, and biological components, that
Influence and determine the resultant Integrity of surface water resources (modified from Karr et al. 1986).
96
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 95-104
CV(%)
10Q
Aquatic Life Use
Impaired
Warmwater
Habitat
o
0
Exceptional
Warmwater
Habitat
12-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60
IBI Range
Figure 2.—Coefficient of variation (CV) for a range of IBI scores at sites with three sampling passes per year. Boxes
show median, 25th and 75th percentlles and minimum, maximum, and outlier values.
biological performance. Low variability was found
for Ohio's Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) with
a CV of 10.8 percent for 19 replicate samples at a
relatively unimpacted test site. Other researchers
have reported similarly low variability with ambient
biological evaluations (Davis and Lubin, 1989;
Stevens and Szczytko, 1990).
Cairns (1986) suggested that differences in
variability rather than differences in averages or
means might be the best measure of stress in
natural systems. Not only is the variability of the
measures used to implement biological criteria low,
the degree of variability encountered can be a useful
assessment and interpretation tool.
Ohio EPA has addressed the variability in-
herent to biological measures in three general ways:
1. Variability is compressed through the use of
multimetric evaluation mechanisms such as
the IBI and ICI.
2. Variability is stratified through use of a
tiered stream classification system,
ecoregions, biological index calibration, and
site type.
3. Variability is controlled through standard
sampling procedures that address
seasonality, effort, replication, gear selec-
tivity, and spatial concerns.
Lenat (1990) also described similar approaches
to controlling and thus reducing variability in am-
bient biological samples.
2. Are biological criteria sufficiently
sensitive to serve as a measure of
surface water resource integrity?
Conceptually, direct biological measures should be
sufficient to measure water pollution control goals
and end points that are fundamentally biological.
However, this fact alone is an insufficient test of the
efficacy of biological criteria and attendant assess-
ment methodologies. Evaluation against currently
accepted assessment methods is one way to test the
comparative sensitivity of biological criteria. This
was accomplished in the 1990 Ohio 305b report
(Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a), where com-
parisons were made of the relative abilities of
biological and chemical water quality criteria and
97
-------
C.O. YODER
Case I: Relative performance of chemical water quality
criteria vs. biological criteria
whole effluent toxicity tests to detect aquatic life use
impairment.
In comparing biological with chemical water
quality criteria, a database was used that consisted
of 625 waterbody segments. Individual waterbody
segments averaged 10.6 miles in length (range: 0.5-
41.2 mi.) and had one or more chemical and biologi-
cal sampling locations. Biological data consisted of
fish and/or macroinvertebrate results. Water
chemistry data consisted of grab samples at an
average of 3.6 samples per site (range: 1 to 13
samples) and included parameters commonly
measured by most ambient monitoring networks.
(Ambient grab samples usually consist of dissolved
oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, suspended
solids, ammonia-N, nitrate-N, nitrite-N, total Kjeh-
dahl nitrogen, phosphorus, and toxics such as
cyanide, phenolics, copper, cadmium, chromium,
lead, nickel, iron, and zinc on an as-needed basis.)
Ohio's recently adopted biological criteria were
used to define biological impairment and the Ohio
Water Quality Standards (WQS) were used to deter-
mine exceedances of chemical results. The com-
parison showed that biological impairment was
evident in 49.8 percent of the segments where no
ambient chemical water quality criteria exceedan-
ces were observed (Fig. 3). Both the biological and
chemical assessments agreed about impairment (or
lack thereof) in 47.4 percent of the waterbody seg-
ments. Chemical impairment was evident in the
remaining 2.8 percent of the segments where no
biological impairment was found. While much of the
concern expressed about biological criteria has been
with its potential use to "dismiss" chemical ex-
ceedances, such as the latter case, the most impor-
tant finding of this analysis was with the ability of
the biota to detect impairment in the absence of
chemical criteria exceedances. An initial reaction to
these results might be to view chemical criteria as
not being sufficiently protective. However, further
analysis of the reasons behind these results shows
that the stringency of the chemical criteria is not an
important issue. In the 49.8 percent of the segments
with biological impairment alone, the predominant
causes of impairment were organic enrichment/dis-
solved oxygen, habitat modification, and siltation
(60.4 percent of the impaired segments). None of
these, except very low dissolved oxygen, are
measurable by direct exceedances of chemical water
quality criteria.
Chemical causes of impairment were
predominant in a minority of the cases (30.7 per-
cent). In the absence of chemical criteria exceedan-
ces from the water column, this cause was deemed
important because of information such as sediment
contamination or effluent data that indicated peri-
Chemical Impairment
Only (2.8%)
Biological Impairment
Only (49.8%)
Agreement (47.4%)
Case II: Ecoregional threshold concentrations for nutrients
improves the performance of water chemistry
Chemical Impairment
Only (6 2%)
Biological Impairment
Only (36.4%)
Agreement (57 4%)
Figure 3.—Comparison of the abilities of blocrlterla and
chemical criteria to detect Impairment of aquatic life
uses In 625 waterbody segments throughout Ohio. Data
were based on chemical water quality criteria currently
In Ohio's water quality standards (upper) and supple-
mented with nutrient data using threshold values from
ecoreglonal analysis (lower).
odic chemical problems not readily detectable by
grab sampling. In this case, it was the failure of the
chemical sampling effort to detect exceedances in
the water column, primarily because of an insuffi-
cient sampling frequency, parameter coverage, or
both. In many segments, both chemical and non-
chemical causes occurred simultaneously, resulting
in cumulative effects evident only in the biological
results.
Another important factor to consider is that
chemical criteria in this evaluation are used in an
ambient application. Thus, factors such as sampling
frequency, temporal variability, parameter coverage,
and dilution dynamics can be of equal, if not over-
riding, importance as the stringency of the chemical
criteria. One of the most important applications of
chemical criteria is as design standards where fac-
tors such as design flows and safety factors tend to
make up for their apparent inadequacies. This is not
to say that chemical criteria can never be too strin-
gent or lenient. Such situations are likely to arise on
98
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 95-104
a site-specific basis, where unique regional or local
conditions result in differences.
The performance of the chemical assessment
relative to the biological was improved by including
ecoregional threshold exceedances for nutrient
parameters (nitrogen series, phosphorus), for which
no aquatic life criteria exist (Fig. 3). By using the
Ohio regional reference site database, threshold
values for these parameters were established as
75th percentile concentrations. This reduced the fre-
quency of segments with biological impairment
alone to 36.4 percent. Again, the reasons are com-
plex and were most often related to the coincidental
occurrence of higher nutrient concentrations with
predominant impacts such as organic enrichment,
siltation, and habitat modification. Further work
with ecoregional threshold values for additional
chemical parameters may enhance the use of am-
bient water chemistry results for broad scale assess-
ments such as the biennial 305b report and
nonpoint source assessment.
An initial comparison was also made with bioas-
say results from 43 entities where receiving stream
biosurvey data was available. The bioassay results
represent 96-hour acute-definitive tests of the ef-
fluent and immediate mixing zone area. In-stream
biological impairment was observed in nearly 60
percent of the comparisons where acute toxicity >20
percent was observed only in the effluent (Fig. 4).
Biosurvey/Effluent Bioassay Comparison:
Frequency of Instream Impairment
• Using Biological Criteria Based on Multi-metric Indices
n=23 n=10 n=10
D No Impairment
• Instream Impairment
1 - Effluent Toxicity (Acute)
2 - Effluent + Mixing Zone
Toxicity (Acute)
3 - No Toxicity (<20%
mortality)
Figure 4.—Comparison of the abilities of blocrlterla and
acute bioassays to detect Impairment of aquatic life
uses at 43 locations throughout Ohio. Frequency of In-
stream impairment is compared against: (1) effluent
toxicity >20 percent only; (2) effluent and mixing zone
toxicity >20 percent; and (3) no toxicity (*20 percent).
For the cases where >20 percent mortality was
observed in both the effluent and mixing zone, 8 of
10 comparisons showed in-stream biological impair-
ment. In the remaining cases where no significant
mortality (s20 percent) of bioassay organisms was
observed, biological impairment was observed in 7
of 10 comparisons. Again, the reasons for these dis-
crepancies are complex but similar to the previously
discussed comparison where biological impairment
was observed in the absence of chemical criteria ex-
ceedances. Although more detailed analysis of these
comparisons is needed, there was a general relation-
ship between the severity of the bioassay toxicity
and the existence of in-stream biological impair-
ment (Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
3. By using a regional reference site
approach for establishing biological
criteria, are aquatic life goals being
set too low?
The debate about how attainable condition should
be defined began in the 1970s with discussions on
how to define and measure the Clean Water Act goal
of biological integrity. Initial attempts failed to bring
about a quantitative approach (Ball an tine and
Guarraia, 1975), but an acceptable definition was
eventually forthcoming. This has been referred to as
the operational definition of Karr and Dudley
(1981), which essentially translates into the
"biological performance and characteristics ex-
hibited by the natural habitats of a region."
This provides the theoretical basis for designing
a regional monitoring network of least impacted ref-
erence sites (Hughes et al. 1986) from which quan-
titative, numerical biological criteria can be derived.
The specific approach used by Ohio is discussed
elsewhere (Ohio Environ. Prot. Agency, 1987,1989a;
Yoder, 1989). The methods used to select and
monitor reference sites, calibrate the biological
evaluation mechanisms (IBI, ICI), and set the
ecoregional biological criteria are inherently conser-
vative and guard against biases that may result in
underprotective biological criteria.
Reference-site selection guidelines are neces-
sarily qualitative and are described in detail in
Whittier et al. (1987) and Ohio EPA (1987, 1990W.
In Ohio, which has had extensive landscape distur-
bance, the goal is to select least impacted water-
sheds to serve as a reflection of the current-day
biological potential. Reference sites are selected ac-
cording to stream size, habitat characteristics, and
the absence of direct point source or ofrnous non-
point source pollution impacts.
The "least impactedness" of reference sites in
the extensively disturbed Huron/Erie Lake Plain
(HELP) ecoregion of northwest Ohio is much dif-
ferent from that in the less-disturbed Western Al-
legheny Plateau (WAP) of southeastern Ohio and
the other three ecoregions. Such background condi-
tions can be unique to each region and, as such,
define the present-day potential.
99
-------
CO. YODER
A criticism of this approach is that it relegates
these areas to being no better that they are present-
ly. However, an important element of regional refer-
ence sites is the re-monitoring effort designed to
take place once every 10 years after which any
changes in the background potential can be
reflected in the calibration of the biological evalua-
tion mechanisms, the biological criteria, or both.
This maintenance effort will ensure that the biologi-
cal criteria do not underrate the attainable biologi-
cal performance within each region of the State.
The method of calibrating the biological evalua-
tion mechanisms, such as the IBI and ICI also
protects against underprotective criteria that might
result from including possible suboptimal reference
sites. The calibration methods for the IBI as
specified by Fausch et al. (1984) include plotting ref-
erence site results for each IBI metric against
drainage area (a reflection of stream size). The first
step is to draw a maximum species richness line,
beneath which 95 percent of the data points occur.
This represents the line beneath which the area of
the graph is trisected resulting in the 5, 3, and 1
(0
UJ
o
UJ
0.
(0
<
o
100
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ Ml)
<
X
<
14
12
10
oooo oooo
10 100 1000
DRAINAGE AREA (SQ Ml)
Figure 5.—Example of the technique used to calibrate the Index of Blotlc In-
tegrity (IBI) and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) for the metrics of
each Index. The number of fish species vs. drainage area for headwaters and
wading site types (top panel) and number of mayfly taxa vs. drainage area
(bottom panel) demonstrate the use of the 95 percent maximum line and the
trlsectlon and quadrlsectlon methods used to establish the IBI and ICI metric
scoring criteria.
scoring criteria common to each of the 12 IBI
metrics (Fig. 5).
The Ohio EPA ICI for macroinvertebrates is
calibrated in a similar manner, except that the area
beneath the 95 percent line is quadrisected in con-
formance with the 6, 4, 2, 0 scoring configuration of
the 10 ICI metrics (Fig. 5). Where the 95 percent
line is drawn is controlled by the upper surface of
points that represent the best results obtained
statewide for that metric. Thus, the influence of any
sub-optimal or marginal data (whether these are
due to unknown impacts or poor sampling) in the
calibration of the IBI or ICI is virtually nil. This
technique induces an inherent element of conser-
vatism into the eventual biological criteria.
When the biological index values for the IBI and
ICI are calculated for each reference site sample,
the biological criteria for each index can then be
derived. This process is not entirely mechanical and
involves making some value judgments about how
biological criteria will be selected. Ohio's water
quality standards specify a tiered system of aquatic
life use designations, each with a narrative defini-
tion that specifies the biological at-
tributes that waters attaining that
use should exhibit. For the
warmwater habitat (WWH) use
designation, which is the most com-
monly applied aquatic life use in
Ohio, the 25th percentile value of
the reference site results was
selected as the applicable biological
criterion. Ohio EPA decided that
most of the reference results should
be encompassed by this base level
use for Ohio's inland rivers and
streams. Also, by excluding a frac-
tion of the reference results, any
unintentional bias induced by sub-
optimal or marginal results caused
by factors that were not apparent in
the initial selection process would be
minimized or eliminated.
When the insignificant depar-
ture tolerances for each index are
considered, less than 5 to 10 percent
of the reference results fail to attain
the biological criteria for the WWH
use. For instance, insignificant
departure from IBI and ICI values
are 4 units each (Ohio Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1987). If the ecoregion IBI
criterion is 42, a value of 38 would
be considered to attain the biological
criterion but would be regarded as
1000
10000
100
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 95-104
an insignificant departure for risk management
purposes.
This process is similar to the use of safety fac-
tors for toxicological applications and has previous
precedents such as using the 75th percentile pH,
temperature, and hardness to derive design un-
ionized ammonia-nitrogen and heavy metals
criteria, 20 percent mortality for bioassay results, or
even using the 10~6 risk factor for carcinogens. In
this sense, the 25th percentile acts as a safety factor
in the derivation process. Because of unique
problems with selecting reference sites in the highly
modified HELP ecoregion, a different benchmark
(upper 10 percent of all sites) was used to set the
WWH biocriteria. The approach of setting at-
tainable biological criteria is stratified by ecoregion
(WWH use), site type for fish, and a tiered system of
aquatic life use designations (Fig. 6). Rules for
determining use attainment also provide
safeguards: full attainment of a use requires
Hierarchy of Biocriteria
in the Ohio WQS
BIOl.
WQS Use
iDd6*1 Fish Site JQesJonatlom
Organism TyDe:
Grouo: *K
ECflffifllfins;.^^ IBIxf HEADWATER
HELP,-*FISH^ & V-WADING
EOLP\ ^Mlwb BOAT-^^^
ECBP \ ^
IP INVERTS, v
WAP 7-.
101 \STATE- «^
WIDE ^~~*
1 process extends from left to right for each dt the five ecoregnns
2 applies to W Allegheny Plateau only
.-..„ Modification
-EWH lYEfiiMWH):
-WWH ~^^
- MWHc^-CHANNEL
\^MINING (WAP)=
rEWH ^IMPOUNDED
»-WWH
^MWHc*' CHANNEL
^MMUG(WW)*
Figure 6.—Hierarchy of biological criteria in the Ohio water quality stand-
ards (WQS) showing organization by ecoregion, organism group, biologi-
cal index, site type (fish), WQS-use designation, and modification type for
the modified warmwater habitat use. The process above begins In the
HELP ecoregion and extends from left to right through the fish and macro-
invertebrate biocriteria. The ICI (statewide) and IBI (boat-site type) are
portrayed and extend to the possible aquatic life use choices and the
modification types possible for the WWH use. The possible pathways are
the same for each of the other four ecoregions in Ohio.
achievement of the biological criteria for both fish
and macroinvertebrates.
4. Are the data collection costs
associated with biosurveys and
biological criteria unduly expensive?
Ambient biological assessments have had the unfor-
tunate reputation of being time-consuming, inten-
sive, and expensive. Oftentimes, this reputation has
been a deterrent to using biosurveys in assessing
surface water resources and in promoting surrogate
methods of assessment (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1985).
The issue of cost has been addressed extensively
in Ohio, where we have compared the relative
resource requirements of ambient chemical assess-
ment, bioassays, and biosurveys employing both fish
and macroinvertebrates (Ohio Environ. Prot. Agen-
cy, 1990c). This comparison found that,
for entity evaluation and stream sur-
veys, biosurveys employing both fish
and macroinvertebrates were cost-com-
petitive with ambient chemistry and ef-
fluent bioassays (Table 1). While
biosurveys may be comparable in terms
of cost, it does not seem prudent to view
these data in a competitive sense.
Rather, the integrated use of all tools is
necessary to ensure accuracy of evalua-
tion and hence regulation. The well-
worn metaphor of the three-legged
stool is still appropriate.
A renewed focus on ambient
biological assessment methods has
resulted in the development of cost-ef-
fective strategies that also yield reli-
able and accurate information. Ac-
curacy and reliability must accompany
the cost effectiveness of the chosen ap-
proach. The importance of this concept
is partially illustrated by an analysis of
the different accuracies inherent to
narrative and numerical biological as-
Table 1.—Comparison of the cost of ambient chemical, bioassay, and biosurvey assessment on an entity and
stream survey evaluation basis, using cost data from Ohio EPA in FFY 1987 and 1988. This is based on an
example that includes three point sources discharging to a medium-sized river in an urban and rural setting in
Ohio.
CATEGORY
Samples
Unit cost/sample
Survey cost
CHEMICAL
90
$360
$32,400
BIOSURVEY
12
$1 ,850
$22,200
BIOASSAY
9
$ 1,850 (acute)1
$ 3,050 (7-day)2
$16,650 (acute)1
$27,450 (7-day)2
Source' The Cost of Biological Monitoring (Ohio Environ Prot Agency, 1990c)
'96-hour definitive test using Cenodaphma and fathead minnow
27-day acute/chronic test using a 24-hour composite sample
101
-------
CO. YODER
sessments. The evaluations yielded by Ohio's narra-
tive macroinvertebrate criteria used from 1979 to
1986 and the ICI calibrated by using regional refer-
ence sites were compared across more than 400 sites
sampled between 1981 and 1987.
The results indicated that the narrative ap-
proach overrated sites as being better than indi-
cated by the calibrated ICI (Fig. 7). The narrative
approach rated as "good" (attaining the WWH use)
36 percent of sites classified by the ICI as impaired,
and as "fair," 21 percent of sites classified "poor" by
the ICI. Only 1.3 percent of sites rated "poor" by the
narrative method were classified "fair" by the ICI.
N
U
M
B
O
F
S
T
E
S
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
I
T
E
S
3O -
25 -
2O -
15 -
1O -
5 -
O -
16 -
14 -
12 -
1O -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
GOOD/EXCEPTIONAL
INCORRECTLY
RATED "GOOD" |
I i i i i
ICI "FAIR-
POOR"
CRITERIA
"""—•—-.
nh
— <*.
INCORRECTLY
RATED "FAIR"
\
\
1 1
\
a
-
||
WWH ICI
NUMERIC
CRITERIA
*•».
•»»
FAIR
n n
: :
::fl
L
-
-
~
*
-
c
-
S
; jn
M b n
: §
In i
EWH ICI
NUMERIC
CRITERIA
S/*
N
U
M
B
E
R
O
F
S
I
T
E
S
i5-
10 -
5 -
n -
PC
DO
R
R/VERY POOR
INCORRECTLY
RATED "POOR"
*ir
1
g I
j
j
1O
2O
3O
4O
Figure 7.—Frequency distribution of ICI scores for more than 400 sites rated as
Exceptional/Good, Fair, and Poor/Very Poor using the qualitative, narrative
blocriterla developed in 1980 compared to the ICI blocrlteria based on the
regional, reference site approach. The solid bars are sites that were Incorrectly
rated by the narrative system vs. the ICI scoring derived from a numeric,
regional, reference site system.
The predominant error orientation of the narra-
tive approach was to rate sites as better than they
were as determined by a calibrated evaluation
mechanism. While it may seem premature to as-
sume that the ICI is more accurate, the fact that it
is a multimetric evaluation mechanism designed to
produce the essence of the narrative system, but
with greater precision, and that it extracts informa-
tion directly from the regional reference sites argues
in favor of the ICI.
The narrative evaluation system, on the other
hand, relies on the best professional judgment of the
biologist examining a completed sample sheet by
eye aided by single dimension
attributes such as number of
taxa and a diversity index. An
initial evaluation of Ohio EPA
fish community narrative
evaluations and Ohio Depart-
ment of Natural Resources
Scenic Rivers volunteer monitor-
ing data revealed similar but
more pronounced biases. Hilsen-
hoff (1990) recognized that such
coarse assessments, although
less expensive, result in less
precise and discriminating
results.
The impact of the type of
biological evaluation used can be
quite striking, particularly in
broad-scale assessments such as
the biennial 305b report. In the
1986 Ohio 305b report, judg-
ments about use impairments
were based largely on narrative
biological assessments. State-
wide results included:
• Nonattaining waters at 9
percent,
• Partial attainment at 30
percent, and
• Full attainment at 61
percent.
In 1988, Ohio used quantita-
tive, numerical biological
criteria employing multimetric
evaluation mechanisms based on
a regional reference site deriva-
tion process. The waterbodies
assessed in the 1986 305b report
were re-evaluated in addition to
the new assessments completed
so
so
102
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 95-104
in 1987 and 1988; 44 percent of the waters were in
nonattainment with only 34 percent fully attaining.
The marked increase in nonattaining waters be-
tween 1986 and 1988 was not wholly a result of
poorer water quality but rather the different
methods employed. Not only were the numerical
criteria capable of more accurately assessing im-
pairment, but the types of environmental problems
that could be assessed were expanded to include
more subtle nonchemical and nontoxic chemical im-
pacts. In this example, the same data were analyzed
in different ways. The aforementioned discrepancies
would likely have been further compounded if
methods of data collection had also changed.
This example not only illustrates the usefulness
of the regional reference site approach, but also the
importance of making the correct initial data collec-
tion decisions early in the monitoring process. A
misplaced preoccupation with minimizing the cost of
data collection could have some unfortunate conse-
quences later in the process.
5. Does the collection and analysis
ofbiosurvey data delay NPDES per-
mits?
This question is more rhetorical than real since the
lack of ambient environmental data seldom super-
sedes a regulatory agency's schedule for issuing Na-
tional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. However, if the proper organiza-
tion of monitoring and NPDES issuance is achieved,
neither need be a major concern.
Recently, Ohio implemented a rotating five-year
basin approach to monitoring and NPDES permit
reissuance. This approach allows enough lead time
to ensure that biosurvey and other important infor-
mation such as bioassays, chemical data, and Form
2C are available in time to support the drafting and
issuance of NPDES permits. In Ohio, biosurvey data
are deemed necessary for only a fraction of the
NPDES permits issued. Prioritization and direction
of resources are also important since resources are
insufficient to monitor everywhere.
Within the five-year approach, some issues are
evaluated every five years whereas other issues are
evaluated on a 10-year or even 15-year rotation. In-
evitably "fire drills" do occur and are responded to
as needed. Ohio EPA can respond to specific re-
quests—including both fish and macroinvertebrate
field sampling, laboratory analysis, and data
processing according to Ohio EPA protocols and pro-
cedures—on a one-week turnaround schedule (Ohio
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1987,1989b).
Conclusions
While the value and need for biological assessment
have recently been recognized (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990), many questions remain concerning
the details of deriving and including biological
criteria in State water quality standards regula-
tions. Ohio EPA has attempted to answer five of the
most commonly asked questions about the States'
biological criteria. Some of the most important find-
ings efforts have been:
• Biological criteria have a broad ability to
assess and characterize a variety of
chemical, physical, and biological impacts
and detect cumulative impacts;
• Biological and integrated chemical-toxicity
assessments can serve a broad range of
environmental and regulatory programs,
including water quality standards, NPDES
permitting, nonpoint source management
and assessment, natural resource damage
assessment, habitat protection, and any
other surface water efforts where aquatic life
protection is a goal;
• Integrated approaches to surface water
resource assessment yield more
environmentally accurate results;
• Nontoxic and nonchemical causes of
impairment predominate in Ohio; and
• Narrative and numerical-based biological
assessment approaches differ widely in
precision and accuracy.
The latter finding seems particularly important
given the policy concerns about use of biosurvey
data and biological criteria in the regulatory
process. EPA favors an independent approach in the
application of chemical-specific, bioassay and
biosurvey results (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990).
Others have proposed a weight-of-evidence ap-
proach, where the weight given to any one assess-
ment tool is considered site-specifically in a
risk-based management process (Ohio Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1989c). Based on the results of the
narrative-numerical comparison, it would seem pru-
dent to require independent application for narra-
tive-based biological assessments, given the error
tendencies of that approach. However, a discretion-
ary use of the weight-of-evidence approach could be
granted for States that have a fully developed
numerical approach based on regional reference
sites and multiple organism groups.
States are required to include at least narrative
biological criteria in their water quality standards
103
-------
CO. YODER
by 1993, but development of a numerical approach
is not mandated. However, basing policy discretion
on the strength of the biological assessment ap-
proach could serve as an incentive for States to
develop a numerical system if they want to use the
weight-of-evidence policy. This would not only result
in a more powerful and environmentally accurate
assessment tool for the individual States and EPA
but would provide maximum flexibility within the
entire water program. Thus, development of the
more detailed numerical system would benefit both
EPA's and individual State's environmental aware-
ness and program flexibility.
References
Ballantine, R.K. and J.L. Guarraia, eds. 1975. The Integrity of
Water: A Symposium. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Washington, DC.
Cairns, J. 1986. Freshwater. In Proc. Workshop on Cumulative
Environ. Effects: ABinati. Perspective. Can. Environ. As-
sess. Res. Counc., Ottawa, ON. and Natl. Resourc.
Counc., Washington, DC.
Davis, WS. and A. Lubin. 1989. Statistical validation of Ohio
EPA's invertebrate community index. EPA 905/9-89/007.
Pages 23-32 in WS. David and T.P. Simon, eds. Proc. 1989
Midwest Pollut. Biol. Meet., Chicago, IL.
Fausch, D.O., J.R. Karr, and PR. Yant. 1984. Regional applica-
tion of an index of biotic integrity based on stream fish
communities. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:39-55.
Gallant, A.L. et al. 1989. Regional!zation as a Tool for Manag-
ing Environmental Resources. EPA/600/3-89/060. Off.
Water, U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
Hilsenhoff, W.L. 1990. Data variability in arthropod samples
used for the biotic index. EPA-905-9-90/005. Pages 47-52
in WS. Davis, ed. Proc. 1990 Midwest Pollut. Biol. Meet.,
Chicago, IL.
Hughes, R.M., T.R. Whittier, C.M. Rohm, and D.P. Larsen.
1990. A regional framework for establishing recovery
criteria. Environ. Manage. 14(5):673-83.
Hughes, R.M., D.P. Larsen, and J.M. Omernik. 1986. Regional
reference sites: a method for assessing stream potentials.
Environ. Manage. 10:629-35.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish com-
munities. Fisheries 6(6):21-7.
Karr, J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on
water quality goals. Environ. Manage. 5(l):55-68.
Karr, J.R. et al. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running
waters: a method and its rationale. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv.
Spec. Publ. 5. Urbana.
Lenat, D.R. 1990. Reducing variability in freshwater macroin-
vertebrate data. EPA-905-9-90/005. Pages 19-32. in WS.
Davis, ed. Proc. 1990 Midwest Pollut. Biol. Meet.,
Chicago, IL.
Mount, D.I. 1987. Comparison of test precision of effluent
toxicity tests with chemical analyses. (Unpubl.) U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth, MN.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Biological
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life: Vol. II. Users'
Manual for Biological Field Assessment of Ohio Surface
Waters. Div. Water Qual. Monitor/Assess., Surface Water
Section, Columbus, OH.
. 1989a. Addendum to Biological Criteria for the Protec-
tion of Aquatic Life: Users' Manual for Biological Field As-
sessment of Ohio Surface Waters. Div. Water Qual.
Plann./Assess., Surface Water Section, Columbus, OH.
. 1989b. Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Life: Vol. HI. Standardized Biological Field Sampling and
Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and Macroinver-
tebrate Communities. Div. Water Qual. Plann./Assess.,
Ecol. Assess. Section, Columbus, OH.
. 1989c. Ohio EPA Policy for Implementing Chemical
Specific Water Quality Based Effluent Limits and Whole
Effluent Toxicity Controls in NPDES Permits. Div. Water
Pollut. Control/Water Qual. Plann. Assess., Columbus,
OH.
. 1990a. Ohio Water Resource Inventory. Exec. Summ.,
Vol. I. E.T. Rankin, C.O. Yoder, D. Mishne, eds. Div. Water
Qual. Plann./Assess., Ecol. Assess. Section, Columbus,
OH.
. 1990b. Uses of Biocriteria in the Ohio EPA Surface
Water Monitoring and Assessment Program. Div. Water
Qual. Plann./Assess., Ecol. Assess. Section, Columbus,
OH.
. 1990c. The Cost of Biological Monitoring. Div. Water
Qual. Plann./Assess., Ecol. Assess. Section, Columbus,
OH.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United
States. Ann. Am. Ass. Geogr. 77:118-25.
Omernik, J.M. and A.L. Gallant. 1988. Ecoregions of the
Upper Midwest States. Map (scale 1:2,500,000).
EPA/600/3-88/037. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency Res. Lab,
Corvallis, OR.
Rankin, E.T. and C.O. Yoder. 1990. The nature of sampling
variability in the index of biotic integrity (IBI) in Ohio
streams. EPA-905-9-90/005. Pages 9-18 in WS. Davis, ed.
Proc. 1990 Midwest Pollut. Biol. Meet., Chicago, IL.
Stevens, J.C. and S.W Szczytko. 1990. The use and variability
of the biotic index to monitor changes in an effluent
stream following wastewater treatment plant upgrades.
EPA-905-9-90/005. Pages 33-46 in WS. Davis, ed. Proc.
1990 Midwest Pollut. Biol. Meet., Chicago, IL.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Technical sup-
port document for water quality-based toxics control. Off.
Water Enforc. Permits, Off. Water Reg. Stand.,
Washington, DC.
. 1990. Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance
for Surface Waters. EPA-440/5-90-004. Criteria/Stand.
Div., Off. Water Reg./Stand., Washington, DC.
Whittier, T.R. 1987. The Ohio Stream Regionalization Project:
A Compendium of Results. EPA/600/3-87/025. Environ.
Res. Lab., U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Yoder, C.O. 1989. The Development and Use of Biological
Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters. Pages 139-46 in Proc.
Water Qual. Stand. 21st Century, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Criteria/Stand. Div., Washington, DC.
104
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 105-111
Biological Monitoring in the Wabash
River and Its Tributaries
J. R. Gammon
Professor of Zoology
Department of Biological Sciences
DePauw University
Greencastle, Indiana
Introduction
Annually since 1967, the Department of Biological
Sciences at DePauw University has studied the
aquatic communities of the middle Wabash River
and its tributaries (Gammon, 1971, 1973, 1976,
1982; Teppen and Gammon 1975; Gammon et al.
1979). Initial assessments of thermal effects at two
power plants were expanded in 1973 to include 160
miles of the main stem. In recent years, we have
documented sharp improvements in the Wabash
River itself but have simultaneously observed
marked negative changes from agricultural ac-
tivities in the tributaries (Gammon et al. 1990).
Direct current electrofishing has proven to be
most effective collection method for the greatest
number of large fish species in the Wabash River.
Fish are sampled three times each summer from 63
stations, each 0.5 km (0.31 miles) long, which are
generally sited in relatively fast-moving water with
good cover and depths of 1.5 m or less. Although
some macrobenthic, periphyton, and phytoplankton
populations are studied, most research has focused
on the fish community.
Major Findings
Fish Communities
A healthy fish community is one with both an abun-
dance of individuals and a high diversity of species;
therefore, we formulated a composite index of well-
being (Iwb) to quantitatively represent the fish com-
munities from electrofishing catches (Gammon,
1980). This index is calculated as:
Iwb = 0.5 In N + 0.5 In W + Div.no. + Div.wt.
Where N = number of fish captured per km
W = weight in kg of fish captured per km
Div.no. = Shannon diversity based on
numbers
Div.wt. = Shannon diversity based on weight
High Iwb values correspond with excellent fish
communities and low values with poor fish com-
munities (Table 1 and Fig. 1). Therefore, the Iwb
values are remarkably similar to the average num-
ber of species taken at each site. In recent years, the,
long-term studies have shown some rather spec-
tacular improvements.
From 1973-75 to 1985-87, the overall fish com-
munity in the Wabash River improved markedly
(Fig. 2). The upper reaches went from fair to
good/excellent, while the lower reaches improved
from poor to fair. From 1974 through 1983, the com-
bined catch rate of sport fishes averaged slightly
more than 2.0 per km, and since 1984, the average
catch rate has quadrupled.
Most species populations, except for carp and
gizzard shad, exhibited noticeable gains. Many
other species of fish also increased, especially in the
upper river. Populations of channel catfish, flathead
catfish, sauger, spotted bass, mooneye, goldeye,
northern river carpsucker, blue sucker, and drum,
species that reproduce and live in the main stem, in-
creased greatly in density. White bass and walleye,
which enter the main stem from offstream reser-
voirs, also increased significantly, as did
105
-------
J.R. GAMMON
Table 1.—Community parameters and qualitative evaluations of fish communities.
PARAMETER
Iwb
Av. No, Spec.
No/km
Kg/km
*Div. (no.)
"Div. (wt.)
Even (no )
Even (wt.)
No,/km.
EXCELLENT
> 8.5
> 15
> 100
> 50
> 2.2
> 2.0
> 20
GOOD
Community Parameters
7.0-8.5
8-15
60-100
25-50
1.7-2.2
1.5-20
0 75-0 90
0.70-0.80 . .
Sport Fish"'
12-20
FAIR
5.5-7.0
5-8
25-60
15-25
1.3-1.7
1.1-1.5
4-12
POOR
< 5.5
< 5
<25
< 15
< 1.3
< 1.1
< 4
Trophic Composition
% wt. Piscivores
% wt. Insectivores
% wt. Herbivores
% wt. Detritivores
> 30
< 10
> 5
.1 5-3(
15-30
10-20
2-5
3
5-15
10-20
1-4
> 5
>20
< 1
'Shannon diversity based on numbers
"Shannon diversity based on weight
""Centrarchid basses, white bass, flathead catfish, channel catfish, sauger, walleye, sunfish, and crappie
smallmouth bass and longear sunfish, species that
enter from clean tributaries.
At the same time, populations of carp and giz-
zard shad have decreased. (The decline in the latter
may be related to the increased predator pressure
from expanded piscivore populations,) Some popula-
tions (blue sucker, mooneye, and spotted bass) have
expanded into previously unoccupied areas of the
river. There was also an average size increase for
many species, which has opened questions about
greater longevity and/or faster growth that remain
to be explored.
These recent improvements in the fish com-
munity may have resulted from a combination of
long-term 50 percent reduction in biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) loading, and a low-flow sum-
mer in 1983, which facilitated good reproduction
and survival through the first year. Reductions in
BOD are probably related to the overall effort to im-
prove industrial and municipal waste treatment. An
acute 25 percent reduction in potential agricultural
loadings to the river during the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's 1983 PIK program also may have aug-
mented the change.
Water Quality Data
In addition to examining long-term changes in fish
population abundance, community composition, and
geographic distribution, our studies helped to distin-
guish natural from human-induced perturbations,
locate problem areas in the river, and evaluate ef-
fects of changes in operating procedures at point
sources of pollution.
Good reproduction and survival through the
first year of life in fish species that reproduce in the
main stem are related to low summer flows during
June and July. Population levels of many species
were lowest in 1983 following several years of
higher than normal flows. By 1986, population
levels had increased to their greatest extent.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) modeling has been of
great value in interpreting spatial population dif-
ferences (HydroQual, 1984). There appears to be an
inverse relationship between the quality of the fish
community and DO levels. Using the DIURNAL
model, the DO deficit during periods of low flow in
the upper river was projected at approximately 2.0
to 2.5 mg/L, which increases to approximately 4.0
mg/L in the lower reaches.
Phytoplankton respiration is responsible for
about 50 to 60 percent of the DO deficit in the upper
reaches and about 70 percent in the lower reaches.
The second largest DO sink is BOD, which enters
the river from multiple point sources and accounts
for about 10 percent of the DO deficit in the upper
river and over 15 percent in the lower reaches. Sedi-
ment oxygen demand is also important, especially in
depositions! pools.
Organic materials, including phytoplankton,
may indirectly affect the fish community by reduc-
ing dissolved oxygen concentrations in some parts of
the river (Parke and Gammon, 1986). During low
flow in summer, interactions occur between river
morphology, large diatom populations sustained by
high nutrient inputs, and thermal loading from an
electric generating station, to produce low DO in a
six-mile section of river dammed by gravel from
Sugar Creek. When flows diminish to about 1,500
cubic feet per second, there is a sharp increase in
phytoplankton density, with chlorophyll a increas-
ing from about 160 fig/L to nearly 230 jig/L.
106
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 105-111
As the water passes through the ponded seg-
ment, significant amounts of suspended solids set-
tles to the bottom, with chlorophyll a decreasing to
less than 150 ng/L and Secchi transparency increas-
ing as suspended materials settle out. Total
suspended nonfiltrable solids decrease from about
80 mg/L to about 50 mg/L, and sediment oxygen
demand increases. Depressions in DO were severe
enough to kill fish in 1983 and 1986.
A. Excellent fish community—!«* = 8.6 (R1* 1985-86)
FHC
Carp
Gar
C. catflih
Saug/Wall
Other
Catoa.
B. Good fish community—Iwb = 7.37 (R4 1985-88)
FHC
Sport Fish
17.0/km
Biological Data
The biological data are also valuable when evaluat-
ing effectiveness of waste treatment procedure
changes. For example, when an electric generating
station began operating cooling facilities con-
tinuously at ambient river water temperatures of
78°F, the Iwb improved in that reach, although it
declined in all other reaches. Furthermore,
smallmouth buffalo, redhorse,
blue sucker, and sauger, fish
species that had not been common
for many years, returned to the
area.
The fish community was
usually quite stable during the
summer and into fall, so sampling
variability usually was not de-
pendent upon sampling timing.
However, rather large changes
resulting from stress sometimes
occurred within a few weeks
(Gammon and Reidy, 1981). Based
on the changes in fish com-
munities we have seen, monitor-
ing frequency should be no less
than every three years. Major
shifts in population size and com-
munity structure would be missed
at longer intervals.
C. catfish
Bass
Other
ug/Wall.
Catoa.
C. Fair fish community—lwb = 6.55 (R7 1985-87)
O. ihad
C. catliah
S&ort Fish
.43/km
Catoa.
D. Poor fish community—Iwb = 4.85 (R8 1973-75)
O. ihad
FHC
Carp
oft Fish
/km
W. bad
Gar
Others
Drum
Hiodon
Catos.
Vgy Other
Bass Saug/Wall.
Figure 1.—Examples of "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor," fish com-
munities of the Wabash River. (R* = reach.)
Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Seining and/or various electrofish-
ing techniques used separately or
in combination provide com-
prehensive way to directly assess
fish communities in smaller
streams (Orders I-V). Also, ben-
thic invertebrates are used exten-
sively. Catches of fish at multiple
stations are converted to Index of
Biotic Integrity (IBI) scores
(Angermeier and Karr, 1986; Karr
1987).
The IBI also functions well in
assessing the effect of nonpoint
source pollution on stream fish
communities because 5 of the 12
metrics include species sensitive
to sediment pollution. Sometimes
historic data can provide informa-
tion about changes in stream en-
vironments.
107
-------
J.R. GAMMON
fabash River Iwb 1973-1990
Figure 2.— Spatial and temporal changes In th* fish communities of the Wabash River.
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 105-111
Most small midwestern streams are affected by
agriculture through periodic nonpoint source
delivery of soil and chemicals from fields as well as
by sporadic spills of fertilizer, agricultural chemi-
cals, and animal wastes. However, because they are
small and abundant, these streams are rarely
monitored for chemicals.
Big Raccoon Creek and some of its tributaries
supported good fish populations 25 years ago (Gam-
mon, 1965), but darters, sunfish, and bass disap-
peared sometime before 1981. From 1981 through
1989, three electrofishing collections, each at eight
stations, were made to biologically monitor a landfill
(Gammon, 1990). The landfill has not measurably
affected the fish community, but agriculture certain-
ly has. This data set is interesting because it
demonstrates community changes in agricultural
watersheds as affected by natural weather and flow
patterns.
Figure 3 portrays the changes in mean IBI and
Iwb values in the Wabash River from 1981 to 1990.
Variability over time is quite striking, with lows in
1981 (IBI = 36.5; Iwb = 5.53) increasing to highs in
1988 (IBI = 50.5; Iwb = 8.83), which were associated
with extremely low flows and a prolonged drought.
Fish were undoubtedly more concentrated and vul-
nerable to capture than usual.
Iwb
Total Number Caught
1981 1982 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1988 1969 1990
Year
Figure 3.—Changes In the fish communities of Big Rac-
coon Creek from 1981 through 1990 as measured by lwt>
and IBI.
The low community values from 1981 through
1984 probably resulted from poor reproduction and
survival during unusually high water in the sum-
mers of 1979, 1981, and 1982. Darters, sunfish, and
bass were virtually absent during those years (Fig.
4); however, there was a corresponding increase in
the frequency of darters, sunfish, and bass with the
increase in IBI values in 1985 and 1988.
This biological monitoring approach applied to
other stream systems provides evidence that some,
perhaps many streams in predominately agricul-
tural watersheds have lost darters, sunfish,
500
400-
300-
200
100-
0
I Log Ptrch
i«r Darters I I Baal
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Year
Figure 4.—Differences In the annual catches of darters,
sunfish, and bass In Big Raccoon Creek from 1981
through 1990.
smallmouth bass, and sensitive minnows because of
aggregate agricultural impacts in recent years
(Gammon et al. 1990). The greater the agricultural
intensity, the lower the IBI values (Table 2 and Fig.
5).
Weather and stream discharge regimes are
especially important determinants of nonpoint sour-
ces. A succession of wet years with high, turbid
water may cause poor reproduction and decimate
species populations that are merely marginal during
good years. Conversely, a run of dry years may favor
good reproduction and permit a certain degree of
60
IBI
50
40
30
20
Order III ft IV B Order I ft II
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% Rowcrop
Figure 5.—The Influence of rowcrop agriculture on fish
communities. Orders I and II are small headwater
streams; Orders III and IV are larger streams.
109
-------
J.R. GAMMON
Table 2.—Agricultural land use and IBI values for fish communities of some Indiana streams.
DRAINAGE
STREAM
Mam Stem
Above Darlington
Darl. to Crawfordsville
Crawfordsville to mouth
Tributaries
Rush
Sugar Mill
Indian
Rattlesnake
Offield
Black
Walnut Fork
Little Sugar
Lye
Wolf
Praine
Main Stem
Montgomery Co.
Ramp Crk to Putnam Co
Tributaries
Cornstalk
Haw
Ramp
Main Stem
Above US 36
US 36 to Greencastle
Mam Stem — upper
Tributaries
School Branch
Fishback
Little Eagle
Finley
Mount's Run
Mam Stem
Tributaries
TwelveMile Creek
Paw Paw Creek
Squirrel Creek
Beargrass Creek
Sugar Creek
Blue River
Mam Stem
North Fork
lower
upper
South Fork
lower
upper
Rattlesnake Creek
Stinking Fork
'Mean of 7 stations above Darlington (1988)
"Mean of 4 stations between Darlington and
cMean of 12 stations between Crawfordsville
dMean of 3 stations (1983)
STRFAM BASIN AREA
ORDER km2
Sugar Creek System
III 829
IV 1318
IV 2100
I 422
II 197.4
II 65.5
III 81.3
II
II 90.4
ll/lll 117.3
ll/lll 117,6
III 203.8
II 65.8
III 127.9
Big Raccoon Creek System
III 251 0
III 365.2
II 52.6
II 725
III 85.7
Big Walnut Creek System
IV 357.6
IV 575 0
Eagle Creek System
III 74.1
I 22.7
II 53.8
II 75.9
I 252
II 41 2
Eel River System
IV 2148
II 138
III 142
III 103
II 60
II 80
III 209
Staffs Creek System
IV 1556
III 56.7
II
III 87.3
II
Miscellaneous Streams
III 652
III 70 7
Crawfordsville (1988)
and the mouth (1988)
"Mean of 8 stations over 8 years (1981 through 1989)
%
(mi2) ROWCROP
(320)
(509)
(811)
(16.3)
(76.2)
(25.3)
(31.4)
(34.9)
(453)
(45.4)
(78.7)
(25.4)
(49.4)
(96.9)
(141)
(20.3)
(28.0)
(331)
(138)
(222)
(28.6)
( 8.7)
(208)
(293)
( 9.8)
(15.9)
(814)
(53.1)
(54.9)
(39.9)
(23.2)
(30.7)
(80.6)
(60.1)
(21.9)
(33.7)
(25.2)
(27.3)
'Mean of 8 stations
9 Mean of 8 stations
75
60
64
69
70
59
59
66
71
69
82
74
70
80
71
72
73
62
81
67
74.4
736
65.3
72.4
72.1
59.7
79.0
60
75
75
82
84
79
58.4
55.0
53.4
15
40
(1979 through 1984)
(1979 through 1987)
IBI
47.1 a
49 7b
480°
44
42
38
52
42
40
42
47
36.5
52
28
42d
43 1e
41
42
52
50.2'
4859
48
46
42
46
48
48
43. 1h
44
40
40
40
40
42
48
54
43
50
44
53'
50'
hMean of 15 stations (1990)
'Mean of 2 stations
'Mean of 4 stations
(1979 through 1981)
(1984)
110
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THEllst CENTURY: 105-111
recovery. Lastly, less disturbed tributaries can serve
as refugia for replenishing a degraded main stem
during favorable periods. The reverse may also
occur. Likewise, normally degraded tributaries may
sometimes enjoy rejuvenation because of a healthy
main stem.
References
Angermeier, P. 1. and J. R. Karr. 1986. Applying an index of
biotic integrity based on stream-fish communities: con-
siderations in sampling and interpretation. N. Am. J.
Fish Manage. 6:418-429.
Gammon, J. R. 1965. The distribution of fishes in Putnam
County, Indiana, and vicinity. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci.
74:353-59.
. 1971. The response offish populations in the Wabash
River to heated effluents. Pages 513-23 in Proc. 3rd Natl.
Symp. Radioecology.
. 1973. The effect of thermal inputs on the populations
offish and macroinvertebrates in the Wabash River. Rep.
No. 32. Purdue Univ. Water Resour. Res. Center,
Lafayette, IN.
. 1976. The fish populations of the middle 340 Km of the
Wabash River. Tech. Rep. No. 86. Purdue Univ. Water
Resour. Res. Center, Lafayette, IN.
. 1980. The use of community parameters derived from
electrofishing catches of river fish as indicators of en-
vironmental quality. Pages 335-63 in Seminar on Water
Quality Management Tradeoffs. EPA-905/9-80-009. U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1990. The fish communities of Big Raccoon Creek
1981-1989. Rep. for Heritage Environ. Serv., In-
dianapolis, IN.
Gammon, J. R. and J. M. Reidy. 1981. The role of tributaries
during an episode of low dissolved oxygen in the Wabash
River. Pages 396-407 in Warmwater Streams Symp. Am.
Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.
Gammon, J. R., C. W. Gammon, and M. K. Schmid. 1990. Land
use influence on fish communities in central Indiana
streams. Pages 111-20 in WS. Davis ed. Proc. 1990 Mid-
west Pollut. Control Biolog. Meet. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Environ. Sci. Div., Chicago, IL.
Gammon, J. R., A. Spacie, J. L. Hamelink, and R. L. Kaesler.
1979. The role of electrofishing in assessing environmen-
tal quality of the Wabash River. Pages 307-24 in Am Soc.
Test./Mater. Symp. Ecol. Assess. Effluent Impacts on
Communities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms. Philadel-
phia, PA.
HydroQual, Inc. 1984. Dissolved oxygen analysis of the
Wabash River. Report to Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis,
IN; Mahwah, NJ.
Karr, J. R. 1987. Biological monitoring and environmental as-
sessment: a conceptual framework. Environ. Manage.
11:249-56.
Parke, N. J. and J. R. Gammon. 1986. An investigation of
phyto-plankton sedimentation in the middle Wabash
River. Proc. Indiana Acad. Sci. 95:279-88.
Teppen, T. C. and J. R. Gammon. 1975. Distribution and abun-
dance of fish populations in the middle Wabash River.
CONF-75045. Pages 284-95 in Thermal Ecology II, U.S.
Atomic Energy Comm. Symp. Series, Off. Inf. Serv.,
Washington, DC.
Ill
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 113-114
Biological Criteria Issues in the
Great Lakes
Tim Eder
Manager, Water Quality Standards Project
National Wildlife Federation
Ann Arbor, Michigan
The National Wildlife Federation's Great
Lakes program, based in Ann Arbor, focuses
on restoring the ecological health of these
waterbodies. Over the last eight years, we have
worked extensively to implement the United
States-Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment. The Program for Zero Discharge, a binational
effort between this office and the Canadian Institute
for Environmental Law and Policy, takes its name
from the policy goal contained in that agreement:
that, for persistent toxic substances, the
government's policy should be zero discharge and
virtual elimination of those substances.
I want to expand the definition of biological
criteria in water quality standards to include two
additional elements: wildlife criteria and ecosystem
indicators. Wildlife criteria are simply numerical
criteria for specific chemicals that are based on
preventing toxic effects in wildlife species as op-
posed to protecting aquatic life or human health. In
addition to establishing criteria to protect against
cancer and effects on aquatic life, States should cre-
ate specific criteria to protect wildlife. Wisconsin has
already adopted a procedure to develop and apply
wildlife criteria in its water quality standards.
The National Wildlife Federation has taken the
basic foundation that Wisconsin developed and im-
proved it. We have generated a model wildlife water
quality standards proposal and are advocating its
adoption by all the Great Lakes States. Since the
passage of the Great Lakes Critical Program Act,
which stipulates that guidance be developed for
water quality standards to protect human health,
aquatic life, and wildlife, the Great Lakes States
and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) are required to adopt wildlife criteria. That
work is underway in EPA's Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative.
The second element that should be included is
what we in the Great Lakes refer to as "ecosystem
indicators." The history of toxic contamination in
the Great Lakes has been one of devastating effects
on wildlife. Recently, the effects over the last 20 to
30 years have been documented.
In 1989, the Conservation Foundation publish-
ed Great Lakes, Great Legacy?, which summarized
many of the problems and surveyed all of the avail-
able literature and some unpublished reports. The
Foundation has researched 16 animals, including
reptiles, fish, birds, and mammals—all species at
the top of the Great Lakes food chain. The scientists
found a wide range of effects that ranged from out-
right mortality to birth defects: cormants with
crossed bills, turtles without tails; developmental
defects: lake trout swimming upside down; and
other, subtle changes, including feminization: male
herring gulls acting like females as a result of the
similarity in the chemical structures of some of the
Great Lakes toxicants and female hormones.
Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agree-
ment, at least one ecosystem indicator is supposed
to be developed for each of the Great Lakes. So far,
one has been proposed for Lake Superior—lake
trout. There is a specific number of kilograms per
hectare of stable, self-producing lake trout stock
that should be in Lake Superior as a result of res-
toration efforts.
Why do we need biological and wildlife criteria
and ecosystem indicators? The following three
reasons strike at some of the fundamental weak-
113
-------
T. EDER
nesses in our water quality standards and related
programs. They also will suggest some of the ways
these procedures should be used in regulatory
programs.
The first problem with our programs is their
nearly complete reliance on cancer criteria. The way
we look at it, many of our water quality standards,
pollution control programs, and effluent limitations
are supported by a one-legged stool, and that one leg
is relying on cancer criteria. If wildlife criteria were
developed, they would provide a broader base of
support (the second leg) for many of these programs.
The third leg is criteria to protect against human
reproduction and developmental effects.
Cancer risk assessment has recently come
under attack from a variety of sources, notably the
pulp and paper industry whose aggressive and
sometimes successful attack on establishment of
dioxin standards in several States has challenged
the potency of dioxin, based on low-dose extrapola-
tion from laboratory animal studies. Our work in
developing wildlife criteria suggests that, had
wildlife criteria been promulgated and developed,
they would show that standards to protect wildlife
and other inpoints are probably lower than cancer
risk assessment criteria.
Implementation of cancer criteria and
regulatory programs based on cancer have also
come under attack recently. The National Wildlife
Federation is seeing increased use of dilution for
carcinogenic substances in the Great Lakes, and
we're very concerned. EPA's draft technical support
document advocates that, for carcinogens, an in-
creased dilution might be considered when assess-
ing the dilution capacity of stream flow. Instead of
looking at low-flow stream calculation, such as
7Q10, EPA has suggested that harmonic mean flow
might be used for dilution capacity. The result would
be greater discharges of mass loads of carcinogens
into the receiving waters.
The second fundamental weakness that we see
in water quality standards programs that can be
corrected by biological and wildlife criteria is a focus
solely on point sources. Wildlife in the Great Lakes
are sending us a clear message: the ecosystem is
still contaminated. Wildlife criteria, ecosystem in-
dicators, and biological criteria can tell us sources—
other than point sources—of these problems. Point
sources are still important; however, restoring
ecological indicators for the health of the Great
Lakes will require more than just cracking down
further on point sources. We must also control con-
taminated sediments, atmospheric deposition, and
polluted runoff. Not only can biological and ecosys-
tem indicators tell us which waters are polluted and
help us set priorities for the cleanup, but they can
define precisely how much cleanup is required—
what reductions in the total mass of pollutants com-
ing into a waterbody are required to restore its
health.
The third problem is a focus on the area immedi-
ately downstream from a source of pollution. This is
manifested by using dilution, wherein our
regulatory programs require that numeric criteria
be met at the edge of a mixing zone. This approach
fails to consider the long-term, ecosystem-level im-
pacts—either by adding to contaminated sediment
problems or by resulting in increased bioaccumula-
tion in the food chain—of the total mass load of
these substances.
It has been suggested that the bald eagle should
be used as an indicator species for ecosystem res-
toration in the Great Lakes. We support this work,
which is progressing. Right now, there are increased
populations of bald eagles because DDT has been
banned. However, these birds are not able to
reproduce on the shores of the Great Lakes as suc-
cessfully as birds inland. In fact, blood samples from
bald eagles nesting on the shores of the Great Lakes
show the highest contaminant levels of any in North
America, which tells us that the Great Lakes
ecosystem has not been restored.
The bald eagle could be a visible and powerful
reason to restore the Great Lakes. It will be easier
to motivate the public to fund and support programs
to clean up contaminated sediments and solve other
problems if we talk about bringing back the bald
eagle—rather than lecture scientifically about
reaching some infinitesimally low number of parts
per quadrillion in the water column.
Finally, I want to throw out one caution about
the use of biological criteria. Biological criteria are a
welcome improvement, and EPA's guidance material
provides a lot of detail about their development.
However, I'm concerned about how these criteria
might be used.
Biological criteria basically look at the number
and diversity of species and the number of in-
dividuals, but they are primarily focused on aquatic
organisms. In the Great Lakes, we're concerned
about what might be eating those aquatic or-
ganisms—whether they're sport anglers, bald
eagles, or other predators at the top of the food
chain. It would be a gross misuse of biological
criteria if they were used to rationalize increased
pollution because they did not indicate that a par-
ticular discharge level was causing an effect.
114
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 115-119
Considerations in the Development
and Implementation of Biocriteria
Reid Miner
Program Director
Dennis Borton
Aquatic Biology Program Manager
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream Improvement, Inc.
New York, New York
Introduction
The past decade has seen a rapid expansion in the
number of tools available for assessing water
quality. All of us in water quality protection are en-
couraged by improvements in the ability to distin-
guish between impaired and unimpaired aquatic
communities and identify causes of impairment.
Clearly, it is in everyone's interest that the best
science possible be brought to bear on identifying
water quality problems and eliminating them.
The paper industry has long held that data on
the health of the resident aquatic community are
critical to obtaining a true assessment of water
quality. Indeed, a recent call for such information
from just the chemical pulp producers yielded over
200 studies encompassing 45 mills and more than
40 receiving waters (Natl. Counc. Pap. Indus.
Air/Stream Improv. 1989) Surface water ecosystems
are far too complex to be modeled adequately by
laboratory bioassays or estimates of specific
chemicals' significance that are based largely on
data from these bioassays. Data on the resident
aquatic ecosystem can provide a much-needed
interpretive framework for that generated under
more controlled laboratory conditions (Gellman,
1988). The need for a real world interpretive
framework will only increase as scientists develop
increasingly sensitive methods for measuring subtle
and sometimes insignificant effects on organisms.
Development of Biocriteria
Over the past three years, the National Council of
the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI) has been closely following biocriteria
development in two States. Our involvement has in-
cluded comments on draft biocriteria and participa-
tion in technical committees that provide input to
the States' agencies on biocriteria development. We
consider the areas addressed in the next sections to
be of greatest concern.
Document All Steps During
Biocriteria Development
As biocriteria are developed, a number of decisions
must be made, particularly in the choice of reference
sites; communities sampled; sampling methods,
time, and frequency; metrics (numerical expressions
of the structure or function of the aquatic com-
munity, such as the number of species); and
biocriteria expression. The process used to select
each of these parameters should be extensively
documented so all interested groups can follow the
rationale and methodology behind the proposed
criteria, thus promoting an understanding of the
process and allowing constructive comments on each
step. Such documentation will also be helpful to new
staff in regulatory agencies, the regulated com-
munity, and environmental groups or consultants.
This information will also be the basis for identify-
115
-------
R. MINER & D. BORTON
ing changes in methodology and related effects on
the metrics.
We cannot overemphasize the importance of
documenting previous methods and criteria develop-
ment. The pulp and paper industry has compiled ex-
tensive in-stream survey data. In some cases,
methods have changed significantly over time or
were not documented adequately, which makes
long-term assessment of the waterbody's character
more difficult. The methods now being developed for
biocriteria will provide a basis for identifying chan-
ges in waterbodies. Thus, methods for sampling and
analysis of the data must be explained sufficiently
to allow accurate assessment of changes.
Select Metrics that Are Free from
Sampling Bias
When samples of a receiving waterbody are taken,
the investigator will probably know which sampling
stations are the control or reference stations and
which the downstream or potentially impacted sites.
Such prior knowledge, however, increases the poten-
tial for unintentionally biasing the results. Similar
difficulties are encountered in determining off-
flavors in fish. The American Society of Testing
Materials method compensates for this bias by rely-
ing on a known control to judge the flavor of all
treatment groups against and a hidden control to
statistically compare all treatment groups. The hid-
den control almost always scores lower (poorer
flavor) than the known control, although both
samples come from the same exposure group.
There is little opportunity for hidden controls
when comparing metrics during in-stream sam-
pling. Therefore, the choice of metrics and differen-
ces between metric values used to indicate levels of
impact must account for variability of the metric
and any unintentional bias. The effect of this type of
bias is probably minimal compared to other sources
of variability in a large majority of metrics. How-
ever, if the number of organisms required to change
a metric value is low, this possibility increases.
The number of anomalous fish found at each
sampling location is an example of a metric that
may be changed by an extremely small difference
between locations. Since the detection of diseases or
abnormalities also tends to be more subjective, the
practitioner must be cautious when using this type
of metric to define levels for determining differences
between sites.
Our purpose in choosing this metric was not to
seek removal of this or any other proposed method
of describing impacted or reference sites. Rather, we
hope that as these methods are used, some attention
will be paid to the possibility of this type of bias.
Perhaps studies should be designed to determine if
any given metric can be influenced by unintended
bias.
Select Metrics that Describe
Reference and Impacted Sites
Adequately
Because biocriteria are used to distinguish between
reference sites and truly impacted sites, one must
decide whether the criteria should include all or just
some of the original reference sites and, if a percent-
age of reference sites falls below the criteria
selected, how that percentage should be selected.
Professional judgment will be necessary to
select the criteria and determine the percentage of
reference sites that meet them. However, we are
concerned when more than 10 percent of the refer-
ence stations fail to meet the selected criteria, par-
ticularly if a reexamination of the failed reference
stations reveals no valid reason for eliminating
them.
Therefore, we urge that criteria encompass at
least 90 percent of the reference stations. If that
cannot be accomplished, the metrics or the effect of
other variables (such as habitat) should be reviewed
further before criteria are established.
Identify Habitat's Influence
on Metrics
Frequently when sampling the biota, data are taken
on specific habitat variables. Habitat data are used
in defining ecoregions and deciding whether to
apply specific biocriteria to certain types of habitat
(such as streams below dams, reservoirs, or es-
tuaries). This use of habitat data should be en-
couraged as should more analyses of the effects of
specific habitat variables on the chosen metrics
within similar types of ecoregional waterbodies.
Since habitat generally has a major impact on
the distribution and abundance of many organisms,
it is also likely to affect the metrics chosen to
describe reference areas. Closer examination of
habitat variables can refine the levels of each
metric, allowing better discrimination between ref-
erence and impacted sites and higher percentages of
reference sites that meet the criteria. Studies ex-
amining the effect of habitat variables on metrics
can be useful, particularly where values for a metric
vary over a large range at reference sites.
Implementing Biocriteria
Possibly the most contentious issues surround the
way criteria are used in making judgments about
116
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 115-119
water quality. At least two approaches have been
suggested. The first, sometimes termed "independ-
ent application" of the criteria, requires action if any
criteria are not met. This approach assumes that,
under all circumstances, all types of data associated
with the various criteria are equally good measures
of existing or potential water quality problems.
If, for instance, an organism fails to perform up
to expectations in a bioassay, bioassay response
must be improved even if irrefutable in-stream data
document the presence of healthy and abundant
populations of that organism and all others expected
in similar waterbodies under pristine conditions.
In the second approach, all available data are
examined and a judgment on water quality is made
based on the "weight of the evidence." The weight-
of-the-evidence approach is useful because it recog-
nizes that:
* The quality of the information provided
by chemical analyses, bioassays, river
surveys, and eventually, physiological
measurements, varies from site to site
depending on a number of factors (many
uncontrollable), and
• The relevance of the different types of
data varies from site to site, again
depending on a number of factors.
Statistical considerations are sometimes cited to
support the independent application approach (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990). Ideally, water quality
criteria and the tests that support them would iden-
tify only real water quality problems. Unfortunately,
statistical inference does not allow scientists to
prove that something (in this case, water quality im-
pairment) does not exist, which is sometimes used
as justification for concluding that effects exist if
any measures of water quality suggest that this is
so.
While you cannot prove the absence of an effect,
neither can you prove that an effect exists. What
statistical methods provide is evidence of the
presence or absence of effects.
Using methods of statistical inference, you can:
• Establish a null hypothesis: there is no
effect on water quality, and an alternative
hypothesis: there is an effect on water
quality;
• Collect data to test the null hypothesis;
and
• Either reject or do not reject the null
hypothesis with a known degree of
confidence.
If you reject the null hypothesis, you accept the
alternative hypothesis: there is an effect on water
quality. You do this with the knowledge that there is
a certain probability that you are wrong; that in
reality, there was no effect but you declared there
was. This probability is known as the "significance
level" of the test, sometimes termed the "false posi-
tive rate."
Failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the
same as accepting it. A failure to reject the null
hypothesis could mean that there is no effect or that
there is one but it is too small to detect. The ability
of a statistical test to correctly detect an effect of a
certain size is known as the "power" of the test.
The power to detect effects increases as the
number of tests in the experiment or monitoring
program increases. Likewise, the probability of false
positives also increases with increased testing.
If you are using methods incapable of detecting
truly important effects (that is, they have low
power), it may be reasonable from a purely statisti-
cal standpoint to conclude that there is an impor-
tant effect if any one of the three methods applied
independently allows you to reject the null
hypothesis. When you do this, however, you must
admit to the limited value of the test techniques in
detecting effects and consider that every time an ad-
ditional test is run, the probability of a false positive
increases. To apply this rigorous statistical ap-
proach to the question of interpreting water quality
assessment data, however, is to ignore several im-
portant considerations.
• First, this decision is based on the assump-
tion that all effects on water quality are en-
vironmentally significant. Clearly, some effects
are small enough to be regarded as insignificant. If
the statistical tests are powerful enough to detect
differences larger than this, it is in fact possible to
conclude, based on a non-rejection of the null
hypothesis, that there has been no environmentally
significant effect on water quality.
The measures of water quality that support the
three types of criteria have been developed and im-
plemented because they provide useful information
both when they identify problems and when they do
not. In other words, these are methods that allow
statistical comparisons with a reasonable (albeit
largely undefined) power. To ignore information sug-
gesting an absence of an environmentally sig-
nificant effect is to discard much of the value of
these measurements.
• Second, the rigorous statistical justifica-
tion for independent application of the three
types of criteria assumes that the data
developed to test for effects are of equal
117
-------
R. MINER & D. BOSTON
quality and relevance. Consider a case, for in-
stance, where annual effluent analyses and simple
low flow dilution calculations indicate that in-
stream concentrations of chemical "X" exceed the
respective aquatic life criteria, but copious unim-
peachable studies involving the most sensitive or-
ganisms in the water quality criteria database
suggest the lack of effects on these same organisms
in effluent bioassays and the receiving water. A
scientist might examine the quality and relevance of
the available information and determine, based on
the weight of the evidence, that the aquatic com-
munity is not significantly affected by the chemical.
In this case, the scientist has made the professional
judgment that the statistical significance of elevated
chemical concentrations is not relevant considering
the statistical and biological significance of the
other available data.
In fact, in this case, EPA already uses the
weight-of-the-evidence approach to the extent that
it may determine that the national chemical criteria
are not appropriate and that site-specific criteria
should apply. This flexibility is an explicit recogni-
tion of the fact that, in some cases, certain types of
information are more useful than others in making
assessments of water quality. This flexibility to
apply professional judgment in a weight-of-the-
evidence approach should be extended to questions
involving all three criteria.
• Lastly, possibly the most important
obstacle to applying a weight-of-the-evidence
approach to the implementation of water
quality criteria is that it requires professional
judgment. This can cause discomfort among the
regulated community because it will be the Agency's
professional judgment that is most important in
evaluating water quality assessment data. A
weight-of-the-evidence approach can also be unset-
tling to the implementing agency, however, because
it may force the agency to support its professional
judgment—and this requires resources.
While this is an important concern, several fac-
tors should be considered. First, the Agency will be
working within established frameworks for generat-
ing and evaluating the data associated with the dif-
ferent criteria; therefore, its professional judgment
will not often be challenged in questions of whether
individual criteria are being met at specific sites.
Such questions will have been anticipated in
development of the criteria and the regulations im-
plementing them.
The need for professional judgment will arise
primarily where data generated under the three dif-
ferent criteria appear contradictory. In developing
the various criteria, EPA has attempted to establish
that such disparities are not common and has
presented data supporting this view. (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990). If this is the case, disagree-
ments involving disparities will not be common.
In any event, in those cases where disparities
develop, the system should provide incentives for
resolving the apparent disparities before regulatory
action is taken. A weight-of-the-evidence approach
would provide such incentives yet would leave with
the Agency the authority to determine when the in-
formation was adequate to initiate regulatory ac-
tion.
Summary
The use of data on the health of resident aquatic
biota is critical to water quality assessment
programs. Such information provides a much-
needed real world interpretive framework for other
data generated under less realistic conditions. The
biocriteria program could be helpful in providing
standard methods for developing data on the health
of resident aquatic biota and a well-reviewed
framework for interpreting such data.
The biocriteria development process would
benefit from better documentation of all steps
during biocriteria development; a better under-
standing of the potential importance of unintention-
al bias and selection of metrics that are as free as
possible from such bias; metrics that adequately dis-
criminate reference sites from impacted sites; and a
better understanding of the influence of habitat on
metrics and biocriteria.
The concept of independent application of all
types of criteria is based largely on the fact that
methods of statistical inference do not allow scien-
tists to prove that water quality impairment does
not exist. In fact, methods of statistical inference
can provide important evidence that, if an effect ex-
ists, it is environmentally insignificant. In addition,
the rigorous statistical justification for independent
application of the three types of criteria assumes
that the data developed to test for effects are of
equal quality and relevance.
Making judgments about water quality using
the weight of the evidence developed under all of the
criteria acknowledges that the quality of the infor-
mation provided by chemical analyses, bioassays,
river surveys, and other methods as well as the
relevance of the different types of data vary from
site to site. EPA's data suggest that the three types
of criteria will agree in the vast majority of cases. In
those few instances where they do not, good science
and public policy would suggest additional efforts to
better understand the situation.
118
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 115-119
References
Gellman, I. 1988. Environmental effects of paper industry
waste-waters—an overview. Water Sci. Technol. 20(2): 69-
65.
National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Im-
provement, Inc. 1989. Pulping Effluents in the Aquatic
Environment—Part II: A Review of Unpublished Studies
of In-Strearn Aquatic Biota in the Vicinity of Pulp Mill
Discharges. NCASI Tech. Bull. No. 573. New York.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Biological
Criteria: National Program Guidance for Surface Waters.
EPA 440/5-90-004. Washington, DC.
119
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. (Mark Pifher-Colorado Springs) As EPA in-
dicated about the current controversy over its ap-
proach to biomonitoring, the Agency is demanding a
single test, pass-fail approach for enforcement pur-
poses. How will this biocriteria be incorporated into
the enforcement process?
A. We have a toxic program, a policy on how the
tools are used. We have leaned more towards the
weight-of-evidence approach to categorize the risk.
One failure of doing one acute test is that risk would
depend on one out of many tests. We have mag-
nitude and duration considerations that should be
considered for what the entity might do as far as
further monitoring.
C. (Panelist) We keep coming back to the idea of
an interpreter framework. There is no better
framework for things like bioassay and chemical-
specific data that are related to aquatic organism ef-
fects than information obtained from resident
aquatic community data. You can use them to help
make a judgment as to whether a single acute
failure is significant to the environment. Technically
and scientifically, that is a very valid thing to do.
Q. (Nelson Thomas-EPA) I'd like to direct this
one to Dennis Borton. You could do a real disservice
to biocriteria by using a total weight-of-evidence pro-
gram: Chris (Yoder) had numerical criteria failing
2.8 percent of the time because they showed an im-
pact when there wasn't one in the biological area.
Ken Dickson presented at SETAC a 3 percent whole
effluent toxicity, showing an impact when it wasnt
measured in the biological test. However, biological
tests are only a measure of the total ecosystem so they
will vary. Placing the burden on the regulator to
make this weight of evidence really slows the process
down and does not explore the individual measures.
A. (Dennis Borton-NCASI) We see relatively lit-
tle disagreement with the three different measures.
I wonder why looking at all the measures to make a
judgment about water quality would slow the
process down. Also, while we talk about the weight-
of-evidence approach, we don't really know how that
method would work. We are acting here as scien-
tists, without having lawyers looking over our
shoulders telling us what's going to work and not
going to work. Being a scientist, I would like to
think that water quality assessments are too impor-
tant to be left in the hands of lawyers. It's not the
objective here to slow down a process but to provide
the soundest technical scientific base for making a
judgment about water quality.
C. (Chris Yoder) I'm amazed that we spend so
much time dwelling on 3 percent of the problem
when we don't dwell much on 50 percent of it. There
are a lot of things out there that we take for granted
and probably don't even know about that involve
permitted exceedances—the NPDES system is one.
I know our agency uses a significance of violation to
take enforcement action. The question that was
asked was one failure, not three out of four, not a
failure of a chronic seven-day test. The result is a
degree of significance—I don't think we can get
around that.
Q. Fifty percent meaning that there are situa-
tions where biocriteria show no impairment and yet
some say chemical-specific criteria would show im-
pairment? Is that the 50 percent you are talking
about?
A. (Chris Yoder) No, just the reverse of that.
Q. That biocriteria show there is not, and chemi-
cal-specific criteria shows there is?
A. (Chris Yoder) No, no. The 50 percent of the
time we are getting biocriteria impairment that we
are not seeing with the chemical-specific tools. I said
that was an ambient example, but I think there are
probably a number of permit examples we can ex-
plore when we have found devastation where the
permit was thought to be in compliance. In large
part, that comes from not knowing about sloppy
housekeeping, not knowing about substances being
released that weren't regulated. That is far too fre-
quently the case than the opposite example we've
been drawing on so far.
Q. When dealing with headwater communities,
when a city of 20,000 to 30,000 people is built in an
agricultural area and they concrete everything, the
stream will be affected simply as a result of the
watershed changes (let's leave pollutants out). How
do biocriteria in the reference points address this
type ofhydrologic modification?
121
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, £t COMMENTS
A. A lot of the impacts we pick up are nonchemi-
cal and sometimes there are very complex hydrol-
ogy-related effects. To address that, we have
different versions of these evaluation mechanisms
calibrated for different-size streams; one happens to
be for headwater streams, so we're comparing ample
samples. A lot of situations you get into are what is
attainable; sometimes you get into irretrievable con-
ditions where you have to invoke the water quality
regulations.
Q. (Mary Jo Garreis-State of Maryland) In
many cases, we are looking at streams that are
receiving insults from either a number of point sour-
ces or a combination of point sources and nonpoint
sources, such as in an urban situation or a suburban
situation on an intensely developed watershed. In
using these types of criteria, how do you zero in on an
individual discharger or group of dischargers?
A. What role do the dischargers play in the
NPDES permit system? First of all, define what the
attainable use is that derives the chemical design
criteria that apply in the permit through the waste-
load.
Q. (Mary Jo Garrets) Suppose they're meeting
all those chemical criteria?
A. Well, you either don't have an adequate per-
mit, or something else is unique to that situation, or
you're not getting much accuracy in that situation.
Q. (Mary Jo Garreis) What do these biocriteria
do to increase my accuracy beyond helping identify
that I have a problem? What information do they
give me to identify that problem so that I can go back
to permits or know what to look for in either point or
nonpoint source situations? Stormwater is probably
more difficult to manage than point sources and, in
many cases, you don't have a "dean" system where
you can do cleanup and comparisons. If we are going
to talk about using biocriteria in terms of driving
permits and improvements, then we have to help
make them help us zero in on what must be done
beyond identifying a problem. I would guess that
many regulators and permit writers for a lot of im-
pacted streams don't need biocriteria to tell them
they have a problem; they need to know what they
can do to get out of it, to make what they are doing
better.
A. I guess they have a problem because permit
compliance alone isn't getting the job done. The
answer to your question is difficult. In a lot of these
situations where there is heavy urbanization, we've
heard that the streams will never meet warmwater
criteria. We can't prove that they ever will, but as an
environmental regulatory agency and given the
habitat conditions, we must be optimistic that they
will some day or we wouldn't have grounds to
demand improvement.
The other concern is that you can tell where
there is departure but you can't find the problem. I
would take issue with that statement; we are teas-
ing out some very distinct patterns-say between a
complex toxic impact versus a habitat impact versus
a nutrient impact. Because we're using multimetric
tools, there are other metrics outside of ones listed
here that we can use as diagnostic indicators. It's
not biocriteria alone, it's biocriteria in concert with
the chemical criteria, habitat assessment, sediment
chemistry, and the whole effluent toxicity that give
the complete picture. On some of these problems,
the information we get back sometimes is going to
generate more questions than answers; however, is
that a reason to throw up our hands and say these
things don't help us do much? I don't think any of
the other tools are answering those questions either.
C. Some of the things you presented do not
necessarily address the direct regulatory usefulness
of biocriteria, but they certainly help in identifying
potential sources of impairments. I don't know if you
want to expand on that.
A. (Chris Yoder) The fish community is often
knocked because they move. And yet that's one of
the benefits, because we have seen situations where
a large segment of a community moved out before
there was any obvious chemical reason to do so.
They were responding to an early warning system
and so vacated an area that subsequently went
anoxic, two weeks later. It was not detectable chemi-
cally, but they knew something was going to happen
or was happening where they were living. It's a
responsive community and, as we learn more about
it, we'll be able to do a better job of interpreting.
It's real easy to get so focused that you don't
recognize that what you're looking at is part of
larger system. We badly need whole watershed ap-
proaches, I think, not just a little stream segment.
You must look at the whole system because it's all
interacting. It doesn't matter how broad you get,
there's still more coming in from the atmosphere
and other areas as well.
C. The question about how biological criteria or
wildlife criteria can be integrated into controls on
sources is really the hub of this issue. It's obvious
that biological criteria can be used to crack down on
a point source permit, but what about situations
when there are multiple sources? It is not the only
answer, but there are some solutions to that prob-
lem in the Clean Water Act. Two are section 304(1)
in the individual control strategies, that were to be
developed for point sources and polluted water-
bodies, and section 303(d), the total maximum daily
load approach. In polluted waters that are exceed-
122
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
ing water quality standards, either one of those sec-
tions can be used to trigger controls on a whole
watershed basis, whether it's a stream or a harbor,
river, or lake. And to the extent that specific chemi-
cals causing problems can be defined, then controls
can be incorporated into the regulatory process.
Now these controls may not necessarily be
reductions from point sources. It may be better
stormwater management or water conservation
practices as a part of a municipality's permit that
will prevent combined stormwater events from over-
flowing during times of high rainfall. It may well be
that a waterbody is so polluted from contaminated
sediments that there is no allowable load limit, and
unless contaminated sediments or the pollutants
are removed from the sediments there is no capacity
left to add any more. Those are some of the creative
ways that we think biological and wildlife criteria
can be used in a regulatory process.
C. Those are excellent points, and to add to
them, we need to monitor for feedback on the suc-
cess of those applications. Many applications don't
carry with them the probability that we know that
constructing a sewage plant will achieve better
water quality. This is an area we don't have much
experience with, so we need feedback from the sys-
tem to tell how things are going.
Q. (Lee Dunbar-State of Connecticut) Like many
of my scientific cohorts, we try to do things three dif-
ferent ways—ire this case with toxicity testing, chemi-
cal analysis, and biosurveys—and hope by some
streak of luck that all these ways give us the same
answers so that we can look like geniuses to our peers
and go happily on our way. However, I'm rather con-
cerned about the great discrepancies between the
various methods. I'm wondering if, in fact, this dis-
crepancy is looked on as one of the criteria is wrong,
or whether it just means they were measuring dif-
ferent things, or how this problem is dealt with?
For example, with the chemical number in Con-
necticut and in much of the Northeast. We have very
soft water there, and much of the ambient monitor-
ing shows that—even in newer pristine sites—metal
concentrations exceed the national guidance num-
bers. Now, some might interpret that result to mean
that we need site-specific criteria in our region. But
typically, from a regulatory standpoint, when you
are dealing with a chemical number and there is an
exceedance, you go directly to the permit and rochet
that down. It appears that, with the biocriteria, if
there is an impairment, then rather than going
directly to the permit, it is more of a trigger to try to
first figure out what you need to do than what the
problem is. You have to identify in certain areas
whether the problem is dissolved oxygen, ammonia,
or if it's nutrients. And, I assume that you made that
determination based on some sort of chemical or
other approach. Am I correct there?
A. (Chris Yoder) Yes, in part. Some of it is
knowledge of the sources and the land use, and also
the type of response you got out of the biota as a sig-
nature of that type of problem. It's a combination of
all that. Yes, I'm concerned that sometimes we tend
to put very simple explanations on these things and
not spend enough time solving them. Why that hap-
pens is extremely complex. One reason is ambient
chemical sampling. That's maybe half a dozen grab
samples during the summer at a site, and a laundry
list of 30 parameters. What if we are missing the im-
portant dynamics of that system? It could be one of
those elements, or one of those parameters, and yet
we are not picking it up chemically.
Q. How do you distinguish, based on the
biocriteria, whether it's something that can be regu-
lated through a permit process or what's causing the
problem so that you can perhaps move forward?
When do you go after the permittee and when do you
decide it's just a habitat problem, it doesnt have any-
thing to do with this discharge, we are going to let
them alone. Or don't you attempt that?
A. It's not entirely that direct. We are monitor-
ing in association with major permit reissuance and
doing it far enough ahead of time to plug into the
process. An obvious example would be the focus of
major permits in Canton, Ohio: a sewage plant at an
oil refinery. This galvanizing operation had so con-
taminated the ground that it was just leaching zinc
and iron out in the stream—and nobody knew about
it. The degradation triggered off an inquiry and a
further look at the chemical monitoring tipped off an
investigation. We just had to assemble all the parts
together.
C. Biological criteria are picking up two things
that the chemical-specific criteria may not be get-
ting. One is the combined effects of multiple pol-
lutants; chemical criteria deal with one chemical at
a time. Also, biological criteria may show that water
quality is not meeting standards and chemical
criteria show it is affected by other sources. We have
typically used water quality standards solely to go
after point sources because they are the easiest to
pin down. Those sources are still important; how-
ever, water quality standards are supposed to apply
to the waterbody itself and to be used in developing
controls on all problem sources, whether point
sources or otherwise. We have focused our efforts
too long and too much on point sources; we need to
figure out ways to restore the health of waterbodies.
And biological criteria are telling us that we are not
meeting those uses.
123
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
C. The world is a complicated place. The kinds
of information that you will need to identify a source
in situation "A" may be different from that needed
for situation "B." You need to establish a framework
for all this information to make a judgment about
effects. And that's why we remain a proponent of a
weight-of-the-evidence approach. Basically, it's a
framework for doing a broad analysis of the situa-
tion.
Q. (Rowland McDaniel-FTN Associates, Little
Rock, Arkansas) Arkansas does have narrative
biocriteria. Since 1986, the Arkansas Department of
Pollution Control and Ecology has used a rapid
bioassessment process that was developed for the
State. This process picks 40 or 50 specific NPDES
sites every year and addresses impacts on the benthic
communities upstream and downstream. The results
are used to tier the degrees of problematic impact on
the receiving stream. If, as a result, the rapid bioas-
sessment showed a very severe impact, the NPDES
permit would be reopened. If the impact was tenta-
tive, it would be placed on a list for compliance sam-
pling inspection coupled with a quality assurance I
quality control assessment of the laboratory. If it was
a minor impact, it would be placed on an effluent
sampling program where there would be point ef-
fluent sampling inspections always tied to toxicity
testing. In many cases where the rapid bioassess-
ment showed impacts, we could tie it back to toxicity
testing that was not yet in the permit process. So I
think biocriteria have very practical applications.
One question for Chris. The increase in nonat-
tainments when you went to a numerical standard
was not involved in point sources so much as non-
point sources through nutrient loadings and things
like that. Is that correct?
A. (Chris Yoder) In part. That change again was
an artifact of the method by which you analyze data.
And the narrative was a less-disciplined, more
standard approach than the latter one. Clearly,
we've tested volunteer monitoring results against
that and shown even a bigger discrepancy. It seems
to be clearly oriented in (I hope I'm not offending
any statistics people by misusing it) a Type 2 error-
type situation.
Q. (Peter Ruffier-Association of Metropolitan
Sewage Agencies) I have a question for Reid Miner.
You mentioned that there were some 200 different
studies done with 45 dischargers. I was curious what
the dischargers did with the data that were
generated, whether or not there were any operational
changes as a result, and if there were any impacts on
the biological indicators used in the studies?
A. (Reid Miner) A lot of these studies were per-
formed over decades to document changes in quality,
the health of the aquatic environment from the
early 1970s through to the present, so to the extent
that operational changes obviously took place over
that time there was an opportunity to document the
effect in the aquatic environment. In general terms,
what the compilation of the information suggested
was that within the immediate vicinity of the dis-
chargers, there were what might broadly be charac-
terized as enrichment effects (in terms of the nature
of the biota that were present) and that, in situa-
tions where there was limited mixing available or
where there were other synergistic forces or ef-
fluents involved, there were sometimes effects out-
side of the mixing zone. But most of the absorbable
impacts were limited to the mixing zone. Most of
these studies were done outside of permit conditions
by companies interested in getting that interpretive
framework.
Q. (Rebecca Shriner-Indiana Wildlife Federa-
tion) The message from all of you is that we have to
look at all of these systems, to view them in their
complexity. What worries me is hearing some of the
questions. Many people here seem to be asking which
leg of Tim's three-legged stool is the best one to stand
on. And Tim is trying to say that we have to use all of
them. Since I have that problem with the policy,
decisionmaking and political members, it disturbs
me to hear it in the scientific community.
What is the one leg we are going to stand on? I'm
someone who has to design and work with water-
sheds, and I want the couch, all six legs, and to sit
comfortably because we've looked at all sorts of
things. I'm worried that the scientific community is
still pinpointing or focusing on what is the one best
way to look at the problem. The politicians do that,
but if the scientific community is doing it, it is cut-
ting off its own nose to spite its face—and I'm very
concerned about that.
Q. (For James Gammon) In thinking about
biological criteria mostly for streams, how would you
develop biological criteria in large rivers like the
Wabash or some of the Alaskan rivers you've worked
on? How would you set biological expectations?
A. (James Gammon) For years, I looked for a
clean river in the Midwest and didn't find one. The
best section—it may not be the best available but at
least it's a reasonably good comparative section—is
above Lafayette. This approach has worked for the
Wabash River. I didn't think it would. When I went
to a meeting eight years ago, a colleague said, "That
river is hopelessly polluted. Why do you bother to
work on it?" And at that time, I had to agree. But in
recent years, the river has amazed me. For two
years, it's had a lot of bass in it.
124
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Q. So, you just select the stretch or the reach evidence that we're on the right track. That we can
that's minimally impacted? indeed do more because no body of water is as good
A. (James Gammon) You have to do that for the as ifc c01^ be- ! remain optimistic that we'll identify
system. What gives me hope is that we have seen causes that are limiting factors now, and that we
significant improvement and that, to me, gives will improve things still more.
125
-------
Xt".' '• rf'" !•*• 4-- ii'^-S «ln* *4ft|iS«i""»! 551'Xi'•' *&* J§K sif*5' £4 • ^W
:"'^^iil^ll*'f J;0'I1^^ !iv «3
-i ;,* n*»^;;' i j%* ^xj? f *4%* -' «i
^^^•"V^S^i^^*^-;.-!-:;
•'';''. ^VX^^^^'-K'^^^^^K^K^S^
'»:--^-"v4:^;4S$'^''^5
•f^jf' ' L' «-i"-'.,"-.,'a -. -•-'"'. m>i\f''r ;< -"•• '-'„" • •.-.'*..-,a'-'•*'•&•'?""'.^* ;*''~f .'^ „'',?, '
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
Toxicity of Chlorine and Ammonia to
Aquatic Life: Chemistry, Water Quality
Criteria, Recent Research, and
Recommended Future Research
Brian D. Melzian
Regional Oceanographer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region K/ERL-N
San Francisco, California
Norbert Jaworski
Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory (ERL-N)
Narragansett, Rhode Island
Introduction
In 1987, more than half (53 percent) of the popula-
tion in the United States lived within 50 miles of the
coasts along the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and
Atlantic and Pacific oceans (Lewis, 1989). While
predictions vary, estimates indicate that 54 to 80
percent of this Nation's population will be residing
in coastal areas by the year 2000 (Lewis, 1989;
Delaney and Wiggin, 1989). As a result of this sig-
nificant population growth, the amount of chlorine
and ammonia entering coastal waters will undoub-
tedly increase.
Chlorine and ammonia are ubiquitous and high-
ly toxic "conventional" pollutants whose sources in-
clude effluents from sewage treatment plants, large
power plants, and industry (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990a). Chlorine is used to disinfect drink-
ing water and effluents from sewage treatment
plants to protect humans from exposure to
pathogens (bacteria and viruses) in drinking water,
receiving waters through body contact (such as
swimming, scuba diving, and wind surfing), and
contaminated shellfish (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1990a). Another major source of chlorine is as a
biocide in power plant cooling waters and industrial
effluents (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
Biological degradation of organic matter
produces ammonia in natural waters. Tbxic con-
centrations of ammonia can be introduced into the
environment through municipal sewage effluents,
industrial discharges, feedlot drainage, and agricul-
tural fertilizer applications (U.S. Environ. Protec.
Agency, 1990a).
Even though this paper will describe some re-
search findings published since the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) published the
freshwater quality criteria for chlorine and am-
monia in 1985 and saltwater quality criteria for am-
monia in 1989, it will not be an exhaustive review of
recently completed research. Only representative
studies will be discussed to illustrate some of the
most significant research recently published or com-
pleted.
127
-------
B.D. MELZIAN & N. JAWORSKI
Chlorine
Some Commonly Used Terms
Aquatic toxicologists and regulators are often con-
fused by the terms or definitions used to describe
chlorine in water. Therefore, definitions of some
terms that may aid in understanding this paper and
the toxicological literature follow.
• Free Residual Chlorine (FRC): The portion
of the chlorine injected into water that
remains as molecular chlorine, hypochlorous
acid, or hypochlorite ions after the solution
has reached a state of chemical equilibrium
(Planktonics, Inc. 1981).
• Combined Residual Chlorine (CRC): The
portion of chlorine injected into the water that
remains combined with ammonia or
nitrogenous compounds after the equilibrium
has been reached (Planktonics, Inc. 1981).
• Total Residual Chlorine (TRC): The sum of
free chlorine and combined chlorine in fresh
water (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a).
• Chlorine-produced Oxidants (CPO): The
sum of free chlorine, combined chlorine, and
combined bromine oxidative products found in
saltwater (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a).
• Total Residual Oxidant (TRO): The TRO is
comparable to TRC, but like CPO, it also in-
cludes the bromine compounds hypobromous
acid, hypobromite ions, and bromamines
found in saltwater (Planktonics, Inc. 1981).
Basic Chlorine Chemistry in Water
Fresh Water
When chlorine is added to freshwater wastewater,
cooling water, or drinking water, it may react with
ammonia, humic materials, and nitrogenous com-
pounds found there to form many different types of
chlorine-containing compounds (Planktonics, Inc.
1981; Christman et al. 1983; Coleman et al. 1984;
Scully et al. 1988; and Thompson et al. 1990), some
of which are known carcinogens such as chloroform
and mutagens such as MX (3-chloro-4-[dichloro-
methyl]-5-hydroxy-2[5H]-furanone) (Reinhard and
Goodman et al. 1982; Jolley et al. 1983; Kronberg et
al. 1990; and Rav-Acha et al. 1990). Some of the
most commonly formed compounds include:
• HOCL (hypochlorous acid)
• OCL" (hypochlorite ion)
NH2CL (monochloramine)
(dichloramine)
• RNHCL, RNCL2, etc. (organic chloramines)
• Trihalomethanes (THMs) (chloroform)
• Other disinfection by-products (DBFs).
The structural formulas of some of the most
commonly formed THMs and DBFs are shown in
Figure 1. The actual concentration of each of the
chlorine-containing compounds is dependent on
such physical and chemical conditions as pH,
temperature, amount of initial chlorine dose, the
ammonia concentration in the water, and the
amount and type of organic precursors (fulvic and
humic acids, proteins) found in the water
(Planktonics, Inc. 1981; Coleman et al. 1984; Scully
et al. 1988; Thompson et al. 1990). For example, in-
creasing the concentration of ammonia in the water
will usually increase the reaction between ammonia
and HOCL to form chloramines (Planktonics, Inc.
1981).
Seawater
In chlorinated seawater, the oxidative capacity is
mostly expressed through the bromine atoms found
in the bromide salts that are found at concentra-
tions as high as 60-65 ppm in 30%c (salinity)
seawater (Planktonics, Inc. 1981). As a result, chlor-
ination of water at salinities greater than > 0.3%e
usually results in the predominant formation of
bromine-containing compounds (Planktonics, Inc.
1981). These brominated compounds are analogous
to the chlorinated compounds found in chlorinated
fresh water (Planktonics, Inc. 1981) and form com-
pounds similar to those produced by chlorine in
fresh water (Planktonics, Inc. 1981; U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985a; Coleman et al. 1984; Thompson
et al. 1990). Some of the most common bromine com-
pounds formed in chlorinated seawater include:
• HOBr (hypobromous acid)
• OBr' (hypobromous ion)
• NH2Br (monobromamine)
• NHBr2 (dibromamine)
• Organic bromamines
• THMs (bromoform — see Fig. 1) and
• Other DBPs.
128
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
Trlhalomethanei
Cl Cl Cl Br
II I'
CI-C-H CI-C-H Br-C-H Br - C - H
II I'
Cl Br Br Br
Chloroform Dlchlorobromo- Olbromochloro- Bromoform
methane methane
Halokelone*
Cl O H Cl O H
1 M 1 I n 1
CI-C-C-C-H CI-C-C-C-H
II li
H H Cl H
1,1-Dlchloropropanone 1,1,1-Trichloropropanone
Haloacetonltrlles
Cl Cl Br
1 1 1
CI-C-C5N CI-C-CSN CI-C-CSN
I I I
Cl H H
Trlchloro- Dlchloro- Bromochloro-
acetonltrlle acetonltrlle acetonltrlle
Mitcellaneou*
Cl Cl H
1 1 I
Cl - C - NO, CI-C-C-OH
I 1 I
Cl Cl OH
Chloroplcrln Chloral hydrate
(trtchloronltromethane)
Br
Br-C-C«N
I
H
Dlbromo-
acetonltrlle
Cl -C SN
Cyanogen
chloride
Haloacetlc acids
Cl O Cl O Cl O Br O Br O
I II I n I II I II 1 II
H-C-C-OH CI-C-C-OH CI-C-C-OH H-C-C-OH Br-C-C-OH
I I I I 1
H H Cl H H
Honochloroacetlc Dlchloroacetlc Trlchloroecetlc Monobromoacetlc Dlbromoacetlc
acid acid acid acid acid
Chlorophenol*
Cl — / 0 V- OH
Aldehyde*
H H H
1 1 1
H — C= O H-C-C =
1
H
Formaldehyde Acetaldehyde
O
Figure 1.—Structural formulas for some trlhalomethanes fTHMs) and disinfection byproducts (DBPs) (Source: Kras-
neretal. 1989).
Chlorine Water Quality Criteria
The freshwater and saltwater chlorine criteria pub-
lished by EPA (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a)
includes acute toxicity data for 33 freshwater
animals (12 invertebrates and 21 fish) and 24
saltwater animals (13 invertebrates and 11 fish).
Also included are chronic toxicity data for three
freshwater invertebrates and one saltwater fish.
The freshwater and saltwater criteria (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1985a) have a two-tiered struc-
ture: (1) An acute concentration (one-hour average)
derived from short-term tests and effects and (2) a
chronic concentration (four-day average) derived
from long-term tests and effects. These criteria are
summarized below:
Freshwater Acute: 19 ng/L (0.019 mg/L) TRC
Criteria (one-hour average)
Chronic: 11 ng/L (0.011 mg/L) TRC
(four-day average)
Saltwater Acute: 13 ng/L (0.013 mg/L) CPO
Criteria (one-hour average)
Chronic: 7.5 ng/L (0.0075 mg/L) CPO
(four-day average)
Note that these criteria indicate that chlorine is
very toxic to aquatic life at concentrations in the low
Hg/L or parts per billion (ppb) range.
129
-------
B.D. MELZIAN & N. JAWORSK1
Toxicity of Chlorine to Aquatic Life
High levels of chlorine in water are a leading cause
of fishkills in the United States (U.S. Environ.
Protec. Agency, 1990a). In general, the rate of
lethality from TRC is usually rapid with many mor-
talities in 96-hour exposures occurring within the
first 12 hours (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a).
The effects of TRC or CPO can range from avoidance
behavior, growth inhibition, reproductive problems,
behavioral changes, and anesthetic reactions, to
death (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a, 1990a).
There is a wide and similar range of relative
sensitivities among both freshwater and saltwater
fish and invertebrates to TRC or CPO exposure
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a). In addition, the
relative sensitivities of both fresh- and saltwater
animals appear to be similar (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985a). However, saltwater species may be
more sensitive to CPO if simultaneously subjected
to thermal stress (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1985a). Whereas saltwater invertebrates are more
sensitive to CPO resulting from combined chlorine
(chloramine) than free chlorine (sodium hypo-
chlorite), the opposite may be true for fish (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1985a).
Numerous laboratory and field studies have
also shown both TRC and CPO are acutely toxic to
aquatic life at the low concentrations typically found
in chlorinated wastewater effluents (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990a). Some of these same studies
have shown that toxic concentrations of chlorine
persist in the effluents even after they have been
discharged from the sewage treatment plant and
diluted by the receiving waters (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990a).
Petrocelli et al. (1990) conducted a study to
determine the toxicity of a sewage plant's
chlorinated effluent before and after it entered the
estuarine receiving waters of Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island. Toxicity tests used for the effluents
and receiving waters included the sea urchin (Ar-
bacia punctulata) fertilization test, the red macro-
alga (Champia parvula) reproduction test, and the
quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) embryo/larval test.
Chlorinated effluent samples were toxic to sea
urchins and quahogs, with the toxicity increasing in
proportion to the amount of TRO found in the ef-
fluent. Increased effluent concentrations in the
receiving water samples (estimated by a dye study)
were generally increasingly toxic. Dechlorination of
the effluent by using sodium sulfite was effective in
reducing the chlorinated effluent's toxicity to sea ur-
chins and quahogs but not to the red alga.
In a related study, Nacci et al. (1990) used the
sea urchin fertilization test to evaluate the toxicity
of chlorinated natural seawater and pre- and post-
chlorinated sewage plant effluents diluted with
seawater. The persistence of the TRO and toxicity
was greater for chlorinated natural seawater solu-
tions than for effluent solutions with similar initial
TRO concentrations. For example, chlorinated
seawater solutions with very low TRO concentra-
tions (0.04 mg/L) were very toxic while the effluent
samples with the same low concentrations were
nontoxic (Nacci et al. 1990). These results suggest
that the DBFs formed by the chlorination of natural
seawater by chlorinated effluents may be highly
toxic and more persistent than previously
suspected.
Another significant finding was the discovery
that the decay rates of both the toxicity and TRO
concentrations in effluent samples were significant-
ly higher in samples stored at 20°C versus 10°C. In
addition, the decay rate of TRO in natural seawater
samples, which was also significantly higher at 20°C
than at 10°C, was dependent on the samples' initial
TRO concentration (Fig. 2). This suggests that the
toxicity of chlorinated effluents entering receiving
waters may increase as the level of chlorination in-
creases and remain persistent during the colder
seasons (Nacci et al. 1990). More laboratory and
field work must be conducted to confirm and expand
this research.
DECAY OF CHLORINE IN SEA WATER
1.00-
o
OL
0.10:
24
48 72 96
TIME (hr)
120 144 168
Figure 2. —Linear regressions of total residual oxidant
(TRO) data versus time for samples of chlorinated
seawater with initial concentrations of 2 mg/L TRO
(circles), and 0.2 mg/L (triangles). Samples were held at
10*C (open circles, closed triangles) or 20'C (closed
circles or open triangles) (Source: Nacci et al. 1990).
Of particular significance to aquatic food webs
and human health are occurrences of brominated
phenols and anisoles in freshwater and marine sedi-
130
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
ments (Watanabe et al. 1985), freshwater fish such
as the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas)
(Keuhl et al. 1978), and Pacific oysters (Crassostrea
gigas) (Miyazaki et al. 1981). Apparently, the
production of many of the DBFs that become bioac-
cumulated in aquatic biota, such as brominated
phenols, occurs during the chlorination of waste-
water and in waters that receive chlorinated waste-
water (Sweetman and Simmons, 1980; Watanabe et
al. 1984, 1985).
Ammonia
Basic Ammonia Chemistry
in Water
In water, un-ionized ammonia exists in equilibrium
with the ammonium ion (NH4+) and the hydroxide
ion (Off) (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985b). This
equilibrium can be expressed as:
NH3(gas) + nH20(liquid) ^ NH3. nH20(aqueous) ^ NH4+
+ OH-+(n-1)H2O(liquid).
In this equilibrium, the dissolved un-ionized
ammonia is represented as NHs. The ionized form is
represented by NH4+. The term "total ammonia"
refers to the sum of NHs + NtV (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985b). In addition to the concentra-
tion of total ammonia found, the pH and tempera-
ture of freshwater play a major role in determining
the NHs concentration in the water (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985b). For example, the concentra-
tion of NHs usually increases with rising pH and
temperature in fresh water (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b).
In estuarine and marine waters, pH and
temperature are the major water quality factors
that control the NHa concentration, with both cor-
relating positively with NHa, and salinity, the least
influential factor, inversely correlated with NHa
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989). In addition, the
proportion of NHa in fresh and marine waters is
reduced about 10-fold with a reduction of only one
unit within the pH range experienced by most
marine animals (Miller et al. 1990). Hence, it is im-
portant that pH be tightly controlled in ammonia
toxicity experiments or measured in field experi-
ments (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989; Miller et
al. 1990).
Ammonia Water Quality Criteria
National water quality criteria for ammonia (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985b, 1989) were developed
to protect freshwater and saltwater aquatic life. The
freshwater ammonia criteria included acute toxicity
data for 48 freshwater animals (19 invertebrates
and 29 fish) and only nine saltwater animals — six
invertebrates and three fish (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b). This same document also included
chronic toxicity data for 11 freshwater animals (two
invertebrates and nine fish). No data were available
for saltwater animals. Because acute and chronic
toxicity data for ammonia's effect on saltwater
aquatic life were limited, saltwater criteria were not
derived.
By 1989, there were sufficient acute and chronic
ammonia toxicity data for EPA to publish saltwater
ammonia criteria (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1989). This document included acute toxicity data
for 21 species of crustaceans, bivalve mollusksy and
fishes, and chronic toxicity data for two saltwater
animals — crustaceans (Mysidopsis bahia) of the
family Mysidae and the inland silverside (Menidia
beryllina)—and 10 freshwater animals.
Freshwater and saltwater quality criteria for
ammonia also have a two-tiered structure: (1) An
acute concentration (one-hour average) derived from
short-term tests and effects, and (2) a chronic con-
centration (four-day average) derived from long-
term tests and effects. These criteria are
summarized as follows:
Freshwater Acute and chronic criteria
Criteria concentrations of un-ionized
ammonia (mg/L) and total ammonia
(mg/L) are provided in tables for the
pH range 6.5 to 9.0 and a
temperature range of 0°C to 30°C.
Saltwater Acute: 233 ng/L (0.233 mg/L)
Criteria un-ionized NHa (one-hour average)
Chronic: 35 ng/L (0.035 mg/L)
un-ionized NH3 (four-day average)
Note: Tables citing criteria
concentrations in terms of total
ammonia (mg/L) are provided for the
ranges of 7.0 to 9.0 pH, 0°C to 35°C,
and for 10, 20, and 30%c.
Toxicity of Ammonia to
Aquatic Life
The toxicity of aqueous ammonia to aquatic life is
primarily attributable to un-ionized NHs, with the
NH4+ ion being relatively less toxic (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985b). Ammonia has also been iden-
tified as one of the leading causes of fishkills in the
United States (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a).
Ammonia affects aquatic life in two major ways.
It can cause acute and chronic toxicity, and the am-
monia oxidation in water can lower dissolved
oxygen concentrations (Hermanutz et al. 1987; U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990a). These lowered dis-
131
-------
B.D. MELZ1AN & N. JAWORSKI
solved oxygen concentrations can impair growth and
delay development of fish, including increased lar-
val fish mortality (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1990a). Concentrations of ammonia acutely toxic to
fish may cause "loss of equilibrium, hyperex-
citability, increased breathing, cardiac output and
oxygen uptake, and, in extreme cases, convulsions,
coma, and death" (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1985b). At concentrations below toxic levels, am-
monia may affect fish by causing "a reduction in
hatching success, reduction in growth rate and mor-
phological development, and pathologic changes in
tissues of gills, livers, and kidneys" (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985b). Ammonia may combine with
chlorine in sewage treatment plant and industrial
effluents to form chloramines and other DBPs that,
in turn, may be as or more toxic and persistent as
ammonia or chlorine alone (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990a).
In fresh water, the concentration and toxicity of
NHa are largely dependent on water temperature
and pH, with toxicity usually decreasing as the
temperature and pH increase (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b, 1990a). However, recently reported
labora-tory tests on nine species of freshwater inver-
tebrates and five fish species indicated no clear
relationship between NHa toxicity and temperature
(Arthur et al. 1987). Instead, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and pH during these tests seemed to be in-
terdependent. Other factors known to affect am-
monia toxicity in freshwater environments include
dissolved oxygen concentrations, previous acclima-
tion to ammonia, fluctuating or intermittent ex-
posures, carbon dioxide concentrations, and the
presence of other toxicants (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b).
For salt water, little data and information exist
that provide definitive evidence that temperature,
salinity, or pH have a consistent influence on the
toxicity of un-ionized ammonia (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b; Miller et al. 1990). Miller et al.
(1990) investigated the influence of pH and salinity
on the acute toxicity of un-ionized ammonia to two
marine species, a mysid (Mysidopsis bahid) and lar-
val inland silversides (Menidia beryllina). Also
studied was the influence of temperature on am-
monia toxicity to mysids and larval sheepshead
minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus).
Miller et al. (1990) found that the acute toxicity
of NHs to mysids and inland silversides was in-
fluenced by pH and salinity in a different and a
species-specific manner. For example, at 31%c, NH3
was most toxic to mysids at pH 7.0; whereas with in-
land silversides, the toxicity was greatest at pH 9.0.
Temperature only had a small effect on acute
toxicity of NHa for Atlantic silversides and sheep-
shead minnows. The results of these experiments
indicated that temperature has a much smaller ef-
fect on NHa toxicity with marine fish as compared to
freshwater fish (Miller et al. 1990).
The results of acute 48-hour and 96-hour
laboratory toxicity tests with ammonia on nine
species of freshwater invertebrates and five species
of freshwater fish were reported by Arthur et al.
(1987). With the exception of two mollusks (the
fingernail clam and snails) and one cladoceran
species, all invertebrates were found to be less sen-
sitive than fish to the short-term ammonia ex-
posures. This finding was similar to that previously
published by EPA (1985b).
The most sensitive species to NHs was the rain-
bow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) with a geometric
mean LCeo of 0.53 mg/L. The most sensitive inver-
tebrate was the fingernail clam (Musculium
transversum) with a geometric mean LCeo of 1.10
mg/L. The ranking offish sensitivity to NHs by most
to least sensitive was rainbow trout > walleye
(Stizostedion vitreum) > channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus) > white sucker (Catastomus commersoni)
> fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) (Arthur
et al. 1987). In general, the LCso values produced in
this study closely bracketed those previously
reported by EPA in the 1985 water quality criteria
document.
Hermanutz et al. (1987) used four outdoor ex-
perimental freshwater streams over 76 weeks to
evaluate the applicability of laboratory data on am-
monia effects and EPA's national and site-specific
ammonia criteria. Unlike the national water quality
criteria for ammonia, which are derived from a large
laboratory database, the site-specific criteria were
obtained by subjecting representative species (such
as fathead minnows and channel catfish) to
laboratory acute tests with dilution water taken
from the site of the experiments (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1983; Hermanutz et al. 1987). Populations
of cladocerans, copepods, rotifers, protozoans,
fathead minnows, bluegills, channel catfish, white
suckers, walleyes, and rainbow trout were tested in
the streams for various time intervals throughout
the study.
Copepods and rotifers were unaffected in all
treatment streams; inclusive results were found
with the cladoceran and protozoan populations. In
general, the lowest effect concentrations for fish in
the streams were close to previously reported
laboratory chronic effect concentrations in tests up
to or longer than 30 days, and all were below
laboratory acute effects concentrations.
Of the six fish species tested, only channel cat-
fish and white suckers were found to be adversely
affected (a decrease in growth) at NHa concentra-
132
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
tions below the national and site-specific chronic
criteria. Under the exposure conditions used in this
study, the site-specific criteria were between 1.3 and
2.1 times higher than the national criteria, but they
were low enough to provide protection to all fish
groups tested except the channel catfish and white
suckers. In this case, both national and site-specific
criteria appeared underprotective for these two
species.
This study also showed that large fluctuations
in ammonia concentrations at field sites can be ex-
pected to occur as a result of changes in the season
or time of day, even when the input of total am-
monia is constant. These fluctuations may be impor-
tant in affecting ammonia toxicity. It has been
previously demonstrated that a rainbow trout's
response to fluctuating exposures of ammonia in
laboratory experiments is different than its ex-
posure to constant concentrations (Thurston et al.
1981). Because of all of these factors, great care
should be taken when attempting to compare field
effects concentration data with those from
laboratory effects (Sullivan and Ritacco, 1985), espe-
cially when laboratory data are used to predict im-
pacts in the field.
The effects of ammonia on survival, growth, and
reproduction on the fingernail clam (Musculium
transversum) were tested in these same outdoor ex-
perimental streams (Zischke and Arthur, 1987).
Based on the number of clams recovered from
streams containing low and medium NHa concentra-
tions, the lowest mean concentrations affecting sur-
vival (between 0.09 and 0.16 mg/L) were higher
than EPA's un-ionized ammonia water quality
criteria chronic concentrations of 0.03 mg/L
(coldwater species) and 0.05 mg/L (warmwater
species). Therefore, the national criteria for am-
monia were low enough to protect the clams in the
streams. In addition to survival, growth and
reproduction of the clams were adversely affected in
the medium and high concentration streams with
ammonia up to 1.17 mg/L.
Although invertebrates appear to be less sensi-
tive to ammonia than fish (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agen-
cy, 1985b), Niederlehner and Cairns (1990) recently
reported that ammonia concentrations below the
calculated chronic water quality criterion caused
significant changes in the freshwater periphytic
laboratory communities tested. In particular,
species richness and biomass of the protozoan com-
munity and algal biomass were significantly
reduced even at the lowest tested ammonia treat-
ment (0.01 mg NHs/L). This low ammonia con-
centration was below the EPA's chronic criterion of
0.027 mg/L (temperature = 8.8"C, and pH = 8.1).
As for the potential impact of ammonia in sedi-
ments and on sediment-water column interactions,
Ankley et al. (1990) recently reported that ammonia
in freshwater sediment pore waters was largely
responsible for the acute toxicity of the sediments to
fathead minnows and the cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia
dubia. The ammonia found in the sediments was
probably produced by natural degradation of or-
ganic compounds by microbes (Ankley et al. 1990).
Effler et al. (1990) also concluded from their study of
Onondaga Lake (New York) that as ammonia was
being released from the sediment-water interface,
total ammonia concentrations in the water in-
creased with water depth. Release of ammonia from
anaerobic sediments, or resuspension of sediments
by natural major disturbances, such as severe
storms, or by dredging activities could release the
ammonia from the sediments, which in turn could
conceivably impact water-column species (Ankley et
al. 1990).
Ammonia and Chlorine:
Joint Toxicity
Whereas numerous laboratory and a few field
studies have been devoted to determining the im-
pact of chlorine or ammonia to aquatic species (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985a,b; 1989), few field or
laboratory studies have been conducted to deter-
mine the combined effects of chlorine and ammonia.
Recently, Cairns et al (1990) examined the chronic
effects of chlorine, ammonia, and chlorine plus am-
monia on protozoan species richness of periphytic
communities established on artificial substrates.
Protozoan species richness decreased with increas-
ing toxicant concentrations. In addition, the interac-
tion between chlorine and ammonia was significant
and the effects of the mixtures were less than addi-
tive, especially at higher concentrations.
Species richness was decreased by a "biological-
ly significant amount" (20 percent) in 2.7 \ng/L TRC,
15.4 ng/L NH3, and a combination of 1.2 ng/L TRC
and 16.8 ng/L NH3. Significantly, all these con-
centrations were lower than the chronic water
quality criteria for chlorine and ammonia: 11 \agTL
and 35 ng/L (temperature = 19.4°C, and pH = 8.08),
respectively. Hence, the existing criteria may not
adequately protect these periphytic communities.
The individual and combined effects of chlorine
and ammonia on freshwater stream plant litter
decomposition were studied by Newman and Perry
(1989). Decomposition of stream plants (Potamo-
geton crispus) by macroinvertebrate "shredders"
was investigated by placing the plants in artificial
133
-------
B.D. MELZIAN & N. JAWORSK1
i.o-
0.8-
0.6"
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
O
s
w
c*
Z
O
2
O
Cri
OH
0
i.o-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
0
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
0
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
10
10
-1
20
20
30
0
1.0-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0.0
0
10
10
-1
20
30
RECOVERY
20
30
0 10 20 30
DAYS EXPOSED
Figure 3. —Dt»cc-,,iKOoition (proportion of initial litter remaining) of Potamogeton crlspus in seven streams during June
and July 1986. Upstream (U: no dose) sites are Indicated by open squares and downstream (D: dosed) sites are indi-
cated by closed diamonds. Stream numbers and sites are shown beside each line and chlorine doses [TRC (ng/L)] are
given for each stream. Ammonia addition is indicated by + NHs Vertical lines represent ± 2SEs (Source: Newman and
Perry, 1989).
134
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
streams containing different concentrations of
chlorine and chlorine plus ammonia. In general,
there was less decomposition in downstream sites
dosed with high chlorine alone and high chlorine
plus ammonia than in upstream reference sites (top
of Fig. 3).
Even though this study showed that chlorine in
wastewaters may have a greater impact on aquatic
life than ammonia, there was a strong indication
that chlorine plus ammonia combinations were
more toxic than chlorine alone (Newman and Perry,
1989; Hermanutz et al. 1990). Hence, at least in
some cases, removal of ammonia from chlorinated
effluents may reduce effluent toxicity (Newman and
Perry, 1989).
Hermanutz et al. (1990) used the outdoor
streams at EPA's Monticello Ecological Research
Station (Minnesota) to determine the relative sen-
sitivity of four fish species — bluegill, channel cat-
fish, white sucker, and rainbow trout — to chlorine
alone and chlorine plus ammonia. Unlike previously
published laboratory results, the effects of chlorine
alone were not as dramatic. When chlorine alone
was added, no consistent relationship between TRC
concentrations and growth and survival of bluegills,
white suckers, and rainbow trout was observed.
However, there was a consistent pattern of reduced
growth in channel catfish exposed to increasing
TRC concentrations.
80
60
40
20
8
Bluegills
• Chlorine, 1985
x Chlorine, 1986
o Chlorine/Ammonia, 1986
20
10
Channel Catfish
0 5 30 SO IOO ISO 200
TOTAL RESIDUE CHLORINE (pg/1)
Figure 4. —Total residual chlorine (TRC) effects on
freshwater fish growth (Source: Hermanutz et al. 1990).
Even though the bluegills were unaffected when
approximately 3 mg/L ammonia was added to the
chlorine-treated streams, all channel catfish died
when exposed to 0.024 mg/L TRC, a concentration
well below the mean acute value of 0.090 mg/L for
this species (Hermanutz et al. 1990). In addition,
growth was reduced at < 0.001 mg/L (1 ng/L) (Fig.
4). Thus, survival and growth of channel catfish
were reduced in ammonia- and chlorine-treated
streams that had TRC concentrations below both
the laboratory acute values and the chlorine criteria
chronic value of 0.011 mg/L TRC (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985a).
Hermanutz et al. (1990) also found that the con-
centration of TRC was influenced when ammonia
was added to the streams. When only chlorine was
added, a regular diel pattern occurred with reduc-
tions of TRC during the day from sunlight
photodegradation (Fig. 5). When ammonia was
added, the TRC concentrations did not fluctuate
daily, thus indicating that factors other than sun-
light may influence TRC degradation, at least in the
high-concentration chlorine and ammonia streams
(Fig. 5) (Hermanutz et al. 1990).
Because ammonia may dramatically alter or en-
hance the toxicity of chlorine found in wastewaters,
much more research similar to that conducted by
Cairns et al. (1990), Newman and Perry (1989), and
Hermanutz et al. (1990) is needed on both fresh-
water and saltwater species to verify or improve
upon the existing water quality criteria for chlorine
and ammonia.
Future Research Needs
To protect freshwater, estuarine, and saltwater
aquatic life are protected from the potentially ad-
verse impacts of chlorine or ammonia or the chemi-
cal by-products (THMs and DBFs) formed by
chlorine—ammonia interactions, the following re-
search topics should be supported and investigated.
Chlorine Studies
• Because recent research has shown that
laboratory data do not always agree with
field-collected data, more in-stream and
fresh- and saltwater receiving water
studies are needed (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990b; Hermanutz et al. 1990;
Hedtke, 1990).
• Much more research needs to be
conducted on the formation and fate of
chlorination by-products, including
known or suspected mutagens and
135
-------
B.D. MELZIAN & N. JAWORSKl
300
o>
250
0)
.E 200
i_
o
6 150
o>
a
•S '00
Q>
or
so
o Chlorine
• Chlorine/Ammonia
Day
-Night—4"
-Day-
Night
Day
0600 1600 2400 0800 1600
Time of Day
24OO 0600
Figure 5. —DM total residual chlorine (TRC) concentration (ng/L) at Station 2 In the high-chlorine and high
chlorine/ammonia treatment streams from July 17-19,1986 (Source: Hermantuz et al. 1990).
carcinogens (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1990b; Helz, 1990; Macler, 1990;
Middaugh, 1990).
• Additional research is needed to
determine the acute and chronic toxicity,
including bioaccumulation potential, of
chlorination by-products (chloramines
and broma-mines) on both freshwater
and marine aquatic life (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985a, 1990b; Fayad and
Iqbal, 1987). In addition, more
chlorine-ammonia interaction studies
are needed, similar to those previously
discussed in this paper (Newman and
Perry, 1989; Cairns et al. 1990; Erickson,
1990; Hansen, 1990; Hermanutz et al.
1990).
• Because other processes besides
chlorination, such as ozonation and
ultraviolet light, are now being used
more frequently to disinfect
wastewaters, more research should be
conducted to measure and characterize
the chemical by-products formed from
these alternative processes (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1990b).
Ammonia Studies
• Much more research should be conducted
to determine the effects of fluctuating
and intermittent exposures to ammonia
on a large variety of both freshwater and
saltwater species (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1985b, 1989; Hermanutz et al.
1990), This research would also include a
determination of the effects of water
quality changes resulting from tidal and
diel changes in salinity, pH, and
temperature on the toxicity of ammonia
to estuarine and marine aquatic life
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989).
• Additional research is needed to further
assess the effects of pH and temperature
on the toxicity of ammonia to aquatic life
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1985b,
1989). This could include the
development and evaluation of different
chronic endpoints at low temperatures
for freshwater species (Erickson, 1990;
Hansen, 1990) and determination of the
influence of temperature with freshwater
and saltwater species that tolerate
extreme temperature ranges (U.S.
136
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 127-138
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989; Miller,
1990).
• Besides pH and temperature, more
research should be conducted on other
water quality parameters, such as
salinity, oxygen concentration, chlorine
concentration, and alkalinity, that may
influence the toxicity of ammonia to
aquatic life (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1985b, 1989; Miller et al. 1990).
• Because of the potential toxicity to biota
that live in and above sediments
containing high concentrations of
ammonia, more research is needed to
determine the relative contribution of
ammonia to the toxicity of freshwater
and marine sediments (Ankley, 1990).
This research should also determine the
potential of water-column impacts from
resuspended sediments and the influence
of receiving water and sediment
chemistry on the toxicity of ammonia
(Ankley, 1990; Erickson, 1990).
• Basic research should be conducted to
determine the relative contribution of
NHU+ to toxicity, and the physiological
mechanisms of ammonia exchange and
metabolism by aquatic organisms (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1989; Erickson,
1990).
Conclusion
To date, the water quality criteria for chlorine and
ammonia have apparently been effective in protect-
ing aquatic life. However, recent research has
shown that much is still to be learned about the
chemistry and toxicity of chlorine, ammonia, and
the by-products of chlorine and ammonia interac-
tions.
Since societal needs for clean water and ecologi-
cal concerns must both be considered when making
decisions about disinfection and removal of
nutrients, such as ammonia from wastewaters, the
research topics previously described must be in-
itiated and completed to verify and improve upon
the existing water quality criteria for chlorine and
ammonia. By doing this, we will make the best and
most economical decisions to protect both human
and environmental health.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: The authors would like to
thank Drs. Don Miller (ERL-N), Don Phelps (ERL-N),
Richard Pruell (ERL-N), David Hansen (ERL-N), Richard
Voyer (ERL-N), and Dianne Nacci (SAIC/ERL-N) for their
valuable comments. Special thanks is also given to Dinalyn
Spears for typing the manuscript.
References
Ankely, G.T. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth,
MN.
Ankley, G.T., A. Katko, and J.W. Arthur. 1990. Identification
of ammonia as an important sediment-associated toxicant
in the lower Fox River and Green Bay, Wisconsin. En-
viron. Toxicol. Chem. 9:313-22.
Arthur, J.W., C.W. West, K.N. Allen, and S.F. Hedtke. 1987.
Seasonal toxicity of ammonia to five fish and nine inver-
tebrate species. Bull. Environ. Contain. Ibxicol. 38:324-
31.
Cairns, J., Jr., B.R. Niederlehner, and J.R. Pratt. 1990.
Evaluation of joint toxicity of chlorine and ammonia to
aquatic communities. Aquat. Ibxicol. 16:87-100.
Christman, R.F., D.L. Norwood, D.S. Millington, and J.D.
Johnson. 1983. Identity and yields of major halogenated
products of aquatic fulvic acid chlorination. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 17(10) :625-28.
Coleman, WE. et al. 1984. Gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy analysis of mutagenic extracts of aqueous
chlorinated humic acid. A comparison of the byproducts to
drinking water contaminations. Environ. Sci. Technol.
18(9):674-81.
Delaney, R. and J. Wiggin. 1989. How the coastal migration
began. EPA J. 15(5): 48-49.
Effler, S.W, C.M. Brooks, M.T. Auer, and S.M. Doerr. 1990.
Free ammonia and toxicity criteria in a polluted urban
lake. Res. J., Water Pollut. Control Fed. 62(6) 771-79.
Erickson, R. 1990, Personal communication. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth, MN.
Fayad, N.M. and S. Iqbal. 1987. Chlorination byproducts of
Arabian Gulf seawater. Bull. Environ. Contain. Tbxicol.
38:475-82.
Hansen, D.J. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Nar-
ragansett, RI.
Hedtke, S.T. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Duluth,
MN.
Helz, G.R. 1990. Personal communication. Water Resour. Res.
Center, Univ. Maryland, College Park.
Hermanutz, R.O., K.N. Allen, and S.T. Hedtke. 1990. Tbxicity
and fate of total residual chlorine in outdoor experimental
streams. Pages 463-77 in R.L. Jolley et al. eds. Water
Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental Impact and
Health Effects. Vol. 6. Lewis Publ. Inc, Chelsea, MI.
Hermanutz, R.O. et al. 1987. Ammonia effects on microinver-
tebrates and fish in outdoor experimental streams. En-
viron. Pollut. 47:249-83.
Jolley, R.L. et al. 1983. Nonvolatile organics in disinfected
wastewater effluents: chemical characterization. Pages
499-523 in R.L. Jolley et al. eds. Water Chlorination: En-
vironmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 4, Book 1.
Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., MI.
Krasner, S.W. et al. 1989. The occurrence of disinfection by-
products in U.S. drinking water. Am. Water Works Ass. J.
81(8)41.
137
-------
B.D. MELZ/AN &N. JAWORSK1
Kronberg, L., B. Holmbom, and L. Tikkanen. 1990. Identifica-
tion of the strong mutagen 3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-
hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone and of its geometric isomer
E-2-chloro-3(dichloromethyl)-4-oxobutenoic acid in
mutagenic fractions of chlorine-treated humic water and
in drinking waters. Pages 137-46 in R.L. Jolley et al. eds.
Water Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental Impact
and Health Effects, Vol. 6. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chel-
sea, MI.
Kuehl, D.W., G.D. Veith, and E.N. Leonard. 1978. Brominated
compounds in waste-treatment effluents and their
capacity to bioaccumulate. Pages 175-92 in R.L. Jolley et
al. eds. Water Chlorination: Environmental Impact and
Health Effects, Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
MI.
Lewis, J. 1989. Trouble in paradise. EPA J. 15(6):3-4.
Macler, B. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Region IX, Water Manage. Div., San Francisco,
CA.
Middaugh, D.P. 1990. Personal communication. U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res. Lab., Gulf
Breeze, FL.
Miller, D.C., S. Poucher, J.A. Cardin, and D. Hansen. 1990.
The acute and chronic toxicity of ammonia to marine fish
and mysid. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 19:40-8.
Miyazaki, T., S. Kaneko, S. Horii, and T. Yamagishi. 1981.
Identification of polyhalogenated anisoles and phenols in
oysters collected from Tokyo Bay. Bull. Environ. Contain.
Toxicol. 26:577-84.
Nacci, D., E. Petrocelli, P. Commeleo, and W. Greene. 1990.
Contribution of Chlorination to the toxicity and persist-
ence of chlorinated effluent from the Stamford (CT)
sewage treatment plant. ERL-N Cont. No. 1118. U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Environ. Res. Lab., Narragansett, RI.
Newman, R.M. and J.A. Perry. 1989. The combined effects of
chlorine and ammonia on litter breakdown in outdoor ex-
perimental streams. Hydrobiologia 184:69-78.
Niederlehner, B.R. and J. Cairns, Jr. 1990. Effects of ammonia
on periphytic communities. Environ. Pollut. 66:207-21.
Petrocelli, E., D. Nacci, and P. Comeleo. 1990. Effects of
chlorine on the toxicity of a waste water treatment facility
effluent and impacts on receiving waters. ERL-N Contrib.
No. 1110. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Environ. Res. Lab.,
Narragansett, RI.
Planktonics, Inc. 1981. Effects of discharge to marine waters of
chlorinated wastewater effluent: a literature review. Mar.
Estuar. Resour. Consult. San Rafael, CA.
Rav-Acha, Ch. et al. 1990. Organic reactions of chlorine
dioxide in drinking water—a mutagenic assessment.
Pages 227-38 in R.L. Jolley et al. eds. Water Chlorination:
Chemistry, Environmental Impact and Health Effects,
Vol. 6. Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI.
Reinhard, M. and N. Goodman. 1982. Occurrence of
brominated alkylphenol polyethoxy carboxylates in
mutagenic wastewater concentrates. Environ. Sci. Tech-
nol. 16(6) 351-62.
Scully, F.E., Jr., G.D. Howell, R. Kravitz, and J.T. Jewell. 1988.
Proteins in natural waters and their reaction to the for-
mation of chlorinated organics during water disinfection.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 22(5) 537-42.
Sullivan, B.K. and P.K. Ritacco. 1985. Ammonia toxicity to lar-
val copepods in eutrophic marine ecosystems: comparison
of results from bioassays and enclosed experimental
ecosystems. Aquat. Toxicol. 7:205-17.
Sweetman, J.A. and M.S. Simmons. 1980. The production of
bromophenols resulting from the Chlorination of waters
containing bromide ion and phenol. Water Res. 14:287-90.
Thompson, G.P., R.F. Christman, and J.D. Johnson. 1990.
Chlorination of aquatic fulvic acid and natural waters:
additional by-products. Pages 171-78 in R.L. Jolley et al.
eds. Water Chlorination: Chemistry, Environmental Im-
pact and Health Effects, Vol. 6. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Chelsea, MI.
Thurston, R.V., C. Chakoumakos, and R.C. Russo. 1981. Effect
of fluctuating exposures on the acute toxicity of ammonia
to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) and cutthroat trout (S.
clarki). Water Res. 15:911-17.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Guidelines for
Deriving Site-specific Water Quality Criteria. Pages 4-1
to 4-20 in Water Quality Standards Handbook, Off. Water
Reg. Stand., Washington, DC.
. 1985a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorine—
1984. EPA 440/5-84-030. Off. Res. Dev., Environ. Res.
Lab., Duluth, MN, Gulf Breeze, FL, and Narragansett,
RI. NTIS No. PB85-227429. Natl. Tech. Inf. Serv.
Springfield, VA.
. 1985b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Am-
monia—1984. EPA 440/5-85-OOl.Off. Res. Dev., Environ.
Res. Lab., Duluth, MN. NTIS No. PB85-227114. Natl.
Tech. Inf. Serv. Springfield, VA.
. 1989. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
(Saltwater)—1989. EPA440/5-88-004. Off. Res. Dev., En-
viron. Res. Lab., Narragansett, RI. Nat. Tech. Inf. Serv.
Springfield, VA.
. 1990a. Staff Report: Numeric Chlorine and Ammonia
Standards. Off. Water, Off. Water Res. Stand.,
Criteria/Stand. Div., Washington, DC.
. 1990b. Municipal Wastewater Disinfection State-of-
the-Art Document (Draft). Off. Water, Off. Munic. Pollut.
Control, Washington, DC.
Watanabe, I., T. Hashimoto, and R. Tatsukawa. 1984.
Brominated phenol production from the Chlorination of
wastewater containing bromide ions. Bull. Environ. Con-
tain. Toxicol. 33:395-99.
. 1985. Brominated phenols and anisoles in river and
marine sediments in Japan. Bull. Environ. Cont am.
Toxicol. 35:272-78.
Zischke, J.A. and J.W Arthur. 1987. Effects of elevated am-
monia levels on the fingernail clam, Musculium tranaver-
sum, in outdoor experimental streams. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 16:225-31.
138
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
Should Ammonia and Chlorine Be
Regulated as Toxic Pollutants?
A POTW Perspective
Rodger Baird
Laboratory Director
LeAnne Hamilton
Project Engineer
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
Whittier, California
Introduction
Should chlorine and ammonia be regulated as toxic
pollutants? If this question were to be posed to a
chemist or toxicologist not familiar with environ-
mental regulations and U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) activities, the response might
well be "Is this a trick question?" The answer to both
questions could be, "Maybe, maybe not."
After all, chlorine and ammonia are chemicals
with commonly known toxic properties. The labor-
atory and industrial hazards associated with them
are essentially conventional wisdom in these set-
tings, and it must seem intuitive that they represent
a potentially large source of toxicity in wastewater
discharges. Indeed, even a cursory review of the
literature reveals ample evidence that residual
chlorine and ammonia in wastewater discharges
have caused fishkills and impacted fisheries. Hence,
the suspicion that the question about regulating
them is a trick. In all fairness, this question should
be viewed in light of some EPA guidelines for class-
ifying a chemical as a toxic pollutant as well as ways
to assess and control the toxicity of these two chemi-
cals when they are problems.
EPA has described the guidelines for assessing
additions and deletions to the toxic or priority pol-
lutant list (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1979). There
are 10 factors that distill down to two issues: the
toxicant's effects and potency, and the estimate of
exposure potential to humans and wildlife. With
regard to the nature and extent of toxicity to af-
fected aquatic organisms, EPA (1979) has also indi-
cated that the organisms' expected distribution and
importance may be taken into account when class-
ifying the pollutant.
The germane effects of chlorine and ammonia
are limited to acute and chronic toxicity to aquatic
organisms, with potencies ranging over ap-
proximately three orders of magnitude for each,
depending upon organism sensitivity. There is no
evidence of genetic toxicity effects. The potential for
human exposure to ammonia and chlorine from food
or water contamination by publicly owned treat-
ment works (POTWs) discharges is nil. The ex-
posure potential to wildlife is normally limited to
aquatic organisms in the vicinity of the discharge
point, although in some cases effects may be ap-
parent at some distance from the discharge point.
Neither chemical has a propensity to bioaccumulate,
nor has synergistic toxicity been apparent for either.
The significance of the exposure to either ammonia
or chlorine will be site-specific and will depend on
such factors as:
• Whether the receiving water is a lake, river,
estuary, ocean, or ephemeral stream;
• Physical parameters such as temperature,
pH, ionic strength, mixing and dilution,
139
-------
R. BA1RD &L. HAMILTON
dissolved oxygen, tidal changes, and marine
upwelling;
• Presence of other discharges in the effect
zone; and
• Natural presence or absence of sensitive
organisms.
Although ammonia and chlorine have a poten-
tial for toxic impact because they are toxic to some
species at very low concentrations and they are
present in a geographically dispersed array of point
source discharges (exemplified by POTWs), they
may be relatively limited in the areal extent of
biologically significant impact in a great many
cases. Because both lack the array of physical-
chemical and toxicity properties of the existing
priority pollutants, they should not be included in
that category. Although EPA has developed water
quality criteria for both ammonia and chlorine, es-
tablishing numerical limits for all discharges using
existing EPA methodology may not adequately
protect some ecological settings and will probably
overprotect many others. The ecological costs for the
former are difficult to define, but for the latter case
of overprotection, the dollar costs to the taxpayer
are staggering.
Instead of a simplistic over/under numeric limit
regulatory approach, this paper proposes a strategy
containing case-by-case guidelines that would in-
clude water quality testing, toxicity testing, and
ecological evaluations to determine the effects of
chlorine or ammonia in a specific receiving water.
Once an evaluation is completed, if actions are ap-
propriate to remediate a toxic impact in a receiving
water, it should be evident which course should be
taken. The ecological evaluation can act as a
baseline for assessing effectiveness of the control
strategy and should be especially useful when the
magnitude of the impact was uncertain or con-
troversial at the outset. Where a discharger elects
not to conduct the toxicity assessment or when the
assessment reveals a significant problem, informa-
tion contained in the water quality criteria can
serve as a basis for setting numeric criteria.
Toxicity and Exposure Factors
Guidelines presented by EPA (1979) for considering
a chemical as a toxic pollutant are included in the
following paragraphs with a summary of pertinent
information for chlorine and ammonia. We do not
know whether these guidelines are still relevant to
EPA rulemaking, but they formed the basis for the
Agency's decision not to include ammonia as a
priority pollutant in 1980.
Toxicity. The relevant literature on am-
monia toxicity has been reviewed thoroughly
by EPA (1985). Ammonia has no known
genotoxic effects; that is, it does not cause
carcinogenic or mutagenic damage. How-
ever, above safe threshold concentrations,
ammonia does exhibit acute and chronic
toxicity to different organisms over a wide
range of concentrations. The most toxic form
of ammonia is the un-ionized molecule, NHa;
the ratio of NHs to the ionized form (NH4+)
increases as pH increases, so that at any
given total ammonia (NHa + NH4+) level,
aquatic toxicity increases as pH increases.
Toxicity also increases as temperature
decreases, but declines in saline waters.
Some species, particularly the salmonid
fishes, are exquisitely sensitive to NHs. Most
aquatic plants, on the other extreme, are not
very sensitive to ammonia toxicity but rather
use ammonia nitrogen as a nutrient. Fish do
not seem to have the ability to detect or avoid
toxic levels of ammonia in a water column,
and the acute effects of ammonia can be
manifested quickly as a result of the common
point of impact—the gills. Chronic effects in
both vertebrates and invertebrates can in-
clude lowered reproductive efficiency and
growth rate and a number of central nervous
system disturbances caused by impaired
respiration and related problems. Some of
these chronic effects seem to be reversible
once exposure has ceased, although for some
species and effects, this is not the case.
Chlorine residuals do not cause any
known genotoxic effects in plants or animals.
Residual chlorine may exist as hypochlorite
or as chloramines, and each of these forms
causes varying degrees of acute and chronic
toxicity in aquatic organisms. Fish can detect
and avoid toxic levels of in-stream chlorine
(Grieve et al. 1978), and at least some inver-
tebrates can lower their respiration rates to
minimize the effects of chlorine (Khalanski
and Bordet, 1980; Blogoslawski, 1980; Laird
and Roberts, 1980).
Acute effects of chlorine in fish also ap-
pear to focus at the gills, where the effects
can manifest themselves quickly. Chronic ef-
fects can include impaired respiration and
reproductive efficiency. The effects of inter-
mittent chlorine exposure may vary on a site-
specific basis, depending upon species
sensitivity and mobility.
Chlorine disinfection is known to produce
trace levels of halogenated organic com-
140
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
pounds, some of which have their own toxic
properties. These are addressed separately in
drinking water regulations and water quality
criteria. In POTW effluents, the production of
chlorinated organics during disinfection is
decreased by the presence of ammonia (Baird
et al. 1979b), as the reaction to form
chloramines proceeds at a greater rate than
reaction to produce specific chlorinated or-
ganics, such as the trihalo-methanes.
Aquatic Environment Persistence,
Mobility, and Degradation. Chlorine
residual and ammonia species are readily
soluble in water; hence, they migrate readily
within the water column. Neither are nor-
mally persistent chemicals in receiving
waters, although under some site-specific
conditions, either may be a problem.
Ammonia's persistence and degradation are
primarily a function of removal through the
nitrogen cycle: nitrifying bacteria readily
oxidize ammonia to nitrate ion, which is a
plant nutrient. Chlorine residual species are
oxidants (the chloramines only weakly so)
and readily dissipate as a result of simple
redox chemistry in aquatic systems. Sun-
light, temperature, and the presence of
reducing chemical species are important
functions in reaction rate.
Bioconcentration. Neither ammonia nor
chlorine has a propensity to accumulate in
animal or plant tissues.
Octanol: Water Partition Coefficients.
This is an experimentally derived value that
is used as a surrogate measure of biocon-
centration factor or ability to concentrate in
fatty tissues. It is usually applied to
hydrocarbon molecules when actual biocon-
centration factors have not been determined.
Octanol:water partition coefficients are
meaningless for ammonia and chlorine.
Synergistic Potential. Synergism (greater
than additive toxic effects from the action of
two or more toxicants) is not readily
demonstrated for either chlorine or am-
monia. Ammonia toxicity is controlled by pH,
salinity, and temperature, but these are
chemical equilibrium factors rather than
synergism. Low dissolved oxygen stress in-
creases fish sensitivity to ammonia, but
since it is not the combined effects of two
toxicants, it is not truly considered syner-
gism.
Extent of Point Source Pollution. Am-
monia is a natural bacterial by-product of
domestic wastewater treatment processes.
Only a small percentage of the more than
15,000 POTWs use specific ammonia
removal processes, such as nitrification;
hence, POTWs represent wide-spread point
sources of ammonia in receiving waters. A
number of industries may contribute sig-
nificantly higher concentrations in some
places.
Chlorine is required for disinfection in
the majority of wastewater treatment (and
drinking water treatment) facilities in the
United States. Chlorine is also used as a
biocide in cooling water, particularly in power
generating plants in coastal locations that
use single pass seawater cooling. Effects
should be limited to a definable zone in the
ambient receiving water near to the dis-
charge point in many cases. There is no
propensity for chlorine dispersal in plants,
animals, or ambient sediments.
Potential for Human or Wildlife Ex-
posure. There is little or no potential for
human ingestion of ammonia or chlorine
through food or drinking water con-
taminated by wastewater or cooling water
discharges because both chemicals disap-
pear rapidly in a receiving water and do not
accumulate in the food chain. As a matter of
perspective in regard to human exposure,
chlorine remains the preferred drinking
water disinfectant; a large percentage of the
U.S. population consumes drinking water
with a chlorine residual.
Aquatic organisms near POTW dischar-
ges will probably be exposed to both chlorine
and ammonia. Although fish avoid residual
chlorine in ambient waters (Grieve et al.
1978), they appear not to have this same in-
stinct or ability for ammonia (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1985). Obviously, immobile and
sessile organisms cannot avoid either chemi-
cal. Whether or not avoidance should be con-
sidered a toxic impact on receiving waters
because of habitat loss is debatable, but this
loss should be considered as a potential issue.
Production Volumes. U.S. production vol-
umes are high for both chlorine (23 billion
pounds) and ammonia (34 billion pounds)
(Am. Chem. Soc. 1989). However, the aquatic
pollution potential is probably related more
to water and wastewater treatment proces-
141
-------
R. BAIRD & L HAMILTON
ses than to manufacturing by-products. In
this context, the resulting ambient con-
centrations typical of POTW and receiving
water scenarios are more relevant than the
total mass of either chemical.
Use Patterns. In cases where industries
use chlorine or ammonia in a process that
results in a sewer discharge, neither is likely
to contribute directly to receiving water
toxicity. Chlorine will be reduced very rapid-
ly in the sewer. Ammonium salts reaching
the facility are an energy source for various
organisms in the treatment process. The am-
monium ion is a natural component of
domestic waste degradation and the main
source of ammonia in POTW effluents.
Chlorine's use as a water and wastewater
disinfectant or cooling water biocide probab-
ly represents the most widespread source of
chlorine in aquatic environments. For ex-
ample, two-thirds of the POTWs in the
United States use chlorine for disinfection.
Analytical Capabilities. Although classi-
cal and modern analytical methods can
detect total ammonia concentrations down to
about 10 ng/L, there is no method capable of
determining un-ionized ammonia at trace
levels in aquatic samples. The estimated
amount of NHa must be calculated by using
total ammonia, pH, temperature, and ionic
strength data.
Chlorine residual species in aqueous
samples can be differentiated between free
chlorine (hypochlorite) and individual chlor-
amines by using Standard Methods for Ex-
amination of Water and Wastewater (1989).
However, for low levels of chlorine, the
methodology is limited to about a 10 ng/L
detection limit, and cannot differentiate be-
tween free and combined species at this level.
The method is not capable of detecting
residual chlorine encompassing all EPA
water quality criteria (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1984).
Significance. The concept of the sig-
nificance of a pollutant's impact is a pivotal
issue in any decision to regulate. EPA's 1979
guidelines allude to "significance of the im-
pact and significance of the organism im-
pacted." Is this a biologically significant
impact? Is the wording meant to connote the
ecological importance or the economic impor-
tance of the affected organism?
The concepts of designated use or benefi-
cial use of a receiving water must also be im-
portant in this context of regulatory
decisions. Therefore, one can find terms and
definitions in various rules, regulations, and
guidelines to the extent that they are con-
venient for determining limits, compliance,
and enforcement. However, neither in this
paper nor in referenced regulations will
biological significance be defined. It is the
purpose of the intended discussion to use the
term conceptually rather than to define it.
Clearly, experience and the literature
demonstrate that biological effects of various
pollutants can be detected at some level in a
great many settings. The challenge is to
determine when a scenario requires achieve-
ment of a no-effect threshold and when an es-
timated or measurable effect can be tolerated
without incurring significant detriment to
the ecologic balance. For chlorine and am-
monia, because they can exert sub-lethal ef-
fects on sensitive aquatic organisms at very
low concentrations and both are present in
widespread sources, the potential exists for a
widespread toxic impact. It has apparently
been this potential coupled with the actual
documented receiving water problems that
continue to drive the attempts to include
chlorine and ammonia on the list of toxic pol-
lutants and apply numeric criteria for their
control.
An EPA staff report (1990a) has cited
reports estimating that thousands of POTWs
are causing effects in receiving waters be-
cause of chlorine and ammonia, based upon
actual biological measurements or on com-
parison of chemical data to EPA water
quality criteria. However, especially in the
cases where the estimations rely upon com-
parison of chemical measurements with cal-
culated criteria, the accuracy of the
assumption or the in-stream significance of
the assumed effects cannot be evaluated.
Ammonia and Chlorine
Removal in POTWs
Chlorine
For discharges where chlorine residual does not
pose a significant problem to indigenous aquatic life,
it is common practice to let the residual dissipate
passively. Not only is this cost effective, but the in-
creased chlorine contact time provides an additional
142
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
margin of disinfection safety. This concern for public
health protection is of particular importance in ef-
fluent-dominated streams that the public may use
for recreation. However, it is this practice combined
with occasional spills that contribute to the docu-
mented cases of fishkills and other in-stream
damage. If residuals must be removed before dis-
charge in cases where body-contact use occurs, the
chlorine dose has to be increased before dechlorina-
tion to achieve the margin of disinfection safety pre-
viously produced by passive methods.
For situations requiring active dechlorination,
sulfur dioxide is the most cost-effective reductant.
The technology is relatively straightforward, as are
costs. Large treatment plants can install bulk
storage facilities and dosing equipment; costs range
between $0.5-$1 million, depending upon size.
Smaller facilities may elect to use small cylinders of
SOz, which keeps capital expenditures low. Opera-
tional expenses may be somewhat higher for small
cylinders because of additional labor and higher per
unit SOz costs.
Facilities using bulk storage currently incur
costs averaging approximately $13 per 10 million
gallons per day (MOD) treated, per 1 mg/L chlorine
residual removed. This translates to an annual cost
of nearly $5,000/10MGD/mg/L residual. In southern
California, for treatment of about 1.0 billion gallons
per day (BGD) of flow having typical end of process
chlorine residuals in the 3 to 5 mg/L range, annual
dechlorination costs could range as high as $2 mil-
lion if dechlorination were required to meet fixed
limit discharge requirements.
Some variables in this estimate would decrease
the figure, including point of application of the limit
(end-of-process, end-of-pipe, or mixing zone),
delivery costs in certain geographical areas, and the
amount of safety equipment required by local
regulations. These appear to be moderate costs
where residual chlorine is causing significant in-
stream problems.
Ammonia
Removal of ammonia is a considerably less
straightforward proposition, both operationally and
economically. Conventional activated sludge secon-
dary treatment yields effluents containing ap-
proximately 15 to 30 mg/L total ammonia.
Variations such as pure oxygen-fed systems may
range higher, in the 40 to 50 mg/L range. Only the
biological nitrification process is considered. Physi-
cal-chemical methods such as air-stripping are not
considered here because of air emission considera-
tions. Some activated sludge systems may be
operated with a degree of nitrification that will yield
less ammonia than the indicated 15 to 30 mg/L
range. However, reliable ammonia removal typically
requires dedicated operation of the nitrification
process, which translates to complete ammonia
removal.
Ammonia removal in these cases can be con-
sidered as two phases for cost estimates: nitrifica-
tion and denitrification. Nitrification, a biological
oxidation of ammonia to nitrate ion, requires addi-
tional air in the process. Denitrification, the biologi-
cal conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas, requires at
a minimum, extra tankage in the plant. Denitrifica-
tion is a necessary part of the process, both opera-
tionally to condition the activated sludge for reliable
nitrification and environmentally to limit the dis-
charge of toxic concentrations of nitrite and nitrate
ions. Because of its toxic effect in humans, the
nitrate ion is a particular problem where a dis-
charge stream either enters an aquifer or is
upstream of a potable water treatment system. In
semi-arid regions where groundwater basins are
being recharged with treated wastewaters either in-
tentionally or incidentally, there may be a serious
need for denitrification of nitrified effluents.
The capital costs for extra tankage for
denitrification are approximately $800,000/10
MOD. The nitrification step requires an increase of
approximately 70 percent in air uptake. The actual
increase in amount of air supplied to the activated
sludge can be less than this, depending on such fac-
tors as the condition of the sludge and waste stream
and the type of air diffusers. The County Sanitation
Districts' engineering staff has estimated that the
use of the more efficient, fine bubble diffusers will
require less than a 50 percent increase in supplied
air; the increased annual energy costs for aeration
would amount to approximately $80,000/10 MOD.
In the Los Angeles basin, initial capital costs
are estimated to be between $80 to $85 million,
depending on whether or not aeration systems
needed to be converted to the more efficient mass
transfer equipment. The regional energy costs (for
fine bubble systems) for the added air needed for
nitrification would then be approximately $24.5 mil-
lion a year.
Biomonitoring as a
Location-Specific Method of
Toxicity Evaluation
EPA and many States have been pushing the con-
cept of biomonitoring using acute and chronic bioas-
say methods to detect and prevent the "discharge of
toxic materials in toxic amounts" (U.S. Environ.
143
-------
R. BAIRD & L. HAMILTON
Prot. Agency, 1990b). In this context, the bioassays
have been proposed as a means of augmenting the
conventional approach to toxicant regulation that
uses target chemical analyses and numeric limits.
The bioassays' purpose is to detect toxicity that
might not otherwise be predicted from target chemi-
cal analysis alone.
The limitations of the chemical-specific ap-
proach are twofold. First, standard EPA analytical
methods must be used for the priority pollutants:
the active toxicant has to be on the list and also has
to be detectable. Since most effluents contain a com-
plex molecular mixture consisting of a multitude of
chemical species not on the list, the chances of a
predetermined list comprising all or even the most
important toxicants is remote.
Secondly, the list has a derived set of criteria
that is represented as being protective of a given en-
vironmental compartment (human health, fresh-
water organisms, and so forth). These criteria are
not empirical numbers but rather estimates based
upon biological models and sets of assumptions. The
degree of uncertainty in each estimate varies and
usually is not expressed; nonetheless, the criteria
form the main basis for a numeric regulatory limit.
A proposal to add ammonia and chlorine to the
list suffers from these same problems and does not
necessarily efficiently protect a receiving water. The
toxic forms of ammonia and chlorine are not directly
measurable at all applicable levels in the derived
criteria. The concentrations have to be estimated
from the best chemical methods available and from
other water quality measurements. The uncertainty
in this and in the derived criteria, as exemplified for
ammonia by Lewis (1988), is probably large; NHa
concentration is a function of temperature, ionic
strength, pH, and total ammonia concentration, and
the potency of NHa varies widely among aquatic
species. Because the criteria are derived from
laboratory tests and designed to protect the most
sensitive of the species in these tests, the uncertain-
ty will be complicated by lack of correlation between
the model test species used to develop the criteria
and native species sensitivity.
Furthermore, the point of in-stream impact and
the effects of intermittent exposure above the
numeric criteria cannot be accurately known. As a
result, whether or not the criteria will yield ap-
propriately protective regulatory limits is a priori
unknown for any discharge site. Certainly, one could
extrapolate a judgment on this issue from those
cases where adverse impacts have been measured,
but the assertion here is that there is a better ap-
proach.
The Hazard Assessment Method
When whole effluent biomonitoring is used either as
an adjunct or alternative to chemical-specific stand-
ard setting, use of selected bioassay protocols with
"model" organisms is typically required; toxicity
data thus generated are applied to a fixed toxicity
limit for regulation. This is only one narrow use of
biological tests. The process proposed herein is often
termed "hazard assessment," and the American
Society for Testing and Materials has sponsored
several symposia on the subject. These assessments
provide much more useful information relevant to a
given site than can be obtained from simple effluent
bioassays. This is accomplished by increasing the
array of model organisms and combining lab assays
with in-stream assays, chemical testing, and
biomass profiles in a specific location. While these
may not be cheap or quick tools for mapping toxicity,
the costs and increased predictive accuracy are easi-
ly warranted by the potential costs of an across-the-
board removal policy for chlorine and ammonia.
(The issue here is not whether a community can af-
ford to add the treatment, but rather whether the
costs should be incurred if no significant benefits
will accrue.)
Ammonia and chlorine, unlike the existing list
of priority pollutants, are not genotoxic, bioac-
cumulative, or expensive to analyze. They lend
themselves to a more unique and meaningful
evaluation in a given environmental setting, using
combined chemical and biological methods. Am-
monia and chlorine can be measured easily in both
effluents and ambient waters, and the toxic form of
either may be removed from a sample by simple
chemical means. This affords a way of determining
how either may contribute to the acute or chronic
toxicity detected in an effluent and receiving water,
and whether either is significantly affecting the
receiving water. Biomass or ecological studies are
also recommended here to more rigorously define
"significant."
Laboratory Assays with Chemical
Control
Laboratory bioassays should be used for a number
of purposes in a location-specific toxicity assess-
ment. Standard protocols for measuring both acute
and chronic effects in fresh or marine waters are
available (Peltier, 1978; Weber et al. 1988; Horning
et al. 1989; Standard Methods, 1989). Short-term
acute tests with either juvenile or adult organisms
provide a relatively inexpensive screening method
to measure toxicity levels in effluents and receiving
waters. Life-cycle or sensitive life-stage chronic as-
144
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
says provide a means of estimating effects on end
points such as reproduction and growth.
Again, standard test organisms or local sig-
nificant species can be used. Specific toxicity of
chlorine or ammonia to the selected test species can
be obtained from the literature or determined em-
pirically under control conditions. Effluent and am-
bient water tests for relevant chemical and physical
parameters must accompany the bioassays.
Acute fish bioassays and ammonia toxicity pro-
vide a good model for chemical control experiments.
Ammonia toxicity frequently complicates interpreta-
tion of toxicity tests of effluents because of the typi-
cal rise in pH that accompanies aeration during the
test (Baird et al. 1979a). The pH rise causes an in-
crease in the more toxic NHs concentration. For ex-
ample, a pH rise from 7.2 to 8.4 results in a 15-fold
increase in the un-ionized ammonia and a predict-
able increase in fish mortality in the test.
The contribution of ammonia to fish mortality
during the course of testing POTW effluents in
static acute tests can be estimated from data for
total ammonia, pH, temperature, salinity, and the
specific potency to the test species. Control of pH
during the test can be accomplished either by peri-
odic addition of a buffer or continuously through ad-
dition of CO2 (Baird et al. 1979a). This technique
also allows assessment of the contribution of am-
monia to the observed sample toxicity by comparing
bioassay results at selected pH (that is, NHs) levels.
Effluent testing alone is not sufficient to predict
receiving water ammonia toxicity in most instances
because this approach must rely upon simple mixing
ratios to extrapolate to receiving water toxicity. Am-
monia concentration will be reduced by processes
besides simple mixing. Therefore, ambient receiving
water must be included in a specific site evaluation.
The pH control bioassay techniques are directly ap-
plicable to estimating the toxic effects of ammonia
in the ambient receiving water. Chemical testing for
ammonia will help define a mixing zone or plume
and identify zones of potential ammonia toxicity.
With little or no modification to standard acute
bioassay protocols, ambient waters may be tested
with the same organisms used for effluent toxicity
tests.
Exceptions to this exist for estuarine and
marine receiving waters, where species selected for
ambient water bioassays will usually differ from
species used for effluent monitoring. In these cases,
the opportunity exists to use test organisms of sig-
nificance in the local receiving water. Ammonia con-
trol experiments in ambient water testing should
consist of pH control at neutral pH and ambient pH.
Continuous CC>2 addition with feedback control of
pH is preferable to daily pH adjustment with acid in
cases where the ambient water's natural buffering
capacity is insufficient to maintain the adjusted pH
throughout the course of the assay. Otherwise, test
organisms are subjected to a cyclic rise and fall of
pH and NHa during the test, and results will be dif-
ficult to interpret.
The ability to compare effluent and ambient
water toxicities and the opportunity to select locally
significant test organisms are extremely valuable to
the toxicity assessment process. To be sure, there
are examples where effluent and ambient water
bioassay results are congruant. But examples exist
in the literature (Lee and Jones, 1986) where am-
bient water testing showed ammonia toxicity not to
be a problem when effluent testing alone would
have indicated a problem. Conversely, ambient
water bioassays have detected in-stream toxicity
downstream of a mixing zone that was indirectly at-
tributed to ammonia (Lee and Jones, 1987) but
would not have been predicted from effluent am-
monia concentrations. In this case, stream condi-
tions were facilitating a buildup of toxic nitrite ions
from incomplete nitrification of ammonia.
Although acute bioassays offer a relatively
straightforward means of assessing the short-term
trace effects of ammonia or chlorine in laboratory
tests, the potential effects on sensitive life stages
are frequently of greater ecologic concern in a par-
ticular receiving water. Standard laboratory test
protocols for a variety of fish, invertebrates, and
plants exist and form the nucleus of a strategy for
assessing ambient problems. Fish and invertebrates
are probably the most important of the test species
available for ammonia or chlorine assessment.
Chlorine measurement and removal in effluent
and ambient water samples are straightforward for
laboratory assessments using chronic bioassays,
and a number of example experiments exist
(Newbry et al. 1983; Heath, 1978; Burton et al.
1980; Thomas et al. 1980; Heinemann et al. 1983).
Ammonia control, on the other hand, may not be
easy to achieve for some effluents in chronic tests.
Daily adjustment with acid or base (Peltier, 1978) to
the desired pH can be performed during the sample
renewal step required in most protocols; however, if
this fails to hold the pH, incubation of test vessels in
a COa/air chamber throughout the test may be
necessary. Although there are alternatives for am-
monia removal (ion exchange, high pH air-strip-
ping), they are not generally desirable because they
remove other toxicants.
Field Studies
Laboratory test results for acute and chronic
toxicity evaluations of effluent and ambient receiv-
ing water are not necessarily accurate predictive
145
-------
R. BAIRD&L. HAMILTON
tools in themselves to determine whether ammonia
or chlorine have a biologically significant impact on
a receiving water ecosystem. Effects of sunlight,
temperature, water chemistry, or other stream con-
tributions may mitigate efforts to predict from
laboratory assays alone. A number of useful
methods are available to augment lab toxicity test-
ing, including in-stream bioassay testing and
ecological evaluations of species biomass and diver-
sity.
In-stream testing using fish cages has been
described by Heinemann et al. (1983) and others for
assessing both acute and chronic effects of toxicants
discharged to different receiving waters. Fish and
shellfish are commonly used as test organisms.
Careful monitoring of pH, temperature, salinity (es-
tuarine) or hardness (fresh water), and toxicant con-
centrations are necessary to evaluate the effects of
chlorine residual or ammonia. Endpoints in these
assays are usually limited to mortality or growth.
Toxicant control for in-stream experiments
analogous to those conducted in laboratory tests
(dechlorination or pH adjustment) usually will be
limited to control measures that can be exercised in
the treatment plant prior to discharge. Use of in-
stream cages can facilitate time of exposure or point
of impact experiments with specific animals. Other
in-stream experiments have had innovative designs
omitting the cages. For example, those by Grieve et
al. (1978) used fish implanted with transmitters to
map fish avoidance of intermittent chlorine residual
plumes.
A variation of the in-stream cage tests lends it-
self to some direct control of parameters. This varia-
tion involves directing a portion of the stream or
receiving water through test tanks. Such a con-
tinuous flow sidestream can be dechlorinated or pH
adjusted to control concentrations of chlorine or am-
monia. Test endpoints can be somewhat more
flexible here. Fish respiration rates or other subtle
indications of organism stress to monitor an effect of
a discharge can be used, but caution must be exer-
cised so that an ecologically significant endpoint is
measured for a particular site.
Perhaps the ultimate description of biological
significance rests with ecological studies and
biomass enumeration. Such studies may range from
a relatively simple fish habitat-census study (Lee
and Jones, 1986) to a more complete enumeration of
species number and diversity in sediment, water
column, and shore and intertidal communities as
routinely performed by the County Sanitation Dis-
tricts (Stull et al. 1986). Design and interpretation
of these sorts of studies must recognize impacts of
such variables as severe storm runoff and scouring,
seasonal temperature variations, recruitment and
settlement patterns of indigenous organisms, and
other site-specific variables.
Standard Methods (1989) provides a good over-
view of methods and references applicable to the
biological examination of waters. The value of such
studies can be great. In the example cited (Lee and
Jones, 1986), no readily discernible difference was
observed between the numbers and types offish in a
predicted (from laboratory tests) zone of potential
chronic toxicity and a study area outside of this
zone. It was determined in this and related studies
that adding nitrification to the treatment process
would have no impact on the beneficial uses of the
receiving waters (Lee and Jones, 1986).
There are, however, clear examples of com-
munity structure assessments that have detected
in-stream impacts that were not predicted by ef-
fluent monitoring and specific chemical analysis (for
example, Marcus et al. 1988, where ammonia was
not implicated as a cause, but rather a suite of
priority pollutants and metals was discovered and
linked to estuarine community degradation).
In any instance where chemical analyses of ef-
fluent and ambient water laboratory assays, in-
stream monitoring, and aquatic community studies
indicate that further treatment steps (such as
nitrification to remove ammonia) are required to al-
leviate toxicity impacts on beneficial receiving water
uses, follow-up investigations to monitor the results
of treatment improvements are recommended.
These monitoring steps may be as simple as effluent
and ambient water toxicity screening using stand-
ard acute or chronic bioassays or may need to in-
clude community structure investigations.
Biological Assessment Versus
Numeric Limits Regulation
A detailed examination of the basis for either a case-
specific biological assessment or a numeric limits
approach to regulating receiving water toxicity from
ammonia and chlorine could fuel an endless debate
on the relative merits of each. However, the poten-
tial costs of construction and treatment to provide
dechlorination and nitrification steps across the
country run into billions of dollars. Clearly, costs are
justified in many situations. For cases where jus-
tification is not clear, potential cost savings justify a
case-specific assessment strategy. In those cases
where significant environmental damage is
demonstrated and remediation required, or for cases
where a POTW declines the opportunity to conduct
a hazard assessment, the existing water quality
criteria provide the basis for numeric limits to be
targeted.
146
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
The case-specific approach puts a great deal
more responsibility on both the discharger and the
regulator since both are in the business of protect-
ing environmental health. The comfort of dealing
with an over/under regulation is lost; in its place are
the pressures of designing, conducting, monitoring,
and evaluating a complicated science and engineer-
ing study. Furthermore, as is frequently the case,
even the best conceived and executed study may not
provide a definitive answer in a particular case. In
other instances, the biological assessment may
prove that deleterious conditions exist as a result of
either chlorine or ammonia and that expensive
treatment modification is required. In these cases, it
may or may not be any solace to the utility manager
who just paid for an elaborate hazard assessment to
know that additional construction and operation
costs are really justified and necessary. Again, how-
ever, the potential dollar expenses and environmen-
tal damage costs seem to mandate a strategy for
accurate assessments.
Regulatory Considerations in
Decisions to List Chlorine
and Ammonia as 307(a)
Pollutants
So far, this presentation has defended the position
that site-specific assessment is preferable to fixed
numerical limits regulation. In a regulatory setting,
a biological assessment approach could be imple-
mented by encouraging States through the use of
grant money, guidance and training, and through
the enforcement of existing requirements to adopt
site-specific standards. The fixed numerical limits
approach, on the other hand, would be exemplified
by requiring States to develop statewide numerical
criteria for pollutants on the 307(a) list under Clean
Water Act section 303(c)(2)(B). The term "site-
specific standards" (or, alternatively, "site-specific
assessment") is not used as defined by EPA. In this
presentation, it is a set of standards for a particular
location that may not include standards for every
listed pollutant if a hazard assessment shows them
unnecessary to protect designated uses. EPA usually
defines a site-specific standard to mean a numerical
standard based on technical information different
from that used by EPA to develop a national
criterion for the pollutant.
The rest of this paper is an attempt to persuade
the reader that the location-specific assessment and
standards development approach, in practice, is in-
compatible with the 303(c)(2)(B) process or any
other process that uses the same tactics. California's
experience with the implementation of Clean Water
Act section 303(c)(2)(B) is used as an illustration.
California's Experience with
303(c)(2)(B)
In California, the process of implementing section
303(c)(2)(B), which requires the State to adopt
standards for 307(a)-listed pollutants, has been
directed largely by cost issues. The permittee is con-
cerned about the cost of providing additional treat-
ment to meet standards that may be unnecessarily
stringent, and the regulator is concerned about the
cost of resources required for implementation. Ini-
tially, to save resources, California chose to adopt
statewide standards without relating them to
specific waterbodies, beneficial uses, or problems in
receiving waters. At first, this appeared to be the
most efficient approach, since the alternative would
have required the nine regional water quality con-
trol boards to develop more site-specific standards—
more related to specific uses, problems, and
conditions in each waterbody.
Time deadlines associated with section
303(c)(2)(B) were another pressure. In recommend-
ing the decision to adopt statewide standards to
satisfy the requirements of 303(c)(2)(B), the State
Water Resources Control Board staff issue paper
stated:
The reason for this recommendation is con-
cern about lack of resources to accomplish the task
in the time available, and a perception that it
would be more efficient to undertake this task
once at the State Board rather than nine times at
the Regional Boards. Historically, the adoption of
even small numbers of water quality objectives
has been a very time consuming process. The
adoption of the large number of objectives re-
quired by the Act is a formidable task (State
Water Resour. Control Board, 1989).
At the time that this document was written, two
of the three years allowed for the development of ob-
jectives had already elapsed. Perhaps if the State or
the regional boards had started developing ap-
propriate site-specific standards as soon as the
Clean Water Act was amended in February 1987,
they might have been able to complete the task near
the deadline of February 1990. However, a long time
was spent on the learning curve; therefore,
resources were not available or were not perceived
as being available. As it now stands, statewide
standards have not been adopted, and significant is-
sues remain unresolved. Once standards are
adopted, many will be so inappropriate for specific
situations that regional boards will still be faced
with developing site-specific standards and perform-
ing use attainability analyses, although they do not
147
-------
R. BA1RD & I. HAMILTON
have the resources. Thus, the process is coming full
circle.
Certain EPA national or regional policies have
exacerbated the problem of insufficient resources to
develop technically defensible location-specific
standards. One is the EPA Region DCs policy of re-
quiring States to prove that every pollutant that is
discharged to any waterbody is not and never could
be a problem before States can choose not to adopt a
standard for the pollutant. The assumption is al-
ways guilty until proven innocent. So many nega-
tives must be proven that attention and resources
are deflected away from pursuing real, identifiable
problems.
Specifically, Region IX stated:
As a matter of EPA Regional policy, Region
IX will presume that all priority toxic pollutants
for which EPA has published criteria are present
in the State's waters, unless the State documents
that a specific pollutant could not be present with
a thorough review of all available data. In addi-
tion, the Region will presume that pollutants
present in the State's waters could interfere with
beneficial uses, unless the State positively estab-
lishes that this is not the case for particular pol-
lutants (Takata, 1990).
If the State had wanted to take a location-
specific approach rather than a statewide approach
or even to blend the two approaches, how could it
realistically have been expected to prove that each
of the 126 priority pollutants in each of hundreds of
waterbodies could not possibly be present and could
not possibly interfere with beneficial uses? EPA
could always argue that existing data were insuffi-
cient. As a result, statewide standards for every
listed pollutant became essentially mandatory and
known, serious problems have received no more at-
tention or emphasis in the process than presumed
ones.
California does have a program—not a perfect
one, but a toxic substances monitoring program that
does seem to work as far as identifying problems
with fish tissues and sediment contamination. One
would think, given the general insufficiency of
regulatory resources, that these available data
would have played a significant role in the
303(c)(2)(B) process. It was not so. For example, the
County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County
are faced with Gold Book standards and permit
limits for mercury based on criteria to protect
against bioaccumulation, when a fair amount of tis-
sue sampling data clearly shows no mercury con-
tamination of fish or shellfish in the receiving water.
We are told that if the mercury number is unat-
tainable, we can develop a site-specific criteria num-
ber (as the term is used by EPA). The problem with
this is that while we are developing an alternate
number, we would be in noncompliance with the
statewide number. In addition, we do not see the
need to develop a site-specific number (as the term
is used by EPA), and we are not sure that we can do
a better job than EPA for mercury.
EPA's Gold Book section for mercury states that
a reality check is necessary because of all the com-
plexities and conservative assumptions involved in
deriving criteria for mercury. "Existing discharges
should be acceptable if the concentration of methyl-
mercury in the edible portion of exposed consumed
species does not exceed the FDA action level" (U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, 1986).
In the County Sanitation Districts' case of dis-
charge to the San Gabriel River, fish tissue data
from 1983-89 show total mercury levels below not
only the FDA health criterion but also the National
Academy of Sciences predator protection level and
the Median International Standards. The levels
were at what the State Water Resources Control
Board staff considers "background levels." In this
case, the answer is not for the discharger to try to
develop an alternative criterion, it is to not adopt
one when there is no threat of interference with
beneficial uses. But the 303(c)(2)(B) process in prac-
tice has not incorporated this sort of reality check.
Conclusions
Any effort to regulate ammonia and chlorine as
307(a)-listed pollutants will also trigger the
303(c)(2)(B) State standards-setting process.
Federal regulators may view this positively because
it will refocus attention on two toxic pollutants that
can create real, identifiable impacts in receiving
waters. Their significance, however, depends on the
size of the impact area and the likelihood that sig-
nificant aquatic species will be in that area long
enough to be affected. These factors determine the
impact on beneficial uses and are site-specific. The
303(c)(2)(B) process has not effectively taken site-re-
lated factors into account.
The question, then, is whether there is a
regulatory alternative to the 303(c)(2)(B) process
that would focus attention on ammonia and chlorine
so that real problems will be identified and fixed.
The whole effluent toxicity and in-stream monitor-
ing approaches are good alternatives provided that
some of the technical problems discussed earlier are
resolved. Even the Federal regulatory water quality
standards framework as it existed prior to
303(c)(2)(B) could be used to control chlorine and
ammonia. After all, the only new thing that
303(c)(2)(B) did was establish deadlines for adoption
of standards that should have been adopted anyway.
Since the deadlines were not accompanied by addi-
148
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 139-150
tional resources, and since States spent so long on
the learning curve (indeed, are still on the learning
curve and will be there for some time to come), the
result was an involved and confusing situation.
It is equally important to avoid requiring
statewide ammonia and chlorine standards using a
regulatory process that is just 303(c)(2)(B) by
another name. An example would be adding a re-
quirement to Agency guidance that would pressure
States to adopt statewide standards. Addressing
ammonia and chlorine through that process would
not promote the sort of site-specific approaches that
are necessary to achieve adequate protection at a
reasonable cost to both the discharger and the
regulator.
References
American Chemical Society. 1989. Facts and figures for the
chemical industry. Chem. Eng. News 67(25):36-92.
Baird, R. B., J. Bottomley, and H. Taitz. 1979a. Ammonia
toxicity and pH control in fish toxitity bioassays of
treated wastewaters. Water Res. 13:181.
Baird, R. B., M. W. Selna, J. Raskins, and D. Chappelle.
1979b. Analysis of selected trace organics in advanced
wastewater treatment systems. Water Res. 13:493.
Blogoslawski, W. J. 1980. Use of chlorination in the molluscan
shelfish industry. Pages 486-500 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects,
Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science, MI.
Burton, D. T., L. W. Hall, and S. L. Margrey. 1980. Multifac-
torial chlorine, T and exposure duration studies of spring
power plant operations on three estuarine invertebrates.
Pages 547-56 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination: En-
vironmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor
Science, MI.
Grieve, J. A., L. E. Johnston, T. G. Dunstall, and J. Minor.
1978. A program to introduce site specific chlorination
regimes at Ontario hydro generating stations. Pages 77-94
in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination: Environmental Im-
pact and Health Effects, Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science, MI.
Heath, A. G. 1978. Influence of chlorine form and ambient
temperature on the toxicity of intermittent chlorination
to freshwater fish. Pages 123-33 in R.J. Jolley, ed. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects,
Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science, MI.
Heinemann, T. J., G. F. Lee, R. A. Jones, and B. W Newbry.
1983. Summary of studies on modeling persistence of
domestic wastewater chlorine in Colorado front range
rivers Pages 97-112 in R.J. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination:
Environmental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 4. Ann
Arbor Science, MI.
Horning, W. B. et al. 1989. Short Term Methods for Estimating
the Chronic Ibxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms. EPA 600/4-87/001. Off. Res. Dev.,
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Khalanski, M. and F. Bordet. 1980. Effects of chlorination on
marine mussels. Pages 557-67 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water
Chlorination: Environmental Impact and Health Effects,
Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science, MI.
Laird, C. E. and M. H. Roberts. 1980. Effects of chlorinated
seawater on the blue crab, Callinectes sapidus. Pages
569-79 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination: Environ-
mental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor
Science, MI.
Lee, G. F. and R. A. Jones. 1986. Water quality hazard assess-
ment for domestic wastewaters. Pages 228-44 in Environ-
mental Hazard Assaessment of Effluents. Pergamon
Press, New York.
. 1987. Assessment of the degree of treatment required
for toxic wastewater effluents. Pages 652-77 in Proc. Int.
Conf. Innovative Treatment Toxic Wastewaters. U.S.
Army Construe. Eng. Res. Lab., Champlain, IL.
Lewis, W. J. 1988. Uncertainty in pH and temperature correc-
tions for ammonia toxicity. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
60(11): 1922.
Newbry, B. W, G. F. Lee, R. A. Jones, and T. J. Heinemann.
1983. Studies on the water quality hazard of chlorine in
domestic wastewater treatment plant effluents. Pages
1423-36 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination: Environ-
mental Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 4. Ann Arbor
Science, MI.
Marcus, J.M., G.R. Swearingen, and G.I. Scott. 1988.
Biomonitoring as an integral part of the NPDES permit-
ting process: a case study. Pages 161-76 in W.J. Adams,
G.A. Chapman, and W.G. Landis, eds. Aquatic Toxicology
and Hazard Assessment, Vol. 10. ASTM STP-971. Am.
Soc. Test. Mater., Philadelphia, PA.
Peltier, W. 1978. Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of
Effluents to Aquatic Organisms. EPA 600/4-78-012. U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste-
water. 1989. Joint Editorial Board, Am. Public Health
Ass., Am. Water Works Ass., and Water Pollut. Control
Fed., 17th ed. Washington, DC.
State Water Resources Control Board. 1989. Staff Report—Is-
sues Associated with Adoption of Water Quality Objec-
tives Under Clean Water Act Section 303(c)(2)(B). Div.
Water Qual., Sacramento, CA.
Stull, J. K., C. I. Haydock, R. W. Smith, and D. E. Montagne.
1986. Long term changes in the benthic community on the
coastal shelf of Palos Verdes, So. California. Mar. Biol.
91:539.
Takata, K. 1990. EPA Comments on California Inland Surface
Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Draft Water
Quality Control Plan. Letter from Keith Takata, acting
director, Water Manage. Div., EPA Region IX, to James W.
Baetge, executive officer, Calif. State Water Resour. Con-
trol Board, dated March 29, 1990. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Region DC, San Francisco.
Thomas, P., J. M. Bartos, and A. S. Brooks. 1980. Comparison
of the toxicities of monochloramine and dichloramine to
rainbow trout under various time conditions. Pages 581-
88 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination: Environmental
Impact and Health Effects, Vol. 3. Ann Arbor Science, MI.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. Federal Register
44 (60): 18279.
. 1984. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorine.
EPA 440/5-84-030. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington,
DC.
. 1985, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia
440/5-85-001. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington, DC.
. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-
001. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Washington, DC.
149
-------
R. BAIRD & L. HAMILTON
—. 1990a. Numeric Chlorine and Ammonia Standards. Weber, C. I. et al. 1989. Short Term Methods For Estimating
Off. Water Reg. Stand. Criteria Stand. Div., Washington, The Chronic Tenacity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
DC. Freshwater Organisms. EPA 600/4-87/001. Off. Res. Dev.,
. 1990b. Draft Revised Technical Support Document u-s- Environ. Prot. Agency, Cincinnati, OH.
For Water Quality-based Tories Control. EPA 600/4-78-
012. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
150
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 151-157
Regulating Chlorinated
Organic Pollutants
John Bonine
Professor of Law and Codirector
Western Environmental Law Clinic
University of Oregon, Eugene
Introduction
Earlier in this conference, Dr. Geraldine Cox of the
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) talked
about the gross pollution of 20 years ago. As she
said, "You don't see that anymore." For what may be
the only time today, I want to express agreement
with CMA. We don't see the gross pollution
anymore. Out of sight, out of mind.
According to Dr. Cox, risk assessment should be
"purged of conservatism." My contention is that risk
assessment—and the water quality program—
should be purged of its unjustified policy liberalism
and should stop ignoring important scientific
relationships.
Ignoring Toxicological
Equivalencies
In the States, the Clean Water Act's § 304(1) pro-
gram has been implemented almost entirely on the
basis of single-number water quality standards
that, in the case of 2,3,7,8-TCDD, for example, com-
pletely ignore the cumulative effects of toxicological-
ly equivalent and additive compounds. Science now
understands that many dioxins, dibenzofurans, and
co-planar PCBs act on the same Ah receptors in
cells—they have the same keys fitting into locks
that switch on enzyme activity.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) and Nordic countries have all come up with
toxic equivalency factors (TEF) that allow calcula-
tion of the overall potential impacts of part of the
chlorinated organic compounds in a discharge
stream. Yet, the TCDD water quality criteria docu-
ment still talks as if the world were a tightly con-
trolled laboratory experiment, with all variables
except TCDD ruled out. The States have adopted
water quality standards for TCDD that make the
same fundamental error. The permits issued under
the 304(1) program make the same mistake; they ig-
nore toxic equivalencies.
Here is an example that illustrates the serious-
ness of this problem. In the Columbia River behind
Grand Coulee Dam, fish sampled last year had 4 ppt
of TCDD in the fillet, after the skin and viscera were
removed. Under EPA's TCDD criteria, that works
out to about 60 times over the one-cancer-per-mil-
lion level for people who would eat such fish.
Moreover, 4 ppt is the only figure that receives
policy attention even though the same fish had 320
ppt of 2,3,7,8-TCDF—a dibenzofuran and about the
fifth most toxic chemical compound known to
science—with 1/10 the toxicity of TCDD.
The TEF formula of both EPA and NATO counts
the 320 ppt of TCDF as being lexicologically
equivalent to 32 ppt. Adding that 32 ppt to the 4 ppt
of TCDD, we get 36 ppt—nine times as high as the
TCDD figure alone or 500 times the one-cancer-per-
million level. (And that does not even consider the
fact that the Colville Tribe owns half the shoreline of
that part of the Columbia River in Washington, that
American Indians eat 10 to 20 times more fish than
the rest of the population, and that they sometimes
eat the whole fish, including the even more highly
contaminated body parts, which scientists cut off
before performing sampling.)
151
-------
/. BON/NE
Ignoring Total
Environmental Load
Willful ignoring of factual evidence goes much fur-
ther. The eight chlorine-using pulp mills in the
United States and the additional one across the bor-
der in Canada that discharge TCDD and TCDF are
being regulated on the basis of a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) for the Columbia River system as
a whole. But EPA Region X and the States have
completely ignored all sources of dioxins (and, for
that matter, furans and PCBs) except the pulp mills;
they have ignored municipal sewage plants, wood-
preserving plants using pentachlorophenol, the old
Agent Orange factory in Portland, and various Su-
perfund sites.
It is as if diabetics were to avoid only putting
sugar into coffee, while eating chocolate sundaes
without limit. Some things can occur only if
processed through the magic of governmental risk
assessment, where we make decisions for others and
where there is heavy quasi-scientific lobbying by
groups that manufacture products such as choco-
late.
The Shift from
Alternatives Analysis
Change is possible. So are improved policies. Even
radical shifts in our paradigms are possible: how we
view the world, what we think is possible as an al-
ternative future. A good paradigm shift was the
revolution started in 1962 by scientist Rachel Car-
son in her book, Silent Spring. Another good one
was the creation of EPA and the avalanche of
changed Federal environmental statutes following
Earth Day 1970.
EPA had the following policy in the early-to-
mid- 1970s in its pesticide program: if a pesticide
caused cancer, it was banned if there was any viable
alternative (though admittedly rarely, and only
after years of legal hassle from the producers of the
pesticide and their allies in the U.S. Department of
Agriculture). William Ruckleshaus did it, Russ
Train did it, and Doug Costle did it, as late as 1979
inthecaseof2,4,5-T.
A bad paradigm shift was the rise of quantita-
tive risk assessment, a pseudo-science of oft-hidden
assumptions that mask subjective policy behind a
facade of seemingly objective, computerized print-
outs. The evil twin of quantitative risk assessment
is the doctrine of acceptable risk—and it is a
doctrine, which means an ideology, which means it
is either political or religious, depending on its advo-
cate. We are not talking here about risk decisions
that we make for ourselves, but about ones we make
for others. For ourselves, we have the right to make
any decisions that we choose concerning acceptable
risk. We have to make such decisions; this is not a
risk-free world. We can even make quantitative
decisions for our personal, day-to-day behavior, but
we must move carefully when making such
decisions for others in the ideology of acceptable risk
(perhaps William Ruckleshaus' worst legacy in his
post-Gorsuch reincarnation).
We should make decisions of acceptable risk
only with great humility and respect for the God-
like powers we are exercising. To make these
decisions casually or with hubris, and to make them
without full disclosure of the incredible inade-
quacies in the data we are using and the incredible
arbitrariness in the assumptions that go into the
mathematical models, is an offense against fellow
human beings.
Alternatives to Chlorine
I want to talk about EPA rediscovering its roots and
returning to the policy of banning risky substances
if alternatives exist. Join me in imagining the steps
that would be required to phase out all or many of
the uses of chlorine in our society and certainly in
some industries. Now that sounds like an extreme
proposal, doesn't it? Yet it has been proposed by the
courageous scientists on the Great Lakes Science
Advisory Board of the International Joint Commis-
sion, a U.S.-Canadian intergovernmental body. A
Canadian newspaper account of the group's October
1989 report put it this way: "The scientists finally
got mad." (It puts a whole new meaning on the
phrase "mad scientist," I think you'll agree.)
This "extreme" proposal is also one forthrightly
stated by the Swedish Minister for the Environ-
ment, Birgitta Dahl. In 1989, she said, "By the year
2000 we shall get rid of it," meaning chlorine use in
pulp and paper mills. This June (1990), the
magazine Oil and Forestry wrote: "Consumption of
chlorine is forecast to reach the zero point by 1995,
where in 1960 it stood at over 100,000 tonnes."
And what does paper look like if it is produced
without any chlorine—not even chlorine dioxide?
Here is one example: a full-color magazine from
Greenpeace, which now imports chlorine-free paper
from Europe as a demonstration project. Also, white
copy machine paper is made in Austria without any
use of chlorine or chlorine dioxide.
Just think of it: no chance of forming dioxins, no
chance of forming dibenzofurans, no chance of form-
ing chlorophenols, chlorocatechols, chloroguiaicols,
152
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21$t CENTURY: 151-157
chloroveratrols, or any of the 1,000 to 3,000
chlorinated organic compounds found in pulp mills
and discharged into our rivers and lakes. Does
anyone here really believe our toilet paper needs to
be white, as opposed to a slight off-white?
DES and Hubris
I have talked of a paradigm shift. In thinking about
the possibilities for consciously driven changes in
our ways of thinking, I decided to rummage around
for old books, to see what kinds of changes have oc-
curred since I went away to college, too many years
ago. Here is a little volume by Dr. Isaac Asimov
called The World of Carbon. The date, like that of
Silent Spring, is 1962. He has just described the
benzene ring—six carbon atoms in a hexagon, with
hydrogen atoms sticking out around the hexagon.
Then he describes how two or more benzene rings
can lock together at the corners, forming other com-
pounds.
One passage caught my eye. Remember, this is
1962:
An interesting phenol with medical impor-
tance is diethylstilbestrol . . . [You've probably
heard of this one, known primarily by its ab-
breviation: DES.]. ..
. . . [I]t is possible to manufacture some . . . hor-
mones synthetically in the laboratory. It is even
possible ... to manufacture some other com-
pound . . . which will have the same effect as the
hormone. [Diethyl] Stilbesterol is the most suc-
cessful example. It was first introduced in Europe
in 1939 as a substitute for female sex hormones,
and in some ways, it actually works better (p. 83,
emphasis added).
You see how easy it is to fall into the sin of pride
—hubris—about the achievements of chemistry.
The Great Law: Protecting
Future Generations
I'm going to stray from the chlorine world for a mo-
ment, but the point will be applicable to it. The use
of DES violated a law. Not a law of the U.S. govern-
ment, but rather what is known as the Great Law of
the Six Nation Iroquois Confederacy. I think you
will find that it would be difficult to reconcile this
law with quantitative risk assessment, with
present-day decisions of acceptable risk, even with
numerical water quality standards for persistent bi-
accumulative, toxic, synthetic compounds. The law
says: "In our every deliberation, we must consider
the impact of our decisions on the next seven
generations."
Unfortunately, nobody inside the Beltway is ap-
plying that law. It is, perhaps, not sophisticated
enough, too primitive, suited only for a primitive
people.
DES did not appear to harm the pregnant
women to whom it was administered as a morning
sickness medicine. For them it was, as Isaac Asimov
said, "the most successful" synthetic hormone. For
them, "in some ways, it actually workfed] better."
For some of their daughters, who did not take DES,
it became a living hell. In those daughters it caused
cancer—a rare form of vaginal cancer. How did the
DES get into their bodies?
The Perfect Environmental
Crime: Harming Offspring
While we are talking about the law, let us talk about
crime. What would be the perfect crime — the one
that allowed the perpetrators the opportunity to es-
cape, maybe even to die of old age, before its exist-
ence even came to light? This hypothetical perfect
environmental crime would use, as the weapon, a
poison that did not even seem to be a poison, per-
haps not for generations. Its effects, in short, would
be "sub-lethal" to its first consumers. Perhaps it
would act indirectly; for example, by suppressing
the immune system. Perhaps it would skip genera-
tions. Perhaps the weapon would be a contaminant
that caused behavioral and intellectual defects
rather than apparent physical defects in offspring—
in our children—and these effects on behavior would
be masked because the mothers might just think
that their infant falls naturally where it does on the
bell-shaped curve of human variability. Wouldn't it
be deliciously difficult to uncover the perpetrator of
this perfect crime if, through generation-skipping ef-
fects, indirect effects, and behavioral effects, it was
difficult even to notice the corpus delicti?
Recently, a 14-year-old girl died from a rare
form of vaginal cancer, the one that is a pretty reli-
able fingerprint of the work of DES. The child never
took DES, though. And her mother never took DES.
But DES had been prescribed to her grandmother,
back in that age when DES was considered, in Isaac
Asimov's words, a "successful" substitute for female
sex hormones "and, in some ways, it actually works
better." How did the DES get into her mother, and
how did it get into her?
Let me return to those benzene rings, joined
together and sprouting little prickers of chlorine
atoms on some of the free corners, as, for example,
dibenzo-dioxins, dibenzofurans, or chlorinated
biphenyls. And let me use descriptions that are
more understandable than dry, scientific papers.
153
-------
/. BONINE
The effects caused by these compounds have
been well and clearly described in an article pub-
lished last fall in Buzzworm: The Environmental
Journal. The article has just described how the
march of cells in the creation of a new bird from a
fertilized egg can be tripped up by the bad timing
caused by PCBs in the egg, causing birth defects—
teratogenesis.
In whole populations of birds throughout the
Great Lakes the embryonic timing gears have
been sabotaged. It is as though some vandal had
tossed a fistful of metal shavings into the ex-
quisite, biological clockwork that is the egg...
There is nothing—nothing—in the biology of the
egg that knows how to cope with a PCB thrown
into the works. Until recently no embryo ever had
its timing tripped up by this molecule—not in all
the years since Class Aves evolved from the flying
dinosaurs of the Cretaceous period, 100 million
years ago. This molecule first appeared abun-
dantly on the earth in 1929. It may never go
away.
We made it that way.
The article quotes scientist James Ludwig:
'There is the "Murder, She Wrote' kind of poisoning,
where people clutch their throats and fall down
dead.Then there is this."
Chlorinated organic poisons are, you see,
poisons that even Agatha Christie might not dis-
cover until it is far too late. They can be subtle, in-
direct, perhaps delayed in effect, yet incredibly
persistent. Chlorinated organic compounds are the
gifts that keep on giving.
Phasing Out Chlorine
I love flying to B.C. from my house in Oregon. As I
crossed the Rockies in northern Colorado, I looked
down on a small town with a few city blocks nestled
around a crossroads. The gentle snow glistened in
bright sunlight. How many millions, billions, zil-
lions of individual snow flakes went to make up the
view from just one window of one cozy house, I
wondered. The thought drew me inside one of the
houses, and I imagined myself lying under a warm
down quilt, looking out that window, logs crackling
in the fireplace to take the chill off the morning air.
I wondered about the neighbors, Bill and Jane
(my fantasy began to put names on the inhabitants
of that peaceful scene). Jane was five months preg-
nant, I decided. New life was stirring in her womb
— millions, zillions of molecules. Each hour, each
minute, her body pumps life-giving nourishment to
the fetus. Each hour, each minute, her body pumps
polychlorinated biphenyls, polychlorinated dibenzo-
p-dioxins, polychlorinated dibenzofurans across the
placental barrier, through the umbilical cord, and
into the infant. Millions. Zillions of molecules.
What can we do to institute a true paradigm
shift in our environmental policies that regulate the
new, exciting chemicals that are sold to us as work-
ing better than the ones bequeathed to us by mil-
lions of years of human, mammalian, and other
evolution? How can we avoid more DES stories, par-
ticularly in the chlorine world? How can we, in our
every deliberation, consider the impact of our
decisions on the next seven generations?
In March 1990, the International Joint Com-
mission (IJC) published its Fifth Biennial Report on
Great Lakes Water Quality. Here is what this staid
government body printed on its cover: 'The child
that I am carrying right now has probably, and is
currently receiving, the heaviest loadings of toxic
chemicals that it will receive in its lifetime."—
Eminent Scientist, 1989 Biennial Meeting.
Inside, the IJC said this, among other things:
In recent years, cancer has reigned supreme
among diseases which frighten human-kind...
Now we are confronted with the knowledge that
more subtle disease and dysfunctionality out-
comes occur from living organisms' exposure to
toxics in addition to—or rather than—malignan-
cies ...
The Great Lakes have been a rich source of such
data, yielding information that a number of
serious impacts which are neither carcinogenic
nor mutagenic are occurring in a large number of
Great Lakes fish, birds, reptiles and small mam-
mals. In most instances, these effects include
population declines, reproductive problems, eg-
gshell thinning, severe metabolic changes, gross
deformities, behavioral and hormonal changes
and immunosuppression. These effects occur in
offspring, the apparent result of maternal trans-
fer.
The growing public awareness that toxics are af-
fecting certain fish, reptile and small mammal
populations raises two fundamental and sobering
questions: Are humans in danger? Are future
generations in danger?
The Commission put the following in boldface
type:
When available data on fish, birds, rep-
tiles and small mammals are considered
along with this human research, the Com-
mission must conclude that there is a threat
to the health of our children emanating
from our exposure to persistent toxic sub-
stances, even at very low ambient levels.
In the fall of 1989, the Great Lakes Science Ad-
visory Board of the IJC had recommended the phas-
154
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 151-157
ing out in North America of all production processes
involving halogenated compounds: chlorine, bro-
mine, and fluorine. In March of 1990, the IJC itself,
a body established by international treaty, made
these recommendations:
i. All persistent toxic substances are ul-
timately harmful to the integrity of the en-
vironment, both in the Great Lakes region
and globally, and should not be allowed to
enter the environment.
ii. Persistent toxic substances find their
way into the environment in many ways,
through production, residuals discharge,
use and destruction.
iii. The technology either exists—or
can, with very few exceptions, be developed
at some cost—to replace (or control in the
interim) the use of persistent toxic sub-
stances.
iv. Sufficient information is now known
for society to take a very restrictive ap-
proach to allowing persistent toxic sub-
stances in the ecosystem and to declare
such materials too risky to the biosphere
and humans to permit their release in any
quantity...
Substances that have important uses
and for which substitutes cannot be found
immediately must be produced, used and
subsequently recycled or neutralized under
the most stringent protective conditions to
ensure they do not enter the environment.
Substances for which zero discharge cannot
be assured must be phased out of use as
soon as possible. Target dates for the
staged reduction and early elimination of
these substances should be set in the very
near future and strictly enforced by incor-
porating them into appropriate parts of the
legislative program discussed below.
It may be questioned whether society is
willing to bear the costs of rejecting or
modifying the products and processes which
create or discharge persistent toxic sub-
stances. Clearly, however, the cost of inac-
tion or insufficient action is, in the long run,
vastly greater than the cost of timely action
now.
Reproductive Harm
in Other Species
In California, peregrine falcons are suffering
reproductive harm linked to dioxins and PCBs. (A
conference on peregrines and organochlorine harm
took place in Oregon in mid-January 1991.) In the
Northwest, bald eagles along the lower Columbia
River are suffering severe reproductive failure,
linked to organochlorine contamination. Ditto for
river otter and mink. For whatever reason (and or-
ganochlorines are one of the two main hypotheses),
sturgeon in parts of the Columbia River have zero
reproductive success.
Where reproduction is not blocked, behavior is
being affected. Laboratory rats eating contaminated
Lake Ontario salmon suffer behavioral learning ef-
fects. Rhesus monkeys fed 2,3,7,8-TCDD suffer ad-
verse behavior effects as a result of harm to learning
in their offspring.
EPA and the States are, of course, ignoring
these disasters. They are blithely reissuing permits
to dump thousands of pounds of chlorinated or-
ganics into rivers and streams based only on human
cancer calculations.
Behavioral Toxicology
in Humans
What about human infants? Dr. G. Fein, a
toxicologist in Michigan, did a study, published in
1984, on women who had eaten two or three meals
per month of salmon or trout from Lake Michigan.
That's not very much fish, but these fish had or-
ganochlorines in them. She found that the human
babies of these mothers had smaller heads than the
average, the mothers had more premature births,
the babies had learning difficulties, were easily
startled, and had short attention spans. Similar
studies have shown these effects in North Carolina.
Follow-up work was published in January 1990
in the Journal of Pediatrics by Drs. Joseph and
Sandra Jacobson and Dr. Harold Humphrey. Of 236
four-year-old children administered a battery of
memory and learning tests, 17 flatly refused to
respond to the items on the 17 tests. The mother's
milk PCS levels of those 17 children were sig-
nificantly higher than those of the other children at
the 99.9 percent confidence level. Mothers in in-
dustrialized countries pass PCBs and dioxins to
their nursing infants at rates that are 10 to 100
times the World Health Organization's "acceptable
daily intake." Of the children that did respond on
the tests, the higher PCBs in the umbilical cord
back at birth, the poorer the performance four years
later on verbal and memory scales of the McCarthy
Scales of Children's Abilities, a battery of cognitive
tests. Prenatal PCB exposure was associated with
poorer performance on subtests involving short-
term memory.
155
-------
/. BONINE
The researchers concluded: "Our data indicate
that in utero exposure to PCBs and related con-
taminants [earlier identified as polychlorinated
dibenzofurans and dibenzodioxins] is associated
with poorer short-term memory functioning in early
childhood. This corroborates previous findings with
infants [Dr. Fein's 1984 study] and indicates that
the deficit is a continuing one."
They said the magnitude of the deficit is
modest, and not gross impairment, but: "Neverthe-
less, the effect is sufficiently robust to impair
memory function in different domains and different
modalities."
They said, "the poorer memory performance
seen in the study indicates diminished potential."
They said, "short-term memory and selective atten-
tion are known to be important in the acquisition of
reading and arithmetic skills. Thus, these deficits,
although subtle, could have a significant impact on
school performance in later childhood."
Why is this happening? The authors say:
Research on other teratogens suggests that
migratory cells and cells undergoing mitosis
[those legions of cells dividing and replicating
with the precision instilled by millions, zillions of
years of evolution] are sensitive to toxic insult.
[The iron filings thrown into the gears of the
clockwork of creation.] In addition, the fetus
lacks important drug-metabolizing detoxification
capacities that are found postnatally . . . Incom-
plete development of the blood-brain barrier fur-
ther increases embryonic and fetal vulnerability
to central nervous system insult.
They say further:
Tanabe has argued that toxic effects from en-
vironmental organochlorine residues are most
likely attributable to trace levels of certain highly
toxic congeners of PCB, the effects of which
resemble those of 2,3,7,8-lTCDD]—-Idioxin].
PCBs, dioxins, furans. They are different, and
yet they are the same. In 1978, the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's ban on
lesser-chlorinated PCBs, even though EPA had no
evidence on their toxicological properties. There
was, however, evidence on more-chlorinated PCBs.
And the court ruled that, given the precautionary
role assigned to EPA by the pollution statutes, the
agency had the discretion to regulate on the basis of
chemical similarity.
Persistence of
Organichlorines in Humans
As I said at the beginning, the similarities also go
outside the class of PCBs and sweep dioxins and
furans in together. Dr. Wayland Swain, former head
of an EPA lab in Michigan, testified in Canada in
December on a proposal to build a huge new
chlorine-bleaching pulp mill in Alberta. What would
happen, he asked himself, if all PCBs and dioxins
disappeared from the earth tomorrow—except for
those already in the body of his daughter? Assume
that at age 20 his daughter had a baby girl, he tes-
tified, and in 20 years more that girl had a
daughter. How long would it be before the current
organochlorines were not in the body of a female de-
scendent?
Six generations. His great, great, great, great
granddaughter would finally be the last, and her
daughter in the year 2109 would finally be free of
this plague, of these chemicals.
Six generations.
In our every deliberation, we must consider
the impact of our decisions on the next seven
generations.
If we could stop the release of PCBs, dioxins,
and furans into our environment tomorrow, we
could begin to obey the Law of the Six Nation Iro-
quois Confederacy, though for six generations we
would still be violating it.
Transformation of
Organochlorines
But will it be enough to try to stop just dioxins, just
furans, just PCBs? I don't believe so. One of the
most disturbing things about chlorine is that once
liberated it spreads around, and around, and
around. It combines with organic matter. The
chlorinated organic compounds form, change,
reform in different identities A typical chlorine-
using pulp mill, for example, will dump 40,000 to
100,000 pounds of chlorinated organics into a river
every single day. Even the compounds that don't
seem to be a problem (or that we don't know yet to
be a problem) may change once they are out in the
environment.
A presentation delivered at the American Paper
Institute's 1990 Environmental Conference shows
that the chlorinated lignin dumped in the rivers will
create chlorophenols during biodegradation. The re-
searchers describe the chlorinated lignin as "slow-
release chlorophenol." They say that limitations and
restrictions must be imposed on a "summation
parameter like ... AOX" — an inexpensive $100 test
of organically bound halogens.
Another recent study found the formation of
TCDD occurring inside organisms exposed to
chlorinated contamination. Just ponder that one for
156
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 151-157
a moment. Could wastewater treatment facilities be
creating dioxin from other chlorinated constituents?
The release of chlorinated compounds into the
environment is like opening a Pandora's Box. Once
open, we can't shut it again, and the demons
released may not even be the demons that we even-
tually face.
A No-Chlorine Future
I offer instead a solution. I don't doubt the difficulty
of putting it into effect, but we can get started.
If there are alternatives to halogenated com-
pounds such as chlorine, let's use them. If not, let's
set a deadline, a technology-forcing deadline, to get
rid of them, forcing alternatives to be developed.
Let's not try to engage in absurdly fine-tuned quan-
titative risk assessment that ignores additive and
synergistic toxicity, that ignores transformation of
chlorinated compounds into more toxic forms in the
environment after discharge, that ignores our in-
credible ignorance about even the identity of 90 per-
cent of the chlorinated compounds coming out of
major sources like pulp mills and the full range of
toxic effects of those whose names we know.
Why should we seek to regulate chlorinated or-
ganic pollutants based on hunches disguised as
knowledge? Why should we play the game of "ac-
ceptable risk" for the lives of other humans, when
there are nontoxic alternatives to chlorine — cer-
tainly for the pulp and paper industry? Here is how
Rachel Carson asked these same questions almost
30 years ago:
Have we fallen into a mesmerized state that
makes us accept as inevitable that which is in-
ferior or detrimental, as though having lost the
will or the vision to demand that which is good?
Such thinking, in the words of the ecologist Paul
Shepard, "idealizes life with only its head out of
water, inches above the limits of toleration of the
corruption of its own environment... Why should
we tolerate a diet of weak poisons, a home in in-
sipid surroundings, a circle of acquaintances who
are not quite our enemies, the noise of motors with
just enough relief to prevent insanity? Who would
want to live in a world which is just not quite
fatal?"
157
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 159-167
Are National Water Quality Standards
Needed for Chlorine and Ammonia?
David B. Cohen
Chief, Water Quality Branch
Division of Water Quality and Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, California
Question 1
How significant to aquatic life is
toxicity from the discharge of
ammonia or chlorine relative to
discharges of 307(a) toxic
pollutants? Should EPA and State
priorities be altered to reflect a
national focus on ammonia and
chlorine?
California Perspective
In 1969, over 80 percent of San Francisco Bay was
declared not fishable or swimmable; by 1985, over
80 percent of the Bay met fishable and swimmable
standards because of improved wastewater treat-
ment including disinfection. In 1975, the San Fran-
cisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopted a zero chlorine discharge policy to mitigate
chlorination impacts on aquatic life. Cause and ef-
fect data linking water quality improvements to this
policy are unavailable. One benefit may be the
reduced frequency of striped bass fish kills, which
used to occur every summer in the Carquinez Strait
(Wu, 1990). A 1986 study (Cech, 1986) showed that
when striped bass were exposed to concentrations of
both monochloramine (50 ppb) and unionized am-
monia (250 ppb), they developed severe anemia,
which could kill them.
Table 1 shows that the number of assessed
California waterbodies has increased sixfold be-
tween 1976 and 1990. In this same period, impair-
ments by chlorine, bacteria, or ammonia declined
from 55 percent of all impaired waterbodies in 1976
to 15 percent in 1990. Table 2 displays 1990 assess-
ment data by region, selected pollutants, and
sources. Nonpoint sources accounted for nearly 82
percent of impairments caused by bacteria, am-
monia, or toxicity.
The Regional Applied Research Effort (RARE) is
a cooperative bioassay program that was in-
augurated in 1989 between California and EPA.
Table 3 is a summary of RARE project results for
rivers in six different regions. Chronic toxicity to
one or more test species was observed in all six
rivers tested. Ammonia is suspected of contributing
to this toxicity in three rivers.
Table 4 addresses the question, is California
placing too much emphasis on 307(a) pollutants
Table 1.—California water quality assessments, 1976-1990 (impaired surface waterbodies—selected causes).
YEAR
1976
1980
1988
1990
IMPAIRED
SURFACE
WATERBODIES
18
57
80
234
TOTAL
WATERBODIES
ASSESSED
-300
-500
880
1930
IMPAIRMENT REPORTED AS DUE TO:
Cl,
(1)
0
0
0
0
BACTERIA
(2)
10
34
12
26
NH3
(3)
0
2
2
10
TOXICITY
(BIOASSAY)
0
0
0
22
% OF TOTAL
(1 + 2 + 3)
55
64
17
15
159
-------
D.B. COHEN
Table 2.—1990 California water quality assessment (impaired surface waterbodies—selected pollutants/sources
by region).
REGIONAL
BOARD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Total
% Freshwater
% Coastal (marine)
TOTAL IMPAIRED
WATERBODIES
8
16
51
14
54
59
6
10
16
234*
83.0
17.0
SELECTED POLLUTANTS/IMPAIRMENT
CI2
RESIDUAL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BACTERIA
(COLIFORM)
0
2
11
2
2
0
3
0
6
26
65.4
34.6
NH3
5
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
0
10
80.0
20.0
TOXICITY
(BIOASSAY)
0
0
0
0
12
3
4
3
0
22
100.0
0.0
SOURCES
POINT
0
1
2
0
0
1
1
2
5
12
J18.5%
NONPOINT
5
2
11
2
16
3
5
3
6
53
81 .5%}
"12 1% of 1930 surface waterbodies listed
Table 3.—California Regional Applied Research Effort Report (RARE)—annual summary (1989-1990).
Chronic Toxicity Observed*
REGIONAL
BOARD
1
3
4
6
7
8
RIVERS
Russian
Salinas
San Gabriel
Susan
New
Santa Ana
Total
FAT HEAD
MINNOWS (n/12)
3
2
8
4
0
4
21
(29.2%)
CERIODAPHNIA
(n/12)
1
7
9
0
9
3
29
(40.3%)
ALGAE
(n/12)
9
7
2
9
0
0
27
(37.5%)
TOTAL
(n/36)
13
16
19
13
4
7
—
%
36.1
44.4
52.7
36.1
25.0
19.4
35.6
NH3 IMPACT
SUSPECTED
?
Y
Y
?
?
Y
3/6
(50.0%)
•Total tests/yr = 216
(6 rivers x 3 locations/river x 3 species x 4 quarterly samples)
Fable 4.—1990 California water quality assessment (impaired surface waters by selected pollutant categories).
(1)
Toxic
Pollutants:
(2)
Conventional
Pollutants:
(3)
"Other"
Pollutants:
Pesticides
Priority Organics
Metals
Subtotal (1)
Nutrients
Pathogen Indicators
Subtotal (2)
Ammonia
Chlorine
Subtotal (3)
Total Impaired*
BAYS, ESTUARIES, WETLANDS,
HARBORS, LAKES, AND
RESERVOIRS
ACRES
669,585
527,418
624,972
1,821,975
412,430
631,116
1,043,546
625
N/A
625
2,866,146
% OF SELECTED
POLLUTANT TOTAL
63.56%
36.40%
<0.04
—
RIVERS/STREAMS
MILES
706
750
445
1,901
267
290
557
97
3
100
2,558
% OF SELECTED
POLLUTANT TOTAL
74.3%
21.8%
3.9%
—
'Includes overlapping subtotal categories for relative comparisons
160
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 159-167
compared to ammonia and chlorine? Assuming
these data are representative, the answer is HQ.
Both 307(a) toxics and conventional pollutants had
far greater impact than either chlorine or ammonia.
Effluent permit violations listed in quarterly non-
compliance reports were also searched for additional
insight. Only 85 of 1400 National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) permittees
had permit violations in fiscal year 1989. Of these,
four were for chlorine, three for ammonia, and four
for toxicity. Even if all toxicity violations resulted
from ammonia, only 13 percent of all exceedances
would be a result of these two causes (5 percent for
chlorine, 8 percent for ammonia). Ammonia toxicity
has been found in receiving waters, and, while not a
documented statewide problem, may be more
widespread than previously suspected. Chlorine
toxieity, however, has been addressed in California
and is not a statewide problem.
National Perspective
A recent nationwide summary of State water quality
assessments indicates that chlorine and ammonia
account for less than 2 percent of impairments
among 13,500 waterbodies assessed (Sabock, 1990),
STATES REPORTING
IMPAIRMENT
(BY CONSTITUENT)
(n/50)
(NH3) 13 (26%)
(CI2) 6 (12%)
NH3
(IMPAIRED SITES)
142 (-1%)
CI2
(IMPAIRED SITES)
26 (0.2%)
A separate nationwide assessment of publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) concluded that
68 percent of 6,202 NPDES dischargers screened ex-
ceed their chlorine permit limits. California and
three other western states in EPA Region IX sup-
posedly had the highest predicted exceedances (91
percent). This statistic contradicts the 1990 Califor-
nia Water Quality Assessment, which did not list a
single waterbody as chlorine impaired (Calif. State
Water Resour. Control Board, 1990a).
Effluent exceedances are not causing docu-
mented receiving water impairments. Over 80 per-
cent (by volume) of California's effluents are
discharged to the ocean. In the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River and San Francisco Bay-Delta, all but
one of 149 dischargers consistently met their
NPDES chlorine limits.
EPA's background and options paper (Sabock,
1990) deals with its regional office's attitudes
toward national ammonia standards. Only two of
the 10 regions (Region V and Region VII) gave
proposed national ammonia standards a high
priority. Dairies, feedlots, and other region-specific
sources of ammonia account for the widely divergent
problems and perceptions. Site-specific ammonia
problems should be resolved at the State and local
levels where there is waterbody-specific evidence to
justify such a shift in priorities.
Question 2
What approach should EPA take to
address the aquatic toxicity of
chlorine through water quality
standards?
• Option 1: Eliminate chlorine from the list of
acceptable biocides.
• Option 2; Control chlorine discharges to ac-
ceptable levels: zero total residual chlorine in
ambient waters.
Aquatic biologists would approve either option,
but public health officials might favor detectable
levels in effluent to control Giardia and other
pathogens,
California Approach
California's 1990 Ocean Plan requires all coastal
discharges to meet strict criteria for total residual
chlorine (Calif. State Water Resour. Control Board,
1990b). Implementation of these limits is based on
performance standards. A technical guideline report
was prepared to help enforce the Regional Board's
zero chlorine discharge policy (White, 1989). Ex-
ceedance of a performance threshold triggers one or
more enforcement actions, depending on the
seriousness of the incident as determined by con-
centration, frequency, and duration of the ex-
ceedance.
Figure 1 depicts acute and chronic toxicity
thresholds derived (with appropriate safety factors)
from chlorine time-concentration data (Matties,
1977). Where mixing conditions allow a zone of ini-
tial dilution, the acute threshold cannot be exceeded
within the zone nor the chronic threshold outside of
it. This technical guidance is based on the Seattle-
Renton system, which uses SOg (sulfur dioxide) as
the dechlorinating agent to achieve zero chlorine
control (Finger et al. 1985).
Recent improvements in dechlorination control
include a sulfur dioxide membrane probe system
and a submerged impeller injection system that
draws chlorine or sulfur dioxide vapor (without
water) to the point of application. The city of Sun-
nyvale has installed this system and is reported to
161
-------
D.B. COHEN
a.
^
z
g
<
rr
LU
O
o
LU
z
DC
O
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.002
0.001
.6
.2
*2
•2
CHRONIC
TOXICITY
THRESHOLD
~iTi Tin
1032
2 5 10 2 5 10" 2 5 10" 2 5
DURATION OF EXPOSURE (min)
105 2
than the EPA Gold Book criteria for
marine waters, which are less flexible
with regard to excursion policy, allowing
only one exceedance every three years
on average (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1986).
Question 3
What are the major
impediments to State
adoption ofEPA's
recommendation to use
Escherichia coli and
enterococci rather than
total and fecal coliforms as
the best indicators of threat
to public health?
Figure 1.—Toxlclty of chlorine to aquatic life (dose-time median mor-
tality), acute and chronic toxlclty thresholds (Mattlce and Zlttel, 1976).
have recovered its capital costs within six months.
Rather than mandate national chlorine standards,
EPA should support a performance-based zero
chlorine discharge approach.
Intermittent Chlorine Objective
The State Board adopted the following equation in
the 1990 Ocean Plan for intermittent chlorine dis-
charge:
Log Y = -0.43 (log X) + 1.8
Where
Y = Chlorine Objective (ng/L)
X = Time (minutes of uninterrupted discharge)
This equation applies to periodic total residual
chlorine discharges that do not exceed 120 minutes
with intervals of 8 to 12 hours between discharges.
The 1990 equation is more stringent than the
previous (1988) Ocean Plan because of new informa-
tion concerning chlorine toxicity to marine or-
ganisms. The Ocean Plan requirements for total
residual chlorine are equivalent to or more stringent
The State Department of Health Ser-
vices opposes changing the coliform
standard for lack of evidence that this
standard fails to protect public health.
In response to a State Water Resources Control
Board request to review their disinfection regula-
tions, the Department responded: "Concentrations
of E. coli and enterococci in waste constituents in
recreational waters can differ substantially in
proportion to concentrations of virus or other ill-
ness-causing organisms, from the proportions that
occurred in waters recently studied by EPA. Thus,
we recommend that criteria for fecal coliform be
used for recreational waters rather than recom-
mending criteria based on E. coli and enterococci"
[emphasis added] [Womeldorf, 1990],
EPA's recommendation to change bacteria in-
dicators was intended in part to reduce chlorine dis-
charges and toxicity in receiving waters. This
recommendation may be inappropriate for dis-
charges to marine waters. Paradoxically, enterococci
tend to persist in seawater longer than fecal
coliform (Havelaar and Nieuwstad, 1985). Meeting
enterococcus standards in seawater could require
higher chlorine doses, thus increasing the risk of
aquatic toxicity in the vicinity of the discharge.
EPA Criteria and California Ocean Plan Total Residual Chlorine Objectives
TOTAL RESIDUAL CHLORINE CRITERIA/
OBJECTIVES (|ig/L)
Continuous (Ocean Plan)
Intermittent (Ocean Plan)
(EPA Gold Book) Marine
INST.
MAX.
60
60
...
EXPOSURE INTERVAL
HOURS
1
...
11
13
2
...
8
...
24
8
...
...
96
...
...
7.5
MONTHS
6
2
...
...
162
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 159-167
Table 5.—Enterococci and total collform comparative monitoring (% station-months attaining enterococcl number
or collform standard).
DISCHARGE
City of LA
LA County
Orange County
San Diego
MONITORING STATIONS (% ACHIEVING LIMIT/100 mL)
WITHOUT RUNOFF
ENTEROCOCCI
<24
100
100
100
100
<12
100
100
100
100
<6
89
100
0
100
<3
22
100
0
100
TOTAL
COLIFORMS
<1000
85
100
100
100
WITH RUNOFF
ENTEROCOCCI
<24
100
100
25
25
<12
62
100
0
0
<6
25
50
0
0
<3
13
0
0
0
TOTAL
COLIFORMS
<1000
63
100
96
96
Scientific controversy still surrounds the issue
of enterococcus standards. The original
epidemiological study (Cabelli, 1983) of East Coast
unchlorinated waters is being used to evaluate all
chlorinated discharges. Recent research using
chlorinated POTW effluent and receiving waters
has not generated the clear-cut trend linking
enterococcus and reported illnesses that was
reported in the 1983 study (Bastian and Sosin,
1990).
The World Health Organization sponsored an
interlaboratory study of various pathogen indicator
organisms to develop a Mediterranean Action Plan
for Bathing Water Quality. One of the conclusions of
this study was the unacceptably high level of false
positives and negatives that occurred with the
enterococcus method (Asano, 1990).
In 1988, the State Water Resources Control
Board sponsored a southern California comparative
monitoring study to measure both enterococcus and
coliform densities at selected monitoring sites (Table
5). At stations unaffected by runoff, the enterococcus
goal of < 12/100 mL was achieved by all dischargers
100 percent of the time. Near-perfect compliance
with the total coliform standard was also achieved
at these stations. Attainment of these goals and
standards was more variable at stations impacted
by nonpoint source runoff, where consistent correla-
tion between enterococcus and coliform could not be
discerned. Nevertheless, continued monitoring for
both enterococcus and coliform was recommended,
particularly at stations that repeatedly exceed
coliform standards, to help sort out the sources of
these indicators.
The 1990 Ocean Plan required monitoring for
both coliform and enterococcus. Exceedance of
monitoring guidelines for enterococcus (<24/100 mL
30 days and <12/100 mL 6 months) can trigger a dis-
charger sanitary survey.
In summary, the major impediments to adopting
enterococci and E. coli as the sole indicators of
threat to public health in California are institution-
al opposition and scientific controversy. EPA should
help resolve this issue by sponsoring additional
epidemiological research at selected East and West
Coast sites that represent a range of disinfection
and environmental variables. EPA should not man-
date a nationwide enterococcus standard but should
obtain sufficient information to resolve the scientific
controversy.
Question 4
Should EPA review the national
water quality criteria for chlorine
and/or ammonia (freshwater)?
EPA criteria are expressed as four-day averages to
be exceeded no more than once every three years on
average. Ocean Plan objectives are calculated for a
range of exposure durations from instantaneous
maximum to a six-month median.
The Ocean Plan and EPA methods differ in
several ways. The former method makes direct use
of plant life chronic toxicity data. While the EPA
304(a) criteria are intended to protect 96 percent of
the species, the Ocean Plan method is intended to
protect all species. EPA criteria to protect aquatic
life from chronic toxicity are based on a ratio of con-
centrations that cause acute and chronic toxicity in
one or more species rather than the geometric mean
of natural background concentrations and a "conser-
vative estimate" of chronic toxicity. Uncertainty fac-
tors are not explicit in EPA criteria. Hence, the only
way to modify their stringency is to establish site-
specific objectives.
Chlorine
EPA chlorine criteria (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
1985a) make no provision for intermittent ex-
posures. California has developed and enforced
Ocean Plan intermittent chlorine discharge limits
since 1978.
163
-------
D.B. COHEN
Six years of new information are available to
add to the May 1984 chlorine toxicity database. Fac-
tors such as pH, temperature, acclimation, and
other chemical constituents are known to modify
total residual chlorine toxicity. Although the 1984
document found no pattern consistent or great
enough to justify criteria dependence on any such
factor, this conclusion should be reexamined after a
thorough review of new data.
The 1984 chlorine criteria document should be
reexamined to incorporate six years of new data and
to reconsider a more flexible excursion approach. A
sliding scale of short-term acute toxicity thresholds
could be based on time-concentration information
used to develop the Ocean Plan intermittent
criteria.
Ammonia
EPA could either require nationwide mandatory am-
monia standards or use the ammonia criteria as
technical guidance for site-specific applications. The
mandatory approach would, if adopted, have
profound economic repercussions. The 1984 criteria
document should, therefore, be reexamined for sig-
nificant uncertainties. These should be resolved
before a costly national initiative is undertaken.
The EPA ammonia criteria document (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1985b) is replete with uncer-
tainties and caveats. For example, on page 97:
Site-specific criteria development is strongly
suggested at temperatures above 20°C because of
limited data available to generate the criteria
recommendation, and at temperatures below 20°C
because of the limited data and because small
changes in the criteria may have a significant im-
pact on the level of treatment required in meeting
the recommended criteria [emphasis added].
The EPA ammonia criteria are apparently valid
nationally only when the water temperature is ex-
actly 20°C. Another crucial uncertainty mentioned
in the criteria document is a lack of any information
regarding temperature effects on chronic ammonia
toxicity.
Research in this field has pointed out still other
important data gaps (Thurston, 1988) such as ex-
posure of biota to:
• Extreme pH and temperature,
• Natural buffering systems,
• Prior acclimation at sub-acute ammonia
concentrations, and
• Short-term and cyclic "spike" concentrations.
Researchers have also conducted site-specific
studies of ammonia toxicity and found that trout ex-
posed to ammonia concentrations exceeding the
EPA criterion experienced enhancement rather than
impairment (Willingham and Thurston, 1985). Life
cycle laboratory studies were conducted at
Bozeman, Montana, to determine chronic effects of
ammonia on rainbow trout (Thurston et al. 1984). At
mean ammonia concentrations up to seven times
the EPA criteria, no adverse chronic effects were ob-
served.
Russo et al. (1988) pointed out some problems
with the ammonia/pH/temperature toxicity matrices
in the criteria document. Figure 2 shows time to
death of coho salmon alevins exposed to constant
ammonia concentrations and temperatures and
variable pH and water chemistries. In these experi-
ments, the optimum pH survival range is 8.7 ± 0.7;
toxicity increased markedly both above and below
that range. Addition of 5 percent sodium chloride
significantly suppressed ammonia toxicity, while in-
creasing sodium bicarbonate buffering increased
toxicity.
S
Q
HI
300
200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
~5%NaCI
-10mg/LNaHCO3
-95 mg/L NaHCO3
i i ii i
i i i
6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.510.0
PH
Figure 2.—pH and water chemistry variables on acute
toxicity of un-lonized ammonia to coho salmon alevins
(Russo et al. 1988).
Figure 3 (Thurston, 1988) shows significantly
improved survival (96-hour LCso values) for rain-
bow trout acclimated to ammonia concentrations up
to 0.09 mg/L when exposures increased from 29 to
105 days. Prolonged acclimation increased fish
164
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 159-167
3f
Z
k
**
_J
I
§
o
1
o>
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
1 J- - " "1
1 .— •"" tl L
' - 4" " " " " H J
*" "* 1 L- ** **
• -•
i- r" i *
L"'-"\\
\- --"%"$
"a
-
j i i i i i i
Y GROUP II
1,. 105 DAYS
(0)
_ GROUP II
- 71 -78 DAYS
(D)
1
GROUP II
^ - 29 DAYS
(A)
GROUP 1
_ - 123-154
DAYS
(0)
| |
0.0 0.01
0.03
0.05 0.07
0.09
ACCLIMATION CONCENTRATION
mg/LITERNHg
Figure 3.—Acute toxicity of ammonia versus ammonia
acclimation concentration (Thurston, 1988).
tolerance to peak concentrations. Even slight reduc-
tions in dissolved oxygen concentrations increased
the toxicity of ammonia to rainbow trout (Thurston
et al. 1981).
The empirical equations, simplifying assump-
tions, and curve-fitting procedures for temperature
and pH corrections of ammonia criteria were recent-
ly scrutinized (Lewis, 1988). Figure 4 shows upper
and lower confidence limits for the criteria relation-
ships between pH, temperature, and NHs (am-
monia) criteria (LQso)- The zone of uncertainty
ranges from 63 to 159 percent of the nominal
criteria value. In other words, ammonia concentra-
tions that deviate by 50 percent or more from the
criterion table values could not be considered dis-
tinct. The degree of uncertainty in the relationship
between LCso and temperature is even larger than
for pH. Lewis concludes that "...until the [NHs] data
base improves, the national criteria should be
viewed as a set of rational guidelines from which the
ideal criteria may ultimately be found to deviate
considerably."
The questions raised by these studies suggest
that much more research is needed before this
criteria document should be relied upon to commit
resources that may not be necessary. EPA should
fund the necessary research to improve the national
database and then use this new information to
rewrite the criteria document.
Site-specific deammonification decisions should
be based on the following approach:
(1) Effluent and ambient toxicity testing.
(2) At sites where ammonia is implicated as
a major cause, conduct toxicity identifica-
tion and reduction evaluations.
(3) Dischargers should be required to
eliminate toxicity where such linkages are
established.
Question 5
Would a public well informed of the
risks to aquatic life from ammonia
or chlorine discharges support costs
for their control?
It is axiomatic that taxes in general are not politi-
cally popular. Nevertheless, during the past year
California's electorate and legislature have ap-
proved several focused programs for increased
spending where the benefits (improved transporta-
tion, groundwater cleanup) were directly linked to
the additional costs.
The cost of municipal wastewater disinfection is
less than 5 percent of the total wastewater treat-
ment costs. Dechlorination would add approximate-
O
O)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
7.0
7.5
PH
8.0
TEMPERATURE - °C
Figure 4.—Confidence limits for ammonia criteria—pH
and temperature versus ammonia concentration (Lewis,
1988).
165
-------
D.B. COHEN
ly 20 to 30 percent to the existing chlorination costs.
Under these circumstances, a well-informed public
(such as in the San Francisco Bay area) would and
does support a zero chlorine discharge policy and its
attendant costs.
Ammonia removal (particularly two-stage
nitrification and denitriflcation) is a much more ex-
pensive proposition (approximately $1 million per
one million gallons per day) on average. Public sup-
port for such projects would probably require a
preponderance of physical, chemical, and bioassay
evidence of site-specific impairment. Public support
in California for mandatory ammonia standards
based solely on EPA criteria would, because of the
previously discussed uncertainties, be low to nil.
Local public support would probably increase if
the costs for ammonia removal could be offset in
part by resource recovery. One example is the
Tahoe-Truckee POTW advanced ammonia removal
process (Dodds, 1990). In this process, which has
been in operation since 1978, effluent is passed
through Clinoptilite (an ion exchange media). Am-
monia is extracted by sulfuric acid and converted to
ammonium sulfate, which is then sold as a liquid
fertilizer.
Question 6
How significant to aquatic and
human life are the organochlorine
byproducts of wastewater
disinfection?
The majority of municipal wastewater chlorination
by-products are chloramines and trihalomethanes.
One notable exception involved the bleached kraft
process used by the pulp and paper industry where
recycled oil defoaming agents were used that con-
tained high concentrations of aromatic precursors of
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) and tetrachloro-
dibenzofuran (TCDF). When this mixture was
chlorinated under conditions of high alkalinity and
relatively high temperature (55-70°C), a process
akin to chemical synthesis occurred. When the pulp
mills subsequently obtained defoamers produced
from noncontaminated oil, the concentrations of
TCDDs and TCDFs (especially TCDFs) were sub-
stantially reduced in mill effluents (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1990).
The most prevalent organochlorine compounds
formed during chlorine disinfection were chloro-
form, dichlorobromomethane, and methyl chloride
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1980). The average in-
crease in these three organochlorine compounds was
approximately 10 ppb from pre- to post-chlorination.
Less than 1 percent of all halogen ated com-
pounds found in fish exposed to halogenated sewage
effluent originates from the disinfection process it-
self (Becking and MacGregor, 1977). Halogen reac-
tions of this type involve oxidation of dissolved
organics rather than halogen substitution reactions.
Problems associated with human consumption
of fish and shellfish exposed to chlorinated
municipal wastewater effluent by-products appear
to be of a lower order of magnitude than direct toxic
impacts of total residual chlorine to aquatic life. The
proposal to phase out halogen-producing or consum-
ing industries in North America may be a
worthwhile long-term goal, but zero chlorine dis-
charge through tightly controlled dechlorination is a
more immediately implementable and cost-effective
alternative.
References
Asano, T. 1990. Personal communication. Calif. State Water
Resour. Control Board, Sacramento.
Bastian, B. and A. Sosin. 1990. Municipal wastewater disinfec-
tion state-of-the-art document. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agen-
cy, Off. Water, Washington, DC.
Becking, G. C. and D. J. MacGregor. 1977. Alternatives
workshop summary. Pages 871-75 in R.L. Jolley, ed.
Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact, and Health
Effects, Vol. 2. Ann Arbor Science, Ann Arbon, MI.
Cabelli, V. J. 1983. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recrea-
tional Waters. EPA-600/1-80-031. U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Off. Res. Dev., Research Triangle Park, NC.
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1990a. Water
Quality Assessment. Div. Water Qual., Sacramento.
. 1990b. Functional Equivalent Document Amendment
of the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of
California. Div. Water Qual., Sacramento.
Cech, J. J., Jr. 1986. Histological and physiological investiga-
tions of gill function in striped bass exposed to sublethal
pollutant concentrations. Pages 1-42 in Cooperative
Striped Bass Study, Technical Supplement I. State Water
Resour. Control Board, Sacramento.
Dodds, T. 1990. Personal communication. Tahoe-Truckee
Sanitation Agency, Lake Tahoe, CA.
Finger, R. E., D. Harrington, and L. A. Paxton. 1985. Develop-
ment of an on-line zero chlorine residual measurement
and control system. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed.
57(ll):1068-73.
Havelaar, A. H. and T. J. Nieuwstad. 1985. Bacteriophages
and fecal bacteria as indicators of chlorination efficiency
of biologically treated wastewater. J. Water Pollut. Con-
trol Fed. 57(ll):1084-88.
Lewis, W. J. Jr. 1988. Uncertainty in pH and temperature cor-
rections for ammonia toxicity. J. Water Pollut. Control
Fed.60(ll):1922-29.
Mattice, J. 1977. Assessing toxic effects of chlorinated ef-
fluents on aquatic organisms: a predictive tool.
Pages 379-98 in R.L. Jolley, ed. Water Chlorination, En-
166
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 159-167
vironmental Impact, and Health Effects, Vol. 2. Ann
Arbor Science, Ann Arbor, MI.
Buflso, B. C., D. T. Randall, and R. V. Thurston. 1988. Am-
monia toxicity and metabolism in fishes. Pages 159-73 in
R.C. Byans, ed. Protection of River Basins, Lakes, and Es-
tuaries. Am. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD.
Sabock, D. 1990. Numeric chlorine and ammonia standards:
background and options paper. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agen-
cy, Off. Water, Washington, DC.
Thurston, B. V. 1988. Ammonia toxicity to fishes. Pages 183-90
in Fish Physiology, Fish Toxicology, and Fisheries
Management. EPA-600/9-90-011. Proc. Int. Syznp. En-
viron. Res. Lab., Athens, GA.
Thurston, R.V. et al. 1981. Increased toxicity of ammonia to
rainbow trout resulting from reduced concentrations of
dissolved oxygen. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:983-88.
. 1984. Chronic toxicity of ammonia to rainbow trout.
Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 113:66-73.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works. EPA-
440/180-301. Off. Water Waste Manage., Washington, DC.
. 1985a. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorine-
1984. EPA-440/6-84-030. Off. Water, Washington, DC.
—. 1986b. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia-
1984. EPA-440/5-86-001. Office Water, Washington, DC.
. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA-440/5-86-001.
Off. Water, Washington, DC.
1990. Summary of Technologies for the Control and
Reduction of Chlorinated Organics from the Bleached
Chemical Pulping Subcategories of the Pulp and Paper
Industry. Off. Water Reg. Stand., Off. Water Enforce. Per-
mits, Washington, DC.
White, G. C. 1989. Zero chlorine residual control. Rep. Calif.
State Water Resour. Control Board, Sacramento.
Willingham, W. T. and R. V. Thurston. 1985. Evaluation of the
U.S. EPA Site-specific Criteria Procedure for Ammonia in
the East Gallatin River, Montana. Draft rep. submit. U.S.
Environ. Prot Agency Res. Lab., Duluth, MN.
Womeldorf, D. 1990. Memorandum from Calif. Dep. Health
Serf, to James W. Baetge, Calif. State Water Resour. Con-
trol Board, Sacramento.
Wu, T. 1990. Personal communication. Calif. Regional Water
Qual. Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, Oak-
land.
167
-------
-jjjff:^
^,"" 14' V • A •*"*!"£ ^" %V'> • »t\S; \"^', " * „„,->" J . i ^ J fft/ " -"l'tVL" V 'V M« - •' ^Sji > J**1; '""'is-sv*^^ ' J
v ^'^V 'i^Vl:'V'*/^^''.^:;/;>|
\,'-v-v/"-, •/-;:---lv-''-?''v;';?^ , "'t ^- v'';ft'?V<;::f:^ 'SV'V^^H
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE21st CENTURY: 169-175
The Development of Biocriteria in
Marine and Estuarine Waters in Delaware
John R. Maxted
Environmental Scientist
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control
Dover, Delaware
Introduction
Every two years the States must report on the
status of their waters in attaining the fish-
able/swimmable goals of the Clean Water Act. The
reporting requirements are met by determining, for
each waterbody, whether State water quality stand-
ards are currently being attained. As in most States,
Delaware does this by comparing water quality
monitoring data with numeric water quality criteria
(Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, 1990a).
Recently, this task has become more complex with
the added emphasis on toxic pollutants in sections
304(1) and 303(c)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act. The
ultimate purpose of these assessments is to answer
the simple question: "Is the water healthy enough
for human consumption and aquatic life protection?"
Assessments that use chemical criteria are
based on the presumption that if these criteria are
not exceeded, then the uses are attained. As toxics
are increasingly controlled through additional
chemical criteria and whole effluent toxicity testing,
regulatory agencies and the public wonder if these
controls have resulted in a healthy indigenous
biological community of plants and animals.
Water chemistry data and criteria are powerful
tools in regulating water quality. They are used to
measure the pollutant removal effectiveness of
treatment technologies and quality assessments of
surface and ground waters. These techniques have
been and will continue to be fundamental to pollu-
tion control for point sources through discharge per-
mits.
However, our ability to determine the overall
health of natural systems is limited. As the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and selected
States have made clear through guidance (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1990) and regulations (Ohio En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1988), the best approach to
assessment is an integrated one in which the
strengths of each assessment tool are emphasized.
Biological tools are most effective in assessing
biological integrity. Where water quality problems
are detected, chemical criteria are best at control-
ling pollution sources. Biology should not be used as
the sole basis for controls, nor should water
chemistry be considered the sole basis for assess-
ment.
Numeric criteria provide a quantitative
measure of performance. In a society that is driven
by numbers in everything from speed limits to
school grades, they seem necessary. However, the
quantitative approach raises a particular dilemma
for both freshwater and marine biologists—how to
characterize the quality of the aquatic community
numerically while recognizing the inherent com-
plexity of natural systems. The issue is the degree to
which biotic integrity can be quantified while still
retaining scientific validity.
Jim Karr, who developed the Index of Biotic In-
tegrity (EBI) (Karr et al. 1986), and others have
demonstrated that numerical interpretation of
natural systems can be done without sacrificing
scientific validity. The EBI concept does not con-
stitute a new approach to biological assessment.
Rather, it has provided a new way of reporting the
results that make it easier for biologists to com-
municate scientific information to regulatory agen-
cies, the regulated community, and the public. The
EBI provides a vehicle for bringing biology out of the
file drawer and into the hands of decisionmakers.
169
-------
J.R. MAXTED
Many numerically based assessment tools have
been developed for marine and estuarine environ-
ments. It is up to the States to apply these tools to
the management of marine and estuarine waters so
that they can better answer the question: Is the
water healthy?
Biocriteria Program —
Delaware
Delaware is testing a numerically based biological
assessment tool. This program is designed to ad-
dress all types of surface waters in the State, includ-
ing rivers, ditches, ponds, estuaries, and wetlands,
both tidal and nontidal. Initially, it has been focused
on the use of benthic invertebrates as indicators of
biotic integrity.
To manage this complex task, Delaware's sur-
face waters have been divided into four major
categories that are relatively homogeneous with
regard to biological conditions. This division is
based on three factors: physiographic charac-
teristics or ecoregions (Omernik, 1987), tidal in-
fluence, and sampling equipment.
These regions and the assessment strategies to
be applied to them are described as follows:
• Freshwater/nontidal—piedmont ecoregion:
Kick net in riffles using EPA Rapid
Bioassessment Protocol III (Plafkin et al.
1989); salinity 0 ppt.
* Freshwater/nontidal—coastal plain
ecoregion: D-frame net swept along banks
(under development); salinity 0 ppt,
* Freshwater/tidal (under development).
Salinity less than 5 ppt.
• Marine/estuarine: Depth stratified sample
using box or tube cores; salinity greater than
5 ppt.
Marine and Estuarine
Biocriteria Program
The program to develop biocriteria for estuarine and
marine waters is initially based in the Inland Bays
region of southern Delaware: the Indian River,
Rehoboth, and Little Assawoman bays. This focus is
in large part the result of intense development pres-
sure in these areas as evidenced by their designa-
tion as a National Estuary Program; a 40 percent
increase in population over the last 10 years; the
development in 1990 of a water use plan to help
manage the multiple uses of water within the
watershed and the designation of the region as an
outstanding water resource in State water quality
standards. These designations have focused State
efforts in the Inland Bays region, including nonpoint
source activities under section 319 and regulated ac-
tivities, including those permits for point source dis-
charges, marina projects, and activities affecting
subaqueous lands and wetlands.
The recently adopted State marina regulation
(Del. Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, 1990b)
has spurred the development of biological indicators
in marine and estuarine systems. The regulation re-
quires marina developments to address several
living resource components: wetlands, subaqueous
lands, shellfish beds, submerged aquatic vegetation,
and benthic resources. The latter component re-
quires assessment of benthic invertebrate com-
munities using a method developed by Luckenbach,
Diaz, and Schaffner (Luckenbach et al. 1988) (Fig.
1).
MARINA REGULATIONS
Benthic Resources
"Benthic resources are protected as a matter of
policy because of their importance in the food
chain and their value as commercial and
recreational food sources.
The status of the benthic community must be
assessed by the applicant using frequency,
diversity and abundance measures approved by
the Department. As a part of this determination,
the rapid bioassessment techniques of
Luckenbach, Diaz and Schaffner (1989) will be
used by the Department to characterize benthic
communities. Taxonomic and biomass data
specific to this methodology shall be collected.
Only areas scoring 0-3, on a relative scale of
0-8, will be considered for marina siting. The
Department may modify this methodology as
experience is gained in applying these
techniques in Delaware waters."
Figure 1.—Delaware Department of Natural Resources
and Environmental Control marina regulations.
Delaware is in the process of testing and
modifying this methodology in State estuaries.
These data will be evaluated with regard to estab-
lishing numeric biocriteria in State water quality
standards.
Methods
The rapid assessment technique developed by Luck-
enbach, Diaz, and Schaflher is based on the premise
170
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 169-175
that a healthy benthic community is characterized
by large, deep-dwelling organisms, primarily ani-
mals from the Annelida (worms) and Mollusca
(clams) orders. A benthic community that is
dominated by small animals from families that are
characteristic of unstable environments is an in-
dicator of impact or stress.
The method has been tested in the lower
Chesapeake Bay and been shown to be an indicator
of biotic integrity (Luckenbach et al. 1988). Sam-
pling requires recovery of a sediment sample intact
to allow sectioning with depth. The fraction in the
top 5 centimeters is processed separately from the
sample from 5 to 15 cm. The sample collection is
rapid, requiring no more than 30 minutes at each
station. The cost of lab processing is approximately
$100 to $200 for each sample (both top and bottom).
Numerical scores are calculated from these data
and the benthic community is defined according to
Figure 2.
Phase I Scores
Score
Total Score
0-1
2-3
4-5
6-8
Benthic Community Character
"Poor" health, highly disturbed,
early successional, poor water
quality or other severe disturbance
"Poor" to "Fair" health, moderately
disturbed, perhaps recovering
community, suggestion of poor
water quality
"Moderate" to "Good" health, mid-
successional stage
"Good" health, undisturbed, late
successional community
Figure 2.—Benthic community scoring system.
The method uses a multi-variate approach
based upon three pieces of information to derive a
numerical score:
• Size determination—number of animals
greater than 2 cm in length;
• Taxonomic composition—number of families
characteristic of stable conditions; and
• Biomass—percent of the total biomass
contained below the surface of the sediment
(below 5 cm).
The physical habitat quality of the sediments is
also evaluated. Measurements of percent sand and
percent volatile residue are made along with
qualitative information on the color and texture of
the sediments and the presence of submerged
aquatic vegetation. Generally, the procedure is
most applicable to unvegetated bottoms. Sites with
submerged aquatic vegetation may require a dif-
ferent scoring approach. Detailed water chemistry
data are not collected. Scoring is performed accord-
ing to the procedures presented in Figure 3.
Fauna present below five cm9
Fauna below five cm greater
two cm in maximum
dimension?
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
0
1
0
Phase II Scores
Species present below five cm
Only surface dwellers present
(Spionidae, Capitelidae
Oligochaeta)
Small burrowers and commensals,
(Mactridae, Nereldae, Glyceridae
Nephytiidae, Polynoidae,
Syllidae, Cirratulidae,
Phyllodocidae, Hesionidae,
Pilargidae), but not those listed
below.
Long-lived, large fauna
(Tellinidae, Veneridae,
Solenidae, Chaetopteridae,
Onuphidae, Maldanidae,
Terebellidae, Ophioroida)
Score
0
Phase III Scores
% Biomass below five cm
0 - 1
1 - 10
10 - 30
30 - 60
60 -100
Score
0
1
2
3
4
Figure 3.—Benthic community scoring metrics.
Data Collection — Rehoboth
Bay
Three types of data were considered most important
for the development of biocriteria focused on ben-
thos: benthic community, sediment type, and
salinity. A review of historical data indicated that
benthic resource and sediment type data have not
been collected in the Delaware's inland bays since
1970 (Maurmeyer and Carey, 1986). Because of
development that has occurred in the bays over the
last 20 years, additional data collection was deemed
necessary. The review of historical salinity data in-
dicates that all of Rehoboth Bay is polyhaline
(greater than 25 ppt). Therefore, the benthic data
collected in Rehoboth Bay will not be affected by
changes in salinity. Benthic resource data were col-
lected at four stations in Rehoboth Bay in July 1990
(Fig. 4).
This initial sampling had two objectives. First,
the sampling tested the sensitivity of the method.
Two stations were chosen in areas of intense human
activity and two in areas protected from human ac-
tivity. The second objective was to define the spatial
heterogeneity of the data and the variability of the
171
-------
J.R. MAXTED
WOHCIITIIt COUMTT - MAHTLAHO
Flgur* 4.— Delaware Inland Bays and Rehoboth Bay sampling locations: (l)State Park; (2) Marine; (3) L&R Canal; (4)
Sally's Cove.
172
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 169-175
unit sampling effort (250 sq. cm of bottom). To ad-
dress this objective, three replicates were collected
at each station.
Results and Discussion
The results of the scoring are presented in Table 1.
The biomass and size data are presented in Table 2,
while the taxonomic composition data are presented
in Table 3. Several conclusions can be drawn from
the data.
• Differences between impacted and unim-
pacted stations were not clearly distin-
guished. These differences would be more
clearly defined by adjusting the calculation
procedures. The method may need to be
regionally customized.
• Numerical scores ranged from 5 to 8, or all
in the "good" to "excellent" range. Station 4,
Sally's Cove, was significantly better in
quality with regard to the criteria calcula-
tions, number of sensitive families, and per-
cent of biomass in the bottom fraction than
the other sites.
• There is insufficient data on sediment type.
Additional data on sediment type
throughout the bay are needed to interpret
the biological data.
• For percent biomass calculations (Table 2),
there was good correlation between annelids
and whole samples, except large clams were
present (Station 3). Future sampling will be
focused in nonshellfish areas, and biomass
calculations will be made using Annelids
only.
• There was a fair degree of spatial
heterogeneity in the biomass and size dis-
tribution data. Surveys using a 3-replicate
design at 250 sq. cm per replicate will con-
tinue to be conducted.
• The method allows comparison with histori-
cal data using straight grab sampling by
combining the top and bottom fractions.
Therefore, the data are easily comparable
with other studies using a straight grab
sampling method. A sample comparison
using the Rehoboth Bay data is presented in
Table 4.
Table 1.—Rehoboth Bay scores (Stations 1-4)
(as revised 9/28/90).
STATIONS
State Park (sand)
1
1-A
1-B
Composite3
Marina (mud)
2
2-A
2-B
Composite
I
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PHASES
II1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
III2
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
3
SCORE
7
7
6
x = 6.6
7
8
6
7
x = 7.0
7
/.&R Cana/ (mud)
3 213
3-A 213
3-B 203
Composite 2 1 3
Sally's Cove (sand)
4 224
4-A 224
4-B 224
Composite 224
5
x = 5.6
6
8
8
8
x = 8.0
8
Note: Based on Luckenbach/Diaz Shaffner Rapid Assessment Procedure
(Luckenbach et al. 1988)
1 Families represented by the data that resulted in a one point score in-
cluded four Annelids (Cirratulaidae, Nereidae, Phyltodocidae, and Sylli-
dae) and one Mollusc (Mactridae). Families represented by the data that
resulted in a 2 point score included three Annelids (Chaetoptaridae, Mal-
donidae, and Onuphidae) and two molluscs (Tellenidae and Veneridae).
2Phase III biomass calculations were based upon Annelids only due to
dominance of one Mollusc in Station 3-B sample.
Calculation of a single composite value for each station, based upon
composite of the data for each station.
Reference Conditions
It is easy to score biotic integrity numerically as
shown above. It is more difficult to set the threshold
or criteria for water quality standards. Criteria are
needed to determine whether actions should be
taken to restore degraded conditions or maintain ex-
isting quality.
The process of setting criteria in freshwater
streams has used two basic approaches: regional
reference streams that are determined to be "least
impacted" and upstream-downstream comparisons.
Clearly, an upstream-downstream approach is not
applicable to marine and estuarine systems. There-
fore, establishing a set of regional references is
necessary.
This approach may be problematic in that it
may simply define the "best of what is left" rather
than what is attainable. In other words, the "best of
173
-------
J.R. MAXTED
Table 2.—Rehoboth Bay biomass data (as revised 9/28/90).
Macroinfauna biomass as gross wet weight, and size
distribution, Rehoboth Bay, July 1990
NO. 2 cm % BIOMASS-BOTTOM
State Park
Marina
L& R
Canal
Sally's
Cove
STATION
1
1
1
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-A
1-B
1-B
1-B
2
2
2
2-A
2-A
2-A
2-B
2-B
2-B
2-B
3
3
3
3
3-A
3-A
3-A
3-A
3-B
3-B
3-B
3-B
4
4
4
4-A
4-A
4-A
4-B
4-B
4-B
4-B
4-B
DATE
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
90/07/12
TAXON
Annelida
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Echmodermata
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Miscellaneous
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Annelida
Arthropoda
Mollusca
Chironomidae
Miscellaneous
BOTTOM
0.712
0.000
0.070
1.645
0.000
0.349
0.057
0.501
0.000
0.000
0.748
0.000
0.000
0.439
0.000
0.000
0.508
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.169
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.246
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.194
0.003
0.000
0.000
1.322
0.001
0.225
0.658
0.001
0.112
0.818
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.000
TOP
0.330
0.097
0.007
0.317
0.001
0.024
0001
0.425
0.022
0.004
0.450
0.002
0.017
0.539
0.001
0.005
0.188
0.012
0.013
0.001
0.114
0.065
0.002
0.001
0.246
0.039
0.078
0.000
0.188
0.066
2.022
0.007
0.231
0.050
0000
0.149
0.022
0.002
0.147
0.035
0.021
0.000
0.004
BOTTOM TOP ANNELIDS WHOLE COMPOSITE*
9
5
8
22
15
5
11
31
7
1
3
11
6
11
9
26
0 68 64
1 83 86
CO
DO
2 54 53
3
4 62 61
5 45 45
SQ
'Jty
1 73 70
10
0 60 48
1 50 41 „
Osj
2 51 8
3
llyanassa obsoleta (1 spec.)
1 85 85
0 81 82
84
0 85 80
1
Source. DNREC, Div of Water Resources, Dover, 1990
•Annelids, only.
what is left" may be impacted when compared to
conditions within a larger region. This is especially
true when assessing small systems with a limited
pool of reference conditions from which to choose.
For example, it is difficult to say if Station 4 (Sally's
Cove) in Rehoboth Bay is impacted because of
large-scale development in the region.
This type of sampling bias could drastically af-
fect the derivation of biocriteria in estuaries and
alter the technical and political decisions made to
manage these resources. Unfortunately, the be-
havior of ambient biological systems is difficult to
predict. Otherwise, we could crank coefficients into
a model to tell us the biological community that is
attainable under various scenarios. Clearly, an em-
pirical or observed approach is therefore necessary.
Blindly implementing controls and observing
what is attainable is costly, time-consuming, and
wasteful. To date, the use of "least impacted"
natural systems to derive biocriteria has worked in
those States (Ohio and Maine) that have developed
biocriteria. When dealing with complex natural
systems, we may have no choice but to strive to at-
tain "the best of what is left." The only question
that remains is the spatial scale that is used. The
pool of estuaries within Delaware is clearly not
large enough, while using all the estuaries in the
United States does not recognize major differences
in estuaries on the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf
coasts.
The selection of references for estuaries will re-
quire a regionally coordinated approach, not only in
174
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21 st CENTURY: 169-175
Table 3.—Rehoboth Bay taxonomic data summary
(indicators of good/excellent quality).
RESULTS-ALL STATIONS
(BELOW 5 CM)
FOUND IN
REHOBOTH BAY
Annelida
Polychaeta
1. Chaetopteridae
2. Cirratuladae
3. Glyceridae
4. Hesionidae
5. Maldonidae
6. Nephytidae
7. Nereidae
8 Onuphidae
9. Phyllodocidae
10. Pilargidae
11. Polynoidae
12. Syllidae
13. Terebellidae
Mollusca
Pelecypoda
* 14. Mactridae
" 15. Tellinidae
* 16. Solenidae
" 17. Veneridae
Echinodermata
Ophiuroida
" 18 All Families
(Segmented worms)
X
X
X
X
X
(Bivalves)
X
X
(Brittle stars)
Total 9
RESULTS BY STATION (TOTAL NUMBER, NUMBER OF FAMILIES)
Station 1 — 7, 2
Station 2 — 8, 3
Station 3 — 2, 2
Station 4 — 23, 4
Source: DNREC, Div of Water Resources, Dover, 1990
*1 pt score
"2 pt score
the selection of "least impacted" sites but also in
the development and use of standard data collec-
tion methods. Unfortunately, coordinating the
many diverse groups involved (States, estuary
programs, local governments, researchers, and
academics) will not be easy.
EPA can play a vital role in facilitating this
coordination. Ongoing EPA programs that could con-
tribute include the Biocriteria Development Pro-
gram, the Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP) (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1990b) and local programs such as the Na-
tional Estuary Program and the Chesapeake Bay
Program. The provinces used in EMAP, as shown in
Figure 5, may provide a framework for managing
the development of biocriteria for estuaries on a
regional scale.
The first step in this process is to draw together
representatives from government, research, and
academia to help standardize the collection methods
and select sites for data collection, including the
selection of references. In this way, data can be col-
lected over the next several years to support the
derivation of biocriteria in the future. The develop-
ment of biocriteria requires a long term commit-
ment. Through a coordinated effort, we can produce
quantitative biocriteria for estuaries to help answer
the question, is the estuary healthy?
References
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmen-
tal Control. 1990a. Delaware Water Quality Inventory,
Vol. I, II, and III. Dover.
-. 1990b. Marina Regulations. Dover.
Karr, J.R. et al. 1986. Assessing Biological Integrity of Run-
ning Waters — A Method and Its Rationale. Spec. Pub. 5.
111. Nat. History Surv., Champaign.
Luckenbach, M.W, R.J. Diaz, and L.C. Schaflher. 1988. Ben-
thic Assessment Procedures. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci.,
Gloucester Point.
Maurmeyer, E.M. and W.L. Carey. 1986. A Preliminary Re-
search Master Plan for the Delaware Inland Bays. Del.
Dep. Nat. Resour. Environ. Control, Dover.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Biological
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. Vol. I. Colum-
bus.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Aquatic Ecoregions of the Conterminous
United States. Ann. Ass. Am. Geogr. 77:118-25.
Plalkin, J.L. et al. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
Use in Streams and Rivers. EPA 444/4-89-001. U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990a. Biological
Criteria—National Program Guidance for Surface
Waters. EPA 440/5-90-004. Off. Water Reg. Stand.,
Washington, DC.
. 1990b. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program—Near Coastal Program Plan for 1990. Off.
Res./Dev., Narragansett, RI.
175
-------
J.R. MAXTED
Columbian
•,
Callfornlan '$$
Acadian
Virginian
•» ' ^ Atnfi^nn _» **
Insular ';';-Lr *X*
Wast Indian
Figure 5.—EMAP Physiographic provinces.
176
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 177-182
Water Quality Standards Based on
Species' Habitat Requirements
A Case Study from the Chesapeake Bay Using
Submerged Aguatic Vegetation
Robert Orth
Kenneth Moore
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
College of William and Mary
Gloucester Point
Richard Batiuk
Patsy Heasly
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office
Annapolis, Maryland
William Dennison
J. Court Stevenson
Lori Staver
Horn Point Environmental Laboratory
University of Maryland, Cambridge
Virginia Carter
Nancy Rybicki
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia
Stan Kollar
Harford Community College
Bel Air, Maryland
R. Edward Hickman
U.S. Geological Survey
Trenton, New Jersey
Steven Bieber
Maryland Department of the Environment
Annapolis
Introduction
A diverse array of biologically productive habitats
are found in all coastal areas of the United States,
ranging from upland, deciduous forests and non-
tidal, freshwater wetlands to both vegetated and
nonvegetated rivers, lagoons, and estuaries. Each
habitat supports large numbers of permanent and
transient plant and animal species.
The growth, distribution, abundance, and sur-
vival of any one species is regulated by a set of re-
quirements unique to it that include dissolved
oxygen, light, and nutrients. Each species survives
within a range of values for any particular
parameter below which it experiences stress and
may eventually die. However, species survival
depends on the integration of responses to all
parameters that are important for its growth.
Tolerances to one parameter (such as dissolved
oxygen) may either be increased or decreased by in-
teraction with one or more additional parameters
(temperature, salinity).
A complete understanding of the species' habitat
requirements is critical to understanding its
response to environmental perturbations, in par-
ticular those that may affect water quality for es-
tuarine and coastal environments. Although there
are Federal and State water quality standards for
rivers and estuaries, in many cases they have been
generated for "fishable, swimmable, and drinkable"
177
-------
R.ORTHetal.
purposes. In general, they do not consider the uni-
que characteristics and requirements of the multi-
tude of species that make up a natural ecosystem.
Many of our estuaries are experiencing serious
water quality problems primarily because of the
pressures from the ever-increasing numbers of
people moving near these areas. Most noticeable of
all changes are declines in many harvestable living
resources, such as fish and shellfish. Of equal con-
cern are losses of other critical elements of the food
chain that often go undetected because of inade-
quate funds for monitoring.
The observed declines have stimulated a major
question about water quality: are declines occurring
as a result of inadequate enforcement of existing
standards, or are existing standards inadequate to
protect the living resources? If the latter is the
answer, what procedures and parameters should we
adopt to adequately protect living resources?
The Chesapeake Bay
Agreement
Chesapeake Bay, the Nation's largest estuary, has
received considerable attention over the last two
decades from scientists, managers, politicians, and
the public. Declines in water quality related to in-
creasing nutrient enrichment, high levels of con-
taminants, anoxic or hypoxic conditions, and
changes in abundances of living resources are some
of major issues facing the bay. Increasingly, scien-
tists and managers are recognizing that, to reach
the goal of a clean, healthy waterbody, we must
reexamine water quality standards—specifically
those new standards relating to the habitat require-
ments of the species living in the Chesapeake Bay.
In 1987, a historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement
was signed that set as a major priority the "need to
determine the essential elements of habitat quality
and environmental quality necessary to support
living resources and to see that these conditions are
attained and maintained." The Chesapeake Bay
Program's Implementation Committee called for
guidelines to determine habitat requirements for
the bay's living resources. A document, "Habitat Re-
quirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources,"
first drafted and adopted in 1987 (Chesapeake Bay
Progr. 1988), has been undergoing revisions to pro-
vide more detailed requirements for living resource
habitat. Because submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) is a critical part of the bay's food chain and is
sensitive to water quality (Orth and Moore, 1988), it
is a potential indicator of the bay's health and there-
fore was included in these documents.
Over the last 23 years, Chesapeake Bay's SAV
has received considerable scientific attention be-
cause of an unprecedented, baywide decline of all
species (Orth and Moore, 1983). This decline has
been related to the increasing amounts of nutrients
and sediments entering the bay as a result of the
continuing, uncontrolled development of its
shoreline and watershed and poor land use practices
associated with this development (Kemp et al.
1983).
Both the Chesapeake Bay SAV Management
Policy and Chesapeake Bay SAV Policy Implemen-
tation Plan (Chesapeake Exec. Counc. 1989, 1990)
highlighted not only the need to develop SAV
habitat requirements but also baywide SAV restora-
tion goals for habitat quality, species abundance,
and species diversity. In response to the commit-
ments described in the Implementation Plan, a
working group of scientists and managers produced
the Chesapeake Bay SAV Habitat Requirements
and Restoration Goals Technical Synthesis (Batiuk
et al. in review).
SAV Technical Synthesis
The SAV technical synthesis program had three
major goals:
• To develop quantitative levels of relevant
water quality parameters necessary to
support continued survival and propagation
of SAV;
• To establish regional distribution and
diversity goals for the Chesapeake Bay; and
• To document baywide applicability of habitat
requirements developed through case
studies used in the synthesis.
The development of SAV habitat requirements
was described in four case studies spanning all the
bay's salinity regimes: tidal fresh water, Potomac
River; oligohaline (0.5-5 ppt), Susquehanna Flats;
mesohaline (5-18 ppt), Choptank River; and poly-
haline (18-25 ppt), York River (Fig. 1). Interpreta-
tion of transplant and monitoring data from the
upper Chesapeake Bay and a decade of data span-
ning the revegetation of the upper tidal Potomac
River yielded habitat requirements for tidal fresh
and oligohaline SAV species. A variety of transplant,
research, and monitoring studies in the Choptank
and York rivers provided data to develop habitat re-
quirements for mesohaline and polyhaline SAV
species, respectively.
Through multi-investigation interpretations of
findings from each of the study areas, the following
178
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 177-182
SUSQUtHANNA
Upper Bay
Mid- and Upper
Potomac River
Choptank
River
Figure 1.—Map of Chesapeake Bay showing locations of four areas ussd In development of SAV criteria: (left to right)
mid- and upper Potomac River, tidal fresh water; Susquehanna Flats-Upper Bay, ollgohallne (0.5-5 ppt); Choptank
River, mesohaline (5-18 ppt); and Lower York River, polyhallne (18-25 ppt).
five SAV habitat requirements were developed for
each of the bay's four salinity regimes:
• Total suspended solids (TSS),
• Light attenuation,
• Chlorophyll a,
• Dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and
• Dissolved inorganic phosphorus.
Restoration goals for SAV distribution were ap-
proached from a baywide and regional perspective
and produced through a series of geographical over-
179
-------
R.ORTHetal.
lays that delineated potential and actual habitat.
The restoration goals are reported as acreages of
nearshore bay habitat that should support SAV
when established habitat requirements are met.
Species diversity goals were derived by comparing
the potential habitat for each species based on
salinity and the actual habitat as defined through
recent and historical field surveys. Baywide and
regional SAV abundance and species diversity goals
are critical to assessing the success of basinwide ef-
forts to reduce nutrient inputs into Chesapeake Bay.
Summary of SAV and Water
Quality Relationships
The water quality parameters defined from these
studies have a functional relationship with SAV
growth. Interpretation of the relationships between
water quality characteristics was based on basic as-
sumptions about the interaction between the water
quality parameters and SAV. These assumptions
were that:
• Total suspended solids and chlorophyll a
increase light attenuation,
• Dissolved water column nutrients stimulate
growth of epiphytes and phytoplankton,
which also decreases light attenuation,
• SAV survival depends on sufficient light
reaching the plants, and
• Environmental factors other than those
analyzed in the SAV technical synthesis do
not supercede light attenuation as the major
factor determining SAV survival in
Chesapeake Bay.
Table 1 presents the summary of the reported
work for the four different study areas. This table
serves to establish the minimum water quality char-
acteristics for establishment and maintenance of
SAV populations, rather than guaranteeing condi-
tions for colonization by a diverse, native SAV
population. Water quality conditions for a diverse,
native popoulation may be more rigorous than con-
ditions that will support only monotypic and/or ex-
otic species populations.
The data indicated that light attenuation was
strongly affected by total suspended solids (TSS)
and chlorophyll a. Light attenuation coefficient
values less than 2 m"1 correlated with SAV survival
as do total suspended solids values less than
15 mg/L and chlorophyll a values less than 15 fig/L.
Interestingly, the data suggested an interaction of
TSS and chlorophyll a, as there were few data
where TSS were low and chlorophyll a values were
high.
The maximum dissolved inorganic nitrogen
(DIN) values supporting SAV growth were 0.14-
0.28 mg/L (except for the tidal fresh and ologohaline
areas) and 0.01-0.03 mg/L for dissolved inorganic
phosphorus (DIP). Low values of both DIN and DIP
were found necessary for SAV survival in
mesohaline and polyhaline areas while, in low
salinity areas, DIN did not appear to play a critical
role in defining SAV habitat quality.
Restoration Goals
Results of the systematic inclusion of all areas in
the Chesapeake Bay and tributaries less than 2
meters deep revealed approximately 300,000 hec-
tares (741,000 acres) of bottom that could potential-
ly support SAV given appropriate water quality
conditions. Some of this habitat represents areas
that would be highly unlikely to ever support SAV
because of its exposed nature; excluding these areas
yielded 250,000 hectares of potential habitat. In
1989, the annual monitoring of baywide SAV
showed approximately 25,000 hectares (61,750
acres) of bottom covered with SAV (Orth and
Table 1.—Habitat requirements for the Chesapeake Bay SAV by salinity regime.
SALINITY REGIME
(SAV TARGET SPECIES)
Tidal fresh
(Vallisneria americana)
Oligohaline
(Vallisneria americana)
Mesohaline
LIGHT
ATTEN.
TSS* COEF.
(mg/L) (m-1)
<10 <2
<15 <2
<15 <1.5-2
CHL a* DIN*
(ng/L) (mg/L)
<15 <1.5
<15 <1.5
<10-15 <0.14
DIP*
(mg/L)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
CRITICAL LIFE PERIOD(S)
April-early June; late
August-September
April-early June; late
August-September
May-October
(Potamogeton pectinatus, Potamogeton
perfoliatus, Ruppia maritima)
Polyhaline
(Zostera marina)
<15
<2
<15
<0.28 <0.03
Spring (9°-23°)
Fall (25°-13°)
*SAV = submerged aquatic vegetation; TSS
inorganic phosphorus.
total suspended solids; CHL a = chlorophyll a; DIN = dissolved inorganic nitrogen, DIP = dissolved
180
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY; 377-382
Rappahannock River Transition Zone
0.9
0.8
s07
?06
ros
804.
£ 03
02
0.1-
Q n-an
n ••»»
n «'•»
GOAl.
5.9JS
HKIV
1978 1980 1981 1984 198S 198C 1987 19S9
Mobiack Bay
(VVE-4)
GOAL.
12,530
Hccuret
Lower Rappahannock River
(LE-3)
700
SCO
g^
•g 400
100-
1978 19«0 19C1 1984 19*5 10M 1M7 1989
Lower Eastern Shore
(CB-7)
1978 1980 1981 19*4 1985 19M 1987 1989
Figure 2.—Trends In SAV abundance for four section* In the lower Cheaapeake Bay showing amount of SAV In dif-
ferent denaKy classes (<10%, 10-40%, 40-70%, and 70-100%) from 1978 through 1989. Restoration goal for each section
la presented In upper right corner of each locator box. Letter and number combination given below each location
name refers to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-derived Chesapeake Bay segment
181
-------
R. ORTHetfli.
Nowak, 1990) or 10 percent of the potential habitat.
Data for four representative sections of the bay are
presented in Figure 2, which shows trends of SAV
abundance for the previous decade as compared to
the restoration goal for that section. Current abun-
dance in these sections ranges from 0 to 25 percent
of the potential bottom.
A comparison of SAV annual abundance pat-
terns, habitat requirements, and water quality
monitoring data from 145 water quality stations has
allowed verification of the applicability of SAV
habitat requirements to define conditions necessary
for revegetation, survival, and growth of SAV. In
1987, 84 percent of the water quality monitoring
stations characterizing areas with SAV had
seasonal water quality that met four or all of the
five habitat requirements. In areas where SAV was
absent, 74 percent of the stations had water quality
conditions that met less than four of the five habitat
requirements. In 1989, 72 percent of these stations
had seasonal water quality conditions that met four
or all of the five habitat requirements. More than 86
percent of the stations characterizing areas where
SAV was absent had seasonal water quality that
met less than four of the five habitat requirements.
Conclusions
The relationships of light attenuation, chlorophyll a,
total suspended solids, and dissolved inorganic
nitrogen and phosphorus with SAV survival provide
an empirically derived, real world solution to the
problem of determining water quality charac-
teristics for SAV survival. Laboratory and modelling
studies have augmented the field-derived data.
One of the more intriguing elements of the tech-
nical synthesis was the close similarity in the values
identified for TSS, chlorophyll a, and light attenua-
tion for all salinity regimes of the Chesapeake Bay.
This suggests that growth and survival of the
plants, despite their location in the bay, all respond
to environmental water quality within a small
range of values. This response may allow for
baywide management strategies rather than basin-
by-basin control. However, because response to
nutrient concentration depended on location (fresh
water versus brackish water) nutrient reduction
strategies may vary depending on the salinity
regime.
The most critical aspect of this work is the
relationship of these habitat characteristics to the
development of revised or enhanced water quality
standards to protect living resources. This is a dif-
ficult task because it requires a thorough under-
standing of all the sources and sinks of the different
nutrients and sediments entering Chesapeake Bay.
In particular, understanding the mechanisms and
rates of transformation of source material to what is
measured in the water column, in each salinity
regime of the bay, is crucial to these revised stand-
ards.
If habitat requirements developed for SAV (or
other species), such as nutrients or light attenua-
tion, are linked to water quality standards, a dif-
ferent approach to developing these standards must
be used other than LCso measures and assessments
of chronic toxicity. Understanding critical habitat
requirements, manipulative field and laboratory
tests of these requirements, and field validation of
the experimental results is necessary to developing
realistic water quality criteria for these parameters.
Lastly, there must be continuous interactions
and feedback between the scientists who develop
the habitat criteria for individual species and the
managers who are responsible for regulations that
ultimately protect, restore, and enhance the living
resources. Continual monitoring of water quality
and living resources, coupled with specific restora-
tion plans and goals, is paramount if these re-
sources are to be a part of our future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Contribution No. 1643
from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, School of
Marine Science, College of William and Mary, and No. 2194
from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental
and Estuarine Studies.
References
Batiuk, R. In review. Chesapeake Bay submerged aquatic
vegetation habitat requirements and restoration goals
technical synthesis. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Progr., Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Executive Council. 1989. Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation Policy for the Chesapeake Bay and Tidal
Tributaries. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Progr., Annapolis, MD.
. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Sub merged Aquatic Vegetation
Implementation Plan. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Progr., Annapolis, MD.
Chesapeake Bay Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Annapolis,
MD.
Kemp, W. M. et al. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular
plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: summary of results con-
cerning possible causes. Mar. Tech. Soc. J. 17:78-89.
Orth, R. J. and K. A. Moore. 1983. Chesapeake Bay: An un-
precedented decline in submerged aquatic vegetation.
Science 222:51-53.
. 1988. Submerged aquatic vegetation in the
Chesapeake Bay: A barometer of bay health. Pages 619-
29 in M. Lynch, ed. Understanding the Estuary: Advances
in Chesapeake Bay Research. Chesapeake Res. Consort.
Pub. No. 129. CBP/TRS/24/88. Baltimore, MD.
Orth, R. J. and J. F. Nowak. 1990. Distribution of Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay and
Tributaries and Chinooteague Bay—1989. Final rep. U.S.
Environ. Prot. Agency, Chesapeake Bay Liaison Off., An-
napolis, MD.
182
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 183-190
Water Quality Effects of Water Quality
Standards Enforcement: Industrial
Pretreatment in Rhode Island
Clayton A. Penniman
Senior Environmental Scientist
Narragansett Bay Project
Providence, Rhode Island
Introduction
For generations, the waters and sediments of Nar-
ragansett Bay have served as receptacles for in-
dustrial waste streams containing a variety of toxic
metal and organic compounds (Quinn, 1989; Metcalf
and Eddy, 1990; Nixon, 1990). With the introduction
of publicly owned sewage treatment works (POTWs)
at the turn of the century, much of this industrial
discharge was routed through these facilities, often
disrupting treatment plant operation or at least
reducing treatment efficiency (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1986; Gen. Account. Off., 1989). Further-
more, several sections of the Narragansett Bay
drainage basin (marine and fresh water, Table 1)
currently exhibit contaminant concentrations that
exceed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Gold Book water quality criteria for PCBs, copper,
cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead (Metcalf and
Eddy, 1990). Levels of copper, lead, chromium, and
silver in sediments of portions of the Seekonk,
Blackstone, and Pawtuxet rivers are among the
highest observed within the United States (King,
1990).
National Pretreatment
Program
Enacted as part of the Clean Water Act amendments
in 1977, the National Pretreatment Program was
established to reduce releases to wastewater of toxic
and hazardous chemicals from industrial processes
Table 1.—Water quality impacts of toxic loadings to
Upper Narragansett Bay (Metcalf and Eddy, 1990).
SUBSTANCES
AREAS EXCEEDING U.S. EPA GOLD BOOK
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
PCBs Blackstone River downstream of Woonsocket
POTW to tidal portion of river
Cadmium Pawtuxet River near Warwick and Cranston
POTWs
Blackstone River near Woonsocket POTW
Copper Blackstone River near Woonsocket POTW
Pawtuxet River near Cranston POTW
Seekonk and Providence Rivers and Upper
Narragansett Bay near Field's Point (NBC)*
POTW
Chromium Blackstone River near Woonsocket POTW
Nickel Blackstone River near Woonsocket POTW
Pawtuxet River near Warwick and Cranston
POTWs
Seekonk and Providence Rivers and Upper
Narragansett Bay near Field's Point (NBC)*
POTW
Lead Blackstone River near Woonsocket POTW
Pawtuxet River near Warwick and Cranston
POTWs
"Narragansett Bay Commission
(U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1986; Sutinen and Lee,
1990). Toxic substances entering waste treatment
facilities can damage treatment plant equipment (as
well as sewerage collection lines), kill or degrade
bacterial populations in POTWs, and possibly harm
plant operators. Inhibition of POTW bacterial ac-
tivity could affect the effluent and lead to violation
of conventional pollutant discharge standards.
183
-------
C.A. PENNIMAN
The National Pretreatment Program is imple-
mented cooperatively through Federal, State and
local governments. POTWs are required to enforce
the program's General Pretreatment Regulations,
which prohibit discharge of substances that:
• May interfere with treatment plant
operation,
• Are not treated within the POTW, or
• May contaminate sludge (Gen. Account. Off.
1989).
The POTWs must develop and use pretreatment
programs to enforce the National Categorical Stand-
ards for individual industrial users such as
electroplating and metal finishing businesses
(Sutinen and Lee, 1990). The categorical standards
incorporate information on compounds generated by
each industrial process as well as which reductions
in release are economically achievable.
Rhode Island's Fretreatment
Program
In September 1984, EPA delegated administrative
authority of Rhode Island's pretreatment programs
to the State (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). The Rhode Is-
land Department of Environmental Management
(DEM) has responsibility for oversight and approval
of local pretreatment programs. Local pretreatment
limits (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1987) established
by several Rhode Island control authorities are out-
lined in Table 2.
Table 3.—Rhode Island POTWs with industrial pre-
treatment programs (from R.I. Dep. Environ. Manage.
1990).
POTW
LOCATION
Blackstone Valley
District Commission
Seekonk River
Bristol
Cranston
East Greenwich
East Providence
Narragansett Bay
Commission
Newport
Quonset Point
South Kingstown
Warwick
West Warwick
Westerly
Woonsocket
Upper Narragansett Bay
Pawtuxet River
Greenwich Cove
Providence River
Providence River
Lower Narragansett Bay
Lower Narragansett Bay
Lower Narragansett Bay
Pawtuxet River
Pawtuxet River
Pawcatuck River
Blackstone River
In 1984, 13 of the Rhode Island's 19 POTWs
(Table 3), acting as control authorities, established
industrial pretreatment programs. DEM prescribes
compliance monitoring supplemented with demand
monitoring and manhole sampling and industrial
user inspection frequency for pretreatment
programs (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). Of the 13
POTWs, the following have the largest numbers of
categorical industrial users: the Narragansett Bay
Commission (112), the Blackstone Valley District
Commission (48) and the city of East Providence
(13) (Sutinen and Lee, 1990).
Several studies have been conducted on the ef-
fectiveness of Rhode Island's industrial pretreat-
Table 2.—Selected local pretreatment limits in Rhode Island (mg/L) (adapted from Brubaker and Byrne, 1989;
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1990).
POTW
BVDC
Bristol
Cranston
East Greenwich
East Providence*
daily max
monthly avg
NBC"
maximum
average
South Kingston
maximum
one peak
Warwick
West Warwick
Woonsocket
maximum
instantaneous
'metal finishers
"Narragansett Bay Commission
(Cd = cadmium; Cu = copper; Cr
Cd
0.4
0.2
ND
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.11
0.07
0.4
0.8
2.0
0.4
0.4
0.8
= chromium; Pb
Cu
1.0
0.5
0.04
1.09
3.38
2.07
1.2
1.2
1.0
2.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
2.0
= lead; Ni =
Cr
1.5
0.86
ND
1.71
2.77
1.71
2.77
1.71
1.5
3.0
0.5
10.0
1.5
3.0
nickel; Zn = zinc)
Pb
0.1
0.22
ND
0.33
0.69
0.43
0.6
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.6
0.1
0.2
Ni
1.5
0.5
0.1
0.13
1.94
1.16
1.62
1.62
1.5
3.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
3.0
Zn
1.2
1.0
0.58
1.48
2.61
1.48
2.61
1.48
—
—
1.0
5.0
1.2
2.4
184
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 183-190
ment programs (Brubaker, 1986; Brubaker and
Byrne, 1989; Volkay-Hilditch, 1989; Sutinen and
Lee, 1990). All have approached the status of in-
dustrial pretreatment from a case study viewpoint.
During the early stages of pretreatment program
development in Rhode Island, Brubaker (1986)
reported substantial noncompliance by industrial
users (with the exception of the East Providence
POTW) and concluded that more than 700,000
pounds of metals were entering Narragansett Bay
waters annually as a result. (This figure did not in-
clude direct industrial dischargers.) However, these
conclusions were based upon compliance and
pretreatment data from 1984 and 1985, before some
Rhode Island pretreatment programs had been ap-
proved.
Three Case Studies
The effectiveness of the pretreatment programs
operated by three control authorities (the Narragan-
sett Bay and Blackstone Valley District commis-
sions and the city of East Providence) were
examined in detail for the Narragansett Bay Project
from 1985 to 1988 (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). These
programs varied in implementation status as well
as numbers of industrial users contributing dis-
charges to municipal waste streams.
Narragansett Bay Commission
The Narragansett Bay Commission serves the cities
of Providence, North Providence, Johnston, and
parts of Cranston and Lincoln, with a combined
population of 200,000 and approximately 6,000 com-
mercial and industrial users (Narragansett Bay
Comm. 1990). It had 198 industrial user permits ac-
tive from October 1989 to September 1990. The
commission's Field's Point POTW, with a design
capacity of 64 million gallons a day (mgd), is the
largest wastewater treatment facility in Rhode Is-
land. In 1990, EPA recognized the commission's In-
dustrial Pretreatment Program as the best in the
country for the category of large treatment plants
(Narragansett Bay Comm. 1990).
The commission applied Federal categorical dis-
charge standards to electroplaters and metal
finishers that were valid prior to September 1987,
when more stringent local limits took effect for es-
sentially all industrial users. Six of the 10 local
limits are equivalent to the Federal categorical
standards.
The Narragansett Bay Commission uses a wide
range of enforcement actions to bring industrial
users into compliance, including phone calls, notices
of failure to meet standards and submit monitoring
reports, letters and notices of deficiency, increases in
frequency of self-monitoring, meetings with users,
notices of violation and public hearings, immediate
orders to cease discharge, and publication of in-
dustrial users' names.
From October 1989 to September 1990, the com-
mission made hundreds of enforcement phone calls,
issued 619 notices of failure to meet standards, 428
notices of failure to submit monitoring reports, and
115 letters of deficiency (Narragansett Bay Comm.
1990). In addition, 20 users were required to in-
crease self-monitoring, 26 notices of deficiency were
issued, and 45 significant violators were listed in
the Providence Journal on October 7, 1990. Sixteen
notices of violation resulted in fines of $140,832. As
of the commission's latest annual report, $82,293
had been collected (Narragansett Bay Comm. 1990).
A summary of the annual publication of "sig-
nificant non-compliance" (as defined in EPA's 1986
regulations) by industrial users from 1986 to 1990 is
outlined in Table 4. The total number of in-
dustries—including industrial users in addition to
metals-related industries—in significant noncom-
pliance varied greatly. Importantly, substantial
numbers in noncompliance were repeaters and a
significant proportion were long-term repeat of-
fenders. In 1987, 1989, and 1990, the majority of in-
dustrial users listed as in significant noncompliance
had been similarly cited during at least one prior
year (over the period 1986 to 1990). In 1990, 18 of
the 45 industrial users listed in significance non-
compliance had been similarly cited in at least two
years since 1986, nine in at least three years, and
three had been cited for four years.
From 1981 to 1989, total annual metals influent
to the Narragansett Bay Commission's Field's Point
POTW decreased from 954,099 to 144,961 pounds
Table 4.—Summary of industrial users (ILJs) published as in significant noncompliance (SNC) with the Narra-
gansett Bay Commission's pretreatment program regulations (data: Narragansett Bay Comm. 1986, 1987, 1988,
1989,1990).
YEAR
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
TOTAL
IN SNC
53
37
72
53
45
CITED IN
PREVIOUS YR.
23 (62%)
20 (28%)
23 (43%)
19 (42%)
CITED IN ==1
PREVIOUS YR.
30 (42%)
28 (53%)
29 (64%)
NUMBER OF lUs
CITED IN &2
PREVIOUS YR.
13 (25%)
18 (40%)
CITED IN ==3
PREVIOUS YR.
4 (8%)
9 (20%)
CITED IN >4
PREVIOUS YR.
3 (7%)
185
-------
C.A PENNIMAN
600000
200000
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Figure 1.—Total metals loadings (pounds/year) Influent
to the Narragansett Bay Commission's Field's Point
POTW (data: Narragansett Bay Comm. 1990).
(Fig. 1). Copper decreased from 363,670 to 24,146
pounds, while nickel decreased from 214,734 to
30,887 pounds (Fig. 2), in large part as a result of
pretreatment activities. However, loadings
decreases resulting from industry closures and
process reductions were not quantified.
Blackstone Valley District
Commission
The Blackstone Valley District Commission serves
the cities of East Providence, Central Falls, and
Pawtucket, and the towns of Cumberland, Lincoln,
and part of Smithfield, with a combined population
of 100,000. The commission's Bucklin Point Sewage
Treatment Plant is the second largest in the State.
In early 1990, the commission had approximate-
ly 77 significant industrial users permitted through
its Industrial Pretreatment Program (Blackstone
Valley Dist. Comm. 1990). Sixteen of 51 categorical
industrial users were in significant noncompliance
during December 1989 to June 1990. Over the same
period, the commission issued 25 notices of violation
and three administrative orders that resulted in
fines totalling $36,000 being assessed (Blackstone
Valley Dist. Comm. 1990).
East Providence
East Providence received approval for its pretreat-
ment program in September 1983. The East
Providence POTW provides secondary treatment for
a design capacity of 10.5 mgd. The POTW, which
serves two-thirds of the city and part of the town of
Barrington (Volkay-Hilditch, 1989), has received an
EPA award for medium-sized POTWs. Industrial
flow comprises approximately 10 percent of the total
flow to the POTW (Volkay-Hilditch, 1989); since
storm sewers are separate, there is little urban
CO
CD
IT
"O
c
I
300000
200000
Q.
o
O
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
Figure 2. —Copper and nickel loadings (pounds/year)
Influent to the Narragansett Bay Commission's Field's
Point POTW (data: Narragansett Bay Comm. 1990).
runoff to the POTW. During 1984 through 1988 (the
period studied by Volkay-Hilditch), the primary in-
dustrial users were metals finishers and
electroplaters.
Implementation of East Providence's industrial
pretreatment program was analyzed by Volkay-Hil-
ditch (1989) and Sutinen and Lee (1990). Sutinen
and Lee (1990) reported industrial users' significant
noncompliance in the East Providence industrial
pretreatment program to be generally below 20 per-
cent—after an initially higher period when the in-
dustries were coming into compliance with new
metal finisher local limits (Volkay-Hilditch, 1989).
Metals loadings influent to the East Providence
POTW are illustrated in Figure 3. Although total
loadings have not declined from Volkay-Hilditch's
data for 1984 to 1988, loadings of most individual
metals were lower (as for copper, Fig. 4). However,
nickel loadings have increased over 1984 to 1988
(Fig. 4).
Noncompliance Patterns
Sutinen and Lee (1990) reviewed the patterns ex-
hibited by industrial users in noncompliance for the
Narragansett Bay and Blackstone Valley District
commissions' and East Providence's pretreatment
programs from June 1985 through June 1988.
During the study period, significant noncompliance
(SNC) rates for the three control authorities varied
widely. The Narragansett Bay's SNC rate generally
ranged between 30 percent and 40 percent of in-
dustrial users; Blackstone Valley's rate swung from
a high of 100 percent to near 20 percent in 1988; the
East Providence SNC rate was generally lower than
20 percent (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). Similar pat-
terns (comparatively) were present among the three
control authorities for patterns of simple noncom-
pliance (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). It should be noted
186
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 183-190
25000
20000-
15000 -
10000-
1983 19S4 1985 19S8 1987 19S8
Figure 3.—Total metals loadings (pounds/year) Influent
to city of East Providence POTW (data: Volkay-Hlldltch,
that local pretreatment discharge limits differ
among the industrial users (see Table 2).
Compliance Styles
Sutinen and Lee (1990) also studies compliance
styles for the industrial users regulated by the three
study control authorities. Over the study period,
only 46 percent of Narragansett Bay's industrial
users regularly complied or improved their com-
pliance; only 30 percent of Blackstone Valley's; but
nearly 100 percent of East Providence's industrial
users (Sutinen and Lee, 1990). East Providence's in-
dustrial pretreatment program differed primarily in
the lower number of regulated industrial users and
frequency of on-site visits and audits by that control
authority (Sutinen and Lee, 1990).
Metal Loadings to Upper
Narragansett Bay
Much of the Providence River and Upper Narragan-
sett Bay exceeds EPA's Gold Book criteria for am-
12000
1983
19S4
19S5
1986
1987
1988
Figure 4.—Copper and nickel loadings (pounds/year) In-
fluent to city of East Providence POTW (data: Volkay-
Hlldltch, 1989).
bient copper and nickel (Metcalf and Eddy, 1990).
Estimated current total and individual metals loads
to this area are enumerated in Table 5, with em-
phasis upon POTW contributions to total upper bay
loadings. These are upper limit estimates compiled
by Metcalf and Eddy (1990) by using data from a
wide variety of studies conducted in the Narragan-
sett Bay watershed as well as POTW and regulatory
agency monitoring data. The bulk of current total
metals loadings to the bay (58 percent) arises from
POTWs, with the Field's Point facility accounting
for 84 percent of all POTW contributions (48 percent
of total loadings). Copper and nickel loadings show
similar allocation patterns to total metal loadings
(Metcalf and Eddy, 1990).
Several scenarios that affect metals loadings to
Upper Narragansett Bay are shown in Table 6. The
three projections all include increased loadings from
projected population and industrial growth for
Rhode Island (Metcalf and Eddy, 1990): loadings in
2010 with no future abatement actions; loadings in
2010 with all State POTWs having advanced secon-
dary treatment; and loadings in 2010 with all Rhode
Table 5.—Current toxic loadings (pounds/year, partial upper limit estimates) to Upper Narragansett Bay (adapted
from Metcalf and Eddy, 1990).
POTWs
NBC*
East Providence
Woonsocket
BVDC"
Cranston
Warwick
W. Warwick
Total POTWs
Cd
3,226
82
135
615
33
12
66
4,169
Cu
58,000
661
2,662
4,986
1,969
438
658
69,374
Cr
1 1 ,440
218
732
3,086
706
219
190
16,591
Pb
12,930
831
813
1,420
892
164
234
1 7,284
Ni
72,290
1,543
1,003
8,606
2,117
2,466
351
88,376
Zn
119,100
882
2,358
8,598
2,043
899
892
134,772
TOTAL
276,986
4,217
7,703
27,311
7,760
4,198
2,391
330,566
Total to Providence River/
Upper Narragansett Bay'"
7,050
89,340
21,030
28,340
140,300
285,100
571,160
'Narragansett Bay Commission
"Blackstone Valley District Commission
""Inputs are presented here for individual POTWs, totals for Providence River, Upper Narragansett Bay include river, combined sewer overflow, bypass,
atmospheric, and runoff sources
(Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper, Cr = chromium, Pb = lead, Ni = nickel, Zn = zinc)
187
-------
C.A. PENNIMAN
Table 6.—Future (2010) toxic loadings (pounds/year, partial upper limit estimates) to Upper Narragansett Bay
from POTWs with various abatement procedures (adapted from Metcalf and Eddy, 1990).
SOURCES
POTWs
Loadings in 1990
Loadings in 2010; no action
Loadings in 2010; advanced
secondary treatment
Loadings in 2010; enhanced
pretreatment
Cd
4,169
4,431
3,663
1,764
Cu
69,374
74,023
56,605
29,408
Cr
16,591
17,783
10,528
7,020
Pb
1 7,284
18,508
10,359
7,288
Ni
88,376
96,460
89,658
38,562
Zn
134,772
143,645
95,815
57,206
TOTAL
330,566
354,850
266,628
141,248
Total Providence River/Upper Narragansett Bay"
Loadings in 1990 7,050 89,340 21,030 28,340 140,300 285,100 571,160
Loadings in 2010; no action 7,494 94,940 22,780 30,300 150,500 301,300 607,314
Loadings in 2010; advanced 6,529 76,830 14,600 19,980 143,600 252,300 513,839
secondary treatment
Loadings in 2010; enhanced 4,374 48,750 10,700 16,420 91,690 213,400 385,334
pretreatment
"Inputs are presented for individual POTWs, total for Providence River, Upper Narragansett Bay include river, combined sewer overflows, bypass atmospheric
and runoff sources
(Cd = cadmium, Cu = copper; Cr = chromium, Pb = lead, Ni = nickel, Zn = zinc)
Island's control authorities having a 60 percent
reduction in industrial metals loadings. The projec-
tion based upon significant reductions in industrial
metals loadings (the trend toward "zero discharge")
offers a 43 percent greater reduction in toxic metals
released to the bay than the effects of advanced
secondary treatment at all POTWs (advanced secon-
dary treatment is not directed at toxic metals reduc-
tions).
Significantly, proposed combined sewer overflow
abatement strategies and proposed stormwater
regulations will not result in a significant decrease
in metals loadings to Upper Narragansett Bay com-
pared to enhancements in industrial pretreatment
programs (Metcalf and Eddy, 1990). Note that,
within the scope of the current report, projections of
loadings decreases cannot be quantitatively as-
sociated with decreases in ambient receiving water
concentrations (that is, potential achievement of
ambient standards).
Rhode Island's Assistance
Programs
The primary means to reduce Upper Bay metals
concentrations are increased emphasis on source
reduction and enhanced industrial pretreatment to
further reduce toxic loadings. Programs to effect
these changes must include more aggressive en-
forcement of existing standards as well as enhanced
education and transfer of technology. Rhode Island
has taken significant steps to provide industrial
users assistance in waste reduction.
Education, research, and technology assistance
are critical components to support efforts by in-
dustrial users and control authorities to reduce
toxics. The Rhode Island Waste Reduction, Recy-
cling, and Treatment Research and Demonstration
Act, enacted in 1986, promotes research, develop-
ment, and demonstration of waste reduction and
recycling technologies. The State DEM's Office of
Environmental Coordination established the Haz-
ardous Waste Reduction Section in October 1987 to
assist industries in their waste reduction efforts.
In November 1988, the Narragansett Bay
Project established the Hazardous Waste Reduction
Project to assist DEM in developing its technical as-
sistance program and to provide information on
waste reduction. Three major foci of the project are:
• Transfer of information on waste reduction
technologies to industry;
• Establishment of industry employee "quality
circles" to identify in-house improvements to
foster waste reduction; and
• Industrial waste reduction assessments by
State personnel.
In 1990, following a series of discussions con-
vened by the Narragansett Bay Project between
State and local officials and industry repre-
sentatives, the Rhode Island Council on Pollution
Prevention was established to provide advice on
legislative, regulatory, technological, and economic
incentives for reducing sources.
Conclusion
A series of educational and regulatory recommenda-
tions have been suggested to further enhance toxic
loadings reductions from industrial users in the bay
watershed. Several of the following suggestions are
adapted from studies by Brubaker (1986), Brubaker
188
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 183-190
and Byrne (1989), the General Accounting Office
(1989), and unpublished conclusions of the Nar-
ragansett Bay Project-sponsored metals industry
roundtables:
1. Greater enforcement is needed by the con-
trol authority, State, and EPA of industrial
users (and control authorities). For all agen-
cies involved, this will require a higher level
of funding to support these programs.
2. Inspection and enforcement activities to
minimize cross-media waste transfer (to
least expensive medium) must be estab-
lished. While minimizing toxic releases to
receiving waters is an important goal, it
should not be accomplished through the
transfer of toxic materials to other media
(air or solid waste).
3. Basin-wide uniform pretreatment limits
(minimum technology-based standards)
should be adopted.
4. More extensive, statistically significant
monitoring of industrial user effluents,
POTW influents and effluents, and receiv-
ing waters is required. These enhanced
monitoring requirements must be part of
Rhode Island's pollutant discharge elimina-
tion system permits to POTWs. These data
are critical to better assessing the effective-
ness of individual pretreatment programs.
5. Requirements for better reporting protocols
(internal materials audits) should be estab-
lished for industrial users.
6. More emphasis should be placed upon
economic incentives (fines as well as grants
and loans) to encourage greater industrial
user compliance. Two approaches (not ex-
clusive) are possible. First, fines for every
noncompliance action; second, substantial
monetary penalties (swiftly assessed) for
significant noncompliers.
7. Technical assistance must be provided to in-
dustrial users and control authorities. Ade-
quate training of personnel involved at all
stages of pretreatment is essential: cer-
tification of pretreatment operators and
training of State, local, and industry per-
sonnel.
8. Aggressive pretreatment and source reduc-
tion programs are critical to meet water
quality criteria for toxic metals (advanced
treatment at POTWs alone will not be ade-
quate). Pretreatment programs should en-
courage waste minimization and pollution
prevention.
9. Cost of water should be increased to en-
courage conservation.
10. Techniques to substitute for chemicals that
are of greatest concern (copper, nickel)
should be encouraged.
11. Research and development of improved
manufacturing processes must be sup-
ported.
References
Blackstone Valley District Commission. 1990. The Blackstone
Valley District Commission Pretreatment Program: Ann.
Rep., 1 Dec. 1989-30 June 1990. East Providence, RI.
Brubaker, K.L. 1986. Down the Drain: Toxic Pollution and the
Status of Pretreatment in Rhode Island. Save the Bay,
Inc., Providence, RI.
Brubaker, K.L. and J.H. Byrne. 1989. Zero tolerance: Reducing
Toxic Pollution in Narragansett Bay. Save the Bay, Inc.,
Providence, RI.
General Accounting Office. 1989. Water Pollution-Improved
Monitoring and Enforcement Needed for Toxic Pollutants
Entering Sewers. GAO/RCED-89-101. Washington, DC.
King, J. 1990. Draft Executive Summary for a Study of the
Sediments of Narragansett Bay. Rep. Narragansett Bay
Proj., Providence, RI.
Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1990. The Input of Toxics to Narragan-
sett Bay. Draft Rep. Narragansett Bay Proj., Providence,
RI.
Narragansett Bay Commission. 1986. The Narragansett Bay
Commission Industrial Pretreatment Program Annual
Report, October 1985-September 1986. Indust. Pretreat-
ment Progr., Providence, RI.
. 1987. The Narragansett Bay Commission Industrial
Pretreatment Program Annual Report, October 1986-
September 1987. Indust. Pretreatment Progr.,
Providence, RI.
. 1988. The Narragansett Bay Commission Industrial
Pretreatment Program Annual Report, October 1987-
September 1988. Indust. Pretreatment Progr.,
Providence, RI.
. 1989. The Narragansett Bay Commission Industrial
Pretreatment Program Annual Report, October 1988-
September 1989. Indust. Pretreatment Progr.,
Providence, RI.
. 1990. The Narragansett Bay Commission Industrial
Pretreatment Program Annual Report, October 1989-
September 1990. Indust Pretreatment Progr.,
Providence, RI.
Nixon, S.W. 1990. Recent metal inputs to Narragansett Bay.
Draft report to the Narragansett Bay Proj., Providence,
RI.
Quinn, J.G. 1989. A Review of the Major Research Studies on
Petroleum Hydrocarbons and Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay. Rep. Narragansett
Bay Proj., Providence, RI.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
1990. The State of the State's Waters - Rhode Island A
189
-------
C.A. PENNIMAN
Report to Congress (PL 92 - 500, 305b). Div. Water
Reaour., Providence.
Sutinen, J.H. and S.-G. Lee. 1990. Regulatory Compliance and
Enforcement: Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment
Programs in Rhode Island. Rep. Narragansett Bay Proj.,
Providence, RI.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. En-
vironmental Regulations and Technology—The National
Pretreatment Program. EPA/625/10-86/005. Off. Water,
Washington, DC.
. 1987. Guidance Manual on the Development and Im-
plementation of Local Discharge Limitations Under the
Pretreatment Program. Off. Water Enforce. Permits,
Washington, DC.
Vblkay-Hilditch, C. 1989. The Effect of the Implementation of
the Industrial Pretreatment Program at a Major Rhode
Island Public Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)—The
City of East Providence. M.S. Thesis. Northeastern Univ.,
Boston, MA.
190
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE Zlst CENTURY: 191-195
What Makes Coastal Standards Effective
Robert Berger
Aquatic Toxicologist
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Oakland, California
Introduction
The decisions and actions required to develop and
implement standards to protect and enhance water
quality effectively are theoretically similar for all
waterbodies. Coastal waters, for example, should be
of sufficient quality to meet the uses intended by
people residing nearby and wildlife living in them.
However, the geopolitical and geophysical com-
plexity of coastal waters, especially bays and es-
tuaries, sets them apart.
The historical importance of maritime com-
merce has concentrated populations near bay ports.
The quality of these waters may be inadequate to
support all the intended uses because of their cur-
rent and historical functions. For instance, San
Francisco Bay, the largest estuary on the West
Coast, serves the competing needs of the fourth
largest metropolitan area in the United States. Uses
of this estuary include transportation and shipping,
recreation, dilution of treated industrial and
municipal wastewater, and habitat for both resident
and migratory organisms.
Maintenance or enhancement of water quality
to support these beneficial uses is further compli-
cated by the varied geophysical character of bays
and estuaries. The San Francisco Bay-Delta form an
estuary that encompasses approximately 1,600
square miles and drains over 40 percent of the
State's fresh waters. The waters of this estuary vary
in salinity from fresh to marine and fluctuate diur-
nally as well as seasonally. The estuary includes
marine, estuarine, and freshwater habitats with
populations of resident and migratory biological or-
ganisms thai vary seasonally.
Many elements influence standards' effective-
ness in protecting and enhancing coastal water
quality. For convenience, these elements have been
grouped into three general categories of decision-
making:
• Technical,
• Management, and
• Policy.
The role each decision category plays in the
coast-al water quality standard-setting process is
described in the following sections.
Technical Decisions
The upfront technical decisions for monitoring and
evaluating water quality should provide the scien-
tific basis for narrative or numeric standard values;
however, the majority of these decisions are based
on inadequate data.
Designation of Beneficial Uses
The initial and fundamental step in the process is
selection of appropriate beneficial uses for a given
waterbody. Frequently, the uses that are designated
are more reflective of unrealistic desires than of
pragmatic assessments of attainable uses, given the
physical-chemical and demographic character of a
specific coastal waterbody. Often, there are insuffi-
cient data to determine the functional potential of a
waterbody, the factors that may impede it from
reaching its potential, and the cost-benefits to
achieving that potential.
191
-------
R. BERGER
In evaluating coastal ecosystem monitoring, the
National Research Council (1990) concluded that
most of the programs "fail to provide the informa-
tion needed to understand the condition of the
marine environment or to assess the effects of
human activity on it." Inappropriate use designa-
tions may result in the development of overly
protective criteria and the adoption of unnecessarily
stringent water quality standards.
Derivation of Criteria
Water quality criteria represent the best scientific
knowledge of pollutant exposure as related to the
magnitude and type of effects predicted to impact
aquatic biota and human health. Presently, these
predictions are based almost exclusively on
laboratory toxicity tests that use single chemicals
and whose ability to predict effects in complex en-
vironmental conditions is considered controversial.
Compared to freshwater chemical criteria, stand-
ards for saltwater have been derived from substan-
tially fewer test effects using a more limited number
of marine and estuarine species.
Development of Compliance
Measures
Procedures to conduct chemical analyses and whole
effluent toxicity (WET) tests are an integral part of
water quality standards because these procedures
determine compliance with the discharge limita-
tions derived from these standards. The ap-
plicability, precision, and use of chronic and critical
lifestage WET tests are controversial. Protocols
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for measuring responses of saltwater
organisms (U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, 1988) have
not been available as long as equivalent toxicity
tests for freshwater species nor have they been
evaluated as thoroughly.
It is also controversial to judge unacceptable
toxicity by the results of chronic toxicity tests. EPA's
procedures for determining the no-observable-effect
concentration assume that statistical and biological
significance are equal. However, various details in
test conduct and performance can so affect the cal-
culation of a concentration that it will not reflect an
effluent's inherent toxicity. For example, the test
dilution series selected and the response variability
of control treatments can combine to result in a
statistical difference that is substantially lower
than any relevant biological measure. Permit viola-
tions could, therefore, be determined by using in-
adequately assessed WET testing and evaluation
methods.
Management Decisions
The technical decision process used to develop coast-
al water quality standards continues to influence
their application, implementation, and enforcement.
Practical considerations, however, become increas-
ingly emphasized in these efforts to control water
quality to the standards' scientifically defensible
levels.
Application of Standards
The complex character of bays and estuaries greatly
complicates application of coastal water quality
standards. Where and how to apply current chemi-
cal water quality criteria and WET biomonitoring
methods for such waterbodies are complex ques-
tions. Even defining what comprises "coastal"
waters and delimiting their boundaries is not a
simple matter. Congress had great difficulty estab-
lishing where coastal standards would be applied in
its coastal pollution bill, H.R. 2647.
How standards will be applied is more perplex-
ing than deciding where because of spatial and
temporal variability in the physical and chemical
character of bays and estuaries. Chemical criteria
exist for fresh and marine waterbodies but not for
waters of intermediate salinity.
Biomonitoring protocols were developed for or-
ganisms that survive within a limited salinity
range. As a result, available chemical criteria and
WET biomonitoring methods are relevant to a small
percentage of conditions that occur in these water-
bodies at any one time, and this relevancy also
changes seasonally.
Spatial and temporal changes in the physical
and chemical character of bays and estuaries affect
the biological and ecological structure. These
changes must be considered when applying stand-
ards to coastal waters. Water quality standards
must be appropriate for the particular physical and
chemical character of each waterbody segment and
the beneficial uses each can support. In addition,
these standards must change to be consistent with
periodic alterations that occur. Before regulatory
agencies can apply standards to waters of inter-
mediate salinity, they must select (in a scientifically
defensible manner) either available freshwater or
saltwater criteria and biomonitoring species or
develop suitable alternatives.
Implementation of Standards
An important part of the implementation process is
the decision to adopt either numeric or narrative
standards. For point source dischargers, standards
192
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 191-195
are generally implemented as limitations in waste-
water discharge permits. The selection of specific
analytical methods and quantification limits, as well
as the application of such concepts as mixing zone
dilution, strongly influence how water quality
standards will be translated into permit limits.
All such implementation decisions must reflect
best professional judgment that balances the need
for water quality protection with an objective as-
sessment of the scientific merit of available control
programs. Toxicity standards are a good example.
Many States (including California) have adopted a
numeric toxicity standard for coastal waters. A
numeric standard was not required, and the
decision to adopt one may be inappropriate given
the technical inadequacy of available control
programs. This is especially true for chronic toxicity
standards, which rely on underevaluated WET tests
of controversial precision and applicability to
measure compliance with permit limits.
There is a fundamental and serious inconsisten-
cy between the implementation of toxicity and
chemical standards. Only those chemical concentra-
tions measured above a minimum quantifiable level
(for example, the practical quantitation level) must
be given as values in discharge monitoring reports.
The minimum quantifiable level establishes a level
of certainty for the measured value. The certainty or
confidence in that value is determined by the calcu-
lated precision of the analytical method. There is no
minimum quantifiable level applied to WET test
results, although EPA (1990) asserts that "in
toxicity tests, variability is measured close to the
limit of detection because the endpoint of the test is
already at the lower end of the biological method
detection range." Reporting uncensored WET test
results ignores the considerable variability of this
measurement tool and increases the potential for
unwarranted permit limit exceedances.
Enforcement of Standards
Enforcement should emphasize practical manage-
ment decisions that recognize and integrate the un-
certainties of technical decisions made in the
adoption and implementation process. Toxicity limit
exceedances exemplify the need for such decision-
making.
The preamble of EPA's Surface Water Toxics
Control Program final rule states: "Regardless of
how numeric limitations for whole effluent toxicity
are expressed, any single violation of an effluent
limit is a violation of the NPDES permit and is sub-
ject to the full range of State and Federal enforce-
ment actions" (Fed. Register, 1989).
This statement is of special concern to per-
mitted dischargers given the disagreement over the
ability of a single WET test to predict adverse en-
vironmental impacts in coastal waterbodies. This
disagreement includes the controversy over the ap-
plicability and precision of available WET tests for
saltwater organisms as well as how biological sig-
nificance is determined from WET test results and
toxicity standards are translated into permit limits.
Despite EPA's endorsement of regulatory discre-
tion in enforcement actions, the potential for sub-
stantial civil and criminal liability, whether
initiated by regulatory agencies or other parties is of
great concern. There has been an increase in
natural resource damage suits, and this trend will
continue as an expanding number of Federal agen-
cies (including the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration) focus their attention on bays,
harbors, and estuaries.
Additionally, dischargers will be subject to
citizen suits regardless of the regulatory agency's
discretion in enforcing toxicity limit violations. In-
creasingly, environmental groups are litigating
against Water Quality Act violations and attempting
to limit the discretionary power of regulatory agen-
cies.
In 1990, the Minneapolis-based Project En-
vironment Foundation alleged that the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency failed to enforce the
majority of large industry permit violations within
the State. Its recommendations would limit the
MPCA's enforcement discretion by establishing a
system of standard responses to violations and al-
lowing penalties to be assessed without court action
or negotiation of stipulation agreements (Bur. Natl.
Affairs, 1990).
The substantial liability associated with permit
violations underscores the need for appropriate
technical and management decisions in adopting
and implementing water quality standards. The
physical and biological complexity of coastal waters
makes such decisions difficult.
Policy Decisions
Policy decisions direct the overall standards setting
process rather than any individual part. Political
and social considerations influence the decision of
how time, effort, and money will be apportioned to
protect and enhance coastal water quality. The
policy decisions that set environmental priorities,
select control programs, and solve program
problems should be directed toward achieving
realistic societal goals for the environment. These
193
-------
R. BERGER
decisions also should reflect the experience gained
from previous standard setting processes.
Too often, policy decisions reflect insufficiently
informed choices made by the public and Congress.
In its review of environmental problems, EPA's
Science Advisory Board (SAB) concluded that "since
public concerns tend to drive national legislation,
Federal environmental laws are more reflective of
public perceptions of risk than of scientific under-
standing of risk" (Sci. Advis. Board, 1990).
The board also recommended in its review that
environmental policy be guided by a standard, sys-
tematic assessment of environmental risk that es-
tablishes priorities on the basis of "opportunities for
the greatest risk reduction." Improving public un-
derstanding of environmental risk is emphasized in
this relative risk reduction strategy. A standard ap-
proach to environmental risk will also improve the
public's ability to compare risks and disparate en-
vironmental problems and make a more informed
selection of policy alternatives from a common basis.
Changing the traditional approach to solving en-
vironmental problems with SAB's relative risk
reduction strategy should help improve policy
decisions and make environmental control programs
more efficient.
The experience gained from the present stand-
ard-setting process is equally important in guiding
future efforts to protect and enhance environmental
quality. It is especially appropriate on the silver an-
niversary of water quality standards to use the suc-
cesses and failures of that process to alter future
policy decisions.
The sobering fact is that, after 20 years, less
than a third of the States have adopted approved
water quality standards. This delay is attributable,
in part, to the standards-setting process. To properly
develop water quality standards, considerable time
and effort are needed to determine the beneficial
uses of a waterbody, establish appropriate water
quality levels (criteria) to achieve these beneficial
uses, and develop methods that measure compliance
with these criteria.
Adoption of water quality standards has also
been delayed by disputes over their applicability.
The considerable costs involved in complying with
these standards have motivated affected parties to
closely evaluate and question the technical merit
and the ability of existing or proposed control
programs to effectively protect and control water
quality. In particular, dischargers are concerned
that
• Standards are being developed from
insufficient data that do not represent site
characteristics,
• Chronic WET biomonitoring methods have
not been adequately evaluated to use as
compliance measures, and
• Increased regulation of point source
discharges is not a cost-effective way to
protect and control water quality.
The need for more and better data and a more
comprehensive prioritization and control program
are common themes in both the SAB review and dis-
charger objections. Policy decisions should attempt-
to correct these problems in present and future
water quality control programs.
Recommendati ons
Although this paper has focused on weaknesses in
the decision process for setting water quality stand-
ards, these mistakes provide lessons that can im-
prove future standard-setting approaches. Hence,
the following recommendations:
• Take advantage of the technical expertise of
regulated parties by making them full
partners in the standards development
process.
Too often regulated parties have been
cast in the role of nay sayers because their
input has been solicited too late in the stand-
ards-setting process. Substantial delays in
standards adoption have resulted from the
need to respond to technically valid criticisms
by affected parties. EPA should use the ex-
pertise and experience of these entities by in-
volving them in the initial development of
standards.
• Standardize environmental monitoring and
analyses methods and quality as-
surance/quality control procedures for all
Federal and State agencies.
In spite of the considerable time, effort,
and money allocated to data gathering, there
is general consensus that monitoring data
are insufficient to support many of the tech-
nical decisions made in the standards-setting
process. Often the problem lies in data sets
that are not comparable or are of ques-
tionable validity rather than the absence of
data. Effort must be correlated between all
Federal and State agencies to perform en-
vironmental monitoring and report such
measures in a proscribed, standard manner.
• Protect environmental quality in a com-
prehensive and integrated manner.
194
-------
WATER QUAUTf STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 191-195
The multimedia nature of pollution and
the need to control it in a way that minimizes
cross-media impacts is central to a com-
prehensive environmental quality protection
program. Agency participation in all legis-
lated programs (Clean Air Act and Clean
Water Act) must be guided by the same goals
and standard risk-setting techniques.
References
Bureau of National Affairs. 1990. Current developments. Page
1568 in Environ. Hep., Washington, DC.
Federal Register. 1989. National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System; Surface Water Ibxiea Control Program;
Final Rule. §4(105)23871. Washington, DC.
National Research Council. 1990. Managing troubled Waters:
The Bole of Marine Environmental Monitoring, Natl.
Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Science Advisory Board. 1990. Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection.
SAB-EC-9Q-021. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Washington,
DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Short-term
Methods for Estimating the Chronic Tbxicity of Effluents
and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Or-
ganisms. EPA/600/4-87/028. Cincinnati, OH.
. 1990. Draft Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Ttaics Control. Off. Water, Washington,
DC.
195
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. (Dave Jones, San Francisco Department of
Public Works) On the Narragansett Bay issue of
heavy metals, what percent of the total heavy metals
floating to the POTWs were from these regulated in-
dustries, what were from small commercial busi-
nesses, and what percent was residential?
A. I'm afraid I don't know, but I can get you the
information.
C. (Dave Jones) In California, we have a situa-
tion where the industries have been controlled, but
we still are not meeting the proposed water quality
standards.
Q. In New York, we've found what's happening.
The industries say they are meeting pretreatment
categorical regulations—the problems (especially
with some metals like copper and zinc) are really
coming from corroding pipes and corrosive water. So
we've been advocating a stronger look at what waste-
water treatment plants ought to be doing to control
corrosion. Have you come to that kind of situation in
the Narragansett Bay?
A. (Clayton Penniman) That is our concern as
well, particularly in this northeastern estuary with
increased acidification and its effect on enhanced
leaching in water systems. As well as industrial
pretreatment, we have also tried to initiate domestic
limitations, primarily through education, to get
people to use fewer chemicals. Even though the in-
dustrial pretreatment program is in place, we still
have a history of fairly substantial noncompliance,
depending upon the individual control authority. So
while the Narragansett Bay Commission can point
to what appear to be excellent reductions over time,
there still is a history of some degree of noncom-
pliance.
Q. Do the sewage treatment plants in that basin
have effluent limits for metals?
A. (Clayton Penniman) Yes, they do, and that's
what spurred the local limits. But these are not
receiving water limits, they're effluent limits.
Q. But they do have limits written in the per-
mits?
A. (Clayton Penniman) Yes.
Q. (Bob Campaigns, The Upjohn Company, Con-
necticut) I've been following water quality standards
developments in the Northeast, and latched on to an
article in the Attleboro, Massachusetts, newspaper,
where the town had been apparently assigned an ef-
fluent limitation (end-of-pipe limitation) from the
POTW of 7 parts per billion combined toxic metals
limit. The politicians were really up in arms because
they projected that the cause was not primarily in-
dustry and cutting industry off from the plant would
not solve the problem. Their preliminary estimates
from consultants indicated that meeting that kind of
a limit would raise annual treatment costs from ap-
proximately $3.5 million to $48 million per year. I'm
just wondering if these exceptionally low numbers
are necessary. I'm sure that North Attleboro, Mas-
sachusetts, represents certainly less than 1 percent of
the watershed, probably less than a tenth of a per-
cent. Projecting those huge numbers—I don't believe
we can sell the public about spending that kind of
money. And particularly if we cannot say, yes, we
really need those kinds of limits. Can you respond to
that?
A. (Clayton Penniman) The Upper Blackstone
Valley District Commission is essentially going
through the same process as Attleboro over its per-
mit renewal. They're looking at potential copper ef-
fluent limits that are substantially lower, they
claim, than domestic water concentrations. So I
agree with you that there are potential problems
down the road—financial as well as policy problems.
We have not considered the nonpoint source inputs
that are probably more substantial, in many cases,
than some of the point source contributions.
197
-------
TARGE
V'V V,*? •"
?. . ' '..*<
^ " " *t 1 " 2
."•'"•< r »* j ' * "*,r-
• r i *,''•"*'* *i '- ^ i
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 199-201
The Great Lakes Water Quality
Initiative—Regional Water Quality Criteria
Sarah P. Fogler
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, New York
Introduction
The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative is a
regional United States program directed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region V.
Begun in 1989, the Initiative's purpose is to coor-
dinate EPA's and the eight Great Lakes States' "ac-
tivities under the Clean Water Act in order to
achieve the objectives of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978, as Amended by Protocol
signed November 18, 1987, and to provide a basis
for negotiating Great Lakes water quality objectives
and programs with Canada" (U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, 1989).
Situated on the border between the United
States and Canada, the Great Lakes are an impor-
tant natural resource. The Great Lakes basin com-
prises almost 20 percent of the world's fresh surface
water and provides drinking water for over 40 mil-
lion people. Great Lakes water quality is managed
on an international, national, regional, State, and
local level. Under the Initiative, regional EPA and
State water quality management regulators are
working to develop region-specific water quality
management programs. In addition, a public par-
ticipation group has been established to provide
input from within the Great Lakes basin.
A program of this size, which includes three
EPA regions and eight States, has tremendous
potential to affect future State, national, and inter-
national Great Lakes water quality management ef-
forts, and as & result, benefit and/or hinder the
area's social and economic viability. Significant
potential also exists for Initiative developments to
influence other programs outside of the Great Lakes
region. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure that
the regional initiative proposals are consistent with
international, national, and State programs and
receive the same full measure of technical scrutiny
and public review.
The following guidance for regional programs is
derived from a year of participation in the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative:
1. To effectively address regional issues,
regional developments must build on exist-
ing local, State, national, and international
programs, with strong support and active
participation from all levels.
2. Like national and State programs, regional
developments must be based on sound tech-
nical concepts and valid science; significant
data gaps cannot be ignored. Where there
are data gaps, regional initiatives can serve
an important role by clearly delineating
those needs and developing programs to fill
them.
3. As with all regulatory programs, regional
initiatives should strive to develop
programs that address critical needs and
can be implemented consistently and fairly
throughout the region.
4. Regional initiatives must recognize, espe-
cially for a region the size of the Great
Lakes, that the developments have national
significance with far-ranging impacts.
Therefore, regional programs must, at a
minimum, provide public notice and com-
ment opportunities that are equivalent to
national and State regulatory develop-
ments.
199
-------
S.P. FOGLER
Within these guidelines, regional initiatives can
offer exciting opportunities to address water quality
and other environmental issues. In recognition of
these opportunities in the Great Lakes basin, a
council of Great Lakes industries has been formed
to educate and inform potentially affected industries
so they can participate knowledgeably in the public
debate on regional issues such as the Water Quality
Initiative.
Developing Water Quality
Criteria
As presently proposed by the Initiative Technical
Work Group, water quality criteria will be
developed using a two-tiered approach. For ex-
ample, Great Lakes specific Tier 1 aquatic criteria
will be derived using a modification of procedures
described in EPA's 1985 Guidelines for Deriving
Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses. A
Tier 2 narrative procedure has been proposed to
derive criteria on a case-by-case basis when ade-
quate data do not exist to establish Tier 1 criteria.
As proposed, criteria derived using the Tier 2 proce-
dure will be based on significantly less data than
Tier 1 criteria and will therefore have a greater de-
gree of uncertainty.
The draft procedures for deriving Great Lakes
aquatic life criteria propose to view Tier 1 criteria
and criteria derived using the Tier 2 procedure as
equivalent within the existing regulatory system
(Grant, 1990). For example, the draft presents the
use of the Tier 2 narrative procedure as follows:
"The procedures can be used to derive values for in-
terpreting concentrations of a chemical in an ef-
fluent or in ambient water. They could represent an
agency's best professional judgment and serve as
the basis for a water quality-based effluent
limitation" (emphasis added).
The draft further states: 'The most recent
secondary criteria shall be compiled on an annual
basis by Region V EPA and be available for distribu-
tion to the public."
The proposed use of the tiered approach once
again raises an important question for water quality
management: should national and regional water
quality criteria be developed only using consistent,
well-established procedures with consistent mini-
mum data requirements?
The answer to that question must be yes.
National and regional procedures must derive
criteria with the high degree of confidence around
them necessary to support their use in the existing
regulatory system. Without a consistent approach
for their development, criteria lose value and be-
come moving targets for both the regulating agen-
cies and the regulated community.
Therefore, the two-tiered approach poses
serious problems, and is in conflict with the well-es-
tablished and accepted procedures used to derive
national water quality criteria. As proposed, use of
the Tier 2 narrative procedures may result in sig-
nificant inconsistencies throughout the basin. Over
time, criteria derived using the Tier 2 narrative pro-
cedure may be considered de facto regional criteria,
without ever having received appropriate public
review and comment.
While the proposal mentions the need for
flexibility with the Tier 2-derived criteria and the
ability to deal effectively with antibacksliding, the
proposed approach does not present any realistic op-
portunity for this flexibility. It is important to
remember that water quality criteria have many
more uses than simply establishing point source dis-
charge limitations. They are used for nonpoint pol-
lution control programs and also serve as applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements under Su-
perfund. In the Great Lakes, these criteria are being
used to identify impaired waterways and direct
remedial action plans for areas of concern.
The concept behind the proposed Tier 2 narra-
tive procedures is similar to the idea of advisories.
EPA's draft guidelines for deriving ambient aquatic
advisories discusses their possible uses (U.S. En-
viron. Prot. Agency, 1987): "Aquatic life advisory
concentrations are intended to be used mostly for
evaluating the aquatic toxicity of concentrations of
pollutants in effluents and ambient waters, whereas
water quality criteria for aquatic life provide a
stronger basis for regulating concentrations of pol-
lutants in effluents and ambient waters."
The guidelines list two intended uses for ad-
visories. One is as a trigger for additional data
review and/or collection; the second use is to help
determine the need for the development of water
quality criteria for selected chemicals.
EPA never intended for advisories to take the
place of water quality criteria; likewise, values
derived using the proposed Tier 2 narrative proce-
dures should not be used in place of these criteria.
Every effort must be made to clearly distinguish be-
tween Tier 1 criteria and guidance values developed
when adequate data do not exist to establish nation-
al or regional criteria.
Where the lack of adequate data prevents the
establishment of regional criteria, criteria should
not be established using limited data by default. In-
stead, a screening approach that provides an indica-
tion of potential concern should be pursued. The
proposed Tier 2 narrative procedure has potential
200
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 199-201
merit as a screening technique, but it must be recog-
nized as such. In the event that the screening
evaluation indicates a potential concern, a system
that encourages collection and evaluation of addi-
tional data should be used.
Additional information needs should be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, col-
lecting sufficient information to determine regional
criteria may be warranted. However, under no cir-
cumstances should values derived using a screening
approach be interpreted as equivalent to enforceable
water quality standards.
Conclusion
EPA and the States should avoid the use of a Tier 2
narrative procedure to develop national or regional
criteria. Pending development of the necessary data
to properly establish a criterion, case-by-case
evaluations using all information about discharges
and potentially impacted waterbodies are the only
reasonable and equitable ways to establish required
effluent limitations.
References
Grant, J. 1990. Great Lakes Initiative Procedure for Deriving
Aquatic Life Criteria. Letter to Gilbertson. Surface Water
Qual. Div., Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. Lansing.
U.8 Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Draft. Guidelines
for Deriving Ambient Aquatic Life Advisory Concentra-
tions. Off. Water Regs. Stands. Washington, DC.
. 1989. Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative Concept
Paper. Region V. Chicago, IL.
201
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 203-206
Barriers to Water Quality Standards: One
State's Perspective
Mary Jo Garreis
Chief, Standards and Certification
Maryland Department of the Environment
Baltimore, Maryland
Introduction
Water quality standards are the driving force in
State water quality and water pollution control
programs. Through its standards, the State com-
municates its water quality goals. At the same time,
the State establishes the maximum allowable con-
centration of each substance for which a water
quality standard exists. This concentration forms
the basis for the allotment of manpower and resour-
ces, permits, enforcement actions, and litigation.
Since standards are the keystone of these programs,
they must be scientifically sound.
Too often, however, in the rush to meet public
demand for water quality protection, standards are
hastily and imperfectly derived. The imperfections
are frequently the result of inadequate science,
which can take many forms.
One form is extrapolation from research done
for purposes other than standard derivation.
Another is the use of flawed research—the results of
acute toxicity testing that did not achieve an end
point or the effects attributed to water column con-
centrations derived by dilution calculation instead
of direct measurement. A third is the assumption
that substances of similar chemical nature will in-
duce similar systemic or carcinogenic effects. Also
there is the use of "expert consensus" in the absence
of hard data, such as the current U.S. Environmen
tal Protection Agency (EPA) aquatic life criteria for
iron. A fifth form is the assumption that, because a
substance inhaled in air causes a severe car-
cinogenic reaction, the same substance in another
medium (water or fish tissue, for example) will in-
duce an effect of equal severity.
This listing is in no way exhaustive but does
identify typical problems that exist with current
standards. The components of the list all share a
common ground: each was used because it was the
best, or in some cases, the only information avail-
able.
Almost always, there was a rider on the use
that promised a better standard derived from good
scientific information as soon as the current need
was met. This promise was made with real sincerity;
however, tomorrow brought new crises and newly
perceived needs for other standards and similar
diversions, that, as we moved on to the next brush-
fire, left our best intentions behind.
Time passes quickly. Before we realize, several
years have elapsed and the standard that was inter-
im or temporary guidance because we were going to
put better science behind it has taken on a life of its
own. By now, that imperfect standard has been used
to derive permit limits, as an endpoint in models or
as a yardstick in monitoring efforts. Technicians, ad-
ministrators and bureaucrats have built programs
and careers around it. It is like an old friend whose
weaknesses you fondly acknowledge but wouldn't
change, because you are too comfortable together.
Time and effort has been invested in this imperfect
standard's defense, and the change envisioned as a
promise in the standard's infancy has now become a
threat.
Science, during that same interval, has probab-
ly moved forward. New information has emerged
that addresses or highlights the imperfections in the
existing standard. But instead of welcoming the new
information, we react defensively, perceiving an un-
welcome challenge. Federal, State, and local agen-
203
-------
M.J. GARREIS
ties are reluctant to consider the new information,
fearing its acknowledgement as a chink in the
bureaucratic armor or the first domino in a chain
reaction that will somehow undermine existing
programs, or be used against them.
This defensive posture is not acceptable. The
American public deserves better and we as scien-
tists and administrators do ourselves, our profes-
sions, and the public a disservice when we cling to
old standards. It is the nature of bureaucracies—
and that includes academia—to be resistant to
change. I submit that we need to encourage and
embrace the good science that engenders change.
The recent enactment of the Clean Water Act
amendments requiring States to adopt numeric
criteria for toxic substances will force that change.
EPA criteria that were indulged as guidance (recom-
mendations) will be challenged as State water
quality standards that require expenditures of large
sums of public and private monies for compliance.
Just look at Maryland and Delaware, which are
faced with legal challenges within the first few
weeks of final adoption of their new water quality
standards for toxic substances. The major argu-
ments in both the standard adoption process and in
the current court cases is the soundness of the scien-
tific basis for these standards.
Retaining Public Confidence
To retain public confidence in the water quality
standard adoption and implementation process, we
must be careful to explain and maintain the distinct
differences between water quality standards to
protect aquatic life and those to protect human
health. It is always easier to gain public support for
standards to control substances that pose a risk to
human health. The public responds quickly and
emotionally to these types of perceived threats.
Protective aquatic life standards rarely foster
the same level of public support. Because we sub-
scribe to the need to protect aquatic life and are
often frustrated in our attempts to gain public sup-
port, the temptation to use the threat of human
health risk to obtain an aquatic life protection objec-
tive can be very strong. While implementing water
quality standards to reduce the discharge of toxic
substances is a laudable goal, we must be careful
not to create or unnecessarily magnify human
health risk to drive applicable standards unneces-
sarily low to achieve aquatic life protection goals.
The public does and will eventually perceive this
type of manipulation. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!"
too often, we lose our credibility and our ability to
convince the public that the need for certain stand-
ards is real. Our credibility becomes a barrier.
Deriving Aquatic Life Criteria
EPA's aquatic life criteria are derived from the
results of toxicity testing on aquatic organisms from
a predetermined number of families. The results are
incorporated into an equation that is driven by the
four lowest results. The equation result is divided by
two as an additional safety factor, and a single
numeric criterion emerges. The "number" is trans-
lated into effluent limitations, permit requirements,
and enforcement actions. The application is black
and white: values less than the number pass; values
greater than the number fail.
The process of deriving the aquatic life criteria
was first developed by EPA in 1979-80 and was
revised in 1985. Although in use for nearly 10 years,
the process has yet to be subjected to a vigorous
peer review.
• Is this the right approach?
• Are there better methods of deriving criteria?
• Why a single numeric criterion as opposed to
a criterion that provides a range of values?
• After 10 years, has science advanced to
provide better alternatives?
• How do we know if we haven't asked or
seriously explored another approach?
Existing heavy metal criteria were derived
using acid soluble methods. Arguments rage as to
whether acid-soluble, dissolved, or total recoverable
is the most accurate measurement of the metal
species most likely to affect the environment. The
use of the criteria is further complicated by the ef-
fects of water hardness on the toxicity of the metal.
EPA uses an equation to adjust the freshwater
criteria, as necessary, to accommodate varying
degrees of hardness in the Nation's waters. Another
complicating factor is the EPA requirement that
permit limits be established and compliance
monitoring be performed as total recoverable metal,
while the criteria are based on acid soluble metals.
This anomaly brings much grief to State
regulators, particularly permit writers. EPA efforts
to develop a standard method for acid soluble metal
detection vacillate in importance. Attempts to trans-
late the metal criteria into application as dissolved
metals bog down in the high degree of effluent
variability. The science to resolve these questions
must be done, but the time frame will be lengthy.
The questionable appropriateness and validity of
criteria in these circumstances create a barrier to
water quality standard adoption and implementa-
tion.
204
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 203-206
While we are waiting for science to catch up, I
believe there is an alternative. The criteria could be
modified to include another adjustment factor, just
as hardness is included now. This adjustment factor
would use biotoxicity testing in 100 percent effluent
together with toxicity testing in the ambient receiv-
ing water to develop a receiving water: effluent ef-
fects ratio. The ratio could be used to devise a factor
by which the criteria number would be divided or
multiplied to obtain a permit limit.
This procedure would not be subject to the full-
blown process of developing a site-specific criterion
just as the hardness recalculation is not subject to
the site-specific criterion process. The procedure
would allow rapid resolution of the heavy metal
speciation toxicity issue on a permit-by-permit basis
in a short time frame. It also provides a solution
more equitable to small municipal and industrial
dischargers and provides some assurance that the
criteria application recognizes their situation. Fur-
thermore, it provides a measure of effect that more
closely mirrors what the aquatic life sees and
enables regulators to move the whole process for-
ward expediently.
Although I recognize that there are some scien-
tific limitations to this approach, I do not believe
they are any more severe than the scientific impedi-
ments we are now experiencing. We need to explore
this type of alternative.
Addressing Estuarine Criteria
Currently aquatic life criteria address freshwater
and marine environments; there is no effort at the
Federal level to address the estuaries, a critical en-
vironment in 25 States.
The EPA recommendation to apply the marine
criteria to estuaries is inappropriate. Estuarine
species data are sometimes used in marine criteria
development but almost always at salinities in the
25 to 35 ppt range. Many major estuaries have im-
portant waters in the 1 to 20 ppt salinity range.
These waters experience more dramatic tempera-
ture and salinity ranges than the saltwater or fresh-
water environments, ranges that can affect chemical
toxicity.
In another presentation yesterday at this con-
ference, a speaker noted that marine criteria are the
stepchildren in the standard development process,
since marine criteria are frequently based on fewer
tests on fewer species and development lags behind
that of freshwater criteria. I suggest that if marine
criteria are step-children, estuarine criteria are
"children from the other side of the blanket" to quote
an old folk saying. They receive no attention and
have no standing.
There are two solutions to this problem. The
first solution is to develop a receiving water: an ef-
fluent efforts ratio similar to the one proposed for
heavy metals. The second is to expand criteria
development to include routinely fresh estuarine
and marine environments.
Developing and Applying
Standards
I would like to propose that we reexamine our cur-
rent approach to water quality standard develop-
ment. I applaud EPA's convening of a workshop to
seek recommendations for the revision of national
water quality criteria guidelines. However, as part
of that reexamination, we need to revisit the basics.
In the development of acute and chronic aquatic life
criteria, we first need to subject the current EPA ap-
proach to intense, critical, peer review by a diverse
group of qualified scientists.
Publication in the Federal Register with request
for comment is not peer review. Frequently, State of-
ficials and scientists neither know it is happening
nor have the time to respond. I would hope that the
results of this workshop will be submitted to a in-
tense peer review by a group of qualified scientists
and regulators.
The peer review process should be repeated for
the information used to develop each criterion. An
interval, 5 or 10 years, should be established after
which the entire process would be reviewed for con-
sistency with current science. States should be en-
couraged, as the frontline arbitrators of water
quality standards, to develop alternative ap-
proaches tailored to the State's needs, in full
partnership with EPA. If the State's number is less
restrictive and based on good science, accept that
number. States should not be discouraged in at-
tempts to go EPA one better. Different is not wrong;
it is merely another approach to provide a solution
to meet a goal or objective.
Lack of adequate science is not the only barrier
to implementation of water quality standards.
Scientific adequacy arguments are further compli-
cated by the specter of antibacksliding. The current
public perception is that, if an unnecessarily strin-
gent number gets into a permit (a "bad" number),
the permit writer and the discharger are stuck with
that number, no matter how inadequate science sub-
sequently demonstrates that number to be. Resis-
tance to the development of water quality standards
by the political, economic, and regulated com-
205
-------
M.J. GARREIS
munities could be severely reduced by clear, crisp
guidance from EPA. Such guidance should detail,
with examples, exactly how the antibacksliding
provisions are to be applied. If this guidance shows
that the regulated communities' worst fears are real
(that they can get no relief from "bad numbers"),
then the States working with EPA should obtain
new Federal legislation to correct this problem. It
was not Congress' intent to force dischargers to bear
the costs of reducing pollutants below levels neces-
sary for protection. Removal of this fear will ad-
vance the adoption of water quality standards
significantly.
Variability in interpretation as to how and
where water quality standards should be applied
among EPA regions provides another barrier to
water quality implementation. In some cases,
variability extends to differences among the States
in the same region. States have social and economic
reasons for remaining competitive and having re-
quirements consistent with those in other States.
When a discharger has facilities in several EPA
regions and can demonstrate orders of magnitude of
difference in permit limits for the same basic dis-
charge, one has to wonder about the national
validity of the standard-setting process.
Conclusion
In summation, I suggest the following actions to
help remove water quality standard barrier im-
plementation:
• Welcome change based on good science.
• Acknowledge that many different
approaches can bring us to the same
objective in a reasonable time. Guidance is
just that, a suggested approach without the
weight of law or regulation.
• Avoid the temptation to use the threat of
human health risk to achieve aquatic life
protection objectives.
• Revisit the entire criteria development
process with a peer review group of qualified
experts drawn from the scientific, regulatory,
industrial, and municipal sectors. Subject
the product to active public discussion over
several months.
• Resolve the metal speciation issue. Either do
the science in a short time (less than a year)
or provide a method to develop an
adjustment factor that can be used for
permit units without requiring the lengthy
site specific criteria adoption process.
• Develop estuarine criteria or provide a
method to develop an adjustment factor to
the marine criteria similar to that proposed
for heavy metals.
• Provide crisp, clear guidance that interprets
antibacksliding in plain English so we can
decide what is needed to resolve this issue. If
we need to change the Clean Water Act, let's
doit.
• Standardize guidance interpretation across
EPA regions.
The States, not the Federal Government, are
the final arbitrators of our national water quality. In
their daily water quality and water pollution control
activities, States man the front lines, making the
decisions and standard interpretations that result
in direct water quality improvement. To make the
best decisions, State personnel need to draw upon
standards with a strong scientific database, stand-
ards that can survive intense scientific scrutiny and
litigation. Without this firm basis, a State's
regulatory credibility is open to question.
206
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 207-210
Beyond Implementation: Challenges to
Complying with New Water
Quality-based Standards
Andrew H. Glickman
Senior Toxicologist
Chevron Research and Technology Company
Richmond, California
Introduction
The challenge for the regulatory community is to
implement scientifically sound water quality stand-
ards that industrial dischargers can comply with
responsibly. Regulators often consider their job com-
plete when they publish a final Federal Register
notice. Actually, their work is just beginning because
it is now up to them to work with States and the dis-
charger community to attain compliance. Implemen-
tation of water quality standards must develop into
a dynamic process that addresses both scientific
feasibility and cost to industrial dischargers.
Complying With Whole
Effluent Aquatic Toxicity
Standards
Aquatic Toxicity Standards
In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) implemented a program (Fed. Reg. 1984) to
use bioassays to monitor water quality. Ever since,
there has been considerable work to develop new
sensitive aquatic toxicity bioassays as well as
methods to identify sources of effluent toxicity. The
majority of Chevron's refineries and chemical plants
and many marketing terminals have bioassay re-
quirements in their National Point Discharge
Elimination System permits, and many of these per-
mits require chronic bioassays.
When attempting to implement and meet
toxicity requirements, industry is challenged by
their diversity. Water quality philosophy and bioas-
say requirements differ from State to State and, in
some cases, from community to community. Many
States that only have a monitoring program do not
set & compliance limit because of the variable and
experimental nature of effluent bioassays. Others
have set toxicity compliance limits, some of which
are based on the level of dilution in the receiving
water. In some States, if industries exceed the
toxicity limit, they are issued a violation notice,
while in others, there is no notice but industries are
required to conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation.
These variations also extend to the choice of
bioassay species. On the West Coast the trend is to
use native aquatic species. In California, a dis-
charger may run not only the approved EPA bioas-
says but also ones developed by that State's Fish
and Game Department with species such as red
abalone and the giant kelp (Calif. State Water
Resour. Control Board 1990), In Alaska, a dis-
charger may have to conduct bioassays with Pacific
salmon fry. The use of local test species often re-
quires dischargers to develop their own test
protocols or rely on ones not as developed as EPA's.
Nevertheless, while bioassays with native species
were considered a scary proposition a couple of
years ago, they are beginning to be accepted as test-
ing laboratories gain experience and a historical
database is developed.
This overall lack of consistency hinders develop-
ment of general toxicity reduction strategies and
207
-------
A.M. CUCKMAN
necessitates the expending of substantial resources
that deal with toxicity on a site-specific basis. For
instance, one refinery must comply with a flow-
through acute rainbow trout bioassay, while another
must comply with chronic mysid shrimp and sheeps-
head minnow bioassays.
Obviously, the long-term goal is no toxicity with
any species. But, as tests become more sensitive,
achieving absolutely no toxicity will become more
challenging. Because of the varied toxicity
endpoints, different approaches must be taken when
implementing toxicity control and reduction
measures. If more uniform toxicity limits were used
throughout the country, control efforts could be
more directed and less diffuse.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluations
One challenge Chevron encounters with toxicity
bioassays is understanding the source of toxicity
and developing strategies to reduce it. The
petroleum industry processes complex chemical
mixtures, such as crude oil, into other complex mix-
tures, such as fuels and lubricant oils. We do not
deal with the toxicity of one chemical but rather the
aggregate toxicity of thousands of chemicals. Rarely
do we find that one chemical is the predominant
cause of toxicity in petroleum-polluted wastewater.
As toxicity limits are implemented and become
more stringent, industries will have to better under-
stand how to reduce toxicity in wastewater. Many
facilities are faced with meeting a compliance limit
for toxicity but have no specific technology to control
it. Most wastewater treatment systems used at
refineries were designed 20 years ago to reduce con-
ventional pollutants such as oil and grease,
phenolics, ammonia, and suspended particulates;
however, they were not designed to specifically
reduce toxicity. Therefore, industry has an unclear
understanding of the technology to achieve this new
compliance limit.
What are industry's options when it goes out of
compliance with a whole effluent toxicity limit—an
event it is likely to face more frequently with the ad-
vent of chronic estimator bioassays. First, industry
will focus on source control and effluent treatment
system management, beginning with identification
of the most toxic wastewater streams, as well as the
most toxic chemicals used at the facility, and take
steps to reduce or better manage them. In addition,
industry will optimize the efficacy of the wastewater
treatment system by improving primary separation
processes and enhancing biological treatment.
These process changes to reduce toxicity can take
several months of planning, designing, and im-
plementation. And even then, they may not produce
a level of reduced toxicity that can enable a return
to compliance.
Concurrent with implementing a source control
program, the facility may begin or be forced to per-
form a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE), fol-
lowing EPA guidelines (Mount and
Anderson-Carnahan, 1988, 1989). This is often the
worst time to perform a TIE because source control
changes in the plant may be altering the effluent
composition. What is toxic one week may be al-
together different the next.
An even more common event occurs just when
an industry begins the TIE: toxicity disappears for
some inexplicable reason. Nevertheless, the facility
is facing noncompliance and must work fast. If there
is a lesson to be learned, it is that regulators should
allow ample time in a toxicity reduction compliance
schedule for dischargers to conduct evaluations logi-
cally and sequentially.
In Chevron's experience, TIEs do not seem to
work as well as EPA purports. Part of the problem is
that most environmental consulting firms have lit-
tle TIE experience, while EPA's research labs have
had lots of practice developing and performing these
methods. TIEs require both biological, toxicological,
and chemical expertise, and few consulting firms
combine all these disciplines. While many contrac-
tors say. they can perform TIEs, few have much
hands-on experience and are able to successfully
combine the three disciplines.
Nevertheless, industry must not discount the
EPA TIE methodologies or the use of bioassays to
monitor water quality. EPA's TIE guidelines present
an effective scientific approach to characterizing if
not identifying toxicants in effluents. And well-con-
trolled bioassays can indeed be valid indicators of
water quality. Industry's concern lies with local
regulators that often do not appreciate how techni-
cally difficult, expensive, and open-ended these
programs can be and the fact that they can take a
considerable amount of time and even then may not
provide a definitive answer. Regulators must recog-
nize the developmental nature of these programs
and not view a toxicity reduction requirement as a
simple permit checklist item. More sensitivity
should be shown to the discharger's situation;
regulators must allow time and even should develop
resources to help the discharger come into com-
pliance.
Even after a discharger has spent thousands of
dollars and several months on EPA Phase I and
Phase II TIE methods, it might not have identified
the toxic culprit because this procedure is analogous
to finding a needle in the haystack. Unfortunately,
when dealing with complex petroleum effluents a
208
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 207-210
variety of needles may exist, of which any, all, or
none may be toxic agents.
The lack of definitive identification can lead the
discharger back again to source control, thereby
continuing the toxicity reduction cycle. In these days
of new, tougher toxicity limits, more research is
needed over a wide range of industries to develop
more effective toxicity control strategies. The road
to implementation will be smoother once these
strategies are better identified.
Complying With Sediment
Criteria and Bioaccumulation
Standards
Over the next two years, sediment quality and
biological criteria will be developed by both EPA and
the States. In addition, bioaccumulation data have
already been used to set human health-based water
quality criteria. Recently in California, bioac-
cumulation concerns were used to set selenium
water quality criteria to protect wetland birds.
What do sediment and biological criteria and
bioaccumulation have in common? Well, they are
part of a trend in setting regulatory standards—not
at the end of the pipe but within the receiving water.
Now, a discharger must demonstrate not only that
its effluent does not cause adverse impacts when it
leaves the plant, but also that the discharge does
not cause any cumulative impacts in the receiving
water. The implementation of these criteria could
have significant ramifications to both present and
past dischargers.
How these beyond end-of-pipe standards will ul-
timately be implemented is not as clear as for com-
paratively straightforward effluent toxicity testing.
Once effluent is introduced into the receiving water,
a whole set of additional variables and a new level of
complexity will determine whether there will be ad-
verse effects and if they can be detected,
Sediment Criteria
In the case of sediments, contamination depends not
only on the water quality of the discharge but also
on its location and history. For instance, if a dis-
charge site is near a deposition zone—a location
where suspended material can settle and accumu-
late—there is a greater chance of local contamina-
tion. Contamination is also related to the past
history of the discharge site as well as the past and
present practices of nearby point and nonpoint dis-
chargers. In San Francisco Bay, some metals found
in sediments can be attributed to very old mining
operations that occurred hundreds of miles
upstream. Thus, a discharging operator can con-
ceivably be blamed for contamination beyond its
doing or outside its control.
Further ambiguities result from determining
whether the sediment contamination is, in fact,
causing adverse effects to resident aquatic life. This
perhaps most challenging aspect of sediment
criteria development is clearly stated in the adage:
'|just because a chemical is present does not mean it
is toxic." Adverse effects observed in field benthic
communities may be related to gross sediment con-
tamination as well as a host of other co-factors, in-
cluding sediment particle size and organic carbon
content, salinity, and the chemical state and
bioavailability of a toxicant, as well as the sen-
sitivity of the local species.
These factors indicate a need to allow sediment
criteria to be set on a site-specific basis. If not, there
is a high probability of overregulation at some sites
and underregulation at others. It is important to
recognize, however, that site-specific criteria are not
without their shortcomings. Issues that should be
resolved are what is an adequate database to make
a final assessment and should a criteria apply for
whole region, such as an enclosed bay, or a specific
"microregion," such as the site of an individual dis-
charge.
In any case, when sediment criteria are ex-
ceeded, remediation should not be considered solely
on the basis of achieving specific chemical criteria. A
comprehensive environmental health risk assess-
ment should address all the physical, chemical, and
biological aspects of the contamination.
Bioaccumulation
Both EPA and some States are showing considerable
interest in regulating effluents on the basis of sub-
stances present that could accumulate in organisms
in the receiving water. Recently, EPA drafted a tech-
nical guidance document on evaluating bioac-
cumulative substances in effluents (U.S. Environ.
Prot. Agency, 1989). The issue of bioaccumulation is
driven not only by uncertainties about the
organisms' impact on the receiving water but also by
concerns for humans and wildlife who consume
these organisms and therefore can accumulate
chemicals to levels that ultimately could cause toxic
effects. Bioaccumulation-based objectives would
protect wildlife and humans from these potential
long-term impacts.
Significant technical concerns about using
bioaccumulation data when developing water
quality criteria include the high variabilities in de-
gree of bioaccumulation from one organism to the
209
-------
A.H. GL1CKMAN
next. For instance, bivalves are much more limited
in their ability to detoxify and excrete substances
than fish; therefore, they accumulate substances to
higher levels. The level of bioaccumulation in a
laboratory experiment or a mussel basket field sur-
vey often depends on the study's experimental
design. Factors that may affect the final data in-
clude:
• The species to be monitored,
• The duration of exposure,
• The bioavailability of substances selected to
be measured, and
• The analytical levels of detection for these
substances.
While good data exist for known substances
that bioaccumulate (such as methyl mercury, PCBs,
and most pesticides), little is known about the bioac-
cumulative potential of many substances found in
effluents. In addition, dischargers are not sure how
to interpret this data because there is no benchmark
to determine what level of bioaccumulation con-
stitutes a potential adverse impact in individual or-
ganisms. More data should be collected before
imposing regulations, and consistent guidelines
should be developed for conducting bioaccumulation
experiments and evaluating bioaccumulation data.
Conclusion
Over the next decade, industry will face more
restrictive water quality standards. These new
standards will move us beyond the traditional
benchmark of water quality and may require in-
novative technology to meet them. We must ensure
that these new criteria meet the highest scientific
standards and are both necessary and attainable.
References
California State Water Resources Control Board. 1990. Water
Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California,
California Ocean Plan. Div. Water Qual., Sacramento.
Federal Register. 1984. Notices. 49(48):9016-19.
Mount, D.I. and L. Andereon-Carnahan. 1988. Methods for
Aquatic Tbxicity Identification Evaluations. Phase I:
Tbxicity Characterization Procedures. EPA-600/3-88/034.
Natl. Effluent Tbxitity Assess. Center, U.S. Environ. Prot.
Agency, Duluth, MN.
. 1989. Methods for Aquatic Tbxicity Identification
Evaluations. Phase II: Tbxicity Identification Procedures.
EPA-600/3-88/035. Natl. Effluent Tbxicity Assess. Center,
U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency, Duluth, MN.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Guidance on As-
sessment, Criteria Development, and Control of Biocon-
centratable Contaminants in Surface Waters. (Draft) Off.
Water, Washington, DC.
210
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 211-216
Protection of Reservation Environments
in the 1990s
Richard A. Du Bey
Attorney-at-Law
Stoel Rives Boley Jones & Gray
Seattle, Washington
Introduction
The natural environment has always been vital to
the spiritual and cultural aspects of American In-
dian life. The quality of the reservation environ-
ment, including the lakes, streams, forest lands, and
living resources within the millions of acres that
comprise Indian lands, supports tribal life-styles
and the economic well-being of tribal members. The
natural world, in turn, provides Indians with the
fish, plant, and wildlife resources that even today
constitute a significant portion of their diet.
Resources such as air and ground and surface
waters are not confined to the reservation boun-
daries. Consequently, such resources and the life
they sustain are particularly susceptible to con-
tamination from off-reservation sources. Use of
waterways and associated wetland habitat affects
both Indian and non-Indian users, and thus ade-
quate protection of these resources is a common con-
cern to both tribes and States.
Treaty rights provide one means by which In-
dian tribes may exercise control over reservation
and off-reservation lands. Treaties give tribes
Federal authority to directly and indirectly regulate
reservation and off-reservation lands. Federal en-
vironmental law is an additional source of tribal
regulatory authority. I will discuss several of the key
Federal statutes in this presentation.
Federal Policy
Until the mid-1980s, tribal governments were not
recognized as participants and had little part in
developing or implementing Federal environmental
regulatory programs. As a result, national environ-
mental programs were not being implemented
within Indian reservations, and the reservation en-
vironment was less protected than adjacent, non-
Indian lands. As a further consequence, tribes were
generally unable to participate directly in, or receive
funding through, the various Federal environmental
grant programs administered by the U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA).
Federal Indian policy changed dramatically in
1983. On January 24, 1983, President Reagan
presented his Indian Policy Statement endorsing
the twin themes of tribal self-government and tribal
economic self-sufficiency. In furtherance of this
policy, in November 1984, EPA published its Indian
policy acknowledging the primary role of tribal
governments in the implementation of Federal en-
vironmental law. One year later, in November 1985,
EPA adopted its Interim Strategy for the Implemen-
tation of the EPA Indian Policy, which recognized
that "[fjorcing tribal governments to act through
State governments that cannot exercise jurisdiction
over [Indian Tribes] is not an effective way of im-
plementing programs overall, and certainly is in op-
position to the Federal Indian Policy."
Under Federal law, a trust relationship exists
between the Federal Government and Indian tribal
governments. This trust gives rise to the Federal
Government's fiduciary duty owed to Indian tribes.
The Supreme Court has construed this trust obliga-
tion as impressing a fiduciary duty upon the United
States. (United States v. Mitchell ["Mitchell II"]; 463
U.S. 206, 224, Blue Legs v. BIA, 867 F.2d 1094 [8th
Cir. 1989]).
211
-------
R.A. DU BEY
EPA Indian Policy and Federal
Regulation
Congress has affirmed EPA's policy of working on a
government-to-government basis with Indian tribes
through the enactment of recent amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation and Liability Act (Superfund) (42 U.S.C.
300f et seq., P.L. 99-339 [1986]; 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq. P.L. 100-4 [1987]; and 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
P.L. 99-499 [1986]). These amendments acknow-
ledge the sovereign status of Indian tribes and con-
firm EPA's ability to treat tribes as States for the
purposes of implementing environmental programs
and regulating the reservation environment.
Under the Clean Water and Safe Drinking
Water Acts, tribes may seek EPA water quality pro-
gram delegation and primary regulatory authority
or primacy for one or more of the acts' programs.
Once a tribe has received state-like recognition, it
will be eligible for a broad range of funding oppor-
tunities under the acts. Under Superfund, which is
not a delegable program, Indian tribes have the
same opportunities for program participation as
States.
Tribal Authority to Regulate the
Reservation Environment
Tribal power to regulate those activities that might
pollute tribal resources is derived from two principal
sources. One source is the tribe's proprietary rights:
the tribe has all rights and powers of a property
owner with respect to tribal lands. A more fun-
damental and pervasive source, however, is the
tribe's inherent sovereignty, which includes the
power to regulate the use of property over which the
tribe has jurisdiction and control.
• Tribal Proprietary Rights. Like any
property owner, tribes may control activities
on the lands they own. As described by the
U.S. Supreme Court in County of Oneida v.
Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226 (1984),
Indian tribes retain aboriginal title to lands
they have inhabited, while the discovering
nations (and their successors in interest, the
13 original colonies) may have fee title "sub-
ject to the Indians' right of occupancy and
use" (470 U.S. 234 [1984]).
As a proprietor, a tribe may condition
entry upon its lands on compliance with
tribal law. A tribe also has the power to ex-
clude nonmembers from Indian lands (Mer-
rion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe, 102 S.Ct. 894,
at 901-906 [1982]). A tribe may, by contract
or lease condition, require that all proposed
on-reservation pollution-generating activities
comply with tribal environmental regula-
tions.
In addition to proprietary rights on tribal
lands, tribes possess aboriginal and reserved
water rights. In United States v. Winters, 207
U.S. 563 (1908), the Supreme Court found
that the setting aside of an Indian reserva-
tion necessarily included the implied reserva-
tion of a proprietary water right. Implied
Indian water rights have also been held to
exist where water was "essential to the life of
the Indian people" (Arizona v. California, 373
U.S. 546, 599 [1963]).
A necessary corollary to a tribe's reserved
water right is a tribal right to water of un-
diminished quality. The quality of the tribe's
water right must be adequate to protect the
ecological system and sustain the health of
the tribe's fishery and the tribal members. In
this sense, there is a nexus between the
power that stems from a tribe's proprietary
rights and regulatory authority that is a
function of tribal sovereignty.
Tribal Sovereignty. In addition to its
proprietary rights, a tribe's sovereignty
gives rise to its governmental police powers,
which may be exercised by means of civil
regulatory controls. A tribe's inherent sover-
eign powers extend to both its members and
its territory. As early as 1926, the Supreme
Court recognized that one of the most basic
incidents of sovereignty is a government's
power to regulate land use to protect public
health and welfare (Village of Euclid v.
Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 [1926]).
Some eight years later, the solicitor of
the Department of the Interior asserted that
"[i]n its capacity as a sovereign" a tribe "may
exercise powers similar to those exercised by
any state or nation in regulating the use or
disposition of private property, save insofar
as it is restricted by specific statutes of Con-
gress" (Powers of Indian Tribes, I, Opinions
of the Solicitor at 471 [1934]).
The scope of a tribe's authority to regu-
late land use through zoning is analyzed in
light of the current body of judge-made or
common law including the recent case, Bren-
dale v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of
Yakima Indian Nation et al, 57 U.S.L.W
4999 (U.S. June 29, 1989). This paper ad-
dresses the exercise of tribal sovereignty
212
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE21st CENTURY: 211-216
through EPA-delegated environmental
regulatory programs. Accordingly, the mat-
ter of tribal zoning and land use control is
beyond the scope of this analysis.
Treaty Rights. Although tribal govern-
ments were not created by the Constitution,
Indian tribes receive prominent mention in
that document. The Constitution provides
that treaties entered into by the United
States, including those treaties entered into
with Indian tribes, are the supreme law of
the land (U.S. C. art. VI, cl. )2). Thus, in ad-
dition to proprietary and sovereign rights,
any analysis of tribal regulatory authority
concerning environmental issues must con-
sider the relevant treaty provisions. Essen-
tially, "Indian treaties, executive orders and
statutes preempt State laws that would
otherwise apply by virtue of the States'
residual jurisdiction over persons and
property within their borders" (Cohen, F. S.
Handbook of Federal Indian Law at 271
[1982]). Furthermore, "[S]tate laws are in-
validated by the exercise of a substantive
Constitutional power implemented by the
Supremacy Clause of the Constitution."
Tribal Environmental Law
Exclusive Federal and tribal regulation of the reser-
vation environment furthers the following policy ob-
jectives:
• Tribal participation in Federal
environmental programs strengthens the
infrastructure of tribal government and
avoids increased assimilation.
• Tribal participation in Federal
environmental programs enables Indian
land use choices to be made in response to
the environmental considerations and the
economic priorities of people most directly
affected.
• Tribal environmental programs that clearly
define the on-reservation regulatory
environment serve to facilitate economic
development.
• Tribal participation enables tribal members
to develop technical and administrative
skills in environmental programs and
enables tribes to implement tribal programs
and interact with the outside community.
• Tribal environmental protection programs
provide tribes with the means to mitigate
environmental impacts associated with
on-reservation economic development.
Federal and Tribal Environmental
Programs
Congress affirmed EPA's policy of working on a
government-to-government basis with Indian tribes
through the enactment of recent amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts, Super-
fund and, most recently, the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., P.L. 99-339 [1986]; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., P.L. 100-104 [1987]; 42 U.S.C.
9601 et seq., P.L. 99-499 [1986]; and P.L. 101-380,
104 Stat. 484 [August 18, 1990]). These amend-
ments acknowledge the sovereign status of Indian
tribes and confirm EPA's ability to treat tribes as
States for the purposes of implementing environ-
mental programs and regulating the reservation en-
vironment.
• The Clean Water Act. From a water
quality management perspective, the most
significant statutory change took place on
February 4, 1987, with the addition of sec-
tion 518 to the Clean Water Act. Section 518
directs EPA to promulgate regulations
specifying how the Agency will treat
qualified Indian tribes as States. Under sec-
tion 518, EPA in promulgating these regula-
tions is directed to establish a mechanism to
address those conflicts arising where State
and tribal boundary water quality standards
may differ.
On April 11, 1989, EPA promulgated In-
terim Final Rules by which the Agency will
determine which tribes qualify for state-like
treatment under section 518 of the Clean
Water Act. (54 Fed. Reg. 14534). These rules
acknowledge the sovereign authority of tribes
and establish a procedure whereby tribes will
be treated as States. In so doing, tribes will
be allowed to participate in and receive fund-
ing for several programs under the Clean
Water Act to protect the reservation environ-
ment.
To qualify for treatment as a State, an
Indian tribe must meet the following four
criteria:
1. The Indian tribe must be federally
recognized.
213
-------
R.A. DU BEY
2. The tribe must have a governing body
capable of carrying out substantial
governmental functions.
3. The functions of the tribal government
must include management and protection of
water resources.
4. The Indian tribe is determined to be
reasonably capable of carrying out these
functions.
Section 518 of the Clean Water Act ex-
emplifies the expanding role of tribes in
protection of their water rights on and off the
reservation.
More recently, EPA has published its
proposed rules concerning the adoption of
tribal water quality standards under the
Clean Water Act (54 Fed. Reg. 39098 [Sep-
tember 22, 1989]). These proposed rules pro-
vide that once a tribe has qualified for
treatment as a State, the tribe may develop
water quality standards. Once approved by
EPA, the standards will apply to activities
taking place within the reservation environ-
ment under section 303 (Water Quality
Standards and Implementation Plans of the
Clean Water Act). Section 303 allows
development of water quality standards and
in-stream quality criteria to protect uses for
all surface waters of the United States.
The promulgation of the tribal water
quality regulations will allow tribes to
fashion standards to meet the requirements
of their individual reservations. Once the
standards are adopted by the tribal govern-
ing body, the tribal regulations can be sub-
mitted to EPA for review and approval.
Off-reservation activities that impact on-
reservation water quality must comply with
the approved tribal water quality standards.
Tribes with federally recognized standards
are empowered by section 401 of the Clean
Water Act to deny any federally permitted ac-
tivity that does not comply. This process oc-
curs through the act's section 401
certification provisions under which States
and tribes may review, approve, modify, or
deny any Federal permit or license.
I The Safe Drinking Water Act. This act
was first enacted in 1974 to provide EPA
with Federal authority to protect public
health through the regulation of surface and
subsurface drinking water. It establishes a
national regulatory program to protect the
quality of drinking water from sources of
known contamination.
In 1986, the Safe Drinking Water Act
was amended and EPA was empowered to
delegate primary enforcement authority to
Indian tribal governments. Tribes may now
regulate public water systems and the under-
ground injection of wastes on their reserva-
tions.
The act was the first Federal environ-
mental law to authorize EPA's administrator
to "treat Indian Tribes as States" (42 U.S.C.
Section 1451 [a][l]). Regulations promul-
gated under the act were the first to provide
Federal recognition of the state-like status of
Indian tribal government (53 Fed. Reg.
37396 et seq. [Sept. 26, 1988]). The amend-
ments also made grant funding and technical
assistance available to Indian tribes.
On September 26, 1988, EPA promul-
gated a final rule allowing Indian tribes to be
treated as States for purposes of administer-
ing the public water system and under-
ground injection control programs under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (53 Fed. Reg.
37396). This rule allows tribal governments
to assume primary responsibility for water
quality program administration or "primacy."
Generally, EPA will not delegate Safe Drink-
ing Water Act programs to States for
implementation on Indian lands (See, e.g.,
Notice of Denial, 53 Fed. Reg. 43080 [Oct. 25,
1988]).
Indian tribes must demonstrate that
they qualify for state-like treatment before
EPA will make funding or delegate primary
enforcement authority for either program (53
Fed. Reg. at 37399; 40 CFR 142.72 and
145.52). After receiving state-like designa-
tion, the tribe will be able to apply for EPA
grant funding to develop Safe Drinking
Water Act programs. Finally, a tribe can
receive program delegation or "primacy"
under the act (53 Fed. Reg. at 37399).
The 1986 amendments to the act require
substantially the same demonstration for
tribal primacy as under the 1987 Clean
Water Act amendments. Under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, an Indian tribe applying
for primacy must first demonstrate that it
qualifies for state-like treatment by showing
that:
• The tribe is recognized by the Secretary of
the Interior;
• The tribe has a governing body capable of
carrying out substantial governmental
powers over a defined area;
214
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 211-216
• The tribe has jurisdiction over the program
area; and
• The tribe is capable of administering the
program.
EPA has published final rules for the un-
derground injection and public water system
programs (53 Fed. Reg. 37398 et seq.).
State-like status is generally a prereq-
uisite to the receipt of grant funding under
the 1986 Indian amendments to the act.
Tribes that either choose not to or otherwise
cannot demonstrate the requisite authority
to administer either program are generally
not eligible to receive the special tribal fund-
ing. EPA policy is to continue to treat non-
primacy tribes as municipalities subject to
Federal regulatory oversight under the act.
This is essentially the same status tribes
held prior to the 1986 Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments (53 Fed. Reg. at 37397).
• Superfund. In the 1986 Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA),
Congress expanded the role of Indian tribes
under Superfund (Pub. Law 99-499 [Oct. 17,
1986]). Generally, the governing body of an
Indian tribe is to be "afforded substantially
the same treatment as a State" with respect
to many provisions of Superfund (CERCLA
Sec. 126[a]).
Tribes were specifically recognized to
have state-like status with respect to
notification of releases; consultation on
remedial actions; access to information;
health authorities; and roles and respon-
sibilities under the national contingency plan
and submittal of priorities for remedial ac-
tion. However, this does not include the
provision regarding the inclusion of at least
one facility per State on the National
Priorities List.
In addition, section 107(f)(l) was
amended to extend liability for damages to
tribal natural resources to Indian tribes as
well as damages to State and Federal natural
resources to those respective sovereigns.
Intergovernmental Coordination
• Tribal Water Quality Standards. Al-
though approved by EPA, State or tribal
water quality standards exist as a matter of
State or tribal law, not Federal law. EPA's
approval is merely an affirmation of the ade-
quacy of the State or tribal standards and a
declaration that no Federal promulgation is
necessary.
Neither State water quality standards
nor the underlying State water quality
management program is applicable within
the exterior boundaries of an Indian reserva-
tion. Where a tribe elects not to adopt its
own tribal water quality standards, EPA has
the responsibility to promulgate Federal
standards to protect the reservation environ-
ment. EPA can promulgate water quality
standards in Indian country as a matter of
Federal rulemaking (e.g 53 Fed. Reg. 26968
[July 15, 1988] [proposed Water Quality
Standards for the Colville Indian Reserva-
tion]).
Tribal water quality standards are
designed to meet the needs of individual In-
dian tribes. The designated uses for on-
reservation surface waters are protected
through the enactment of standards that will
ensure that the overall water quality will
sustain the identified uses. Once a tribal
program is approved by EPA and the tribe is
qualified for treatment as a State, the tribe is
subject to the same EPA regulatory require-
ments for establishing and revising water
quality standards as are approved State
programs.
• Tribal and State Cooperative Agree-
ments. Section 518(e) of the amended Clean
Water Act provides a mechanism for resolv-
ing unreasonable consequences that may
result when a tribe and an adjoining State
propose differing water quality standards for
a common body of water. EPA is proposing
to set up a mediation process for situations
where State, tribal, or international stand-
ards come into conflict. If a dispute
develops, the appropriate EPA regional ad-
ministrator will mediate and resolve it. At-
tempts to resolve the dispute may include:
• Seeking legal opinions on the parties'
obligations under the Clean Water Act, in-
cluding compacts or memoranda of under-
standing between the parties;
• Performing studies to define existing water
uses and quality;
• Holding informal meetings or formal public
hearings; or
• Creating a special advisory group to
resolve or recommend actions to resolve
the dispute.
215
-------
R.A.DUBEY
Conclusion
Protection of the reservation environment is basic to
the survival of Indian people. The importance of
clean water, air, and land on Indian reservations
cannot be overstated. The endless cycle of life would
be broken if reservation lands and waters could no
longer sustain the living resource upon which In-
dians rely.
Pollution of the reservation environment is not
only detrimental to the health and safety of tribes
but to their economic survival and that of the ad-
jacent non-Indian communities. Moreover, for
tribes to meet the demands of their members for
jobs, economic development, and necessary services,
they must recruit on-reservation businesses. Thus,
economic development and environmental protec-
tion must proceed hand-in-hand.
Now that EPA has implemented its policy to
work with Indian tribes on a government-to-govern-
ment basis, it is imperative that the tribes be given
a fair chance to fully participate in such programs.
Working together, tribes, States, and EPA can fur-
ther the goals of the Federal statutes to protect the
health of the people both on and off the reservation
and preserve the quality of their environment.
216
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Q. (Jessica Landman, Natural Resources
Defense Council) My question is for Mr. Garner. You
talked about the ways the different States within the
Ohio River Valley have been cooperating to address
the watershed problem. My question has to do with
the cross-jurisdictional issues of water quality stand-
ards setting. In the Chesapeake Bay region, we've
been looking at this issue, and there are obvious com-
plications in trying to work with a group of States.
What have you done systematically to have stand-
ards that cross-jurisdictionally match up and are
consistent? Do you have any formal procedures or is
this all done through jaw-boning? How are you
achieving consistency?
A. (Gordon Garner) ORSANCO has unique
authority. It was created in 1948 by Congress, and
all the States agreed to abide by the standards set
by the commission. The commission does have inde-
pendent enforcement authority for NPDES permits.
It uses that authority very carefully and therefore
has not been as involved in enforcement actions, but
its staff reviews all the permits.
The commission has a regular public list that is
reviewed at every meeting. If a discharger gets out
of compliance, it goes on the list, and we send it a
letter. If we feel the State or EPA is not responsive
enough, we can launch an investigation, which gets
a lot of publicity and usually has more clout than en-
forcement. That brings the problem to the public's
attention. If you want the States to cooperate, some-
where along the line there must be some public in-
volvement and information.
Q. (Jessica Landman) But what about permit-
ting and enforcing water quality standards?
A. (Gordon Garner) The eight States agreed to
basically incorporate water quality standards into
commission standards. Even though standards OR-
SANCO adopted may differ somewhat from those
set by individual States, because of the agreement,
at least on Ohio main stem permits, the States
agree to abide by what was adopted by ORSANCO.
Q. (Jessica Landman) Are you saying that legal
authority is what you need?
A. (Gordon Garner) Yes, that's ideal. Some of
the other river basin commissions suffer from
having limitations on what they can do. Legal
authority is not the only way to get things done, but
it sure helps a lot.
Q. (George Coling, Sierra Club Great Lakes Pro-
gram) Another question for Mr. Garner. The increas-
ing evidence shows air toxics as a major
contaminant, particularly of the upper lakes, with 90
percent of the lead and PCBs coming from airborne
deposition and myrex in fish tissue in an inland
lake. I'd like you to speak in general from a regional
viewpoint on how this issue comes up in the Ohio
River Valley; maybe you can put this on your list of
nonpoints.
A. (Gordon Garner) The nonpoint source study
on the Ohio River Basin identified atmospheric
deposition as a problem. It wasn't as significant as
mining and agricultural problems and probably less
even than urban runoff. But it still was identified as
a significant factor. Those of us involved in water
quality need to keep our eye on what the air people
are doing. For 10 years, they've done nothing and
now it looks like that's going to change—the air pro-
gram has to catch up to the water program.
Q. Does that study indicate POTWs as a sig-
nificant source of direct pesticide volatization?
A. (Gordon Garner) No. I have a bias on this
issue. We're doing some studies and modeling on our
facilities and, at least at this point, we haven't found
that we're a significant contributor. However, more
work needs to be done.
C. (LeAnne Hamilton, Los Angeles County
Sanitation) I'd like to react to some of your com-
ments, Bill (Diamond). The first problem that you
mentioned was the need to find creative alternatives
to litigation. I think we need alternatives. The thing
I liked the least about your remarks, Bill, was the
statement that what we really need is to have a
three-year cycle for triennial reviews, and then, in
that period, to require the State to adopt any
criteria where EPA puts out a criteria number.
That's in contradiction to your first point about
wanting to avoid an epidemic of litigation. At least
going by California's experience, it appears that, be-
cause of the time pressure, the difficult science, and
the 303(c)(2)(B) three-year deadline, they had to do
a statewide standard. They weren't able to work in a
lot of site-specific factors, even when places where
these factors are important in certain waterbodies.
217
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
For almost all the agriculture drains, most or all
of the effluent dominated streams, and perhaps
most of the stormwater and point source discharges,
where there's a background water concentration
and a specific objective, they can't achieve it. It just
appears that many of these sources will be in viola-
tion, and it seems that EPA Region IX's policy is
that this is fine, well put everybody on a compliance
schedule. I don't think EPA should just say let's
make it a long schedule. If the time that's given isn't
enough, and you don't know ahead what's needed
where the science is still uncertain, then, at the end
of that time, you go into a consent degree. So you
really are talking about a lot of litigation. How do
you reconcile those two things?
A. (Bill Diamond) During the Clean Water Act
reauthorization that led up to the 1987 amend-
ments, the issue of national standards was already
on the table, put there by some of the people up on
the Hill. By that time, the States had toxic criteria,
but most had done very little and weren't open to
discussing hard and difficult questions. What car-
ried the day (in terms of avoiding national stand-
ards) was the argument that now we've done some
technology, give us one more chance and we'll clean
up; we'll get these things adopted in the next trien-
nial review cycle. However, people up on the Hill
reminded us that a three-year cycle was already
built into the law. The fact that, four years after
enactment, only 16 States are in compliance with
that requirement is not convincing to those who
would give us some more rope. My suggestion is to
try to come up with some means (absent immediate
Federal applicability) to allow the States flexibility
to do site-specific tailoring. Unless we come up with
some alternatives and show that they work, we will
end up with what a number of States and dis-
chargers think is an inferior way to do this program.
Q. (LeAnne Hamilton) Does anybody else have
any suggestions for alternatives to litigation, where
you can still get the job done?
A. (Mary Jo Garreis) I've got one. I think there's
a presumption of distrust among us. (It's never
spoken but it exists.) The States don't trust the Feds
and the Feds don't trust the States. Industry doesn't
trust the States or the Feds. I think we send that
message at all kinds of levels. Yesterday, when
Geraldine Cox (the industry person) came to talk,
half the room left. That sent a message: industry
has nothing to say or I already know what they're
going to say. They don't want to work with us.
We're all coming to these meetings with hidden
agendas. I think it's time we got the agendas out on
the table and started some real consensus building.
That's going to mean compromise from a lot of dif-
ferent people. If we can get that through forums,
meetings, and talking—on a local, State, and
Federal level—then a lot of this tendency to run and
litigate will go away. The perception of litigation is
that it's the only way to be heard. It's one thing to
hear and another thing to listen.
C. (Perry Lankford, Eckenfelder Inc.) I'd just
like to thank Mary Jo Garreis for having the
courage to stand up and say things that a lot of
people don't want to hear. That last comment is a
good one. I'd like to contrast that, Mr. Diamond,
with what you had to say and get you to respond to
some of her issues. You want us to be bold, you want
to make some decisions and live with them, you
want to get past all this endless dialogue and debate
over certain of these numerical issues. What we see
as barriers you think we've already cleared. We still
see them as barriers.
C. (Bill Diamond) Let me just address one area
that I think can be an example. We've heard
throughout the conference that people face uncer-
tainties with the criteria, the metals, and the num-
bers in terms of what we've got on the table and how
we can resolve some of those issues. We recognize
that we've got some difficulties. The counterbalance
that I keep hearing is that we don't ask as much, we
don't get the demonstrable results of data. We hear
from industries and dischargers all the time that if
you put this number on us, it's going to cost billions
of dollars, we'll never be able to change, and we'll
have to buy equipment. We, as Federal regulators,
say that's something we ought to at least be aware
of even if we can't take it into consideration in cer-
tain parts of our process—and be willing to come
forward with data on the impacts or costs or what's
really out there.
As Federal regulators, we have to push that
issue to make sure that it's not just a barrier and a
hurdle to action. There's a responsibility to do good
science and good jobs to back up claims on both
sides. There's a tendency in the bureaucracy not to
take action. It's too easy not to do anything and to
study problems to death. But in forcing that action,
the real issues usually come to the fore. We usually
get down to the issues and then deal with them.
C. A major barrier to implementing water
quality standards is resources. I think it's interest-
ing that the speakers were told not to talk about
money. I can understand that from one perspective
because if we started talking about money, we'd
probably spend all of our time on that and not focus
on some of the substantive issues. If anything has
been clear over the last few days talking about these
new areas—sediment standards, wetlands,
biocriteria—it's that doing these new things right is
tremendously information-intensive, which means
resource-intensive. I think that we need to keep an
218
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
eye on how the resources can be addressed to do we've all seen how exciting and new all of these new
these things realistically if we're going to move for- presents look, it has also become clear that when
ward. you look closely at each of the packages, you'll see
I'm reminded again of the Christmas present that innocuous but terrifying phrase—some assem-
analogy from the first day of the session. While bly required.
219
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 221-223
An Environmentalist's Perspective
on Water Quality Standards
Freeman Allen
Vice President
Sierra Club
San Francisco, California
s we look to the future, consider the les-
sons of the past. This Nation's effort to
achieve clean water, led by the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency (EPA), has fallen far
behind the goals set by Congress in the Clean Water
Act: "to restore and maintain the physical and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
Congress established a goal to eliminate dis-
charge of pollutants into the navigable waterways
by 1985 and a policy that prohibited discharge of
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Programs for con-
trol of nonpoint sources of pollution were to be
developed and implemented expeditiously. Congress'
goal of water quality (wherever attainable) by July
1983 provides for the protection and propagation of
fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on
the water.
Now, in 1990, the United States is still wide of
the mark. A much more aggressive program is
needed as we set water quality standards for the
21st century.
Half a century ago, when I was growing up in
San Francisco, it was an exciting time to be alive.
The Bay Bridge had just been finished. A World's
Fair was open on Treasure Island, and I had a
season's pass. My favorite spot was the Du Pont ex-
hibit — "Better Things for Better Living Through
Chemistry" — also the company that displayed
products such as nylon, paints, and medicines, all
created from coal, air, and water. It seemed like
magic! These all-knowing wizards were leading us
into an untroubled future based on new technology.
I myself chose a career in organic chemistry — a
decision I have never regretted.
But we didn't see the whole picture, so we were
careless and overconfident. The world became a
dumping ground — an unintended laboratory for
unplanned experiments. DDT, PCBs, and nuclear
waste wreaked havoc with the environment. Con-
taminated sediments and shellfish, toxic dumps,
pollution of water, land, and air — the result of care-
less ignorance — threatened human health, animal
species, and whole ecosystems. Perceptions slowly
changed. Du Font's motto became "Better Things for
Better Living" — no more mention of chemistry.
Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, and EPA was
established.
Many years ago, John Muir recognized that
everything is hitched to everything else. Aldo
Leopold advised us to look at all ecosystems, instead
of a piecemeal approach. Barry Commoner and
others suggested that "if you don't want a problem,
don't put it there in the first place." However, there
are important lessons to be learned from past mis-
takes. To protect the environment, we must:
• Protect the health of the whole man.
Consider not just cancer but every aspect of
physical and mental health—the whole
quality of life—man's place in the natural
world.
• Preserve the health of the whole en-
vironment. Consider the impact on the en-
tire ecosystem and the need for stricter
standards in uniquely sensitive areas.
The recommendations of the Scientific Advisory
Board incorporate these concepts. The EPA appears
221
-------
F. Allen
to embrace them. Now is the time for commitment
and action.
• The EPA must become an aggressive ad-
vocate for protection of the environ-
ment. Its role as regulator and mediator of
inadequate standards betrays the high pur-
poses for which the Agency was conceived.
• Use common sense: set class standards
for substances. Thousands of chemicals
pollute the waters. There is neither the time
nor resources to set a standard for each, and
it is impossible to completely assess with
certainty the risk of even one chemical!
Fortunately, broad principles can be ap-
plied to simplify the task:
• Harmful substances that persist because
ecosystems millions of years old can not
cope with them should not be released
into the environment. We have seen many
examples of problems with such classes of
compounds, including PCBs, chlorinated
pesticides, chlorinated dioxins and furans.
For these compounds, a goal of zero
discharge makes sense—unless other
concentrations are proven safe.
• For other classes of compounds (phenols,
for example), rational techniques, such as
quantitative structure activity analysis,
can be used as the basis for class
standards. These criteria should be set
with an margin of safety to accommodate
the inevitable uncertainty in any such
technique.
• Individual compounds that present
unique hazards require individual
standards.
Modify Products
Meeting adequate standards will be much easier for
industry and for us all if products and processes are
modified whenever possible to minimize use and
production of substances that are problems to dis-
pose of and clean up: highly halogenated com-
pounds, for example, and compounds of toxic metals
such as lead and mercury. This does not imply a
complete ban, but rather wise use where there is a
real need. One example is chlorine bleaching of
wood pulp, which produces a variety of troublesome
chlorinated pollutants. Alternative processes are
available that have been proven commercially vi-
able. With knowledgeable and proper planning,
producers, consumers, and the environment can all
benefit. Impressive successes in pollution control
have also been achieved when use of a problem com-
pound has simply been eliminated. (Lead in gasoline
and paint is a good example.)
Set Numerical Standards
Minimum numerical standards should be set at the
Federal level for application throughout the Nation.
It makes no sense for each State to repeat the stand-
ard-setting process, especially when States do not
have access to the best expertise and resources.
State efforts should be concentrated on special
problems to protect unique local ecosystems. Stand-
ards appropriate for the Port of Houston are not
likely to be adequate for Florida's Everglades, where
traces of nutrients can eventually destroy the
natural ecosystem. States must have the authority
and the duty to set more stringent standards to
meet unique needs for environmental protection.
When more stringent standards are needed in
multi-state regions (the Great Lakes, for example),
the EPA should take the responsibility to establish
appropriate regional standards.
In every case, the goal must be a healthy, sus-
tainable environment—whether it be for ground-
water, wetlands, rivers, coasts, estuaries, or lakes.
We are paying a heavy price for carelessness and in-
adequate past standards. Ibo often laws and regula-
tions that are on the books have been poorly
enforced. Simply correcting this deficiency would be
a major improvement.
Other mistakes will be made, no matter how
well intended our actions. But we have learned
enough to move forward with confidence on a much
more aggressive program. It will take courage and
dedication, but nothing less is likely to succeed.
Apply Funding Thoughtfully
Such funds as are available for monitoring and ap-
plied research should go for well-designed programs
where support is linked to good assessment of use-
fulness and quality. Establish peer review of
proposed projects, using the best people available.
Limited resources are too important to waste on ill-
conceived projects. The EPA should aggressively
seek funding and other resources to successfully
achieve its mission.
Funding and water quality control can both
benefit from the aggressive use of effluent charges
and permit fees based on the amount and nature of
the pollutant discharged. Substantial fees (high
enough to serve as a powerful incentive to avoid
222
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY: 221-223
them) serve to stimulate the creation and im-
plementation of more effective control technologies
and less polluting practices. These fees should be
used to further improve and protect water quality.
In no case should it be possible to buy the right to
pollute or avoid meeting water quality standards.
The Clean Water Act does not allow dilution to
meet water quality standards, and rightly so. It is
time to extend this ban to mixing zones and zones of
initial dilution. Water quality standards and con-
trols should also be extended to water from agricul-
tural irrigation and storm runoff and to ports. Such
major sources of water contamination are too sig-
nificant to be exempt.
Take Aggressive Actions
There is a growing realization that the time has
come to take more aggressive actions and to move in
new directions toward:
• Attention to ail waters, including coasts,
wetlands, riparian areas, and groundwater;
• Attention to whole-body health in humans,
animals, plants, and ecosystems; and
• Attention to pollutant loading outside the
water column, such as in sediments, and
from land use and nonpoint sources.
There is also much talk of more reliance on risk
assessment. Over-reliance on assessments could be
dangerous because they are often of such poor
quality, many times little more than guesswork
masquerading as science. Don't be mesmerized by
meaningless numbers. Be a courageous, vigorous
advocate for the environment!
223
-------
«™; *i/ , ; * ,. ,* \» >;s Vi''>* i*, /
4 ,*n y •'( / ,N A * .A i*-' i« ' ^' " **? • ^ •? ''.rJ v'"-
,<''"'' ''„ "-,',1%,'* ,"„ ^ " * ? ' ' "' '^V^ % u '••lj %
S» „, ,,-• ;, ',, "*
*t""'''• t,' "\i,"' "-,,'" * ""'- :""' * t,. i*1'"'"' ""'V,1' . '.,."• ' , >- ,' i '-JV*'-"' ^ ,i •' !'•''•
" r'" -n > "' •• """ C,*""""'*'. " i ' i "•' i '-J:''i"'<~> "''"'i' ', , x'''r- "' •'''"' x| ;' '^"'f~ ','J-
''' •'' ^''''v'l ," ... •''''•
,,„.,. ,«^»« -'3f'~- . '•*.''•',, -'",1 , "" iv -: '." - r" v ' •• ,
. 7 / ^-^ ^it(n ^n , ^, J -U ^ ,it .,„' i >' ' • f * * * >
•s ' ~',1"*';' .rlj» ' ''" ^ ', ';• r,\ »,' '> ,-f' ln '"'"',., ' 1'
Lrf ''' ™'v1" vUm "'^ ^ l ™° ?V ilrin''^1,} T-'^'« i "- v-^ ; <' , , X, ~ • " ^ - .'
i.n'%
l¥*v
SS^^plS-^a-^i''%:"f;:y|;'9^:p^^
"o .C~ -."-';;' >0'' 'S( v"' •'"« ••' n^' , ' "'"0' '" ., ""» ' "i .* *•" ?,*tt%'<:" -i"""-'.! i" •" ^'A'r '^'~' "" ". "": "','•
J" ''''i'" '»;'-'> "",f (H"'''"''"'''s> • -",'''"',•',"-'•" !'^' ~-"t'''uO' "'• *, T'r^ " IL"*"^"'"?,! ' '••'','•'->""'''.,'V • ,1';"',.'"""'"' ->'""^
^^^P^-t;S^
"I1**, -""-'. —• „" «r"l"', ""-'• •''•'*' ""i '"•" -*\ '•"> "*' .•'"','?-" "' "'—'" IT*"'*.' >yf"*' " u^V>'.~" '" v"7'"" '*"• ""*-r> ? ' '- "-
^"^S&^^^l^-^x --:":';S^-'>'M^:^:v^r;:.'::^
f'WA
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Questions, Answers, and Comments
Introduction: (Bill Diamond) I want to intro-
duce Jeff Peterson, who is on the majority staff of
the Senate Environment and Public Works Commit-
tee, and Gabe Rozsa, who is on the minority staff of
the House Subcommittee on Water Resources. Both
Jeff and Gabe were active in the 1987 Clean Water
Act reauthorization. This past session, they've been
heavily involved in the debates on coastal, Great
Lakes, and other bills that affect the water quality
standards and criteria program. Both men have
been involved in the preliminary discussions on
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act, which ex-
pires in 1992. Now, I'll take the moderator's
prerogative and ask each of them to comment on
their prognosis for the Clean Water Act
Reauthorization, both in terms of timing and likely
issues, and to make any other opening remarks.
C. (Jeff Peterson) We hope to have hearings
sometime in the spring on Clean Water Act
reauthorization and, if all goes well, bring a bill to
the committee prior to the August recess or perhaps
shortly thereafter, and, in the second session, be
dealing with our friends on the House side about
their views on some of these issues.
With regard to water quality standards, I think
generally there's a feeling among members on the
Senate side that the Water Quality Standards pro-
gram has tremendous potential—actually unreal-
ized potential—but at the same time, there is a lot of
uneasiness and concern about the complexity and
the cost of the Water Quality Standards approach.
There's a feeling that we made good progress within
the past 20 years working primarily with our tech-
nology-based controls for industrial and municipal
sources and that clearly we need to move ahead to
much more aggressively implement the standards
program in the future. There is a sense of concern
about complexity and cost, and some general
opinion that, since we know the technology-based
approach works, maybe we ought to stick with it.
Some of that feeling is reflected in the effort that
has been underway for many years to get the stand-
ards program up to the point where—despite dif-
ficulties with regard to setting toxic standards—it is
actually in place and enforceable throughout all the
States.
At the same time, there are real opportunities
in the standards program that haven't been avail-
able because we've been focusing on the technology-
based side of the act. These opportunities are more
directly focused on sediments, on the specific char-
acteristics of lakes and coastal waters, the oppor-
tunity to expand beyond the specific and narrow
focus on chemical contamination of water and begin
to more effectively address questions relating to use
impairments. There's general concern that we may
have difficulty achieving some of those oppor-
tunities. A lot of the discussion and debate on the
next reauthorization of the Clean Water Act will
likely focus on the best things that can be done,
legislatively, to help EPA and the States realize the
act's potential and to overcome some of the obstacles
in the program. One of those issues will be whether
the Federal Government should be more directive
toward EPA about initiating criteria and standards
efforts with regard to chemical contaminants, toxics,
or questions about use impairments.
There may be an interest in exploring the
general question of State designations of uses in
waters—to what extent they are comparable and
whether there should be more general or standard
use designations. We've talked about the role of the
Federal Government in backing State efforts to put
enforceable standards into place. The Senate would
be very reluctant to have EPA make a blanket ap-
plication of standards. Clearly, translating criteria
documents into enforceable standards has been a
problem. States may need a more active Federal role
when trying to put together a balanced program
that gives them the opportunity to look at both their
waters and the criteria documents. If that does not
result in enforceable standards in a reasonable
amount of time, then give EPA specific direction as
opposed to general authority—but only when a
State fails to act.
I'd like to conclude by saying that, to a certain
extent, this discussion rolls back around to the first
part of the Clean Water Act, with technology-based
controls and effluent guidelines as the standards be-
come more complex and address a wider range of
contaminants. In questions of use impairments, the
problem of writing permits obviously becomes much
more difficult and complicated, even with effluent
guidelines available to ease the burden of permit
writing. I think there will be a ramification back
into the guidelines program. There will be a need for
more help in getting permits written as the stand-
225
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
ards drive us to an even tougher water quality con-
trol.
C. (Gabe Rozsa) Let me first begin by noting
that on our Committee on House Public Works we've
seen a number of changes in leadership that may af-
fect how quickly we get out of the blocks and how we
proceed. I don't anticipate a change in the direction
of the committee overall: clean water will be an im-
portant issue. On the minority side, there is a new
ranking member of the subcommittee. However, I
don't think there'll be any radical departure from
the very bipartisan support of programs that we've
had in the House.
In terms of timing, the scenario that Jeff laid
out looks very much like the one that I'll be looking
at: hearings in the spring, hopefully from EPA on
their recommendations, and also from State agen-
cies and various interest groups. Markup is a little
harder to predict, but the August recess is a realistic
time frame. I don't envision conference discussions
being resolved in the first session.
As to the specific issues, we are will be looking
at how well the existing mechanisms are working.
And in terms of areas of change, it's realistic to ex-
pect some discussion about a more national ap-
proach on standards; however, there's no consensus
on that issue. There are a lot of members that feel
that the existing process—though slow—is a good
one, of allowing States to reflect the needs of their
particular area in standards. The rush for national
numerical standards is going to meet resistance in
many areas. There will be a great deal of interest
(as there was in the current Congress) in looking at
regional issues such as coastal pollution and Great
Lakes problems. Some of the discussion in the Coas-
tal Pollution Bill, however, may be more national.
It's one thing to talk about coastal water quality
problems in terms of standards for these waters be-
cause the ecosystems are quite different in es-
tuarine than in riparian areas. However,
enforcement issues may turn into national ques-
tions. On nonpoint sources, for example, some of the
thrust of the Coastal Zone Management Act
reauthorization will be revisited from a national
perspective.
Sediment criteria was an extremely contentious
issue last time around and it continues to be so.
There will be a lot of interest in prodding (for want
of a better term) EPA to move ahead on sediment
criteria. And, at the same time, there will be a lot of
concern about the impact to those criteria. From my
committee's and subcommittee's perspective, there
will be a lot of concern about the impact of the
dredging program. That proved to be a significant
question when the Coastal Zone and Coastal
Defense bills were being scheduled for the House
floor, so I anticipate that it will be again.
There's a small issue out there that could get
contentious: the whole question about extrater-
ritorial effects of water quality standards. Exactly
how are you going to address interstate problems
where you have, as in the case of Tennessee and
North Carolina, a paper mill in one jurisdiction
that's discharging effluent into another jurisdiction,
and the States can't agree on applicable standards?
Quite frankly, I think that the focus of the Clean
Water Act is going to be more on things like non-
point sources, wetlands, and perhaps groundwater
than standards. However, there's a lot of sentiment
for letting EPA move ahead with implementation of
the 1987 act and, in fact, the 1972 act.
Q. (Jim McGrath, Port of Oakland) I would like
a comment from both members on issues of conten-
tion about sediment standards and procedures.
Some of the discussion has involved economic major
barriers that hinder remediation of some of our
severe sediment problems. Past approaches have
been strictly regulatory. Is it appropriate to give some
consideration to the idea of incentives to look for
creative ways to deal with some of these methods?
And, what in particular might be the role of naviga-
tional projects, keeping in mind that many of the
estuaries'most serious problems are in or adjacent to
navigational channels?
A. (Gabe Rozsa) There's always an interest in
looking at incentives on more of a market-based ap-
proach to solving the problem, but I'm not quite sure
how you would structure incentives in this par-
ticular situation. The whole sediment question is
really complicated because it involves not only the
kind of standards that will affect polluting dis-
charges that wind up creating problems in sediment
but also what you do with the polluted sediment.
The latter issue is really the tougher because it has
such an important impact on commerce and naviga-
tion.
A. (Jeff Peterson) If there's an incentive ap-
proach that might work, we'd be happy to hear
about it. We have begun to engage the question of
navigation projects and their potential to play a role
in sediment mediation or restoration. The Water
Resources Bill just passed speaks to that in a
preliminary way. I think you'll see more of that in
the next reauthorization, partly as a Clean Water
Act issue and perhaps as one on ocean dumping. Al-
though we've made a lot of progress on point
sources, there are impaired uses in our streams be-
cause of nonpoint source problems and habitat
destruction. We need to look at and approach water
resources from a watershed basis.
226
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
There's been a lot of talk about looking at the
whole ecosystem. We in Ohio agree with that ap-
proach and I think stipulations that should be put in
the reauthorization of the Clean Water Act must in-
clude not only development of watershed manage-
ment plans but requirements for their
implementation. The idea being that there'll be a lot
more teeth put into regulations for nonpoint sources
and habitat destruction. What are your thoughts
about incorporating something like that into the
reauthorization?
A. Whether we'll be able to respond with effec-
tive legislation for that issue is hard to say. Expand-
ing the basis of the water quality standards
program and beginning to assess use impairments
more clearly are really essential, but the standards
program won't be much of a driving force on control-
ling nonpoint pollution without that evolution in the
standards program and dealing with nonpoint is-
sues will remain very difficult. The underlying ques-
tion is, how to put that program in place
comprehensively across the country. Certainly we
will be doing everything we can with the act to
facilitate that process, and, at the same time, try to
make sure that the States' prerogatives in this area
are protected.
C. (Jeff Peterson) While there will be a lot of
looking at giving EPA and the States new teeth to
put into the nonpoint source process, I think that
they have a lot of teeth they haven't been using. The
difficulty with Federal standards is that you are
dealing with agricultural activities, and any time
the Federal Government wants to get in there and
regulate, it can become a very political issue. We
will be spending a lot of time trying to figure out ex-
actly how best to proceed. Any suggestions from the
States would be very welcome.
Q. (Dave Jones, San Francisco Department of
Public Works) What do you expect Congress will do
in terms of additional requirements in the act for
control of combined sewer overflows (CSOs)?
A. (Gabe Rozsa) I just don't know. Many people
out there feel that CSOs are the worst thing and
have to be dealt with immediately regardless of the
cost. Others seem to think that you are discharging
pollutants when you have a CSO problem, but at a
time when there is a lot of dilution. And while dilu-
tion may not be the solution, there's some question
as to how bad the problem really is. Clearly, some of
the solutions that have been suggested, such as
structural mediation, are very, very expensive. And
whether or not there's enough money in anybody's
budget to take on that massive problem is just not
clear. I think the Senate was a little more prepared
to take on that issue than the House.
C. (Jeff Peterson) I would refer to the Coastal
Bill that the Environment Committee reported in
the last Congress where there is a proposal for ad-
dressing the combined sewer overflow problem.
That was debated at some length and reflects good
sensitive judgment by the Environment Committee.
That may not apply to the whole Senate or the Con-
gress as a whole, but we have a starting place. lb
the extent that we do see an evolution in the stand-
ards program and increased capability to deal with
problems like sediment contamination, some of the
concerns that we've heard may become better un-
derstood as environmental problems. So as we start
to look more generally at some of these problems
and begin to factor in the sediment as opposed to
just the water column, I think we'll get a better ap-
preciation of CSOs as a problem, and certainly we'll
build a better consensus for addressing it down the
road.
Maxted, State of Delaware, Department
of Natural Resources) Jeff, you mentioned the need
for innovative criteria that addressed the use attain-
ment of our waters. As an environmental scientist for
a State that's just beginning to develop biological
criteria, I'm finding it difficult to communicate to
management about the need for these criteria be-
cause of ambiguities in the Clean Water Act. The act
refers "biological assessment and management tech-
niques." Now that expression can mean a lot of
things ranging from whole effluent toxicity testing to
in-stream ambient monitoring of communities. To
what extent does the legislation distinguish between
whole effluent toxicity as a biological monitoring tool
versus ambient biological monitoring as a biological
monitoring tool?
A. (Jeff Peterson) I hope we'll be able to give you
some help with that. Clearly, it's going to be an
issue. We are hoping that EPA will give us their cur-
rent thoughts and, as we look toward reauthoriza-
tion, ideas on the best way to build on the authority
that's in the act now. There is some ambiguity; how-
ever, the act was intended as a starting place. We
probably need to clarify and explain some of that
authority as it stands in the act.
C. (Gabe Rozsa) One person's ambiguity may be
another person's flexibility. There is a lot of am-
biguity in the act, and it's that way for a variety of
reasons. Sometimes two camps can't come to an
agreement on exactly how things should come out,
so they obscure the language and everybody claims
victory. However, there's a lot of authority in the
Clean Water Act if EPA and States want to exercise
it. You guys are the experts far more than we on
what works and what doesn't. Rather than going to
your State and saying it's not clear whether the
227
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
Clean Water Act requires this, you should be asking,
is it a good idea? Should we do it on our own? Does it
make sense? Will it work? One of the great things
about a program like the Clean Water Act is that
you have 50 to 60 jurisdictions out there that can ex-
periment with different solutions to problems in
their areas, use that authority, and get back to us to
tell us what's working.
C. One is an end-of-pipe method and the other
is an out-of-pipe method. They are too vastly dif-
ferent to really combine into one expression.
C. It's not the first time we've had radically dif-
ferent concepts combined into one expression.
C. (David Cohen, State of California Water
Resources Control Board) Where the Clean Water
Act gets into the way of clean water, the act should
be changed. The only specific proposal I've heard
during the past few days where there should be
change is in the antibacksliding provision. In the
past, permittees have been required to maintain a
minimum chlorine residual for disinfection pur-
poses, which conflicts with the new emphasis on
chlorine discharges to the oceans and inland waters
as much as possible. To this day, EPA has a require-
ment to chlorinate offshore discharges for the mini-
mum chlorine requirement. Do either of you feel
there would be significant opposition in either the
House or Senate to changing the antibacksliding
provisions to make sense from a water quality
standpoint? I think that's something that every in-
terest group in this room would support.
C. (Gabe Rozsa) I'm a believer in flexibility.
Many of us with the House and Senate had some
concerns about the antibacksliding provisions'
rigidity, but I didn't sense much willingness to be
flexible the last time around. Maybe the example
you've given would create some incentive to revisit
that issue, but I'm not terribly optimistic about it.
C. (Jeff Peterson) Any proposal to weaken anti-
backsliding provisions would be very tough to get
through the Senate.
Q. Would this necessarily be a weakening of it?
A. (Jeff Peterson) We'd certainly consider a
coordination role that allows or prevents changes to
be brought into the existing language; no one wants
to make problems. However, the concept of an-
tibacksliding is strongly held by the Environment
Committee. There would have to be a lot of con-
fidence that whatever we were doing to fix a par-
ticular problem would not somehow open the door to
a broader weakening of the provision. Without that
kind of confidence, there'd be great reluctance to
mess with it.
C. People are less willing to experiment with in-
novative approaches to solve antibacksliding
problems. Their approach is very cautious and, ul-
timately, has a negative impact on water quality. We
should be trying different things and, if they don't
work, throw them out and go to something else.
Q. (Bob Erickson, EPA Region VIII, Denver)
Most of the groups—EPA, environmental, and water
use—want clean water; however, we differ somewhat
on what is clean and what the costs should be.
Meanwhile, State staffs are often overworked. What
is your feeling about increased support for
reauthorizing funding for State staffs?
A. We have to take a hard look at funding of
State programs in the reauthorization. Compelling
information from both the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
and EPA cites the shortfall in funding various func-
tions that States are undertaking. Clearly, we
should consider increasing the 106 funding.
A related issue is how we use new authority in
the act to provide for funding (on a fee basis) of per-
mit issuance. (Some States are using a large portion
of their 106 grant to support permit issuance.) If we
can find an alternative database source of funding
for permit issuance, that will free up some of the
106 money for more underlying State programs like
standards development. That could be critical to any
effective and comprehensive evolution of the stand-
ards program in the next 10 years.
We can't give you a substantial increase in the
basic resource. You have to expect the States to ag-
gressively implement even a contaminant-specific
standards program. We're looking at expanding the
program in use impairments and related areas—
sediment and other things. If we really want to do
all that, we've got to come up with a better way to
fund the program.
C. The whole issue as to how much money
States will have to implement these important
programs will be central in the reauthorization. In
1987, one of the things that came as a surprise to a
lot of people was that, with the phaseout of the con-
struction grant program, the set asides managing
that program were also going to disappear. And
while some pretty good interim steps have been
taken to address the shortfall, it continues to be sig-
nificant at the same time that we're imposing addi-
tional requirements on the States.
With respect to fees, Congress just acted on that
in the Reconciliation Bill. We called on EPA to im-
plement a fee program to recover $10 million; how-
ever, the perception is that there will be no State
permit fee where EPA continues to run the program.
In the context of the House Coastal Defense Bill,
there was, at least in the Merchant Marine version,
a big push to require a permit fee although there
228
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE Zlst CENTURY
was a mechanism for States that already had a sys-
tem to opt out of the process. While there is a lot of
interest in moving toward a fee system, the concern
is for those States that already have a functioning
effective permit fee program. We don't want any-
thing at the Federal level that is either going to
compete with that system or somehow interfere
with smooth operation.
C. Along somewhat related lines, I'd like to fol-
low up on a recommendation made by the earlier
speaker from the Sierra Club: it may be time to look
at effluent fees in the water quality area. Clearly it's
a difficult area, and once you get to any specific
proposal, it tends to be somewhat blunt and there-
fore easy to attack. One potential starting point (for
all its defects) may be the priority pollutant list or
some subset.
C. (Gabe Rozsa) The problem is for fees to have
a real impact on decisions about discharges. Some
fees will have to be pretty steep. How will you imple-
ment a real steep fee schedule when we just went
through a round of telling industry that they have to
put through all these changes for the Clean Air
Act—and in this shaky economic situation? A mas-
sive fee charge will be difficult.
The other question that comes up is
marketability. If I pay that fee, to what extent will I
be able to market my right to discharge that pol-
lutant? We're not embracing an approach that says
that you can pay for the right to pollute; rather
you're paving for the cost that you're imposing on
society. For a fee system to be really effective as a
market incentive, it must have tradeability—which
raises other philosophical questions.
C. (Jeff Peterson) This will certainly come up in
the reauthorization; however, sorting out all the
many questions associated with a significant ef-
fluent tax will be an uphill battle. I give working out
this reauthorization less than a 50/50 chance. There
may be some opportunity for something more than a
simple permit fee system, but not something driven
strictly to influence behavior in some way to an
economic incentive. Clearly, the size of the tax in-
volved may be somewhat overwhelming. We have a
problem with long-term financing of municipal pol-
lution controls. There may be some way to factor in
an effluent charge that is greater than the cost of
permit issuance if it's directed toward meeting
short-term and long-standing funding as opposed to
trying to go as high as you would with a tax to drive
behavior.
There are some strong philosophical reserva-
tions on the Environment Committee about
sanctioning discharges with a fee or a tax. How do
you keep that consistent with the more long-estab-
lished goals of zero discharge in the act? Is this
sending conflicting signals? And there's one other
practical problem to be solved that has been difficult
in the past, although it may not be insurmountable:
going beyond a fee-based system would require get-
ting the support of the Finance and Ways and
Means committees.
Q. (Glenda Daniel, Lake Michigan Federation)
As part of the national sediments working group of
environmentalists, I certainly agree with what Gabe
said earlier about dredging and disposal. Our group
has some allies among Great Lakes ports that are not
fully accessible because they are not dredged. I
wonder if you have some thoughts on which
governmental body would look at funding options for
dredging and cleanup and if it would help to have
disposal guidelines from EPA or anything else that
would be useful to know to get better settlement
management. Pollution prevention is going to be an
even stronger issue. What problems do you expect
with getting pollution prevention into Clean Water?
A. (Gabe Rozsa) That's a funding question, and I
don't see any easy solutions. We just saw a threefold
increase in the user fees that domestic and interna-
tional cargo carriers have to pay to maintain har-
bors around the country, so I don't envision further
increases. Beyond that, if you're not charging users,
your other option is taxing them directly. If we im-
pose additional requirements, the cost of disposing
dredged material is sometimes split 50-50 between
Federal and State governments; in other cir-
cumstances, it's just a State or local responsibility.
That leaves you with the Federal treasury as a
funding option, and times are tough.
There's a lot of material on disposal guidelines
from EPA and the Corps. One of the fundamental is-
sues in that debate is where do you just draw the
line and say if the material meets the criteria, you
cannot dispose of it in water but you have to find
someplace else, versus an approach that says, well
let's take a look at what it is and how bad it is and
then determine the best disposal option rather than
ruling one option out entirely. It's great to say that if
sediment is polluted you can't put it in the water,
but you have to do something with it, and any of
those options involve a certain degree of risk.
As far as pollution prevention, I agree we'll be
spending a fair amount of time on that. Sediment
criteria is the most interesting aspect of the
debate—not so much using those criteria as a
benchmark for disposal options but deriving the per-
mit process to prevent pollution in harbors.
C. (Glenda Daniel) Enforcement is another op-
tion for industries; for instance, of municipalities
that have been discharging into those areas.
Northwest Indiana has fined dischargers to clean up
229
-------
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS, & COMMENTS
the sediment. There are also some technologies for
breaking down the contaminants in sediments that
could add to the disposal possibilities.
C. (Jeff Peterson) We haven't really agreed on
definitions for sediment contamination, grades of
contamination, or in which types of action. We can't
even agree on applying sediment standards to
dredging, even the most general ones that were
proposed in the Senate's Coastal Bill during the last
Congress. Until we understand when sediment is
contaminated and requires some action, and in
what location and to what extent contamination is
present, we won't know what kind of funding is
needed. Asking where should we go to get funding is
putting the cart before the horse. If it's within the
port's ability to pay, perhaps that would be ap-
propriate. Clearly, sedimentation will down ports
across the country, which will be a major disruption
of commerce.
While there is a Federal role and maybe one for
existing revenues of the treasury, there also may be
a role for other funding mechanisms—but we don't
even know the total dollar figure yet. I'd hate to
have a number materialize out of thin air, have
everyone say that it's too big, and then forget about
contaminated sediment. We've done just that for a
long time. We must stop thinking that contaminated
sediment isn't as much of an environmental problem
as, for instance, a Superfund site. The people that
polluted Superfund sites are paying to clean them
up; that hasn't really happened with contaminated
sediment. So until we can get to that point, I'd like
to reserve judgment as to the costs.
C. (Gabe Rozsa) Of course, it would be a lot
tougher to find industries that were responsible for
contaminants being in the sediment than it is for
some of the Superfund sites. With sediment, you're
talking about perhaps an entire river basin as the
ultimate source of contaminants. Trying to identify
the potentially responsible parties could be a mas-
sive undertaking.
Q. (Kevin Brubaker, Save the Bay, Rhode Island)
Gabe, your committee will be working not only on the
Clean Water Act but on the Surface Transportation
Act. Can you give us any reassurance that the right
hand and the left hand will be coordinated and that
the Surface Transportation Act will be used as a tool
for controlling nonpoint pollution as well?
A. (Gabe Rozsa) I can assure you that the chair-
man and the ranking member of the full committee
will try to balance those issues. These issues are
both before the committee but are being handled by
different subcommittees. 111 be trying to track
what's going on in the surface area perhaps even
more than what goes on in other legislation pending
before the Hill. The surface people will also be track-
ing what's going in water, but more importantly, I
think, Bob Roe and John Paul Hammerschmidt will
be doing that.
C. (Mark Van Putten, National Wildlife Federa-
tion, Great Lakes Office) On the sediment matter, I
would disagree with Gabe. In most instances, the
sources are easier to find because they are station-
ary. It's not like barrels that were shipped all over
the place.
But what has brought me to the microphone is
antibacksliding. I want to counteract the impression
of unanimity here that the antibacksliding section is
a problem and should be changed in the upcoming
reauthorization. The problem is EPA's failure to
issue regulations addressing antibacksliding. A
draft interim guidance document has been around
for at least a year that some States are relying on;
however, others don't know what to do. The real
issue with antibacksliding is the uncertainty. EPA
must address that, and until it does, a case cannot
be made that the antibacksliding section as adopted
by Congress is not working.
One issue that has produced unanimity is the
additional attention needed on implementation of
water quality criteria and the standards. It's ironic
that Congress has spoken specifically on implemen-
tation of antibacksliding. I haven't heard much from
committee staff about implementing antidegrada-
tion or a move to prohibit or limit the use of mixing
zones and other dilution techniques allowed in the
implementation standards by EPA's current techni-
cal support document.
C. There would be a lot of reluctance on the
Senate side to change the statutory basis for an-
tibacksliding. I'm sure that, as EPA and States con-
tinue to implement this provision, we'll begin to get
a better sense of the issues and if Congress needs to
clarify, expand, or maybe even narrow some of the
provisions on antibacksliding. Clearly, we're looking
for guidance from all the different parties as to
whether that's necessary. We will want a pretty
compelling, coherent case as to why a change is
needed.
C. (Ed Rankin, Ohio EPA) I'm encouraged by
the mention of a discharge fee for managing NPDES
permits; however, the water quality issues we're
dealing with now are extremely complex. You men-
tioned questions about the severity of combined
sewer overflow problems. I think they stem from the
lack of ambient monitoring data that's accompanied
decisions on where we issue permits. I'd like to en-
courage that, if there's a discharge fee, a percentage
of that fee go to ambient monitoring, biocriteria, ex-
treme chemistry integrated and watershed-type ap-
230
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
preaches so that we know what we're getting for our
money and why the permits are issued.
C. (Jeff Peterson) I think the House GDI bill did
carve out a certain percentage of the fee for ambient
monitoring. There's a lot of support for increased
monitoring. The U.S. Geological Survey has a very
active program that monitors water quality around
the country, but there's no doubt that more needs to
be done. Linking the fees with monitoring is certain-
ly an idea that has been discussed and will be in the
reauthorization.
C. (Ed Rankin) The treatment that we're put-
ting on discharges will be more expensive than the
money spent for monitoring. However, it's really a
small amount of money in relation to the amount
that the public and the economy will be spending on
treatment.
C. (Jeff Peterson) As we look at how to design a
fee, we'll also be questioning whether we should
cover just the narrow costs of permit issuance and if
a fee should realistically cover some of EPA's State
base program support functions, which would in-
clude monitoring. A related question is whether we
should provide authority more specifically in the act
for States and EPA to include more general monitor-
ing requirements in permit issuing. That's slightly
removed from whether the upfront fee should be
pumped back into an EPA and State monitoring pro-
gram or whether the permit itself should simply im-
pose a burden on the discharger to conduct specified
monitoring. There are probably advantages to doing
one way or another and it may be that we do both,
as long as they are coordinated effectively.
Q. (Carol Ann Earth, Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay) In recent iterations of the Farm
Bill and the Coastal Zone Management and Clean
Air acts, we see greater movement in the direction of
water quality. Of this iteration of the Clean Water
Act, what do you expect to see in terms of greater
coordination and other environmental legislation or
more general moves toward a focus on cross-media
or life cycle pollution?
A. (Gabe Rozsa) There is a lot of rational sup-
port for a cross-media approach. In fact, many of our
problems now are the result of the pigeon-holed ap-
proach. Unfortunately, I can't be terribly optimistic
that we're going to wipe the slate clean and come up
with a more holistic approach to solving water
quality problems. That's a factor of the way Con-
gress works. Different committees have jurisdiction
over different aspects of the environmental
programs. In the Groundwater Bill that passed the
House about three years ago, five committees had to
come together over a nonregulatory bill to reach
consensus on the language before we could take it to
the floor. Trying to bridge the relationships of these
various laws is going to be even more difficult than
dealing with an issue that just touches on several
different jurisdictional concerns.
Q. (Carol Ann Earth) Should I take that as a
"not much?"
A. (Gabe Rozsa) Yes, I guess so.
C. (Jeff Peterson) I don't see any sweeping
change with regard to finding a cross-media focus
for pollution control. In this reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act, we'll do what we can to assure ef-
fective coordination with related statutes. The most
obvious opportunity will come with reauthorization
of the Resource Conservation Recovery and the
Clean Water acts. Both bills will be actively under
discussion and have areas where they should be bet-
ter coordinated. We will be working on trying to
make this happen in one bill or the other.
Q. (Bill Diamond) Let me put a last question to
the both of you. Do you have a reaction on the need
for Clean Water Act changes in fish advisories and
the fish bans that have been controversial or in the
area of flow standards as opposed to the traditional
criteria standards?
A. (Jeff Peterson) I'm sure we'll be looking at
both those issues. I know the Agency has been ex-
ploring the flow issue and we'll be very interested to
hear its suggestions. On the fish advisory issue,
there's a pretty strong case that we need to clarify
responsibilities and better establish the basis under
which advisories are issued for fish consumption:
who would do it and whether it's based on the na-
ture and the presence of contamination in the fish
product or of the waterbody from which the fish are
drawn. There may be a role for advisories both on
the quality of the fish itself as well as the quality of
the water from which the fish is drawn. There's a lot
of uncertainty and confusion and if we've got an op-
portunity that can result in less confusion, I'm sure
we'll try to do it.
A. (Gabe Rozsa) I agree. Fish advisories, in par-
ticular, could be a very contentious issue. We will
also hear more about things like uniform standards
on beach closures.
Closing: (Bill Diamond) I'd like to thank both
Jeff and Gabe for taking the time to come here and
all the speakers and the participants for their ideas
and comments over the last couple of days. I would
encourage you to continue the communication with
EPA and among yourselves through sessions, meet-
ings, phone calls, or writing so we can continue this
discussion.
231
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
Summary of Moderators' Reports
Panel members for most conference discussion ses-
sions were asked specific questions by the
moderator. The following is a compilation of their
answers.
What does your panel think is the largest need
from EPA?
• Toxic Pollutant Criteria: When develop-
ing State standards to control toxics, there
needs to be an integrated risk-based ap-
proach that uses chemical-specific toxics
control, whole effluent toxicity, and biologi-
cal criteria. To accomplish this, more toxics
criteria should be developed at a faster rate
for high priority chemicals. The chemical
form and detection limits suitable for ef-
fluent analysis should be expressed properly.
• Sediment Management Strategy: EPA
should expedite criteria for sediments
(panel's most popular choice). An interpre-
tive framework is needed for sediment
quality criteria (presumed more important
than the criteria themselves). Inventory and
prioritization are also considered priorities.
Lastly, six organic criteria will be published
in draft in August and six per year there-
after. However, there has been no Agency
decision yet on standards.
• Contaminated Sediment Assessment:
EPA should provide not only numbers but in-
struction on using sediment criteria ration-
ally. Assuming not all contamination will be
cleaned up, will EPA provide a decisionmak-
ing process for sediment remediation? The
Agency also should:
• Evaluate the cost impact of criteria under
its proposed implementation scheme,
• Determine the relationship between water
quality and sediment quality,
• Prioritize problem sediments, use a
risk-based approach, and develop an
effective ranking scheme,
• Develop risk-benefit analyses for
developing and implementing standards
(action level) from numerical criteria,
• Clarify what it expects from States (lay
down ground rules in the beginning, don't
make it a guessing game), and
« Define how numerical criteria would fit
into dredged material management.
• Wetland Quality Standards: EPA should
provide additional technical guidance (like
the recent guidance on water quality stand-
ards for wetlands for the FY1993 triennium),
additional EPA training programs and
workshops for State personnel and others,
and additional technical assistance from
EPA personnel and Federal grant monies to
support them.
• Ammonia/Chlorine: EPA should proceed
toward implementing chlorine criteria and
continue to encourage State adoption of am-
monia criteria where needed to protect
beneficial uses. The Agency should revisit
chronic freshwater ammonia criteria and
look at combined impacts of ammonia and
chlorine. Because of impacts of pH and
temperature on ammonia toxicity, better
methodology is needed to determine site-
specific impacts.
• Coastal Water Quality Standards: EPA
should take the lead in coordinating ac-
tivities between States in criteria (chemical
and biological) use and implementation (con-
trols and enforcement). States need EPA's
help to develop and standardize new
methods of assessing ecological health (such
as SAV, biocriteria) and ensure consistent
enforcement of controls and limits.
What is the most important action States can
take to achieve program objectives?
• Toxic Pollutant Criteria:
• States not in full compliance should
develop water quality standards for those
compounds for which there is EPA
guidance.
• States should provide EPA with a priority
listing of chemicals for which criteria
should be developed. It should focus on
233
-------
MODERATOR'S REPORTS
chemicals resulting in regulatory action
not on the list of 129.
• Sediment Management Strategy:
• In anticipation of criteria, get together a
framework.
• Establish a bona fide program for
sediments.
• Monitor sediment and control sources.
• Inventory and prioritize.
• Contaminated Sediment Assessment:
• Acknowledge that sediment quality
protection is a bona fide State objective.
• Reprioritize monitoring activities to take
sediment into account.
• Make an effort to incorporate Federal
guidance into State programs.
• Incorporate numerical criteria promptly
and efficiently into environmental
protection programs.
• Wetland Water Quality Standards:
• Enhance 401 certification and permitting,
enforce permits that have been granted,
and develop narrative water quality
standards and legislation that allows
vigorous enforcement of 404 permits.
• Deny permits when necessary and protect
wetlands from adverse impacts.
• Develop additional mitigation policies
that relate to these issues.
• Ammonia/Chlorine:
• Continue to move toward control of
chlorine discharges by adopting numeric
criteria.
• Proceed toward establishing ammonia
criteria where determined necessary to
meet beneficial uses. May want to look at
toxicity assessments.
• Coastal Water Quality Standards:
• Talk to other States with similar
estuarine systems, using EPA to moderate
discussions.
• Communicate to the public on the
condition of estuaries and the need for
controls (both land use and point sources).
Barriers to Implementing Water Quality
Standards:
• Accelerate implementation of EPA's policy
on Indian tribes by the following
procedures:
a EPA regions should consider having es-
tablished goals to approve a certain
number of tribal water quality manage-
ment plans in each fiscal year.
n States should also consider specific goals
to develop "X" number of Clean Water
Act cooperative agreements between
tribes and States.
D Both States and EPA should explore the
development of model programs, using a
tribe-teaching, tribe-approved approach.
a EPA could consider establishing a na-
tional level periodic report on the
progress of tribal programs.
• Keep pushing to resolve lingering issues
that are making States and the regulated
community reluctant to adopt standards
(such as which forms of a particular metal
are applicable to standards attainment)
and clearly define the requirements of
antibacksliding.
• Give full consideration to techniques
being explored (at EPA research labs) to
expedite site-specific application of toxic
criteria—particularly to the use of
effluent effects (or water effects) ratios.
• Expand the peer review process for EPA
standards guidance and criteria.
• Accelerate additional guidance. This will
reduce discharger uncertainties about
techniques and level of difficulty in
conducting toxicity reduction and
identification evaluations, especially for
chronic toxicity.
• Fully explore the implementability of
sediment toxic criteria. EPA's plans to
seek State input in 1991 are a good start.
• Explore the potential for easing standards
implementation by adjusting other
programs that interact with standards;
encouraging flexibility in enforcement
requirements and compliance schedules
with new toxic criteria, particularly with
new forms of criteria (such as sediment
and biological criteria) as they are
234
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
implemented; and further defining and
incorporating the role of nonpoint source
controls and watershed management
approaches in achieving standards
attainability.
What are the biggest obstacles to achieving
program objectives?
• Toxic Pollutant Criteria:
• The pace of criteria development is too
slow, and implementation of criteria into
permit limits differs too much among
States.
• Toxic criteria should be developed for all
uses and media as well as a prioritized
list of toxics that need criteria.
• Sediment Management Strategy:
• Lack of recognition about importance of
sediments and complexity of sediment
issue; need for flexibility in application of
criteria, control decisions, and so on.
• Lack of a clear Federal legislative
mandate.
• Contaminated Sediment Assessment:
• Inadequate development of scientifically
and technically defensible numbers.
• Inadequate definition of bioavailable
fraction of all chemicals in sediments.
• Making sediments second priority in
consideration of overall environmental
quality program.
• Industry's and permittee's perception that
numerical criteria will bring
overwhelming and costly environmental
controls (i.e., will paralyze their ability to
function).
• Protracted lack of consensus on
approaches.
Wetland Water Quality Standards:
• Our biggest obstacle is the lack of
resources and personnel to do the job.
Tennessee's Division of Water Pollution
Control has lost two technical positions in
the last five years. Its Division of Natural
Resources has decreased from a staff of 10
to 6, yet will issue over 400 permits in
1991.
Ammonia/Chlorine:
* The costs associated with meeting
ammonia criteria and lack of actual
in-stream data on impairment to
demonstrate to the public the need for
these expenditures.
Coastal Water Quality Standards:
• The easy answer is money; resources at
the State level to develop programs and
coordinate (travel) with other States.
• Other than money, the biggest obstacle is
galvanizing public support to pay for the
control that will be needed.
235
-------
Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century
Sponsored by the
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
December 10-12,1990 • Hyatt Regency Crystal City • Arlington, Virginia
ATTENDEES LIST
RALPH ABELE
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ONE GATEWAY CENTER
NEWTON CORNER, MA02158
JAMES C ADAMS
VIRGINIA WATER CONTROL BD.
1519 DAVIS FORD ROAD, SUITE 14
WOODBRIDGE, VA22192
W. ADAMS
ABC LABORATORIES
P.O. Box 1097
COLUMBIA, MO 65205
ROBERT ADLER
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL
(NRDC)
1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW,
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
HOWARD ALEXANDER
THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
1702 BUILDING
MIDLAND, Ml 48674
DAVID ALLEN
US REGION IV
230 S. DEARBORN ST. (5WQS-TUB8)
CHICAGO, IL60602
FREEMAN ALLEN
SIERRA CLUB
730 POLK STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109
LISA ALMODOVAR
EPA-OW/CSD
EPA-CRITERIA AND STANDARDS DIV.
401 M. STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
CARTER AMOS
EXXON COMPANY, USA
800 BELL STREET, ROOM 1779
HOUSTON, TX 77002
DAVID ANDERSON
FOCUS
117W. GOGEHIC
IRONWOOD, Ml 49938
DENNIS ANDERSON
COLORADO DEPT. OF HEALTH
4210 E. 11THAVE.
DENVER, CO 80220
TERRY ANDERSON
KENTUCKY DIVISION OF WATER
18REILLYRD,
FRANKFORT, KY 40601
MARIO ANGHERN
KATADYN PRODUCTS INC.
INDUSTRIESTR 27
8304 WALLISELLEN
SWITZERLAND
CHARLIE ARBORE
KATADYN SYSTEMS INC.
299 ADAMS ST.
BEDFORD HILLS, NY 10507
THOMAS ARMITAGE
U.S. EPA OFFICE OF MARINE AND
ESTUARINE PROTECTION
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DON ARMSTRONG
PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT
7101 N. CASA GRANDE HIGHWAY
TUCSON, AZ 85741
TERTIA ARMSTRONG
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
1615HST, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20062
JOHN W ARTHUR
USEPA
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, MN 55804
EDWARD W ARTIGLIA
US AIR FORCE
HQ USAF/SGP
BOLLING AFB, DC 20332
DAN ASHE
MARINE AND FISHERIES
H2575
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
ROBERT AYALA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
P.O. BOX 11448
SINTURCE, PA 00910
DAVID E BAILEY
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.
(PEPCO)
1900 PENNSYLVANIAAVE., NW
SUITE 41
WASHINGTON, DC 20068
RODGER BAIRD
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS
1965 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL ROAD
WHITTIER, CA90601
BRUCE BAKER
WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
BUREAU OF WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
101 S. WEBSTER ST., BOX 7921
MADISON, Wl 53707
RICHARD P BALLA
U.S. EPA- REGION II (2WMD-WSP)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA - ROOM 813
NEW YORK, NY 10278
KENT R BALLENTINE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M. ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
237
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
WARREN BANKS
CSD/OWRS
8500 JAMES ST.
UPPER MARLBORO, MD 20772
MICHAEL T BARBOUR
EA ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND
TECHNOLOGY
15 LOVETON CIRCLE
SPARKS, MD 21152
BARBARA R BARRETT
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
ALEX BARRON
VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL
BOARD
P.O. BOX 11143
2111 HAMILTON STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23230
CAROLE A BARTH
ALLIANCE FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY
SUITE 300, 6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD.
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
KATHLEEN BARTHOLOMEW
CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION
SUITE 815 HERITAGE BLDG.
1001 EAST MAIN, SUITE 815
RICHMOND, VA 23219
KATHY BARYLSKI
EPAOW
401 M. STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ROBERT BASTIAN
U.S. EPA OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL
POLLUT CONTROL
401 M ST SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
TOM BATERIDGE
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND
KOOTENAI TR
1327 JACKSON STREET
MISSOULA, MT 59802
RICHARD BATIUK
U.S. EPA CHESAPEAKE BAY LIAISON
OFFICE
410 SEVERN AVENUE
ANNAPOLIS, MD 21403
PAUL BEA
PORT AUTHORITY OF NY & NJ
AAPA
1010 DUKE STREET,
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
DANIEL BECKETT
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 13087, CAPITOL STATION
AUSTIN, TX 78711-3087
LEE J BEETSCHEM
CABE ASSOCIATES INC.
P.O. BOX 877
DOVER, DE 19903
ALLEN BEINKE
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 13087
AUSTIN, TX 78711-3087
MARY BELEFSKI
U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF WATER,
ASSESSMENT AND WATER
PROTECTION DIVISION
401 M ST., SW (WH-553)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KENNETH BELT
WATER QUALITY MGT - BALTIMORE
CITY
ASHBURTON FILTRATION PLANT
3001 DRUID PARK DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21215
JOHN BENDER
NEBRASKA ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
P.O. BOX 98922
301 CENTENNIAL MALL SOUTH
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8922
ROBERT BERGER
EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY
DISTRICT
P.O. BOX 24055
OAKLAND, CA 94623
BETH BERGLUND
MERCK AND CO., INC
P.O. BOX 2000, WBC-211
RAHWAY, NJ 07065-0900
WILL BERSON
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT
AUTHORITIES
1010 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
VICTORIA BINETTI
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING (3WM10)
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
MARK BLOSSER
DELAWARE DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
89 KINGS HIGHWAY
P.O BOX 1401
DOVER, DE 19903
CLYDE BOHMFALK
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
1700 N. CONGRESS AVE.
AUSTIN, TX 78701
JOHN BONINE
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
SCHOOL OF LAW
EUGENE, OR 97403
JACKIE BONOMO
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
140016THST. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
MARY BOOMGARD
LABAT- ANDERSON INC.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD., SUITE 900
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
ROBERT BOONE
AN ACOSTIA WATERSHED SOCIETY
4740 CORRIDOR PLACE, SUITE A
BELTSVILLE, MD 20705
DENNIS BORTON
NCASI
P.O. BOX 2868
NEW BERN, NC 28561-2868
DAN BOWARD
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT
TOXICS ENVIRONMENT SCIENCES
HEALTH
2500 BROENING HIGHWAY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
LARRY BOWERS
TENNESSEE DIV. OF WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
TERRA BLDG. 2ND FLOOR
150 9TH AVENUE, N.
NASHVILLE, TN 37247
BARRY BOYER
SUNY BUFFALO LAW SCHOOL
O'BRIAN HALL
BUFFALO, NY 14260
ALAN BOYNTON
JAMES RIVER CORPORATION
P.O. BOX 2218
TREDEGAR STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23217
D. KING BOYTON
U.S. EPA, ASSESSMENTS
WATERSHED PROTECTION
DIVISION (WH-553)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
STEPHANIE BRADEN
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
LOUISIANA DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
625 N. FOURTH STREET, P.O. BOX
4409
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804
RICK BRANDES
U.S. EPA PERMITS DIVISION (EN-336)
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
RANDY BRAUN
EPA
BLDG. 209
WOODBRIDGEAVE
EDISON, NY 08837
EDWARD BREZINA
PA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
3RD & LOCUST STREETS
HARRISBURG, PA17102
238
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
GEORGE BRINSKO
PI MA COUNTY WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
130 WEST CONGRESS, 3RD FL
TUCSON, AZ 85701
STEVE BROWN
SMC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
P.O. BOX 859
VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482
KEVIN BRUBAKER
SAVE THE BAY
434 SMITH STREET
PROVIDENCE, Rl 02908
DALE S BRYSON
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION V
230 S. DEARBORN ST
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CLAIRE BUCHANAN
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
BARRY BURGAN
OMEP, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
401 M. ST (WH-55F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SARA BURGIN
BORWN MARONEY & OAKS HARTLINE
1400 FRANKLIN PLAZA
111 CONGRESS AVENUE
AUSTIN, TX 78701
WILLIAM BUTLER
U.S. EPA - REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON, MA 02203
MARY BUZBY
MERCK & CO..INC.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 2000, WBC-211
RAHWAY, NJ 07065
ROBERT B BYRNE
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
1101 14TH ST. NW, SUITE 725
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
JOHN M CALLAHAN
BLOOMINGTON AND NORMAL WATER
RECLAM DISTRICT R.R #7
OAKLAND AVENUE RD., P.O. BOX 3307
BLOOMINGTON, IL 61702
SCOTT CAMERON
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND
BUDGET
ROOM 8222, NEW EXECUTIVE OFFICE
BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20503
ROBERT CAMPAIGNE
THE UPJOHN CO.
41OSACKETT POINT RD
NORTH HAVEN, CT 06473
JOHN CANNELL
EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BOB CANTILLI
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
U.S. EPA
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ANTHONY CARLSON
U.S. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL
RESEARCH LAB
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, MN 55804
MARVIN CHALPEK
EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS
13501 KATY FREEWAY
HOUSTON, TX 77079
ARTHUR CHAPA
PIMA COUNTY WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
5210 E. WILLIAMS CIRCLE, SUITE 500
TUCSON, AZ 85711
DR. JOHN C CHAPMAN
STATE POLLUTION CONTROL
COMMISSION
P. O. BOX 367, NWS, BANKSTOWN
AUSTRALIA, TX 2117
MARVIN CHLAPEK
EXXON CHEMICAL AMERICAS
13501 KATY FREEWAY
HOUSTON, TX 77079
DAVID K CHRISTIAN
ARINC RESEARCH CORPORATION
TWO CRYSTAL PARK, SUITE 101
2121 CRYSTAL DR.
ARLINGTON, VA22202
CYNTHIA A CHRITTON
LOUISIANA DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
625 N. FOURTH STREET
P.O. BOX 44091
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804
SARAH CLARK
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
257 PARK AVENUE SO.
NEW YORK, NY 10010
DAVID CLARKE
INSIDE EPA WEEKLY REPORT
1225 JEFFERSON DAVIS HIGHWAY
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
THEODORE CLISTA
PA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
3RD & LOCUST STREETS
HARRISBURG, PA17102
DAVID L CLOUGH
VERMONT DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
103 SOUTH MAIN ST
WATERBURY, VT 05676
DAVID B COHEN
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY &
WATER R
STATE WATER RES. CONTROL BOARD
P.O. BOX 100
SACRAMENTO, CA 95801
RICHARD COHN-LEE
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL
1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW, SUITE
300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
GEORGE COLING
SIERRA CLUB
408 C STREET, NE
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
JAMES COLLIER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
2100 MARTIN LUTHER KING AVE. SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20032
DAVE N COMMONS
BROWARD CO. OFFICE OF ENVIR.
SCIENCE
2401 N. POWERLINE RD.
POMPANY BEACH, FL 33069
ELIZABETH CONKLIN
NORTHEAST-MIDWEST INSTITUTE
218 D ST., SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
JAMES M CONLON
OFFICE OF WATER
REGULATIONS/STANDARDS
U.S. EPA
401 M. STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
STEPHEN CONSTABLE
DU PONT
P.O. BOX 6090
NEWARK, DE 19714-6090
MICHAEL CONTI
ABT ASSOCIATES, INC.
4800 MONTGOMERY LANE, SUITE 500
BETHESDA, MD20814
MARJORIE COOMBS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATIONS
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD, SUITE 6255
TALLAHASSEE, FL 32305
ROBERT COONER
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
1751 CONG. W.L. DICKINSON DRIVE
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130
239
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
JACK COOPER
FOOD INDUSTRY ENVIRONMENTAL
NETWORK
33 FALLING CREEK COURT
SILVER SPRING, MD 20904
D COURTEMANCH
MAINE DEPT. OF ENVIRON. PROT.
STATE HOUSE #17
AUGUSTA, ME 04333
GERALDINE COX
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSN.
2501 M STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
JANICE COX
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
311 BROAD ST., HB 2S 27OC-C
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
CLAYTON CREAGER
WESTERN AQUATICS, INC.
1920HWY54
EXECUTIVE PARK SUITE 220
DURHAM, NC 27713
BILL CREAL
MICHIGAN DNR
P. O. BOX 30028
LANSING, Ml 48909
MARK CREWS
VIAR & CO
300 N. LEE ST
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
BILL CROCCO
USDI - BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
18 &C STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20240
JOHN GROSSMAN
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
BUILDING 67(0-5150)
DENVER, CO 80226
STEPHEN CROWLEY
WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES
VERMONT NATURAL RESOURCES
COUNCIL
9 BAILEY AVE.
MONTPELIER, VT 05602
RON A CRUNKILTON
UNIV. OF WISCONSIN - STEVENS PT.
STEVENS POINT, Wl 54481
BRENDA CUCCHERINI
CMA
2501 M ST. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
JAMES CUMMINS
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
LAWRENCE CURCIO
EXXON COMPANY, USA
800 BELL STREET, ROOM 3645
HOUSTON, TX 77002
PAULA DANNENFELDT
ASSN OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
AGENCIES
1000 CONNECTICUT AVE, NW
SUITE 100
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
ELLEANORE DAUB
VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL
BOARD
P.O. BOX 11143
2111 HAMILTON STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23230
JIM DAVENPORT
WATER QUALITY DIVISION
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
1700 N. CONGRESS AVE
AUSTIN, TX 78701
TUDOR DAVIES
USEPA
401 M ST., SW (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DIANE DAVIS
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARY
PROTECTION
401 M ST (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
THOMAS DAWSON
OFFICE OF WISCONSIN PUBLIC
INTERVENTION
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
123 WEST WASHINGTON AVE.,
P.O. BOX
MADISON, Wl 53707-7857
MO SIDDIQUE
DC ENV. CONTROL. DIV.
2100 M.L.K., JR. AVENUE, SE #203
WASHINGTON, DC 20020
MAGGIE DEAN
GEORGIA PACIFIC
1875 I STREET NW, SUITE 775
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
KARL DEBUS
NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE
8600 ROCKVILLE PIKE
BETHESDA, MD 20894
RANDY DEDD
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
P.O. BOX 12194
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PK, NC 27709
CHRISTOPHER E DERE
WATER STANDARDS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
U.S. EPA- REGION II (2WMD-WSP)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA - ROOM 813
NEW YORK, NY 10278
FRANCES A DESSELLE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M. STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BRENDAN C DEYO
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SKYLINE 6, SUITE 414
5109 LEESBURG PIKE
FALLS CHURCH, VA 22042
WILLIAM R DIAMOND
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID DICKSON
IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE
1401 WILSON BLVD. LEVELS
ARLINGTON, VA 22209
DAVID DILLON
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES
BOARD
1000 N.E. 10TH STREET, P.O. BOX 535
OKLAHOMA, OK 73152
GEORGE DISSMEYER
USDA FOREST SERVICE
1720 PEACHTREE RD., NW
ATLANTA, GA 30367
CHARLES M DONOHUE
AKZO CHEMICALS INC.
300 S. RIVERSIDE PLAZA
CHICAGO, IL 60606
PHILIP DORN
SHELL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
P.O. BOX 1380
HOUSTON, TX 77251
CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT &
PERMITS
OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20015
THERESE DOUGHERTY
EPA - REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT BLDG.
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
ED DRABKOWSKI
EPA/OWRS/AWPD
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MITCH DUBENSKY
NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION
1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE
WASHINGTON, DC 20016
RICHARD DU BEY
STOEL RIVES BOLEY JONES & GREY
600 UNIVERSITY STREET
SEATTLE, WA 98101
240
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
ROLAND DUBOIS
USEPA
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
401 M. ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAN DUDLEY
OHIO EPA
1800 WATERMARK DR.
P.O. BOX 1049
COLUMBUS, OH 43266
LINN DULING
MICH. DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 30028
LANSING, Ml 48909
LEE DUNBAR
WATER TOXICS PROGRAM
CONNECTICUT DEPT. OF ENV.
PROTECTION
122WASHINGTONST
HARTFORD, CT 06106
TRUMAN E DUNCAN
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS
P.O. BOX 440021 - TAMIAMI STATION
MIAMI, FL 33144
TIM EDER
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
GREAT LAKES NATURAL RESOURCE
CENTER
802 MONROE STREET
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48104
ROBERT EHRHARDT
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
3135 EASTON TURNPIKE
FAIRFIELD, CT 06431
KATE ELLIOTT
PEPCO, WATER QUALITY
1900 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20068
DONALD ELMORE
MD DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT
WMA, STANDARDS & CERT. DIV.
2500 BROENING HWY.
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
MOHAMED ELNABARAWY
3M ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
AND POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 33331, BLDG. 21-2W-05
ST. PAUL, MN 55133-3331
ATAL ERALP
USEPA
401 M ST., SW (WH-595)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
EDWIN B ERICKSON
U.S. EPA-REGION III
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
ATAL ERLAP
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
LORI FAHA
CITY OF PORTLAND
BUREAU OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
1120 SW 5TH AVE., ROOM 400
PORTLAND, OR 97204
TOM FAHA
NORTHERN REG. OFFICE
VA WATER CONTROL BD.
1519 DAVIS FORD RD., SUITE 14
WOODBRIDGE, VA22192
TRUDI FANCHER
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
FEDERATION
601 WYTHE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
BRIDGITTE FARREN
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARY
PROTECTION
401 M ST (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JAMES FAVA
BATTELLE
505 KING AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OH 43201
KENNETH A FENNER
REGION V, USEPA
230 S. DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60604
LARRY B FERGUSON
REGION VII
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
726 MINNESOTAAVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
DEEOHN FERRIS
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
1400 16TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
WILLIAM FESSLER
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.
ENVIRONMENTAL & FACILITIES OPER.
100WOODLAWNAVE.
PITTSFIELD, MA 01201
ROBBIN FINCH
CITY OF BOISE, PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
150N. CAPITOL BLVD
P.O. BOX 500
BOISE, ID 83701
DIANNE FISH
EPA - OFFICE OF WETLANDS
PROTECTION
401 M. STREET (A-104F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MORRIS FLEXNER
TN DIV. OF WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
150 9TH AVENUE N
NASHVILLE, TN 37247
SARAH FOGLER
EASTMAN KODAK CO. KODAK PARK
1100RIDGEWAYAVE.
ROCHESTER, NY 14652
JEFFERY FORAN
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
2150 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
WILLIAM FOWLER
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
P.O. BOX 1008
RUSSELLVILLE, AR 72801
CHARLES FOX
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
218 D STREET, SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
DAVID FRANKIL
CHAMPION INTERNATIONAL
1875 I ST., SUITE 540
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
GARY FRAZER
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
BRANCH OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
1849 C. ST. NW, ROOM 400 ARLSQ
WASHINGTON, DC 20240
PAUL FREEDMAN
LIMNO TECH INC.
2395 HURON PKWY
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48104
ADRIAN FREUND
CONNECTICUT DEP/WATER
MANAGEMENT BUREAU
122 WASHINGTON ST
HARTFORD, CT 06106
TOBY FREVERT
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
2200 CHURCHILL ROAD
SPRINGFIELD, IL 62794
ELAINE FRIEBELE
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
PAUL FROHARDT
HEALTH-WATER QUALITY CONTROL
COMMISSION
421OE. 11TH AVENUE
DENVER, CO 80127
PETER DE FUR
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
VIRGINIA OFFICE
1108 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 800
RICHMOND, VA 23219
MARY GAIR
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. (EN-338)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
241
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
JAMES R GAMMON
DEPAUW UNIVERSITY
BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
GREENCASTLE, IN 46135
MARGOT W GARCIA
VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH
UNIVERSITY
812 W. FRANKLIN ST.
RICHMOND, VA 23284-2008
WANDA GARCIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD
P.O. BOX 11448
SIRTURCE, PA00910
ROBIN GARIBAY
THE ADVENT GROUP
P.O. BOX 1147
BRENTWOOD, TN 37024-1147
GORDON R GARNER
LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY
METROPOLITAN SEWER DISTRICT
400 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
LOUISVILLE, KY 40202
MARY JO GARREIS
MD DEPARTMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
LEE GARRIGAN
AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS
COUNCIL
1015 FIFTEENTH ST, N.W. SUITE 802
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
DEE GAVORA
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
1220 L STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
SARAH GEROULD
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
330 ARLSQ, 4401 N. FAIRFAX DR.
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
JAMES D GIATTINA
U.S. EPA (5WQS-TUB8)
230 SO. DEARBORN STREET
CHICAGO, IL 60604
GEORGE GIBSON
US EPA
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
THOMAS J GILDING
NATION ALAGRICULTURAL
CHEMICALS ASS
1155 15TH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
WARREN GIMBEL
MASSACHUSETTS WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL,
TECHNICAL SERVICES BRANCH
LYMAN SCHOOL, WESTVIEW BLDG.
WESTBORO, MA01581
ANDREW GLICKMAN
CHEVRON RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY CO.
100 CHEVRON WAY
RICHMOND, CA94802
JEAN GODWIN
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT
AUTHORITIES
1010 DUKE STEET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
DEBRA GORMAN
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
155 NORTH FIRST AVE., SUITE 270
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
HANK GRADDY
REEVES & GRADDY LAW FIRM
P.O. BOX 88
VERSAILLES, KY 40383
G.M. DE GRAEVE
BATTELLE - GREAT LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
739 HASTINGS STREET
TRAVERSE CITY, Ml 49684
JAMES D GRATTINA
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
230 SO. DEARBORN ST. (5WQS-TUB8)
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CALVIN L GREEN
ECD, PROCTER & GAMBLE / WHTC
6110 CENTER HILL RD.
CINCINNATI, OH 45224
RICHARD GREENE
STATE OF DELAWARE; DNREC
89 KINGS HIGHWAY / P.O. BOX 1401
DOVER, DE 19903
JEAN GREGORY
VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL
BOARD
P.O. BOX 11143
2111 HAMILTON STREET
RICHMOND, VA 23230
STEPHEN GRIECO
RENEW AMERICA
1400 SIXTEENTH STREET N.W.
SUITE 71
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
VIRGINIA G GRIPPING
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND
KOOTENAI TR
P.O. BOX 278
PABLO, MT 59855
SHARON GROSS
BATTELLE
2101 WILSON BLVD., SUITE 800
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
THOMAS GROVHOUG
LARRY WALKER ASSOC.
509 4TH ST.
DAVIS, CA 95616
RAM GUFFAIN
THE FERTILIZER INSTITUTE
501 SECOND ST. N.E.
WASHINGTON, DC 20002
LAVOY HAAGE
IOWA DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
WALLACE BUILDING
DESMOINES, IA50319
MOHAMMED HABIBIAN
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY
COMM.
8103 SANDY SPRING RD.
LAUREL, MD 20707
RICK HAFELE
OREGON DEPT. OF ENV. QUALITY
1712SW11TH
PORTLAND, OR 97201
CYNTHIA HAGLEY
ASCI CORPORATION
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, Wl 55804
ERIC HALL
EPA - REGION I
JFK FEDERAL BLDG.
BOSTON, MA 02203
JOSEPH HALL
U.S. EPA
401 M ST., SW (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARY M HALLIBURTON
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
811 SW6TH AVENUE
PORTLAND, OR 97204
JANET HAMILTON
HUNTON& WILLIAMS
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
LEANNE E HAMILTON
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS
1965 SOUTH WORKMAN MILL ROAD
WHITTIER, CA 90601
JAMES HANLON
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M STREET., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAVID HANSEN
U.S. EPA, ERL NARRAGANSETT
27 TARZWELL DR.
NARRAGANSETT, Rl 02882
CHERI HANSON
NATURAL RESOURCES COUNCIL OF
AMERICA
801 PENN. AVE. SE, SUITE 410
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
242
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
LORE HANTSKE
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M ST., S.W (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JIM HARRISON
U.S. EPA-REGION IV
345 COURTLAND ST.
ATLANTA, GA 30365
CARLTON HAYWOOD
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
MARGARETE HEBER
US EPA
401 M. ST. SW (EN-338)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JUDITH A HECHT
EPA/OW
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DIANE VANDE HEI
ASS. METRO WATER AGENCIES
1717KST.NW, SUITE 1006
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
BOB HEINE
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO
1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
THOMAS HENRY
USEPA REGION 3
841 CHESTNUT STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
MARK HICKS
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF
ECOLOGY
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
MAIL STOP PV-11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8711
PAT HILL
AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE
1250 CONNECTICUT AVE., SUITE 210
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
SUSAN HITCH
U.S. EPA
401 M ST., SW (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARILYN J HOAR
CONSERVATION FEDERATION OF
MARYLAND
9713 OLD SPRING ROAD
KENSINGTON, MD 20895
RANDY HOCHBERG
VERSAR
9200 RUMSEY ROAD
COLUMBIA, MD 21045
HOWARD HOKE
COLLEGE STATION ROAD
ATHENS, GA 30613
FRED HOLLAND
VERSAR, INC. ESM OPERATIONS
9200 RUMSEY ROAD
COLUMBIA, MD 21045
HENRY M HOLMAN
EPA REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS, TX 75202
LINDA HOLST
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING (3WM10)
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
EVAN B HORNIG
U.S. EPA - REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVE. (6E-SA)
DALLAS, TX 75202
JOHN HOULIHAN
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
726 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY, KS 66101
JOHN HOWLAND
MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 176
JEFFERSON CITY, MO 65102
JOSEPH HUDEK
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
REGION II, ESD
2890 WOODBRIDGE AVE., BLDG. 209
EDISON, NJ 08837
BOB HUGHES
NSI
1600 SW WESTERN BLVD
CORVALLIS, OR 97333
VICKI HUTSON
ABT ASSOCIATES
4800 MONTGOMERY LANE, SUITE 500
BETHESDA, MD20814
THOMAS L GLEASON, III
ORD/OHEA/PLS
RD689
401 M. STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JOHN JACKSON
UNIFIED SEWERAGE AGENCY OF
WASHINGTON COUNTY
155 N. FIRST AVENUE
HILLSBORO, OR 97124
LAURENCE R JAHN
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE
1101 14TH STREET, NW SUITE 725
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
LORRAINE JANUS
NYC DEP
P.O. BOX 184
VALHALLA, NY 10595
NORBERT JAWORSKI
U.S. EPA
27 TARZWELL DR.
NARRAGANSETT, Rl 02882
NORMAN JEFFRIES
NORTHERN VIRGINIA SOIL & WATER
CONSERVATION DISTRICT
11216WAPLESMILLROAD
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
DAVID JENNINGS
OKLAHOMA DEPT. OF POLLUTION
CONTROL
1000 N.E.10TH STREET
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73117
JERRY JEWETT
WASHINGTON STATE DEPT. OF
ECOLOGY
WATER QUALITY PROGRAM
MAIL STOP PV-11
OLYMPIA, WA 98504-8711
KENNETH JOCK
ST. REGIS MOHOWK TRIBE
COMMUNITY BUILDING
HOGANSBURG, NY 13655
DAVE JONES
SF CLEAN WATER PROGRAM
1550 EVANS AVE.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94124
MICHAEL KADLEE
ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE
COMMUNITY BUILDING
HOGANSBURG, NY 13655
CAROLYN KARP
NARRAGANSETT BAY ESTUARY
PROJECT
291 PROMENADE ST.
PROVIDENCE, Rl 02908
ANNE KELLER
TVA AQUATIC BIOLOGY
H8 25 270C-C
311 BROAD ST
CHATTANOOGA, TN 37402
MARY KELLY
HENRY & KELLY
2103 RIO GRANDE
AUSTIN, TX 78705
ROGER KILGORE
GKY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
5411-EBACKLICK ROAD
SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151
STEVE KILPATRICK
DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
2030 DOW CENTER
MIDLAND, Ml 48674
243
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
WARREN KIMBALL
MASS. DIV. OF WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
LYMAN SCHOOL ROUTE 9
WESTBORO, MA01581
JAMES KING
VIAR & COMPANY
300 N LEE STREET SUITE 200
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
KEN KIRK
ASS'N METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE
AGENCIES
1000 CONNECTICUT AVE. NW,
SUITE 100
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
DAVE C KIRKPATRICK
PLANNING & STANDARDS SECTION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
230 SO. DEARBORN
CHICAGO, IL 60604
LIONEL KLIKOFF
OWQ, PLANS AND REVIEW SECTION
2005 N. CENTRAL
PHOENIX, AZ 85004
JAIME C KOOSER
WASHINGTON DEPT. OF ECOLOGY
MAIL STOP PV-11 WETLANDS SECTION
OLYMPIA, WA 98504
ELIZABETH KRAFT
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS
1730 M. STREET N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
PAUL KRAMAN
NATIONAL ASSOC. OF REGIONAL
COUNCILS
1700KST. NW, SUITE 1300
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
CATHERINE KUHLMAN
EPA REGION 9
1235 MISSION ST
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
ANNELI KUHN
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS
SCHOEMAN STREET
PRETORIA, SA 0002
ERNEST LADD
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
121 MEADOWBURN LANE
MEDIA, PA 19063
LORRAINE LAMEY
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
P.O. BOX 4203
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48106
JESSICA LANDMAN
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL
1350 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.,
SUITE 300
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
WILLIE LANE
U.S. EPA
1445 ROSS AVE.
DALLAS, TX 75202
PERRY LANKFORD
ECKENFELDER INC.
227 FRENCH LANDING DRIVE
NASHVILLE, TN 37228
JEFF LAPP
USEPA REGION 3 (3ES42)
841 CHESTNUT ST.
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
SUE LAUFER
TETRATECH.,
10306 EATON PLY, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
TOM LAVERTY
USEPA
401 M ST SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BRYAN LEE
AIR-WATER POLLUTION REPORT
951 PERSHING DRIVE
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910-4464
ROBERT LEE
U.S. EPA OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL
POLLUT CONTROL
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARY JAMES LEGATSKI
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL
MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION,
INC.
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, SUITE
300,
WASHINGTON, DC 20036-1702
FRED LEUTNER
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS &
STANDARDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M STREET SW (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
NOELLE LEWIS
SAVE THE BAY
434 SOUTH ST.
PROVIDENCE, Rl 02908
GORDON W LINAM
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT
P.O. BOX 947
SAN MARCOS, TX 78667
FELIX LOCICERO
WATER STANDARDS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
U.S EPA- REGION II (2WMD-WSP)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA - ROOM 813
NEW YORK, NY 10278
CATHERINE M LONG
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 MST. SW(PM-221)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
STEVE LUBOW
NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
401 EAST STATE STREET CN-029
TRENTON,NJ 08625
JEFFEREY LYNN
MARATHON OIL COMPANY
539 SOUTH MAIN STREET
FINDLAY, OH 45840
ANTHONY J MACIOROWSKI
BATTELLE
505 KING AVENUE
COLUMBUS, OH 43201
TONY MACIOROWSKI
BATTELLE
2101 WILSON BLVD., SUITE 800
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
PAT MALEY
ASARCO, INC.
P.O. BOX 5747
TUSCON.AZ 85703
JOHN L MANCINI
JMC, INC.
800 N. FIELDER RD.
ARLINGTON, TX 76012
STEVE MANZO
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURES
ASSOCIATION
2501 M STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
SUZANNE MARCY
USEPA CSD/OWRS (WH-585)
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SALLY MARQUIS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
MAIL STOP WQ-139
1200 6TH AVENUE
SEATTLE, WA 98101
CRAIG MARSHALL
U.S. EPA
EN 338
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DAWN MARTIN
AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN
235 PENN. AVE. SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
GAIL MARTIN
GREENPEACE
1436 U ST. NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20009
244
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
GARY MARTIN
OHIO EPA, DIVISION OF WATER
QUALITY PLANNING &
ASSESSMENT
1800 WATERMARK DRIVE
COLUMBUS, OH 43266
MENCHU MARTINEZ
U.S. EPA- OFFICE OF WETLANDS
PROTECTION
401 M ST SW
MAIL CODE A-104F
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JOHN MAXTED
DELAWARE DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRON.
CONTROL
89 KINGS HIGHWAY
P.O. BOX 1401
DOVER, DE 19903
ALICE MAYIO
USEPA/OWRS/AWPD
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON. DC 20460
HARRY MCCARTY
VIAR & COMPANY
300 N LEE STREET SUITE 200
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
PAMELA MCCELLAND
TROUT UNLIMITED
501 CHURCH ST., SUITE 103
VIENNA, VA 22180
LARRY MCCULLOUGH
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH & ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTROL
2600 BULL ST.
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
ROLAND MCDANIEL
FTN ASSOCIATES
SUITE 220 #3 INNWOOD CIRCLE
LITTLE ROCK, AK 72211
BETH MCGEE
TESWTOC/EAD
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
ANN MCGINLEY
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
W.Q. DIVISION
1700 N. CONGRESS AVE.
AUSTIN, TX 78701
JAMES MCINDOE
WATER DIVISION
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
1751 CONG. W.L. DICKINSON DRIVE
MONTGOMERY, AL 36130
EDWARD K MCSWEENEY
US EPA
JFK FEDERAL BLDG.
BOSTON, MA 02203
STEPHANIE MEADOWS
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
1220LST, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
BRIAN MELZIAN
U.S. EPA (ERL-N)
27 TARZWELL DRIVE
NARRAGANSETT, Rl 02835
RUHAN MEMISHI
BUSINESS PUBLISHERS INC.
951 PERSHING DRIVE
SILVER SPRING, MD 20910
MARC METEYER
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
1220 L ST. NW, 9TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
OSSI MEYN
EPA/OTS/EEB
P.O. BOX 16090
ARLINGTON, VA 22215
SUE MIHALYI
ATLANTIC STATES LEGAL
FOUNDATION
658 WEST ONONDAG ST.
SYRACUSE, NY 13204
BETH MILLEMAN
COAST ALLIANCE
235 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., SE, 2ND FL
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
BOYCE MILLER
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
218 D STREET, SE
WASHINGTON, DC 20003-2025
DEB MILLER
VIAR & CO
300 N. LEE ST
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
JOHN MILLER
USEPA
536 S. CLARK
CHICAGO, IL 60605
REID MINER
NCASI
260 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10016
LARRY MINOCK
VA COUNCIL ON THE ENVIRONMENT
202 N. 9TH ST., SUITE 900
RICHMOND, VA23219
KATHY MINSCH
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARY
PROTECTION
401 M ST (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JILL MINTER
STANDARDS BRANCH
CSD/OWRS/OW U.S. EPA
401 M. ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BRUCE MINTZ
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
U.S. EPA
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ROCH A MONGEON
VIAR & COMPANY
300 N LEE STREET SUITE 200
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
JOHN MONTGOMERY
NATIONAL RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION
2715 M STREET, NW #300
WASHINGTON, DC 20007
AL MORRIS
U.S. EPA
841 CHESTNUT BUILDING
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
PATTI MORRIS
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
WILLIAM MORROW
OWEP, PERMITS
401 M STREET, S.W. EN 335
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
WILLIAM C MUIR
U.S. EPA REGION III ESD 3ES41
841 CHESTNUT ST.
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
REGINA MULCAHY
U.S. EPA-REGION II
2890 WOODBRIDGE AVE, BLDG 209
EDISON, NY 08837-3679
DEIRDRE L MURPHY
MARYLAND DEPT. ENVIRONMENT
2500 BROENING HGWY
BALTIMORE, MD21224
SEAN MURPHY
CT PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH
GROUP
219 PARK ROAD
WEST HARTFORD, CT 06119
ARLEEN NAVARRET
BUREAU OF WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL
750 PHELPS STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94124
DAVID NELEIGH
EPA
1445 ROSS AVE.
DALLAS, TX 75202
ARTHUR NEWELL
NYS DEPT. ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION
SUNY, BUILDING 40
STONY BROOK, NY 11790
245
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
LARRY NEWSOME
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
401 M ST. S.W. (OTS-796)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DEBRA NICOLL
USEPA
401 M ST., SW (WH-586)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KRISTY NIEHAUS
HUNTON AND WILLIAMS
2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
CYNTHIA MOLT
U.S. EPA/OW/OWRS
401 M. ST., S.W. (WH-585)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
CHRIS NORMAN
ORSANCO
49 EAST 4TH ST., SUITE 300
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
BRIDGET O'GRADY
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATION
3800 NORTH FAIRFAX DRIVE, SUITE 4
ARLINGTON, VA 22312
KATHRYN O'HARA
CENTER FOR MARINE
CONSERVATION
CHESAPEAKE FIELD OFFICE
12CANTAMARCOURT
HAMPTON, VA 23664
TIMOTHY A O'SHEA
TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC COMPANY
400 N. OLIVE STREET, L.B. 81
DALLAS, TX 75201
KEITH OGDEN
KAMBER ENGINEERING
818 WEST DIAMOND AVENUE
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878
GRACE ORDAZ
MD DEPT. OF ENV, WATER MGMT.
ADMINISTRATION
PRETREATMENT AND ENFORCEMENT
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
ROBERT ORTH
VA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE
DIVISION OF BIOLOGY & FISHERIES
SCIENCE
GLOUCESTER POINT, VA 23062
BOB OVERLY
JAMES RIVER CORP.
500 DAY ST.
P.O. BOX 790
GREEN BAY, Wl 54305
CHERYL OVERSTREET
EPA-REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE
DALLAS, TX 75202
LINDA B OXENDINE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
WATER QUALITY DEPARTMENT
524 UNION AVENUE, ROOM 1A
KNOXVILLE, TN 37902
MARC PACIFICO
GOVT. OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF
THE UNITED STATES
DEPT. OF PLANNING & NATURAL RES.
1118 WATER GUT PROJECT,
CHRISTIANST
ST CROIX, US VI 00820
JIM PAGENVIGST
TETRATECH., INC.
10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
BILL PAINTER
WATER POLICY BRANCH PM-221
OFFICE OF POLICY ANALYSIS
401 M STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
RANDY PALACHEK
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
WASTEWATER PERMITS SECTION
1700 N. CONGRESS AVE.
AUSTIN, TX 78701
TAK-KAI PANG
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852-3903
LOYS PARRISH
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
P.O. BOX 25366
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, CO 80225
DHUN PATEL
NEW JERSEY DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
401 EAST STATE STREET-CN 029
TRENTON,NJ08625
SPYROS PAVLOU
HAZ. MATERIALS AND RISK ASS.
PROGRAM
EBASCO ENVIRONMENTAL
10900 N.E.8TH STREET
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
STEVEN PAWLOWSKI
ARIZONA DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY
2005 N. CENTRAL AVE.
PHOENIX, AZ 85004
JAMES PENDERGAST
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M. STREET, S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
CLAYTON PENNIMAN
NARRAGANSETT BAY PROJECT
291 PROMENADE STREET
PROVIDENCE, Rl 02908
DAVID PENROSE
NC DEPT. ENVIRON. HEALTH &
NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRON. BLVD.
P. O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NC 27611
PATRICK PERGOLA
WATER STANDARDS AND PLANNING
BRANCH
U.S. EPA - REGION II (2WMD-WSP)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA - ROOM 813
NEW YORK, NY 10278
JEFF PETERSON
ENVIRONMENTAL & PUBLIC WORKS
COMMITTEE
DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20510
PAUL M HORTON, PH.D.
CLEMSON UNIV. COOP. EXTENSION
SERVICE
111 LONG HALL, DEPT. OF
ENTOMOLOGY
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY, SC 29634
HARRIETTA PHELPS
UNIVERSITY OF D. C.
4200 CONN. AVE., NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20008
MIKE PIFHER
104 S. CASCADE, SUITE 204
COLORADO SPRING, CO 80903
MARY PIGOTT
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MANUFACTURERS
1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVE., NW,
SUITE 1
WASHINGTON, DC 20004
HAAGNEW
PI MA COUNTY WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
130 WEST CONGRESS
TUCSON, AZ 85701
DAVID PINCUMBE
U.S. EPA WATER MANAGEMENT
DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
JFK FEDERAL BLDG.
BOSTON, MA 02203
JAY PITKIN
ENGINEERING & WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
UTAH BUREAU OF WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL
P.O. BOX 16690
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84116
MARJORIE PITTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
CRITERIA & STANDARDS DIVISION,
OWRS
401 M. ST SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
246
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
DAVID P POLLISON
DELAWARE RIVER BASIN
COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 7360
WEST TRENTON, NJ 08628
RONALD F POLTAK
INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL COMMISSION
ASIWPCA
441 N. CAPITOL STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
FRED PONTIUS
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC.
6666W. QUINCYAVE.
DENVER, CO 80235
J MCGRATH
PORT OF OAKLAND
530 WATER STREET
OAKLAND, CA 94607
KENNARD POTTS
USEPA - CRITERIA & STANDARDS DIV.
CRITERIA BRANCH
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
FRANK PRINCE
AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
1220 L STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
MARTHA PROTHRO
U.S. EPA(WH-551)
401 M. ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MARK VAN PUTTEN
NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION
GREAT LAKES NATURAL RESOURCE
CENTER
802 MONROE ST.
ANN ARBOR, Ml 48104
DOUGLAS N RADER
N.C. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE
FUND
128 E. HARGETT ST., SUITE 202
RALEIGH, NC 27601
ED RANKIN
OHIO EPA
1800 WATERMARK DR.
COLUMBUS, OH 43266
ELI REINHARZ
TESH/TOC/EAD
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
CHRISTINE REITER
SOCMA
1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
LARRY J RICHMOND
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT OF
MARICOPA
1419 NORTH 3RD STREET
PHOENIX, AZ 85004
LYNN RIDDICK
VIAR & CO
300 N. LEE ST
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
DOREEN ROBB
EPA - OFFICE OF WETLANDS
PROTECTION
401 M. STREET (A-104F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
LOREEN ROBINSON
AMOCO CORPORATION
200 EAST RANDOLPH DRIVE (MC 4907)
CHICAGO, IL 60680
PAT ROMBERG
SEATTLE METRO
821 2ND AV. MAIL STOP 81
SEATTLE, WA 98104
GABE ROZSA
HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER
RESOURCES
B-375 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE
BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
JENNY RUARK
INSIDE EPA WEEKLY REPORT
1225 JEFFERSON DAVIS HWY, SUITE
400
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
CHRISTINE RUF
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OPPE
401 M STREET, SW PM-221
WASHINGTON, DC 20461
PETER RUFFIER
ASSOC. OF METROPOLITAN
SEWERAGE AGENCIES
1000 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
DUGAN SABINS
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
LOUISIANA DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
625 N. FOURTH STREET, P.O. BOX
4409
BATON ROUGE, LA 70804
DAVID SABOCK
U.S. EPA
401 M. ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
CYNTHIA SALE
VA WATER CONTROL BD.
NORTHERN REG. DFC
1519 DAVIS FORD RD., SUITE 14
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22192
JOEL SALTER
EPA-OW-OMEP-TSD-TSB
401 M ST SW (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
EDWARD R SALTZBERG
VIAR & COMPANY
300 N LEE STREET SUITE 200
ALEXANDRIA.VA22314
CHESTER E SANSBURY
SHELLFISH SANITATION
S.C. DEPT. OF HEALTH AND ENV.
CONTROL
2600 BULL ST.
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
WILLIAM SANVILLE
U.S. EPAORD/ERL
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, MN 55804
STEPHANIE SANZONE
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARY
PROTECTION
401 M ST (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
KEITH SAPPINGTON
MD DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT (MDE)
STANDARDS AND CERTIFICATION
DIVISION
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
ROBBI SAVAGE
ASIWPICA
444 N. CAPITOL ST. N.W. STE. 330
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
CHRIS SCHLEKAT
TESH/TOC/EAD
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
LARRY SCHMIDT
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
WATERSHED AND AIR MANAGEMENT
201 14TH STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20250
JOHN W SCHNEIDER
STATE OF DELAWARE, DNREC
89 KINGS HIGHWAY
P.O. BOX 1401
DOVER, DE 19903
LEE SCHROER
OGC - EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
DUANE SCHUETTPEL2
MONITORING SECTION
WISCONSIN DNR
101 S. WEBSTER STREET
MADISON, Wl 53707
STUART SCHWARTZ
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
RICHARD F SCHWER
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO.
P.O. BOX 6090
NEWARK, DE 19714-6090
247
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
ROBERT SHANKS
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
9660 ECOLOGY LANE
SACRAMENTO,CA95827
ANN SHAUGHNESSY
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
218 D. ST
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
LAWRENCE J SHEPARD
USEPA REGION 5
230 S. DEARBORN 5WQS-TUB8
CHICAGO, IL 60604
VICTOR SHER
SIERRA CLUB
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.
216 FIRST AVE. SOUTH, SUITE 330
SEATTLE, WA 98104
RUSSELL SHERER
S.C. DEPT. HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
2600 BULL STREET
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
BOB SHIPPEN
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M. ST., S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20467
REBECCA SHRINER
INDIANA WILDLIFE FEDERATION
415 PARRY ST.
SOUTH BEND, IN 46617
ROBIN SIMMS
GOVT. OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF
THE UNITED STATES
DEPT. OF PLANNING & NATURAL RES.
1118 WATER GUT PROJECT,
CHRISTIANST
ST CROIX, US VI 00820
ELIZABETH SIMONET
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT &
PERMITS
401 M STREET SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SHON SIMPSON
OKLA. WATER RESOURCES BOARD
1000 N.E. 10TH STREET, P.O. BOX 535
OKLAHOMA, OK 73152
TIMOTHY J SINNOTT
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 WOLF ROAD, ROOM 530
ALBANY, NY 12233-4756
DEBBIE SMITH
CA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
CONTROL B
101 CENTRE PLAZA DRIVE
MONTEREY PARK, CA 91754
KATHRYN SMITH
EPA/OW/OWEP (EN-336)
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ROBERT SMITH
CONNECTICUT DEP/WATER
MANAGEMENT BUREAU
122 WASHINGTON ST.
HARTFORD, CT 06106
VELMA SMITH
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
218DST..S.E.
WASHINGTON, DC 20003
DEREK SMITHEE
OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES
BOARD
1000 NE 10TH ST., P.O. BOX 53585
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73152
JERRY SMRCHEK
OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
GREG SODER
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE
P.O. BOX 268
CHARLESTOWN, Rl 02813
MARY LOU SOSCIA
OFFICE OF MARINE AND ESTUARY
PROTECTION
401 M ST, SW (WH-556F)
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
AMY SOSIN
U.S. EPA OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL
POLLUT CONTROL
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ELIZABETH SOUTHERLAND
U.S. EPA
401 M ST, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
ROBERT L SPEHAR
U.S. EPA (ERL-DULUTH)
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, MN 55804
ANN SPIESMAN
CH2M HILL
P.O. BOX 4400
RESTON.VA 22090
WILLIAM STACK
WATER QUALITY MGT - BALTIMORE
CITY
ASHBURTON FILTRATION PLANT
3001 DRUID PARK DRIVE
BALTIMORE, MD 21215
PHILIP STAPLETON
55 SCUDDER RD.
NEWTOWN, CT 06470
CHERYL STARK
MILPARK DRILLING FLUIDS
3900 ESSEX LANE
HOUSTON, TX 77027
JAY STARLING
ARCO
515 SOUTH FLOWER STREET
LOS ANGELES, CA 90071
ALEXIS STEEN
BATTELLE
2101 WILSON BLVD., SUITE 800
ARLINGTON, VA 22207
ROLAND STEINER
INTERSTATE COMMISSION OF THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
CRISTOPH STOOP
5707 SURREY STREET
CHEW CHASE, MD 20815
EILEEN STRAUGHAN
KAMBER ENGINEERING
818 WEST DIAMOND AVENUE
GAITHERSBURG, MD 20878
JULIA STROM
NC DEPT. ENV, HEALTH AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIV. OF ENV. MGMT, WATER QUALITY
SECTION
P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NC 27611
ERIC STROMBERG
AMERICAN ASSN. OF PORT
AUTHORITIES
1010 DUKE ST.
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
KEN STROMBORG
U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE
1015 CHALLENGER COURT
GREEN BAY, Wl 54311
BILL SULLIVAN
PUGALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS
2002 EAST 20TH STREET
TAKOMA, WA 98404
JOHN SULLIVAN
WISCONSIN DEPT. OF NATURAL
RESOURCES
101 S.WEBSTER STREET
MADISON, Wl 53707
MICHAEL SULLIVAN
LTI, LIMNO-TECH, INC
P.O. BOX 70268
WASHINGTON, DC 20024
TERESA SUMMERS
ECKENFELDER INC.
227 FRENCH LANDING DR.
NASHVILLE, TN 37228
248
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
WILLIAM F SWIETLIK
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT
AND PERMITS
U.S. EPA
401 M STREET, SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JUDITH F TAGGART
JT&A
1000 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW
SUITE 802
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
JOHN TAKLE
GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVITIES STAFF
30400 MOUND ROAD
WARREN, Ml 48090
BETSY TAM
U.S. EPA
401M STREET
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JAN TAYLOR
STATE WATER RESOURCES BOARD
1260 GREENBRIER STREET
CHARLESTON, WV 25311
MARCIA TAYLOR
GOVT. OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS OF
THE UNITED STATES
DEPT. OF PLANNING & NAT. RES.
1118 WATER GUT PROJECT.
CHRISTIANST
ST. CROIX, US VI 00820
MARIAM TEHRAN!
AKZO CHEMICALS INC.
300 S. RIVERSIDE PLAZA
CHICAGO, IL 60606
PETER TENNANT
OHIO RIVER VALLEY WATER
SANITATION COMMISSION
49 EAST FOURTH STREET
CINCINNATI, OH 45202
MARY ROSE TEVES
HAWAII STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
FIVE WATER-FRONT PLAZA, SUITE 250
500 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD
HONOLULU, HI 96813
NELSON THOMAS
EPA-ORD ERL-DULUTH
6201 CONGDON BLVD.
DULUTH, MN 55804
GREG THORPE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA-DEPT.
OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 27687
RALEIGH, NC 27611
SUSAN K TILL
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATION
3800 N. FAIRFAX DRIVE, #4
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
ERICK TOKAR
ITT RAYONER RESEARCH CENTER
409 EAST HARVARD
SHELTON, WA98584
GEORGE TOWNSEND
TETRATECH., INC.
10306 EATON PL, SUITE 340
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
JOHN TURNER
GEORGIA- PACIFIC CORPORATION
1875 I ST. NW-SUITE 775
WASHINGTON, DC 20006
STEPHEN TWIDWELL
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
CAPITOL STATION
P.O. BOX 13087
AUSTIN, TX 78711
DMOON
U.S. EPA
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 29064
DAVID VANA-MILLER
U.S. EPA - REGION 8
DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
P.O. BOX 25366
LAKEWOOD, CO 80225
DAVID VELINSKY
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
ALAN VICORY
ORSANCO
49 EAST 4TH ST., SUITE 300
CINCINNATTI, OH 45202
DALE VODEHNAL
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202
FRITZ WAGENER
EPA REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30365
FRITZ WAGNER
EPA REGION 4
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30365
JOHN WALTER
GAP CHEMICAL CORP.
P.O. BOX 37
CALVER CITY, KY 42029
CHARLES WARBUTON
METCALF AND EDDY
3901 NATIONAL DR. SUITE 200
BURTONSVILLE, MD 20866
ROBERT WARE
KENTUCKY DIVISION OF WATER
18 REILLY ROAD
FRANKFORT, KY 40601
THOMAS M WARE
MILLE LACS BAND OF CHIPPEWA
HCR67
BOX 194
ON AM I A, MN
NEILWASILK
BP AMERICA, INC.
200 PUBLIC SQUARE, 7-B-4556
CLEVELAND, OH 44114
DEBORAH WASSENAAR
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
CENTER
201 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 14
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
WARREN WATTS
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY
P.O. BOX 9239
NEWARK, DE 19714
DAVID WEFRING
INTERNATIONAL PAPER
6400 POPLAR AVENUE
MEMPHIS, TN 38018
ROBIN WEISS
LABAT-ANDERSON, INC.
2200 CLARENDON BLVD., SUITE 900
ARLINGTON, VA 22201
BARBARA WEST
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - WATER
RESOURCES
P.O. BOX 25287
DENVER, CO 80225
GRACE WEVER
ROCHESTER SENSITIZED PRODUCTS
MANUFACTURERS
1669 LAKE AVE.
ROCHESTER, NY 14652
CAMERON WHEELER
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO.
P.O. BOX 1551
RALEIGH, NC 27602
RAYMOND WHITTEMORE
NCASI
RESEARCH ENGINEERING
TUFTS UNIVERSITY, COLLEGE
AVENUE
MEDFORD, MA02155
STU WIDOM
DELMARVA POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY
P.O. BOX 9239
NEWARK, DE 19714
SHEILA WIEGMAN
AMERICAN SAMOA EPA
OFFICE OF THE GOVENOR
PAGO PAGO, AS 96799
MELISSA WIELAND
BALTIMORE GAS & ELECTRIC
1000 BRANDON SHORES ROAD
BALTIMORE, MD 21226
249
-------
ATTENDEES LIST
LAJUANA S WILCHER
U.S. EPA
401 M ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BILL WILEN
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
1849 C STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20240
TIM WILLIAMS
WATER QUALITY 2000
601 WYTHE ST.
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
WENDY WILTSE
EPA REGION 9
1235 MISSION ST., W-3-1
SAN FRANCISCO, CA94103
CATHERINE WINER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL
401 M ST. SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
AMY WING
GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY, VA
1827 KILBOURNE PLACE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20010
WARREN WISE
FRIENDS OF THE RAPPAHANNOCK
108 WOLFE ST.
FREDERICKSBURG, VA 22401
DAVID WOJICK
LUTRO DUO
BOX 333
STAN TENNERY, VA 22654
GORDON WOOD
SOCMA
1330 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW,
SUITE 30
WASHINGTON, DC 20036
ROBERT WOOD
U.S. EPA
OFFICE OF WATER ENFORCEMENT
AND PERMITS
(EN-336) 401 M ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
SUSAN WOODS
NEW ENGLAND WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL COMMISSION
85 MERRIMAC ST.
BOSTON, MA01879
FORREST WOODWICK
AZ DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
2655 E. MAGNOLIA
PHOENIX, AZ 85034
CHIEH WU
USEPA/ORD
401 M ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
BILL WUERTHELE
US EPA
999 18TH ST., SUITE 500
DENVER, CO 80202
CHRIS YODER
OHIO, EPA
1800 WATERMARK DR.
COLUMBUS, OH 43266-0149
CARL YOUNG
U.S. EPA REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVE.
DALLAS, TX 75202
EDWARD YOUNGINER
S.C. DEPT OF HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENT CONTROL
2600 BULL STREET
COLUMBIA, SC 29201
ANDREW ZACHERLE
TETRATECH., INC.
10306 EATON PLACE, SUITE 340
FIARFAX, VA 22030
JOHN ZAMBRANO
NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF ENV.
CONSERVATION
50 WOLF RD.
ALBANY, NY 12205
HOWARD ZAR
USEPA - REGION V (5W-TUB-8)
230 S. DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, IL 60604
CHRIS ZARBA
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
401 M. STREET S.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
MERRYLIN ZAWN-MON
MARYLAND DEPT. OF THE
ENVIRONMENT
2500 BROENING HWY
BALTIMORE, MD 21224
NORMAN ZEISER
CHEVRON CORPORATION
525 MARKET STREET, #3655
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
L E ZENI
INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN
6110 EXECUTIVE BLVD., SUITE 300
ROCKVILLE, MD 20852
250
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR THE 21st CENTURY
INDEX OF AUTHORS
Adams, William J 59
Adler, Robert W. 23
Allen, Freeman 221
Baird, Rodger 139
Baker, Bruce 7
Barnett, James W. Jr. 59
Batiuk, Richard 177
Berger, Robert 191
Bieber, Steven 177
Bonine, John 151
Borton, Dennis 115
Bowers, Larry C 75
Carter, Virginia 177
Clark, Sarah L 55
Cohen, David B 159
Cox, Geraldine V. 51
Dawson, Thomas 89
Dennison, William 177
Du Bey, Richard A 211
Eder.Tim 113
Flexner, Morris C 75
Fogler, Sarah P. 199
Gammon, J. R 105
Garreis.MaryJo 203
Glickman, Andrew H 207
Hamilton, LeAnne 139
Heasly, Patsy 177
Hickman, R. Edward 177
Rowland, John 13
Jaworski, Norbert 127
Kimerle, Richard A 59
Kollar, Stan 177
Maxted, John R 169
McGrath, James 43
Melzian, Brian D 127
Millemann, Beth 41
Miner, Reid 115
Moore, Kenneth 177
Newell, Arthur J 35
Newell, Arthur J 67
Orth, Robert 177
Penniman, Clayton A 183
Prothro, Martha G 1
Romberg, G. Patrick 37
Rybicki, Nancy 177
Sanville, William 85
Schmidt, Larry J 81
Schwer, Richard F. 17
Staver, Lori 177
Stevenson, J. Court 177
Wilcher, LaJuana S 3
Wilen.Bill 71
Yoder, Chris 0 95
251
------- |