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

-------