TD223.3
.R48
1993
Revised Draft Lake
OOOD93001
&EPA
Michigan Lakewide
Management Plan For
Toxic Pollutants
September 30, 1993
-------
REVISED LAKE MICHIGAN LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Draft
Produced by
Science Applications International Corporation
1 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Produced for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604
EPA Contract No. 68-C8-0066, W.A. No. C-4-98(O)
SAIC Project No. 01-0833-03-4068-000
September 30,1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevacd, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 — Introduction
MANDATE 1-3
LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM OBJECTIVES 1-4
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP GOALS 1-6
OVERVIEW OF THE LaMP PROCESS 1-6
SCOPE OF THE LaMP 1-9
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE 1-9
OTHER PROGRAMS TO PROTECT AND RESTORE THE GREAT LAKES.... 1-11
Chapter 2 — Environmental Status of the Lake Michigan Ecosystem
INTRODUCTION 2-1
USE IMPAIRMENTS 2-2
RNDINGS OF ECOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-10
TRENDS IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS 2-17
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS 2-18
AREAS OF CONCERN 2-20
EVALUATION OF DATA GAPS 2-24
Chapter 3 — LaMP Pollutants ^
INTRODUCTION 3-1
DEFINITION 3-1
PROCESS FOR LISTING LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-2
PROPOSED LaMP POLLUTANTS FOR LAKE MICHIGAN 3-3
PROPERTIES OF THE LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-5
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS 3-6
DIELDRIN 3-8
CHLORDANE 3-8
DDT AND DDE 3-11
MERCURY 3-13
DIOXINS AND FURANS 3-13
TOXAPHENE 3-16
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) 3-16
HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB) 3-19
-------
DRAFT September 30, 1993
Chapter 3 — LaMP Pollutants (continued)
LEAD 3-19
CADMIUM 3-22
CHROMIUM 3-22
COPPER 3-24
ZINC 3-27
ARSENIC 3-27
CYANIDE 3-27
DETECTION OF EMERGING PROBLEMS 3-31
REVIEW AND REVISION OFTHE LaMP POLLUTANT LIST 3-32
Chapter 4 — Pollutant Sources and Loads
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE 4-1
SOURCES 4-3
WISCONSIN BASIN-SPECIFIC LOADING ESTIMATES 4-15
POTWs 4-16
LOADING ESTIMATES 4-25
GASEOUS EXCHANGE 4-30
LaMP POLLUTANTS 4-30
CAA AND LaMP POLLUTANTS 4-30
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 4-31
LOADING ESTIMATES 4-33
STORET DATA RETRIEVAL OF TRIBUTARY LOADINGS
OFLaMPPOLLUTANTS 4-36
PCB LOADINGS 4-40
LOADINGS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM RCRA AND CERCLA SITES 4-42
Chapter 5 — Lake Michigan LaMP Action Agenda
TOXIC LOAD REDUCTIONS 5-1
DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT 5-5
ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS
AND LaMP POLLUTANT IDENTIFICATION 5-7
LOAD QUANTIFICATION AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 5-11
POLLUTION PREVENTION 5-14
LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION OF CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 5-21
DEVELOP DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO MANAGE
GREAT LAKES INFORMATION 5-24
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Appendix A — Ongoing Activities
INTRODUCTION A-1
IDENTIFY ECOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN LAKE MICHIGAN A-1
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE A-2
SURFACE WATER POINT SOURCES A-2
TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY A-3
CERCLA AND RCRA A-3
ESTIMATE LOADS OFLaMP POLLUTANTS A-3
IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT POLLUTION REDUCTION ACTIVITIES A-5
POLLUTION REMEDIATION A-5
POLLUTION ABATEMENT A-6
POLLUTION PREVENTION A-10
Appendix B — Ust of Lake Michigan Basin RCRA Facilities (draft)
Appendix C — List of EPA Region 5 Sediment Inventory Sites
Appendix D — Ust of 1990 Lake Michigan Air Emissions Inventory
Glossary
-------
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
FIGURES AND TABLES
List of Figures
1 -1. FLOW CHART OF THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT
PUNNING PROCESS 1-7
1-2. LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 1-10
2-1. TRENDS IN MAJOR CONTAMINANTS
IN FALL RUN COHO SALMON FILLETS 2-12
2-2. WILDLIFE BIRTH DEFECT CLUSTERS IN LAKE MICHIGAN 2-16
2-3. PCB LEVELS IN GREATLAKES COHO SALMON 2-18
2-4. CONTAMINANTS IN HERRING GULL EGGS,
SISTER ISLAND, GREEN BAY 2-18
2-5. LAKE MICHIGAN AREAS OF CONCERN 2-20
4-1. RELEASES OF MERCURY IN MSW, 1989 4-5
4-2. LOCATIONS OF MAJOR NPDES DISCHARGERS
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 4-10
4-3. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR MAJOR NPDES DISCHARGERS
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 4-11
4-4. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY
NPDES DISCHARGERS IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 4-12
4-5. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR POTWs
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 4-19
4-6. LAKE MICHIGAN LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1992-93
CLEAN SWEEPS ACTIVITIES COUNTYWIDE PESTICIDE
COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL 4-26
4-7. GREEN BAY CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE (CMB) RESULTS
FOR RNE FRACTION IN AIR DEPOSITION 4-33
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
List of Tables
2-1. USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS 2-2
2-2. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED RSH
AND WILDLIFE HEALTH ADVISORIES 2-4
2-3. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO VARIOUS SPECIES
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-11
2-4. RANGE OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN RSH FROM THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 2-13
2-5. LEVELS OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE TROUT
AND CALCULATED AMBIENT WATER CIRTERIA 2-15
2-6. STATE 303(d) WATERS IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN STATES 2-20
2-7. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN RIVERS ON 304(1) LIST
CONTAINING TOXIC POLLUTANTS 2-21
2-8. USES IMPAIRED BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS
IN AREAS OF CONCERN 2-23
3-1. PROPOSED CATEGORIES
FOR LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-2
3-2. PROPOSED LaMP POLLUTANTS
FOR LAKE MICHIGAN £4
3-3. DESCRIPTIONS OF PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PARAMETERS 3-5
3-4. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT:
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBs) 3-7
3-5. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: DIELDRIN 3-9
3-6. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: CHLORDANE 3-10
3-7. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: DDT AND DDE 3-12
3-8. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: MERCURY 3-14
3-9. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: DIOXINS AND FURANS 3-15
3-10. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: TOXAPHENE 3-17
3-11. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT:
POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS (PAHs) 3-18
3-12. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT:
3-13. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: LEAD 3-21
3-14. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: CADMIUM 3-23
VI
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
3-15. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: CHROMIUM 3-25
3-16. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: COPPER 3-26
3-17. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: ZINC 3-28
3-18. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: ARSENIC 3-29
3-19. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANT: CYANIDE 3-30
4-1. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES 4-1
4-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF LaMP POLLUTANTS 4-5
4-3. EFFLUENT FLOWS OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN 4-13
4-4. STATISTICAL LOADING ESTIMATES FOR LaMP POLLUTANTS
BASED ON DATA IN USEPA'S PERMIT COMPLIANCE
SYSTEMS (PCS) DATA BASE 4-14
4-5. RESULTS OF LOADING CALCULATIONS FOR
SELECTED WISCONSIN RIVER BASINS
FOR LaMP CRITICAL POLLUTANTS 4-16
4-6. ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL RELEASES AND ESTIMATED
DISTRIBUTION OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 4-18
4-7. POLLUTANTS FOUND IN RUNOFF
FROM VARIOUS LAND USES IN THE GREAT LAKES 4-20
4-8. LaMP POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES IN URBAN RUNOFF 4-21
4-9. SELECTED EXAMPLES OF URBAN BMPs 4-22
4-10. SELECTED EXAMPLES OF AGRICULTURAL BMPs 4-24
4-11. INPUT DATA SOURCES
FOR WATERSHED SCREENING MODELS 4-28
4-12. AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES
AND POSSIBLE POLLUTANTS 4-31
4-13.1990 TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY
FOR AIR EMISSIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN 4-32
4-14. ESTIMATED WET, DRY AND TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
TO LAKE MICHIGAN 4-34
4-15. HYDROLOGIC SUBREGION LOCATIONS 4-36
4-16. LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARIES AND LOCATIONS FOR WHICH
SORET DATA WAS RETRIEVED 4-37
4-17. LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARY LOADINGS CALCULATED
FROM STORET DATA 4-39
4-18. PCB LOADING ESTIMATES 4-41
4-19. LaMP POLLUTANTS POTENTIALLY EMITTED FROM
RCRA FACILITIES IN COUNTIES ADJACENT TO
LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARIES 4-43
VII
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
4-20. SUPERFUND SITES ADJACENT TO LAKE MICHIGAN
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES CONTAMINATED WITH LaMP
POLLUTANTS AND THE CLEANUP STATUS OF EACH SITE 4-44
4-21. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS
OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM RCRA TSD FACILITIES 4-46
4-22. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS
FROM SUPERFUND SITES 4-47
4-23. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
THROUGH GROUND WATER FROM RCRA
TDS AND SUPERFUND SITES 4-49
4-24. SURFACE SEDIMENTS AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
OF LaMP POLLUTANTS IN OPEN LAKE MICHIGAN 4-53
4-25. EPA REGION 5 SEDIMENT INVENTORY SITES
WITH ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS
OF SELECTED LaMP POLLUTANTS 4-54
4-26. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE LOADING ESTIMATES
TO LAKE MICHIGAN 4-57
5-1. ACTIVITIES FOR ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS
AND LaMP POLLUTANT IDENTIFICATION 5-8
5-2. ACTIVITIES FOR LOAD QUANTIFICATION
AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION 5-11
5-3. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES 5-18
5-4. LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION ACT1VITES
FOR CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN.... 5-21
5-5. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 5-25
5-6. ACTIVITIES TO INCORPORATE HABITAT INTO THE LaMP 5-26
5-7. LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP UPDATES AND REVISIONS 5-27
A-1. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN STAGE I AND II RAP
COMPLETION SCHEDULE A-7
B-1. LIST OF LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN RCRA FACILITIES (draft) B-1
C-1. LIST OF EPA REGION 5 SEDIMENT INVENTORY SITES
IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN C-1
D-1. 1990 LAKE MICHIGAN AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY
OF LaMP POLLUTANTS D-1
VIII
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
To obtain additional copies of the Lake Michigan LaMP document or to provide written comments,
please contact
Jeannette Morris-Collins, Environmental Protection Assistant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region V (WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson
Chicago, Illinois 60604
312/886-0152
For further information regarding the LaMP program, please contact
Gary Kohlhepp, Acting Lake Michigan LaMP Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-Region V (WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson
Chicago, DL 60604
312/886-4680
The LaMP document is also available from the following offices:
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
ATTN: Bob Schacht
1701 S. First Avenue, Suite 600
MaywoodJUinois 60153
708/531-5900
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
ATTN: David Dabertin
Gainer Bank Building
504 N. Broadway, Suite 418
f
Gary. Indiana 46402
219/881-6712
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
ATTN: Robert Day
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
517/335-3314
Water Resources Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
608/266-9238
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Lake Michigan Federation
59 E. Van Burcn Street, Suite 2215
Chicago, Illinois 60605
312/939-0838
Lake Michigan Federation
1270 Main Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin 54302
414/432-5253
Lake Michigan Federation
647 W. Virginia
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53204
414/271-5059
Lake Michigan Federation
425 Western Avenue
Suite 201
Muskegon, Michigan 49440
616/722-5116
-------
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes are an essential yet fragile
resource for the international community. The
intense development and resource extraction
within the Great Lakes Basin has frequently led to
the introduction of pollutants into the Lakes in
quantities which have adverse impacts on the
health of aquatic life, wildlife and humans that rely
on the Lakes as a source of food and water. The
introduction of pollutants, in conjunction with the
loss of important habitat and other factors, has
degraded the ability of the Great Lakes ecosystem
to support healthy, diverse biological communities.
Despite their large size and substantial volume
of fresh water, the Great Lakes are extremely
sensitive to the effects of a wide range of
pollutants that enter the Lakes through both point
and nonpoint sources. The sources of these
pollutants include, but are not limited to, the
agricultural runoff of soils and chemicals from
rural lands, city wastes, industrial discharges, and
leachate from disposal sites. The large surface area
of the Great Lakes also exposes them to the direct
atmospheric deposition of pollutants from rain,
snow and/or dust that settle onto the lake surfaces.
Outflow from the Great Lakes System is relatively
small (less than one percent per year) in
comparison to the total volume of water the lakes
contain. Pollutants that enter the lakes through a
variety of pathways—by direct discharge or
nonpoint discharge into the open waters of the
Great Lakes, through tributaries, or from
atmospheric deposition—are not readily flushed
from the Great Lakes System as in a riverine
system. In addition, pollutants re-enter the water
column through resuspension of bottom sediments
as a result of dredging or storm events, or through
volatilization cycles, adding to the overall time that
fish, wildlife, and humans within the Great Lakes
system are exposed to these chemicals. During
these long retention times, certain pollutants tend
to bioaccumulate in organisms, becoming
concentrated at levels in the organisms which
greatly exceed the ambient concentrations in the
open waters of the Great Lakes. Often, pollutants
re-cycle through the biological food chains of the
Great Lakes Basin ecosystem, exacerbating
ecosystem effects.
Toxic contamination in particular has
significantly impacted the environment both in and
around the lakes. Toxic pollutants, including
metals and man-made organic chemicals, can be
acutely poisonous in relatively small amounts and
can be injurious, through chronic exposure, in
minute concentrations. Many contaminants present
in the Great Lakes System can increase the risk of
cancer, birth defects, genetic mutations and
reproductive impacts through long-term exposure.
Adverse impacts on fish, bird, and other wildlife
populations in the Great Lakes caused by the
effects of toxic chemicals include: cancer, death,
eggshell thinning, population declines, reduced
hatching success, abnormal behavior (such as
abandonment of nests), infertility, birth defects
(such as crossed beaks and club feet) and illnesses
such as chick edema. They also include less visible
effects on body chemistry, including abnormalities
in the thyroid, liver and endocrine systems.
The concentrations of certain chemicals in
water may be so low as to be undetectable by
available analytical techniques. However,
persistence and bioaccumulation can increase the
levels of these contaminants to toxic
concentrations. These persistent bioaccumulative
toxic chemicals are of particular importance to die
INTRODUCTION 1-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Great Lakes Basin ecosystem due to the long
retention times of the individual lakes and the
cycling of toxics from one component of the
ecosystem to another. Several characteristics of the
Great Lakes result in their being particularly
susceptible to toxic pollutants which are relatively
nondegradable, lipophilic chemicals. These
characteristics include: (1) long hydraulic retention
times (relatively closed systems); (2) low
biological productivity; (3) low suspended solids
concentrations; (4) great depth; and (5) the
presence of self-contained, vulnerable populations.
Taken together, these characteristics result in such
pollutants remaining in the system for long periods
of time and bioaccumulating in fish and wildlife at
concentrations which are orders of magnitude
above ambient concentrations in the water column.
Pollution control efforts of Federal, State, and
local governments during the past two decades
nave led to significantly improved water quality in
the Great Lakes Basin and across the United States
in general. Concentrations of bom conventional
and toxic pollutants in the water column declined
steadily during the late 1970s and 1980s, as did
contaminant levels in fish tissues. However, these
declines have leveled off in recent years, and toxic
pollutants in the Great Lakes System continue to
cause widespread adverse impacts and
impairments of beneficial uses. These include
restrictions on human activities (e.g., swimming,
consuming fish, and maintaining navigable harbors
through dredging), fish and wildlife deformities,
and degraded fish and invertebrate populations. In
order to restore and maintain the physical,
chemical, and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes ecosystem, USEPA and the Great Lakes
States believe it is necessary to accelerate and
better coordinate ongoing efforts to: (1) identify
continuing sources of pollution; (2) reduce and,
wherever possible, eliminate the release of
pollutants to the waters of Great Lakes System;
and, (3) restore areas heavily contaminated by past
activities. Further, USEPA and the States believe
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) provide a
mechanism to integrate Federal, State and local
programs to reduce loadings of toxic pollutants,
including both point and nonpoint sources, and
ensure attainment of water quality standards and/or
beneficial uses.
Another critical task for the LaMP program is
to identify emerging contaminant problems in die
watershed and prevent them from impairing
ecosystem structure and function. The Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 established an
environmental management hierarchy for the
purposes of prioritizing decision making on
environmental issues. The first choice in
environmental management is pollution
prevention. Pollution mat cannot be prevented
should be recycled in an environmentally sound
manner, and where there are no feasible prevention
or recycling opportunities, environmentally sound
treatment and disposal should be used as a last
resort. This environmental management hierarchy
will be routinely in the LaMP decision making
process.
The success of the LaMP program rests in die
participation of a number of agencies as well as
members of the public. In order to reduce and
eliminate, where possible, the input of persistent
toxic pollutants to the Lake, agencies at all levels
must work with citizens and the regulated
community to identify and implement prevention,
reduction, and remediation activities.
The purpose of this document is to describe,
and solicit public comment on, participating
Federal and State agencies' conclusions and
recommendations concerning:
1. Those substances that are associated with
beneficial use impairments in Lake
Michigan and that exhibit the
1-2 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
characteristics of Critical Pollutants as
defined by the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement (Annex 2 Subsection 6 (a)(i));
2. Available information on concentration,
sources, and pathways of the LaMP
Pollutants in the Lake Michigan
watershed, their loadings to the Lake from
all sources, and where possible, an
estimation of total loadings of these
pollutants by modeling or other identified
methods (Annex 2 Subsection 6 (a)(ii));
3. Steps required to further quantify loads of
LaMP Pollutants to Lake Michigan, and to
determine the load reductions needed to
meet the Agreement's objectives (Annex 2
Subsection 6(a)(iii) and (iv));
4. Pollution prevention, reduction and
remediation actions underway within the
Lake Michigan watershed that directly or
indirectly reduce loadings of LaMP
Pollutants (Annex 2 Subsection 6(a)(v));
and
5. Activities to be implemented by USEPA,
other Federal agencies, the States, and
Tribes to reduce LaMP Pollutant loads,
with the immediate goal of eliminating
those beneficial use impairments caused
by these substances (Annex 2 Subsection
6(a)(vi)) and moving towards the ultimate
goal of virtually eliminating persistent,
toxic substances from the Lake Michigan
system.
MANDATE
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA or Agreement), as amended by Protocol
on November 18,1987, calls for the development
of a LaMP for Critical Pollutants1 for each of the
Great Lakes (Annex 2, Section 6). The Agreement
directs the Parties , in consultation with State and
Provincial Governments, to develop and
implement LaMPs for open lake waters. The
purpose of a LaMP is to reduce both loadings and
ambient levels of Critical Pollutants in order to
restore beneficial uses of the Lake waters (Annex
2 Subsection 6(a)).
In the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water
Act (CWA; Public Law 100-4, February 4,1987),
Congress directed USEPA to take the lead in the
effort to meet the goals embodied in the
Agreement, with particular emphasis on the goals
related to toxic pollutants, in cooperation with
other Federal agencies and State and local
authorities (Section 118 (a)(l)). For Lake
Michigan, the Government of the United States
has the sole responsibility for developing the
LaMP. Congress further emphasized the
importance of the LaMP process for Lake
Michigan in the Great Lakes Critical Programs Act
of 1990 (GLCPA; Public Law 101-596, November
16,1990) by establishing a specific schedule for
'Critical Pollutants* means substances that persist at levels that, singly or in synergistic or additive combination,
are causing, or are likely to cause, impairment of beneficial uses despite past application of regulatory controls
due to their (!) presence in open lake waters; (ii) ability to cause or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement
objectives through their recognized threat to human health and aquatic life; or (iii) ability to bioaccumulate (Annex
2 Subsection 1 (b) of the GLWQA).
'Parties' means the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America (Article 1
Subsection (nfof the GLWQA).
INTRODUCTION 1-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Lake Michigan LaMP development Section 101
of the GLCPA directs USEPA to:
• Publish in the federal Register a proposed
LaMP for Lake Michigan and solicit public
comments by January 1,1992;
• Submit a proposed LaMP for Lake Michigan
to the International Joint Commission for
review by January 1,1993; and
• Publish in the federal Register a final LaMP
for Lake Michigan and begin implementation
by January 1,1994.
USEPA views LaMPs as dynamic,
action-oriented processes with a number of
components. These include an evaluation of
beneficial use impairments (listed in Annex 2,
Subsection 1 (c) of the Agreement), and pollutants
contributing to these impairments; a summary of
sources and loads of critical pollutants;
identification of ongoing prevention and remedial
activities and additional efforts needed to reduce
pollutant loads and restore beneficial uses; and
monitoring programs to evaluate the effectiveness
of actions that are implemented. This approach for
developing and implementing LaMPs is an
evolutionary and iterative process for reducing
Critical Pollutants3.
The Lake Michigan LaMP provides a summary
of the Agency's current knowledge regarding
specific pollutants impacting the water quality of
the Lake Michigan System, and the current
loadings of these pollutants into the Lake
Michigan System. It identifies Critical Pollutants
and necessary steps for the reduction of both loads
and ambient concentrations of Critical Pollutants.
It also puts forth USEPA's proposed schedule for
the next iteration of the Lake Michigan LaMP and
several issue areas which USEPA believes should
be addressed in subsequent revisions.
LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM
OBJECTIVES
The proposed Lake Michigan ecosystem
objectives presented here were formulated by
representatives of Federal and State agencies and
the public at a December 1991 workshop held in
Chicago, Illinois. USEPA puts forth these
proposed Lake Michigan ecosystem objectives for
public review and comment The Agency intends
to finalize and adopt ecosystem objectives based
on comments received on the objectives presented
here. The public is encouraged to specifically
provide comments on scope and appropriateness of
these objectives.
In addition, USEPA, other participating Federal
Agencies, and the Lake Michigan States propose
to develop ecosystem indicators for Lake
Michigan. These indicators will define specific
measurable endpoints, including bom chemical
and biological components, for the final Lake
Michigan ecosystem objectives. In this manner,
USEPA believes Federal, State and local
authorities will be able to measure progress
towards achieving the ecosystem objectives for
Lake Michigan. Interested members of the public
will also have opportunities to help develop, as
well as review and comment on, ecosystem
indicators prior to final adoption.
Ecosystem objectives for Lake Michigan, when
finalized and adopted into the Lake Michigan
3 Canada/United States Framework for Lakewide Management Flans for Critical Pollutants adopted by the Parties
at the Fourth Semi-Annual Meeting of the Parties under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement held in
Chicago on November 30,1989.
1-4 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LaMP, will serve to further the broader goals of
the Agency's Great Lakes program. These goals
are contained in the Great Lakes Five-Year
Strategy. This multi-media Strategy commits the
signatory Agencies to the following goals:
a) Reduce and virtually eliminate toxic
substances in the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem;
b) Protect and restore habitats vital for support
of healthy and diverse communities of
plants, fish and wildlife; and
c) Ensure the protection of human health while
restoring and maintaining the biological
diversity among Great Lakes fish, aquatic
life, wildlife and plants.
USEPA views the Lake Michigan LaMP as an
integral component of the Agency's Great Lakes
program. Implementation of the Lake Michigan
LaMP will ensure reasonable progress is made on
the part of responsible authorities in achieving the
goals and objectives of the Five-Year Strategy.
USEPA recognizes that Agency authorities to
pursue certain ecosystem objectives are limited.
This in no way diminishes the Agency's
commitment to the Lake Michigan LaMP as a
process by which the responsible Federal or State
Agencies are identified and appropriate
programmatic authorities focused on protecting
and restoring the Lake Michigan ecosystem.
Proposed Ecosystem Objectives
1. Aquatic Communities
The waters of the Lake Michigan watershed should
support healthy, diverse, and contaminant-free
communities in dynamic equilibrium:
a) efforts to retain and restore native species
should continue;
b) future introduction of exotic species should
be limited and carefully considered;
c) the critical importance of all trophic levels to
a healthy aquatic ecosystem should be
recognized; and
d) the critical importance of appropriate land
use activities and their impacts on the
Lake Michigan watershed should be
recognized.
2. Wildlife
Wildlife in the Lake Michigan watershed should
be healthy, diverse, and self-sustaining:
a) the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat,
including air, water, wetlands, shoreline,
and upland components should be
sustained and maintained throughout the
Lake Michigan System;
b) native wildlife species should be restored
and maintained insofar as possible;
c) the status of wildlife health and populations
should be assessed and monitored; and
d) healthy, diverse wildlife populations should
be maintained or improved.
3. Human Health
The air, soil, waters, plants, and animals of the
Lake Michigan watershed should be free from
contaminants and organisms resulting from human
activities at levels that detrimentally affect human
health or aesthetic factors such as tainting, odor,
and turbidity.
4. Habitat
The aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the Lake
Michigan watershed should be restored and
protected to support optimal health, productivity,
diversity, and distribution of plant and animal
communities.
INTRODUCTION 1-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
5. Stewardship
As effective stewards of the Lake Michigan
ecosystem, society should seek:
a) a citizenry educated about the impacts of
human actions on the ecosystem;
b) opportunities for recreation that do not
adversely affect and are compatible with a
healthy ecosystem;
c) opportunities to harvest natural resources
that do not adversely affect the ecosystem;
d) levels and types of economic productivity
compatible with a healthy ecosystem;
e) levels of human population compatible with
a healthy ecosystem; and,
f) a quality of life that includes equitable
opportunities to experience and enjoy the
ecosystem.
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP GOALS
The goals of the Lake Michigan LaMP are:
1. To reduce both the ambient concentrations
of toxic pollutants and the mass loadings
of toxic pollutants from all sources, in
order to restore the beneficial uses of Lake
Michigan, thereby protecting and restoring
the physical, chemical, and biological
integrity of Lake Michigan.
2. To prevent any further degradation of the
Lake Michigan System from the release of
toxic pollutants and to avoid the need for
remedial actions in the future.
3. To be a mechanism of progress for the Lake
Michigan System towards the
Agreement's goal of virtually eliminating
the discharge of persistent,
bioaccumulative toxic pollutants
throughout the Great Lakes System.
4. To implement the requirements of the Clean
Water Act and thereby achieve the goals
and objectives of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement
The first goal embodies the primary objective
of Annex 2 of the Agreement: the protection and
restoration of beneficial uses of the Great Lakes
ecosystem. The second goal embodies the policy
of the Agency that pollutants which may exert an
adverse lakewide effect be identified, and their risk
to the Lake Michigan ecosystem eliminated This
is consistent with the Agency's policy on pollution
prevention. The third goal addresses the principle
stated in Annex 2 Subsection 2(b) mat LaMPs
"...are to serve as an important step toward virtual
elimination of persistent toxic substances and
toward restoring and maintaining the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the Great
Lakes Basin Ecosystem." Finally, the fourth goal
reflects the policy of USEPA that LaMPs serve as
a mechanism to discharge the statutory obligation
of the Agency under Section 118 of the CW A,
thereby ensuring reasonable progress towards
achieving the goals of the GLWQA, and
improving the overall effectiveness of water
quality programs in the Great Lakes Basin.
USEPA interprets the Lake Michigan LaMP as
meeting the obligations and requirements of the
U.S. under the terms of the GLWQA.
OVERVIEW OF THE LaMP PROCESS
The basic steps followed in the LaMP process,
and described in Annex 2 of the Agreement are
illustrated in Figure 1-1. The steps follow a logical
sequence that includes:
1) Identifying both existing beneficial use
impairments and any potential threats to
the Lake Michigan system based on
available data;
1-6 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
2) Identifying the critical pollutants associated
with beneficial use impairments or threats;
3) Identifying sources of the critical pollutants;
4) Calculating or estimating the quantity of
critical pollutants being released by those
sources and the quantity reaching the Lake
(i.e., the "mass loading" of the pollutants);
5) Establishing load reductions that must be
achieved to ensure the restoration and
protection of the ecological health of the
Lake Michigan System;
6) Implementing specific strategies to reduce
the levels of LaMP pollutant loadings
and/or ambient levels in the Lake
Michigan System;
7) Monitoring reductions from the pollutant
sources;
8) Evaluating ecosystem response, through
monitoring of ecosystem indicators, to
measure progress towards restoration of
beneficial uses/ecosystem integrity and to
detect emerging problems; and,
9) Revising the LaMP to reflect the results of
load reduction actions, incorporate
additional data on the status of beneficial
uses/ecosystem integrity, and identify the
next series of priority actions.
The development and implementation of a
Lakewide Management Plan is pan of a continuing
process to improve the water quality of the Great
Lakes System. The LaMP sets forth a series of
actions expected to result in environmental
improvements and restoration of beneficial uses
within a reasonable period of tune. USEPA intends
to periodically review and revise the Lake
Michigan LaMP through a process similar to the
one described above. The next revision will begin
in 1995 with a Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register. As with the development of this first
iteration, the Agency anticipates soliciting public
comments and conducting public meetings prior to
the publication of a revised final LaMP.
When finalized, USEPA intends the Lake
Michigan LaMP to serve as the basis for
development and submission of State Water
Quality Management (WQM) Plans developed in
FIGURE 1-1. FLOW CHART OF THE LAKEWIDE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS
•UMUMS MOULT*
MB REPORT TO UC
INTRODUCTION 1-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
accordance with Sections 208 and 303(b) of the
CWA, as implemented through the requirements of
40 CFR 130.6. These WQM Plans establish a
process for continuous water quality improvements
which focuses on priority issues and geographic
areas, and on the development of water quality
controls leading to implementation measures. Such
Plans draw on water quality assessments to
identify priority point and nonpoint water quality
problems, consider alternative solutions and
recommend control measures. In this way, USEPA
and the States will ensure reasonable progress in
the overall improvement of the Great Lakes water
quality and attainment of beneficial uses and water
quality standards.
The LaMP is not a static document Rather, it
serves to guide the efforts of environmental
managers and other Stakeholders in the Lake
Michigan Basin by defining a network of dynamic,
interrelated actions. In the next iteration of the
Lake Michigan LaMP, USEPA anticipates more
information will become available, and additional
load reduction activities identified for
implementation by the participating agencies and
responsible parties. Similarly, as the effectiveness
of ongoing efforts are evaluated, new priorities
may be defined based on program successes and
failures. Finding solutions to one problem may
unmask other problems. The accountable agencies
must ensure responses to emerging problems that
are timely and effective. The series of steps listed
in Figure 1-1 are not necessarily sequential;
activities specific to each step likely will be
ongoing simultaneously.
USEPA recognizes that achieving ecosystem
objectives will be a long-term process. The
Agencies participating in the LaMP are committed
to moving forward with reducing toxic pollutant
loads while simultaneously improving the
understanding of the relationship between use
impairments and pollutant loadings and sources.
This refinement will be realized through more
comprehensive data management, research, and
monitoring efforts. However, it is the policy of the
participating agencies that every reasonable effort
must be made to further reduce loads of toxic
pollutants to the waters of the Lake Michigan
System, even in the absence of intensive data.
Finally, USEPA and the Lake Michigan States
believe the LaMP process will improve the
environmental protection efforts of the
participating agencies by:
• coordinating on a lakewide basis the
prevention, abatement and remediation
programs undertaken in support of the Great
Lakes program.
• coordinating Federal, State, local, and tribal
activities to avoid duplication of effort,
ensure that ongoing activities are
complimentary, and identify opportunities to
enhance ongoing efforts;
• communicating information between all
levels of government and the public in order
to both fully inform the public of ongoing
and proposed activities as well provide a
forum for public input and comment;
• providing a specific mechanism for linking
pollution control activities to environmental
results; and
• identifying and evaluating gaps in existing
programs and authorities which may present
impediments to restoring and protecting
Lake Michigan, and making
recommendations on how to address such
gaps.
1-8 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SCOPE OF THE LaMP
Topical
In accordance with the Agreement, the LaMP
focuses on reducing discharges of Critical
Pollutants to the waters of the Lake Michigan
System in order to restore and protect the
ecological health of the Lake. The LaMP utilizes
the definition of Critical Pollutants in the
Agreement — "those substances that are causing
or are likely to cause the impairment of beneficial
uses" (Annex 2, Section l(b) of the GLWQA).
Critical Pollutants impacting beneficial uses in
Lake Michigan are categorized and discussed in
Chapters 2 and 3 below. Despite reductions in
ambient levels of toxic pollutants during the past
10-15 years, data indicate toxic pollutants still
exert negative impacts on the physical and
biological components of Lake Michigan. This
document reviews available information to
determine existing impairments in the Lake
Michigan watershed and the pollutants associated
with those impairments; identifies sources of
LaMP pollutants and estimates loads where
possible; identifies and discusses specific
assessment and load reduction activities; and
identifies gaps in both the knowledge base and
existing programs.
USEPA recognizes Critical Pollutants in Lake
Michigan are not the only causes of existing or
potential impairments of beneficial uses. For
example, habitat losses and shifts in species
composition also are important factors contributing
to the degradation of water quality. Therefore as
the LaMP process develops, opportunities for
addressing habitat and biodiversity issues will be
identified, along with the relevant responsible
authority. In this manner the Agency believes the
LaMP process can facilitate appropriate
management attention on habitat and biodiversity
issues, in conjunction with actions to reduce
loadings of Critical Pollutants.
Geographic
In order to ensure that beneficial uses of Lake
Michigan are attained, the Agency believes the
scope of the Lake Michigan LaMP encompasses
the entire Lake Michigan System. This
comprehensive scope is necessary to ensure that all
parties and environmental programs which are
applicable to the LaMP goal of protecting and
restoring beneficial uses of the Lake Michigan
System are incorporated in the LaMP process. The
Agency defines the term "Lake Michigan System"
as all of the streams, rivers, lakes and other bodies
of water within the drainage basin of Lake
Michigan. The Lake Michigan LaMP is intended
to identify those pollution problems throughout the
Lake Michigan System that contribute to, or have
the potential to contribute to, beneficial use
impairments/and or exceedance of water quality
standards on a lakewide basis. The extent of
contaminant problems and the frequency of their
occurrence are both important considerations in
the designation of LaMP pollutants. The
participating agencies recognize that all the Great
Lakes, as well as the connecting channels, are pan
of one system. Indeed, toxic pollutant loads in the
upper Lakes may be contributing to contaminant
concentrations and impairments in the lower lakes.
MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
The Lake Michigan LaMP Management
Committee (Figure 1-2) consists of representatives
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA), the
Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM), the Michigan Department
INTRODUCTION 1-9
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
RGURE 1-2. LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
\
LAKE MICHIGAN
FORUM
/
TECHNICAL COORDINATING
COMMITTEE
of Natural Resources (MDNR), and the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), as
well as Native American tribes. The Management
Committee first convened on June 20,1991 to
guide the development and implementation of the
Lake Michigan LaMP. This Management
Committee is responsible for
1) providing overall pol icy recommendations
for the Lake Michigan LaMP program,
including recommendations on LaMP
priorities;
2) convening technical work groups composed
of Federal, Slate, and other representatives
as necessary;
3) reviewing the Lake Michigan LaMP or
specific elements of it, technical
workgroup products/recommendations,
and Lake Michigan Forum
recommendations/comments; and
4) working through the participating
agencies'/organizations' budget processes
to secure the resources necessary to
develop and implement the Lake Michigan
LaMP.
A Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)
(Figure 1-2), comprised of one representative from
each participating agency, reports to the
Management Committee. The TCC meets as
necessary to identify and discuss issues, suggest
LaMP priorities, and make specific
recommendations concerning LaMP development
and implementation to the Management
Committee. Ad hoc technical work groups are
convened as needed to address specific issues.
These currently include, but are not limited to,
Critical Pollutants, lakewide monitoring,
ecosystem objectives and indicators, and pollution
prevention.
USEPA has provided for the direct
involvement of representatives from Lake
Michigan interest groups in the development and
implementation of the Lake Michigan LaMP,
including industries, non-profit organizations, and
units of local government. The primary vehicle for
this stakeholder involvement is the Lake Michigan
Forum (Forum) (Figure 1-2), first convened on
August 8,1991. The Forum meets quarterly to
discuss issues, provide input and recommendations
to the Management Committee on specific issues,
and review and comment on LaMP documents.
Participation in technical work groups is open to
Forum members.
USEPA also supports a broad public
participation process which encompasses a general
outreach and education program for the Lake
Michigan public, including workshops and group
presentations, and a more formal process carried
out through Federal Register publications to solicit
review and comment from the broader public on
LaMP documents.
1-10 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT SepterrfcerSO, 1993
OTHER PROGRAMS TO PROTECT AND
RESTORE THE GREAT LAKES
In addition to LaMPs and RAPs, there are a
number of other regulatory and voluntary
programs the United States is currently
implementing to prevent pollutants from being
introduced, reduce pollutant loadings currently
being discharged and remediate the adverse effects
associated with past pollutant discharges to the
Great Lakes System. Together, these present an
integrated and comprehensive approach to
protecting and restoring the Great Lakes system.
The Great Lakes 5-Year Strategy commits the
Federal, Tribal, and State agencies responsible for
environmental protection in the Great Lakes to
achieving specific environmental goals. The
Strategy has three primary components: reducing
and virtually eliminating toxic pollutants;
protecting and restoring habitat; and protecting the
health of all Great Lakes species. In the area of
toxics reduction, the Strategy calls for
".-[reducing] the level of toxic substances in the
Great Lakes system with an emphasis on persistent
toxic substances, so that all organisms are
adequately protected and toxic substances are
virtually eliminated from the Great Lakes
ecosystem." The Lake Michigan LaMP is one
piece of the 5-Year Strategy's toxics reduction
component.
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
A major initiative across the Great Lakes Basin
is the development of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance. The proposed Great Lakes
Water Quality Guidance was published in the
Federal Register for public review and comment
on April 16,1993 (58 Federal Register 20802).
The proposed Guidance was developed through a
cooperative process between USEPA and the
States, Tribes, environmental groups, industries,
and municipalities in the Great Lakes Basin. The
Guidance, when finalized, will establish minimum
water quality criteria and values, antidegradation
policies, and implementation procedures for waters
of the Great Lakes System. These procedures will
be used to establish consistent water quality goals
and control discharges of toxic pollutants from
industries and municipalities across the Great
Lakes Basin, including Lake Michigan. The
primary focus of the Guidance is on
bioaccummulative toxic pollutants, those
pollutants which pose the greatest risk to the Great
Lakes ecosystem. Twenty-eight pollutants are
designated as proposed Bioaccumulative
Chemicals of Concern, and additional control
measures are proposed for this classification of
pollutants.
Consistent with the requirements of the Great
Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990, the proposed
Guidance includes:
• Basin-wide water quality criteria and values
to protect human health, aquatic life, and
wildlife;
• A standard procedure for protecting existing
levels of water quality (antidegradation
procedures); and
• Implementation procedures for translating
the criteria into enforceable limits on
pollutant discharges.
EPA anticipates publication of the final
Guidance in the Federal Register by March 13,
1995. Once the final Guidance is promulgated, the
Great Lakes States and Tribes will have 2 years in
which to adopt Water Quality Standards consistent
with the Guidance or be subject to USEPA
promulgation.
The water quality criteria and values in the
proposed Guidance apply to the ambient waters of
the Great Lakes System, regardless of the source
of pollutants to those waters. Although criteria by
INTRODUCTION 1-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
themselves are not directly enforceable under
Federal law, application of Total Maximum Daily
Loads addresses both point and nonpoint sources
by requiring allocation of the available load
capacity of the receiving water among all sources
of the pollutant, including nonpoint sources.
Second, any regulatory programs controlling
nonpoint sources developed by States or Tribes
would also be subject to the antidegradation
procedures hi the proposed Guidance.
Further, by establishing numeric water quality
criteria and values for the protection of aquatic
life, wildlife and human health which apply to the
ambient waters of the Great Lakes System,
regardless of the source of pollutants to those
waters, the proposed Great Lakes Guidance
provides the basis for integrating actions carried
out under the range of environmental programs
available to both Federal, State and Tribal
regulators in order to protect and restore the Great
Lakes ecosystem. In this manner, USEPA believes
the proposed Great Lakes Guidance is consistent
with and furthers an ecosystem approach.
Aenwdto/ Action Plant
The development and implementation of
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) is addressed in
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. This section provides that United
States and Canadian Governments will cooperate
with State and Provincial Governments to ensure
that RAPs are developed and implemented for
specific Areas of Concern (AOCs) in the Great
Lakes. Section 101 of the GLCPA directs USEPA
to ensure that each Great Lakes State in which
each AOC is located submits a RAP to USEPA by
June 30,1991, submits such RAPs to the
International Joint Commission by January 1,
1992, and includes such Remedial Action Plans
within the State Water Quality Management Plan
by January 1,1993.
Forty-three AOCs have been designated by the
United States and/or Canadian Governments: 26
located entirely within the United States; 12
located wholly within Canada; and five that are
shared by both countries. RAPs are being
developed for each of these AOCs that are
designed to address impairments to any one of 14
beneficial uses (e.g., restrictions on fish and
wildlife consumption, dredging activities, or
drinking water consumption) associated with these
areas.
RAPs are developed in three stages: the
assessment of use impairments, the stresses and
sources of the stresses in Areas of Concern (Stage
I); proposed remedial actions and their method of
implementation (Stage II); and evidence that uses
have been restored (Stage HI), including
significant milestones in the restoration of
beneficial uses in the AOCs. The eight Great
Lakes Slates and the Province of Ontario have the
lead in preparing and implementing the RAPs, but
rely on the input and expertise provided by Federal
agencies and organizations as well as local citizens
groups and individuals. The Great Lakes Critical
Programs Act of 1990 established deadlines for
completion of RAPs for all AOCs in the United
States. As a result, the pace of RAP development
has been accelerated.
By definition, RAPs are intended to address
local problems within the AOC, problems which
may or may not be reflected on a lakewide basis.
The LaMP program will coordinate with the RAP
programs to document sources of pollutants and
estimate loads of pollutants to Lake Michigan from
the AOCs, and determine whether or not these
areas are significant contributors to lakewide
impairments. Pollution prevention, abatement and
remediation activities that are carried out through
the RAP process will serve to reduce loadings of
toxic pollutants to Lake Michigan. USEPA does
not intend the LaMP to duplicate or interfere with
1-12 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
RAP efforts, but rather to serve as an coordinating
mechanism by which RAP activities can be placed
into a lakewide context. This approach maximizes
coordination and minimizes duplication of effort
between the LaMP and RAP processes. In
addition, USEPA and the Lake Michigan States
believe that including nearshore areas within the
definition of open lake waters is appropriate as the
beneficial use impairments most representative of
the toxic pollution problem in Lake Michigan (e.g.,
bioaccumulation in the aquatic food chain and
resulting wildlife deformities at the top of the food
chain) occur most frequently in nearshore areas
where biological activity is highest
Great Lakes Nonpolnt Source Toxics
Reduction
The Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance
proposes uniform water quality criteria,
methodologies, implementation procedures, and
antidegradation policies. Implementation thus far
has focused on control of NPDES facilities.
However, USEPA and the Great Lakes States have
agreed to establish a multi-media process to
develop an integrated, basin-wide framework to
achieve additional reductions in loadings of toxic
pollutants from nonpoint sources to the Great
Lakes. This effort has been referred to as the
"Great Lakes Toxics Reduction Initiative" in the
Guidance.
This name implies a structure similar to that
used to control point sources under the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative. However, such a
structure could become unwieldy considering the
scope of reducing multi-media sources, and the
pervasiveness of nonpoint sources of pollution.
USEPA does not envision the creation of new
committee structures, but will use existing staff
structures, committees and workgroups. Ad hoc
working groups will be established to involve
Great Lakes States, Tribal, and public
representatives in the process.
Although the exact approach is still being
developed, the following principles will guide the
process:
• focus on bioaccumuiative chemicals of
concern (BCCs);
• sufficient scientific knowledge currently
exists to act now to prevent control or
eliminate certain BCCs;
• establish procedures for application of
appropriate elements of existing legislative
and regulatory and nonregulatory authorities,
and identify gaps in order to produce
comprehensive toxic pollutant strategies
under existing resource management
frameworks;
• additional scientific work must be done to
identify the sources and relative
contributions of toxics from all sources, to
better target future reduction efforts.
• the effort should be undertaken as an open,
collaborative process with State, Federal,
Tribal and local partners with full, and
meaningful public participation.
There are three proposed tracks that reflect the
above principles: the "Pathway" approach,
focusing on the primary paths through which
bioaccumuiative Chemicals of Concern enter the
Great Lakes System; the "virtual Elimination Pilot
Project," focusing on an in-dept analysis of small
group of BCCs; and, the "Lake Michigan
Enhanced Monitoring Program, "designed to guide
future toxic reduction efforts. Under consideration
for the "Pathway" approach are: contaminated
sediments; transport, handling and short-term
storage; waste sites; stormwater, and combined
sewer overflows; and air deposition.
INTRODUCTION 1-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Ultimately, procedures will be established for
the attainment of the water quality goals proposed
in the Great Lakes Guidance through the
application of appropriate elements of
environmental authorities to nonpoint sources
throughout the Great Lakes basin.
Gnat Lakes Enforcement Strategy
The Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy was
developed by the Great Lakes Enforcement
Strategy workgroup, comprised of members from
the Compliance and Enforcement programs of
each of the States and USEPA regions in the Great
Lakes Basin. The strategy is scheduled for
implementation beginning October 1,1993.
The Great Lakes Enforcement Strategy is a pan
of the process for implementing the Great Lakes
5-Year Strategy for the NPDES program, by
reducing major dischargers' noncompliance in the
Great Lakes Basin and reducing toxic loadings to
the Great Lakes.
A key aspect of the Great Lakes Enforcement
Strategy will be the utilization of an enforcement
screening criteria that is more stringent than the
national definition of significant noncompliance.
In particular, the revised screening criteria targets
violations of daily maximum limits, whereas the
current criteria targets only violations of monthly
average limits.
Pollution Prevention
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 declares
as National policy that pollution prevention is the
preferred approach to environmental protection:
reducing or eliminating pollution through, for
instance, changes in production processes and/or
by reducing reliance on environmentally harmful
materials. (Pub. L. No. 101-508, Section
6601-6610,104 Slat. 1388, codified at Section
13101-13109 west Supp. 1991). When preventing
pollution is not feasible, recycling in an
environmentally safe manner is the next preferred
option, followed by treatment. Disposal or other
release into the environment should be the
management option of last resort, and should only
be done in an environmentally protective manner.
Consistent with the goals of the Pollution
Prevention Act, USEPA developed the Great
Lakes Pollution Prevention Action Plan (April,
1991). The Action Plan highlights bow USEPA, in
partnership with the States, will incorporate
pollution prevention into actions to reduce the use
and release of toxic substances in the Great Lakes
basin. These activities are designed to complement
efforts already underway at the State and Federal
levels.
The Action Plan has two distinct components.
First, it includes new initiatives designed to
promote innovative pollution prevention practices
throughout the basin. Second, it involves
reorienting and refocusing existing activities, such
as enforcement actions, to ensure that pollution
prevention is an integral pan of government's
environmental protection efforts. The Action Plan
also builds upon the National USEPA Pollution
Prevention Strategy (56 Fed. Reg. 7849 (Feb. 26,
1991)). The focus of the National strategy is to
reduce the on-going generation of toxic pollution
in any form (air emissions, waste water discharges,
hazardous waste, runoff, or fugitive releases)
through reduction in the use of toxic substances,
process changes and product changes.
EPA and the Great Lakes States agreed to
implement this effon to reduce the levels of toxic
substances found in the Great Lakes basin by
promoting pollution prevention activities to
significantly reduce or eliminate the use and/or
release of toxic substances at the source, with a
special focus on reducing or eliminating persistent
bioaccumulative toxic substances. USEPA is
currently promoting pollution prevention through a
M4 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
number of regulatory and non-regulatory activities,
including LaMPs. LaMPs emphasize pollution
prevention and incorporate pollution prevention in
addressing pollutants that impair, or have the
potential to impair, waters that currently meet
water quality standards and/or beneficial uses.
Media Programs
Through a wide range of environmental statues,
USEPA and the States are implementing
comprehensive programs to address the impacts of
toxic pollutants on the Great Lakes ecosystem. The
following are of particular importance in the Great
Lakes:
Contaminated Sediments:
Contaminated sediments are a significant
source of loadings of toxic pollutants at harbors
and river mouths throughout the Great Lakes
System and identified as environmental problems
in all AOGs. USEPA is developing both National
and Great Lakes-specific strategies to deal with
contaminated sediments in a comprehensive and
systematic way. Based on a preliminary review of
Superfund case studies (including the Fieldbrook
Superfund site in Ashtabula, Ohio), the benefits of
remediating contaminated sediments are similar to,
or exceed, the costs even when considering the
benefits of avoiding human cancer from
consumption of contaminated fish. If economic
values could also be assigned to the values of
noncancer health effects and the negative
ecological effects, the benefits would be even
greater.
EPA expects the National Contaminated
Sediment Strategy to include comprehensive
strategies on sediment assessment, prevention,
remediation, and dredged material management.
The draft Strategy proposes the use of four statutes
(the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, and the Clean Water Act)
to achieve active remediation of contaminated
sediments. The Great Lakes ARCS Program is an
essential component of the National Strategy.
Implementation of the Strategy will provide
reductions in loadings of pollutants impairing
water quality of the Great Lakes System and
preventing attainment of beneficial uses.
In the assessment strategy, USEPA is
proposing to develop a national inventory of
contaminated sediment sites and a pilot inventory
of potential sources of sediment contamination,
based on data from the ARCS Program as well as
on other databases. The inventories will enable
USEPA's prevention and remediation programs to
focus resources on addressing top priority sites and
sources. The assessment strategy proposes to
develop a consistent, tiered testing protocol that
will include a minimum set of chemical and
biological methods that all Agency programs will
use to determine if sediments are contaminated,
USEPA is also developing sediment chemical
criteria to be used in sediment assessment The
prevention strategy discusses a variety of pollution
prevention measures and source controls,
including nationally applicable responses, such as
prohibitions or use restrictions under TSCA or the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), technology-based effluent
limitations for industrial dischargers under the
Clean Water Act, and a national initiative to revise
water quality-based effluent limits in NPDES
permits. The remediation strategy emphasizes
appropriate control of sources prior to remediation
efforts unless the contaminated sediments pose a
sufficiently great hazard to human or
environmental health to warrant immediate
remediation. Factors that will be considered in
implementing this strategy include: (1) whether the
sediment contamination is contributing to severe
INTRODUCTION 1-15
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
effects or substantial risks to aquatic life, wildlife
or human health; (2) whether continued delay hi
removing the sediment would result in the spread
of harmful contamination over a wider area or into
important habitats; (3) the likelihood of
contaminated sediments that are left in place at a
specific site to be transported to downstream or
offshore areas; (4) the timeframe for natural
recovery; the potential for contaminant
mobilization during remediation; and, (5) the
feasibility and cost of various treatment and
remval options.
Atmospheric Deposition:
Airborne deposition of pollutants is believed to
have a significant impact on the water quality of
the Great Lakes System. Implementation of the
major provisions of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) is an integral pan
of the Agency's broader program to protect and
restore the Great Lakes. By November IS, 1993,
then every two years thereafter, USEPA (in
cooperation with the Department of Commerce) is
required by Section 112(m) of the CAAA to report
to Congress concerning the results of the Great
Lakes monitoring studies and describe any
revisions to Federal law necessary to ensure
protection of human health and the environment in
the Great Lakes System. The report will determine
whether provisions of Section 112 are adequate to
prevent serious adverse effects to public health and
serious or widespread environmental effects.
Based on the report, USEPA is required by
November 15,1995, to promulgate further
emission standards or control measures if
necessary to prevent such effects.
In accordance with Section 182 of the CAAA
of 1990, States with areas designated
non-attainment for ozone must submit revisions to
their implementation plans providing for a 15
percent reduction in volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions, to be achieved by November 15,
19%. As many VOCs are also toxic air pollutants,
the 15 percent VOC reduction will include
reductions in numerous air toxics. Implementation
of regulatory programs that reduce the emissions
of VOCs and paniculate matter will benefit the
water quality of the Great Lakes System by
decreasing atmospheric deposition to the System.
In addition, between 1992 and 2000, USEPA
must promulgate technology-based emission
standards for all source categories of the 189 toxic
air pollutants listed in Section 112(b) of the
CAAA. In setting these standards, USEPA will
consider inter-media transfer effects. Such
standards must be fully implemented by November
15,2003, and will apply to all major stationary
sources and some area sources of the listed
pollutants in the States adjacent to the Great Lakes
System. Under Section 112(f), these Standards wfll
be followed between 2001 and 2008 by risk-based
standards, where necessary, to ensure that public
health is protected with an ample margin of safety
and to ensure adverse environmental effects are
prevented subject to cost, energy and safety
considerations. Under Section 112, USEPA may
add additional substances to the list of toxic air
pollutants (including Pollutants of Concern in the
Great Lakes) when scientific information dictates
additions are warranted.
Storm Water
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act,
Section 402 (p), required USEPA to establish a
comprehensive, two-phased approach for
controlling storm water discharges. In Phase I, the
CWA required USEPA to develop NPDES permit
application requirements for two major classes of
dischargers: large (over 250,000 population
served) and medium (100,000 - 250,000
population served) sized municipal separate storm
sewer systems; and storm water discharges
1-16 CHAPTER 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
"associated with industrial activity." Congress also
included two other classes of storm water
discharges in Phase I: discharges which had
already obtained a permit prior to February 4,
1987, and discharges which USEPA or a NPDES
State determines contribute to a violation of a
water quality standard or is a significant
contributor of pollutants to the waters of the
United States. The 1987 Amendments, as further
amended by Section 312 of the Water Resources
Development Act of 1992, prohibit USEPA and
NPDES States from requiring permits for the
remaining classes and sources of storm water
discharges (Phase II) prior to October 1,1994.
The storm water permit application Phase I
regulations, promulgated on November 16,1990,
established the scope of the program. The rule
identified 220 large and medium municipal
separate storm sewer systems (173 cities and 47
counties) for permitting, defined what constitutes a
storm water discharge "associated with industrial
activity," and established specific permit
application requirements and deadlines. Permit
application requirements for large and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems require
them to propose storm water management
programs to control storm water discharges to the
"maximum extent practicable," and to effectively
prohibit non-storm water discharges to the storm
sewer system. The 1990 definition of storm water
discharges "associated with industrial activity"
includes industrial facilities in the Great Lakes
System in such industries as manufacturing,
mining, hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities, landfills, power plants and
transportation facilities. These facilities must
comply with individual or group NPDES permit
application requirements, or meet requirements
specified in general permits. The controls imposed
on the stormwater discharges from these facilities
in individual or general permits will significantly
reduce the loadings of pollutants to the Great
Lakes System.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs):
CSOs are the discharge of raw sewage,
commercial and industrial wastes, and storm water
from combined sewer systems. CSOs usually
occur as the result of wet weather when flows
exceed the capacity of the sewers or the
wastewater treatment facilities. Under the CWA,
CSOs are point source discharges subject to the
water quality and technology based requirements,
but not the secondary treatment requirements that
apply to discharges from publicly owned treatment
works.
USEPA is currently improving and accelerating
implementation of the National Combined Sewer
Overflow Control Strategy (54 FR 37370, Sept, 8,
1989). As pan of this effort, USEPA issued on
January 19,1993, a draft CSO Control Policy that
more clearly defines USEPA's interpretation of the
appropriate technology-based and water
quality-based requirements to be included in
NPDES permits to control these point source
discharges nationwide. Representatives of publicly
owned treatment works, States and environmental
groups participated in developing the permitting
component of the draft Policy, which also contains
an enforcement component USEPA expects to
issue the Policy in final form by the end of 1993.
The Policy lays out clear expectations for
municipalities, NPDES permitting and
enforcement authorities and state water quality
standards authorities. Under the Policy,
municipalities must immediately implement
minimum technology based controls, give priority
attention to environmentally sensitive areas, and
develop long term CSO control plans, while States
are directed to. review and revise as appropriate
state water quality standards. The Policy also
addresses important issues such as ongoing or
INTRODUCTION 1-17
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
completed projects, public participation, small
communities, and watershed planning. The
enforcement portion of the Policy also indicates
USEPA's intent to immediately commence an
enforcement initiative against CSOs that occur
during dry weather, and provides guidance on the
enforcement of the wet weather elements of the
Policy.
1-18 CHAPTER 1
-------
CHAPTER 2 — ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS OF THE LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
Research conducted in the Great Lakes basin
shows a definite link between the presence of toxic
pollutants and adverse impacts to humans and
other biota. Toxic pollutants restricted or
prohibited in the United States many years ago
continue to appear in the tissues of biota residing
in the Lake Michigan basin at sufficiently high
concentrations to cause toxic effects. Observed
toxic effects include impaired reproductive
capabilities and physical abnormalities in the fish
and wildlife of the region. Because of increasing
concern regarding the presence and effects of these
persistent toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes
environment, USEPA has designated the
assessment and reduction of risk posed by these
toxic pollutants as the top priority of the Lake
Michigan LaMP.
This chapter evaluates the current
environmental condition of the Lake Michigan
basin and identifies the impacts of toxic pollutants.
For evaluation purposes, USEPA decided to
structure the analysis of the environmental
conditions in the Lake Michigan basin according
to the fourteen beneficial use impairments listed in
the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
(GLWQA), as amended by protocol in 1987. A use
impairment as defined in Annex 2 of the GLWQA
is "a change in the chemical, physical or biological
integrity of the Great Lakes System sufficient to
cause any of the following:
1. Restrictions on fish and wildlife
consumption;
2. Tainting of fish and wildlife flavor,
3. Degradation of fish and wildlife populations;
4. Fish tumors or other deformities;
5. Bird or animal deformities or reproduction
problems;
6. Degradation of benthos;
7. Restrictions on dredging activities;
8. Eutrophication or undesirable algae;
9. Restrictions on drinking water consumption,
or taste and odor problems;
10. Beach closings;
11. Degradation of aesthetics;
12. Added costs to agriculture or industry;
13. Degradation of phytoplankton and
zooplankton populations;
14. Loss of fish and wildlife habitat11
Beneficial use impairments have been observed
and documented throughout the Lake Michigan
watershed. To initiate the study, a literature search
of Agency databases and scientific literature was
conducted. Over 120 technical reports were
reviewed for information on Lake Michigan
pollutants, toxic effects, and ecological impacts,
including USEPA, Fish and Wildlife Service,
State, and academic publications.
Lake Michigan Watershed
With a surface area of 22^00 square miles,
Lake Michigan is the fourth largest lake in the
world. The Lake has a residence time of 69 years,
and is primarily oligotrophic in the open waters
and slightly mesotrophic along Green Bay and
southern portions of the Lake's nearshore areas.
The watershed of Lake Michigan includes
waterbodies in four states: Michigan, Illinois,
Indiana, and Wisconsin. Michigan's main
waterbodies draining into Lake Michigan include
the Menominee River, Manistique River, White
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
River, Muskegon River, Grand River, Kalamazoo
River, and St. Joseph River. In Indiana, the
drainage basin includes four major waterways: the
Grand Calumet River, the Little Calumet River,
Trail Creek, and the St. Joseph River. Lake
Michigan's drainage basin in Wisconsin includes
the following major waterways: Milwaukee River,
Sheboygan River, Manitowoc River, Upper and
Lower Fox River, and Green Bay.
USE IMPAIRMENTS
The following sections discuss each use
impairment, the pollutants potentially responsible,
and their effects in the Lake Michigan watershed.
Table 2-1 provides a summary of each use
impairment and the associated pollutants and
identifies the extent of each use impairment as
local, lakewide, or none. Note: In the absence of
information specific to the Lake Michigan
watershed, data for the Great Lakes basin are
provided.
TABLE 2-1. USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS
USE IMPAIRMENT
Restrictions on fish
and wildlife
consumption
Tainting offish and
wildlife flavor
Degradation of fish
and wildlife
populations
Fish tumors or
other deformities
Bird or animal
deformities or
reproduction
problems
Degradation of
benthos
Restriction on
dredging activities
Eutrophication or
undesirable algae
Restrictions on
drinking water
consumption, or
taste and odor
problems
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED
PCBs, DDT/DDE, chlordane, dieldrin, mercury,
toxaphene
No use impairment due to toxic pollutants
PCBs, DDT/DDE, dieldrin, dioxin, mercury,
toxaphene, lead
PAHs
PCBs, DDT/DDE, dioxin, furans
Cadmium, arsenic, copper, hexavalent chromium
PCBs, mercury, lead, zinc, cyanide, arsenic,
cadmium, chromium, copper
No use impanment due to toxic pollutants
No use impariment due to toxic pollutants
EVIDENCE OF USE IMPAIRMENT
(LOCAL, LAKEWIDE, OR NONE)
Local and Lakewide
None
Local and Lakewide
Local
Local and Lakewide
No evidence in open lake. Lakewide
in nearshore areas.
Local
Local
None
2-2 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-1. USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ASSOCIATED POLLUTANTS (continued)
USE IMPAIRMENT
Beach closings
Degradation of
aesthetics
Added costs to
agriculture or
industry
Degradation of
phytoplankton and
zooplankton
populations
Loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED
No use impairment due to toxic pollutants
No use impairment due to toxic pollutants
RGBs, mercury, cyanide, lead, copper, cadmium,
arsenic
PCBs, DDT/DDE, chlordane, dieldrin, mercury,
PAHs, lead, copper, chromium, zinc, arsenic,
cadmium
No use impairment due to toxic pollutants
EVIDENCE OF USE IMPAIRMENT
(LOCAL, LAKEWIDE, OR NONE)
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Restrictions on Fish and Wildlife Consumption
The first uniform health advisory for Lake
Michigan was issued in March of 1987 as the
result of a cooperative agreement between health,
natural resource, and agricultural officials of the
Lake Michigan basin States and the USEPA Great
Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) (1).
This advisory, which was succeeded by subsequent
advisories each year to the present, recommended
that people limit their consumption of certain
species of Lake Michigan fish due to the presence
of PCBs in the flesh of these fish.
Twenty-three pesticides and industrial
compounds were detected in coho salmon samples
from Lake Michigan in the mid-1980's. These
substances included pesticides currently in use in
the Great Lakes basin, as well as substances whose
use has been banned or severely restricted, such as
DDT and PCBs. Currently, the Fish Advisory Task
Force, composed of representatives from USEPA
and each Great Lakes State, is developing a
common fish advisory protocol that will consider
the reproductive impacts and other lexicological
effects of consuming contaminated Great Lakes
fish. Once implemented, this protocol will provide
consistent, risk-based human health protection
from contaminated fish (2).
In addition to fish consumption advisories, the
State of Wisconsin has issued wildlife
consumption advisories concerning potentially
contaminated waterfowl. A summary of the current
fish and wildlife consumption advisories for the
Lake Michigan watershed is presented in fable 2-2.
The Michigan Department of Public Health has
found positive correlations between the
consumption of contaminated fish and elevation of
human body burdens of fat soluble contaminants
including PCBs and DDT. A single meal of highly
contaminated fish led to a rapid increase in the
levels of the contaminant in the blood stream.
Some contaminants increased eight-fold within six
hours of consumption. One week after a single
meal of contaminated fish, blood levels returned to
pre-meal levels. According to the study, although
some portion of the toxic substances would be
excreted or metabolized, some percent was
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-2. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED RSH AND WILDLIFE HEALTH ADVISORIES
FOOD ITEM
Fish
LOCATION
Lake Michigan
Green Bay/Fox River
(Area of Concern)
Wautegan Harbor
(Area of Concern)
Milwaukee Estuary
(Area of Concern)
Sheboygan River
(Area of Concern)
lamer Menominee River
(Area of Concern)
Grand Calumet River
(Area of Concern)
Kalamazoo River
(Area of Concern)
White Lake
(Area of Concern)
POLLUTANTS
ANALYZED
PCBs,
Chlordane,
DDT. Dieldrin,
Hg
PCBs,
Pesticides
PCBs,
Pesticides
PCBs,
Pesticides
PCBs.
Pesticides
Mercury
PCBs,
Chlordane
PCBs, Mercury
PCBs, Mercury,
Chlordane
RESTRICTIONS*
Lake Trout 2CT-23",
Coho Salmon over
26", Chinook
Salmon 21 "-32".
Brown Trout up to
23", Walleye
Splakeupto 16"
N/A
Perch, Lake Trout
20* to 23", Brown
Trout up to 23".
Coho Salmon over
26", Chinook
Salmon 21 "to 32"
Rainbow Trout,
Brook Trout. Coho
Salmon over 26",
Chinook Salmon
21" to 32"
Walleye 18" to 22"
N/A
All other species
except those listed
in the next column
N/A
HEALTH ADVISORY
Do not eat:
Lake Trout over 32",
Chinook Salmon over 32",
Brown Trout over 23", Carp,
Catfish
Do not eat:
Lake Trout, Brook Trout,
Rainbow Trout over 22",
Chinook Salmon over 25",
Brown Trout over 12",
Splake over 16", Northern
Pike over 28", Walleye over
20", White Bass, Carp
No fish should be consumed.
Do not eat:
Crappie, Northern Pike,
Carp, Redhorse,
Smallmouth Bass, White
Sucker, Lake Trout over 23",
Brown Trout over 23",
Chinook Salmon over 26"
Bluegill, Rock Bass,
Crappie, Carp, Smallmouth
Bass. Walleye, Northern
Pike, Brown Trout, Catfish.
Chinook Salmon 32" to 35"
N/A
No fish should be consumed.
Do not eat:
Carp, Suckers, Catfish,
Largemouth Bass,
Smallmouth Bass
Do not eat:
Carp
2-4 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-2. LAKE MICHIGAN WATERSHED RSH AND WILDLIFE HEALTH ADVISORIES (continued)
FOOD ITEM
Wildlife
LOCATION
Lower Fox River from
Lake Winnebago to the
northeast city limits of
Kaukauna
Lower Fox River from Du
Pere Dam to Green Bay
and lower Green Bay,
south Point Sable to the
west shore of Green Bay
Sheboygan River from
Sheybogan Falls to Lake
Michigan
Sheboygan Harbor
Milwaukee Harbor
Milwaukee River from
Thiensville upstream to
Grafton, and Cedar Creek
from the Milwaukee River
upstream to Cedarburg
POLLUTANTS
ANALYZED
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
RESTRICTIONS*
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HEALTH ADVISORY
Remove all skin and visible
fat before cooking mallard
ducks. Discard drippings or
stuffing.
Remove all skin and visible
fat before cooking mallard
ducks. Discard drippings or
stuffing.
Do not eat mallard ducks
Do not eat bluebills (lesser
scaup)
Do not eat black ducks,
mallards, scaup, or ruddy
ducks
Do not eat mallard ducks
•Nursing mothers, pregnant women, women who anticipate bearing children, female children of any age, and male
children age 15 or under should not eat these fish. Other persons should limit their consumption to one meal per
week and follow preparation and cooking recommendations.
undoubtedly retained within the body in adipose
tissue and certain organs. Some persistent toxics
have such a long half-life that each succeeding
exposure leads to a net increase in the total body
burden (3a).
No lakewide restrictions have been
recommended or employed for wildlife
consumption, since few game species rely
exclusively on Lake Michigan's food chain as a
forage base. However, the State of Wisconsin has
issued waterfowl consumption advisories for
several areas of the Lake Michigan watershed
because of tissue contaminated with PCBs. Two
upstream reaches draining to the Milwaukee
Harbor have waterfowl advisories: the main stem
Milwaukee River from Thiensville to Grafton, and
Cedar Creek from its confluence with the
Milwaukee River upstream to the Village of
Cedarburg. The Milwaukee Harbor advisory
pertains to black ducks, mallards, scaup and ruddy
ducks. The Milwaukee River and Cedar Creek
advisories cover mallard ducks. An advisory for
Green Bay pertains to mallards from the Lower
Fox River from the DePere dam to the river mouth
at Green Bay and lower Green Bay south of a line
from Point Sauble west to the west shore of Green
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Bay. The lower Fox River from Lake Winnebago
at Neenah and Menasha downstream to the
northeast limits of Kaukauna (including Little
Lake Buttes des Morts) is also covered.
Tainting of Fish and Wildlife Flavor
The impacts of pollutant loadings on the flavor
of fish and wildlife has not been studied in any
comprehensive fashion. Available data indicates
that the flavor is not impaired on a lakewide basis.
The Wisconsin and Michigan Departments of
Natural Resources have reported a slightly
different flavor in walleye from the lower
Menominee River (an Area of Concern) compared
with specimens from inland lakes, but suggest that
a difference in diet, and not toxic pollutants, may
be affecting the flavor of the fish (3b,4). No
specific conclusions can be drawn at this time.
Degradation of Fish and Wildlife Populations
Toxic pollutants have been shown to cause a
decline in fish and wildlife populations. Certain
species of fish and wildlife, including such diverse
species as black-crowned night herons, snapping
turtles, and lake trout, have suffered population
declines within the Great Lakes basin during the
past three decades (5). High concentrations of
toxic substances in the flesh and eggs of these
animals have been linked to reproductive failures
in their populations.
Mink have virtually disappeared from the
shoreline areas of large portions of Lake Michigan.
Studies have shown increased adult mortality rates
and gross reproductive failure in minks fed Great
Lakes fish. Otters, another piscivorous
(fish-eating) mammal, are also missing from
within five miles of the Lake Michigan shoreline.
Bald eagles on the Great Lakes reproduce less than
half as well as those populations nesting on inland
waterbodies (6).
USEPA has determined that this use
impairment is observed lakewide and in local areas
in the Lake Michigan basin. USEPA recognizes
that the declines of populations may be the result
of combinations of factors, including the
accumulation of toxic substances, loss of habitat,
competition with introduced and exotic species,
overharvesting, and impacts to the forage base. A
more complete discussion of reproductive
impairments resulting from toxic pollutants is
presented later in this chapter.
Fish Tumors or Other Deformities
Many studies have indicated an association
between toxic chemicals and increased tumor
frequencies in the Lake Michigan Basin (7,8).
Brown bullheads have exhibited progressive skin
alterations including epidermal hyperplasia,
papillomas, epidermal neoplasia, and invasive
carcinoma. In one study, 100% of the fish
collected in heavily polluted waters possessed
neoplasms having tumors exclusively associated
with lips. The upper lip, which has direct contact
with bottom sediments (thought to be the major
depository for pollutants adsorbed to particulates),
was most affected (9).
Fish tumor surveys have been conducted in two
tributaries to Green Bay: the Fox and the'
Menominee. These studies have found no
incidences of tumors in brown bullheads, the
species most commonly investigated, but have
found several incidences of cancerous or
pre-cancerous conditions in walleye (10). This use
impairment has been observed locally in some
AOCs (Grand Calumet, Sheboygan River) and has
been linked to the presence of polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs).
2-6 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Bird or Animal Deformities or Reproductive
Problems
Developmental abnormalities in the Lake
Michigan watershed have been well documented
for several species of wildlife and toxic substances
have been implicated in their occurrence. Such
effects are more easily documented in birds than in
mammals, since deformed mammalian embryos
frequently die early in development and are
typically absorbed into the lining of the uterus or
aborted and lost USEPA has observed bird and
animal deformities and reproductive problems in
localized areas throughout the Lake Michigan
watershed and lakewide. Pollutants contributing to
deformities and reproductive problems include
PCBs, DDT/DDE, dioxins, and furans (11).
Increasing rates of specific types of deformities
have been found in certain colonial waterbird
species over the past ten years. These deformities
can be induced easily by feeding PCB, dioxin and
furan contaminants to typical avian test species
such as chickens and ducks. Reproductive
problems of the bird species include infertility of
eggs, thin egg shells with altered porosity and
water vapor conductance, embryotoxicity,
structural embryonic deformities, and specific soft
tissue syndromes such as edema and failures to
absorb yolk sacs before hatching. Many of these
problems have been observed in Green Bay (12).
A more complete discussion of these impacts is
presented later in this chapter.
Degradation of Benthos
Many toxic substances, including heavy metals
and synthetic organic chemicals, have a high
affinity for particulates and therefore, adsorb to
them, ending up in the sediments on the bottom of
waterbodies. Pollutants in the bottom sediments
provide a source of contamination to benthic life.
Pollutants may desorb from bottom sediments and
remain in dissolved form in the water column. In
the dissolved form, pollutants are readily available
for uptake in the water column. This phenomenon
results in elevated concentrations and exposures
for organisms that inhabit the benthic region.
The following pollutants are responsible for
benthos degradation in the Great Lakes basin:
PCBs, cadmium, arsenic, copper, nickel,
hexavalent chromium, and oil and other petroleum
products. This use impairment has been researched
and documented throughout the Great Lakes and
has not been specifically identified in Lake
Michigan.
In vitro experiments have shown that benthic
organisms may serve as a mechanism for
transporting toxics up the food chain. Toxic
pollutants can move from the water and sediments
to invertebrates and fish through the processes of
bioconcentration (uptake of substances through
water) and bioaccumulation (uptake of substances
through water and food). High concentrations of
bioaccumulative toxicants in bottom feeding fish
(e.g., common carp) have been correlated with
high concentrations in sediments. In addition,
concentrations in fish have been associated with
areas of higher industrial and agricultural
development (13).
In vivo observations have indicated that toxic
substances may have significant impacts on
populations of benthic species, but a cause and
effect relationship in shifts between density and
diversity of benthic communities and persistent
toxic contaminants has not yet been established.
According to Eadie, Nalepa and Landrum
(1988)(14):
Significant changes in the community structure
of Great Lakes benthos have been documented in
several areas. Because of major transients hi the
nutrient loading and productivity of the lakes and
the community structure of the fish (predators), it
is difficult to quantify the cause/effect link due to
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
contaminants, although abundant circumstantial
evidence exists that the benthic community
structure is significantly influenced by the quality
of the sediments.
Restrictions on Dredging
The presence of high concentrations of heavy
metals, PCBs and other pollutants in harbor
sediments around the Great Lakes has restricted
dredging activities by necessitating the
construction of Confined Disposal Facilities
(CDFs) to completely contain the spoil. Lake
Michigan contains 11 operating CDFs. Using
USEPA guidelines (IS), sediments are evaluated
as heavily polluted, moderately polluted, or
non-polluted. Overall classification is determined
by examining the distribution of classification for
the individual compounds and elements as well as
elutriate tests, source of contamination, color,
odor, particle size distribution and benthic
macroinvertebrate populations. If a sediment is
classified as polluted, it will be unacceptable for
open lake disposal and must go to a CDF (16).
Siting difficulties for new CDF sites due to
concerns by the public have caused dredging
delays in several Lake Michigan harbors.
Dredging restrictions are found on a local basis
throughout Lake Michigan. Pollutants involved in
dredging restrictions include PCBs, mercury, lead,
zinc, cyanide, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
copper, oil and grease, ammonia, phosphorus, iron,
nickel, barium, and manganese.
Eutrophication or Undesirable Algae
Excessive loads of phosphorus into the Great
Lakes in the 1960s contributed to algal blooms and
associated increases of BOD that threatened the
existence of other forms of aquatic life in the lakes.
Controls on point sources of phosphorus and, more
recently, on nonpoint runoff have brought Lake
Michigan phosphorus levels within target ranges,
resulting in a shift of the lake towards oligotrophic
conditions. Nitrogen levels in the Lake continue to
increase, however, and levels of sodium have been
increasing steadily since the 1980s. Sodium has
been associated with the proliferation of
blue-green algae, a group which can form mats of
colonial single cells or rafts of filaments that are
too large to be effectively retained by grazers.
Blue-green algae also contain an extracellular
sheath that may be toxic or noxious to grazers;
thus, this group has the potential to cause major
shifts in the aquatic food chain.
Eutrophication is still a problem in some
nearshore areas such as in the following AOCs:
Grand Calumet River / Indiana Harbor Canal, Fox
River / Lower Green Bay, Sheboygan River and
Harbor. However, despite the potentially
significant impacts on nearshore areas,
eutrophication is not a problem in open lake waters.
Restrictions on Drinking Water Consumption
or Taste and Odor Problems
No major violations of drinking water standards
have occurred in Lake Michigan since the Safe
Drinking Water Act was passed (17), although
traces of toxic chemicals have been found in all
drinking water (18). USEPA concludes that
ambient water quality, with standard treatment, is
suitable for human consumption.
Beach Closings
Beach closings along the Lake Michigan shore
are related primarily to levels of fecal coliform and
other bacteria (19). Since toxic pollutants are not
the primary cause of beach closings, they are not a
focus of the Lake Michigan LaMP. Although
beach closings are caused by elevated levels of
bacteria, beach closings are indicative of sewer
overflows, which may contribute large quantities
of LaMP Pollutants into Lake Michigan.
Therefore, beach closings may be good indicators
2-8 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
of areas where CSOs are significant sources of
toxic pollutants.
Degradation of Aesthetics
Aesthetic degradation is a subjective matter.
The most significant impairments of the Lake
Michigan "seascape" are probably caused by
alewife die-offs, algae blooms and trash and not
necessarily toxic pollutants. Additionally, many
people find certain alterations of the shoreline for
erosion control aesthetically unappealing. Since
toxic pollutants have not been shown to be directly
involved in the degradation of aesthetics, this use
impairment is not a focus of the Lake Michigan
LaMP.
Added Costs to Agriculture or Industry
The costs to agriculture and industry associated
with toxic pollutants in Lake Michigan are largely
indirect; they are related to the costs of complying
with water quality regulations. The literature does
not reflect lakewide concerns with
pollutant-related damages to agricultural or
industrial equipment. This use impairment does
not appear to exist on a lakewide basis.
Degradation of Phytoplankton or Zooplankton
Communities
Degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton
communities in the Lake Michigan watershed has
been observed locally throughout the region. Shifts
in the structure of planktonic communities in the
watershed are most likely caused by a combination
of factors, including decreases in phosphorus
loadings, increases in nitrogen loadings, changes in
habitat, and changes in predator/prey relationships
at all levels of the aquatic food chain.
Studies have shown that organic toxicants
(compounds including herbicides, chlorinated
hydrocarbons, and oils) lead to cessations of
growth, reductions in photosynthesis (by inhibition
of C14 uptake, chlorophyll destruction, or
inhibition of chlorophyll production), and
destruction of membranous organelles such as
mitochondria and chloroplasts in phytoplankton
(21,22,7). Phytoplankton vary in their reactions to
chlorinated hydrocarbons, however, and the
introduction of such substances can lead to shifts
in dominance patterns that have repercussions all
the way up the aquatic food chain (23,24).
Effects of toxic materials on zooplankton
communities are also difficult to assess, based on
the existing body of research. Research has
indicated that toxic compounds, including PCBs,
decrease grazing by zooplankton (25,26) and,
therefore, have the potential to cause additional
shifts in phytoplankton communities. Gannon and
Stemberger (1978)(27) noted that zooplankton
abundance was quite low near harbor mouths in
southern Lake Michigan, and speculated that this
distributional effect was related to high
concentrations of toxic substances in these areas.
At this time, no specific conclusions can be drawn
regarding this use impairment
Loss of Fish and Wildlife Habitat
The reduction in populations of certain fish and
wildlife species in the Lake Michigan basin has
been related to the accumulation of persistent toxic
substances in the Lake. Toxic substances have
made some areas around the Lake virtually
uninhabitable by species that depend on the Lake
for shelter or forage (8). Another issue to be
considered is that a loss of suitable habitat in parts
of the basin unaffected by toxic pollutants, for
example, from development or agriculture, may
force wildlife to relocate to more contaminated
areas and increase their risk of exposure to toxic
contaminants. However, these impacts have been
inadequately documented.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-9
-------
DRAFT Septentoer 30,1993
FINDINGS OF ECOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL
IMPACTS IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN
ECOSYSTEM
Over the past two decades, a considerable
amount of research has been conducted Unking the
presence of toxic pollutants in the Great Lakes
ecosystem to a wide range of effects in humans
and wildlife. Even though the use of many of these
substances has been prohibited in the U.S., the
upper rungs of the Lake Michigan food chain
continue to exhibit the toxic effects of these
pollutants. A review of Lake Michigan toxicity and
bioeffects literature provides linkages between
presence of such halogenated compounds as PCBs,
dioxins, furans, and a suite of canceled pesticides
and the bioaccumulation and subsequent toxic
effects in wildlife and humans at the top of the
food chain. The history of wildlife toxicology in
the Great Lakes basin is summarized below.
Environmental toxicology studies in the Great
Lakes basin began in the 1950s when reproductive
failure of lake trout and declines in the numbers of
bald eagles were noted. These findings and the
hypothesis that these events were somehow related
to DDT contamination triggered more extensive
work on the dynamics of chemicals within the
Lake Michigan food web. In 1968, ranch mink fed
coho salmon from Lake Michigan suffered
complete reproductive failure due to stillbirths
and/or neonatal death; when fed Lake Erie coho or
Lake Michigan chub or perch, which were found
to contain lower levels of several chlorinated
organic compounds, mink showed similar but less
severe responses. These clinical manifestations
were also observed when ranch mink were fed 30
ppm PCBs in their diets in controlled laboratory
experiments. Researchers reported that cormorants
ceased to breed in Lake Michigan in 1963. To
date, 14 species of wildlife in the Great Lakes
basin have shown reproductive impacts; 12 of
these have since suffered population declines and
in 8 studies to date the literature suggests that
generational phenomena are involved (28).
Table 2-3 summarizes the effects of exposure
to toxic pollutants for several species in the Lake
Michigan watershed (8,6,29,30).
Bottom Sediments
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act,
in Section 118(c)(3), authorized USEPA's Great
Lakes National Office to coordinate and conduct a
5-year study and demonstration project on
assessment and treatment methods for toxic
pollutants in in-place contaminated bottom
sediments. This program is called the Assessment
and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments or
ARCS. Five Areas of Concern have been
designated as priority demonstration projects:
Saginaw Bay Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor,
Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor,
Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo
River, New York. In the Lake Michigan basin,
demonstration projects have been completed in
Indiana Harbor (1990), the Grand Calumet River
(1991), and the Sheboygan River (1992).
An increasing body of information links
sediments with the continuing presence of a
number of toxics in the Lake, particularly those no
longer in use. Sediments can serve as reservoirs of
the primarily hydrophobia toxic pollutants. Lake
Michigan sediments contain residues of DDT and
metabolites, heptachlor epoxide, dieldrin,
chlordane, and PCBs (31). Resuspension of
sediments can lead to the release of these
contaminants and increase their availability to
aquatic organisms, particularly aquatic
invertebrates (32). A study conducted in 1985
using fathead minnows and earthworms exposed in
situ to Green Bay sediments showed that, although
resuspended bottom sediments were present
throughout the water column during the tests,
uptake of contaminants was greater with
2-10 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
increasing proximity to the bottom (33). From
these results it was concluded that physical contact
with the sediments increased chemical availability
for bioaccumulalion.
Fish
Through bioaccumulation and
biomagnification, fish become the major transfer
mechanism of contaminants concentrated in the
aquatic environment to terrestrial animals in the
Lake Michigan basin. Fish feed on zooplankton
and phytoplankton contaminated with toxic
pollutants. The pollutants accumulate in the tissues
and are passed on to terrestrial animals when the
fish is eaten. Composite samples of fish (including
carp, northern pike, red horse sucker, black
crappie, and rock bass) from four Lake Michigan
tributaries (the Fox, Sheboygan, Milwaukee, and
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO VARIOUS SPECIES IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM
SPECIES
Bald Eagle
Mink
Herring Gull
Double-crested
Cormorant
Forster's Tem
Lake Trout
Salmon
Bloaters
LOCATION IN LAKE
MICHIGAN
WATERSHED
Shoreline - Big Bay
deNoc
Inland - Menominee
R., Lower Peninsula,
MI/WI border
Lake Michigan
shorelines
Big Sister Island
Gull Island
Green Bay
Green Bay
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED
PCBs, DDE, dieldrin
RGBs, DDE, dieldrin
PCBs
PCBs, DDE, dieldrin, dioxin,
hexachlorobenzene
PCBs and related compounds
PCBs, dioxin
PCBs, DDT
PCBs and related compounds
PCBs, DDT. dieldrin
ASSOCIATED
EFFECTS
PCBs and DDE are
associated with lack of
reproductive success,
dieldrin affects adult
mortality
Reproductive failure -
sparse populations with
increasing proximity to
Lake Michigan
Embryo mortality, loss
of eggs due to lack of
adult attertrveness in
incubating eggs
Bill defects
Reproductive
impairments - tow egg
hatehabiltty, tow body
weight, enlarged liver,
nest abandonment, egg
disappearance
Reproductive
impairment - mortality
found to occur during
"swim up' stage of fry
Developmental
anomalies and egg
infertility
High concentrations in
lipids
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS/L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
FIGURE 2-1. TRENDS IN MAJOR CONTAMINANTS IN FALL RUN COHO SALMON FILLETS
lyou
IWtJI
1982
1983
1984
0
•
— — — -i TOTAL PCB
tvi,.-ii.,n-.ii'i
•• j TOTAL CHLORDANE
•r^"^ ' TOTAL PfODT
r [ - , „ , i
• DIELDRIN
0.5 1 1.5 2
CONCENTRATION (UQ/G)
Mcnominee Rivers) contained elevated levels of
PCBs, DDT and metabolites, aldrin/dieldrin,
chlordane, heptachlor, and hexachlorocyclohexane
(34). Table 2-4 shows the ranges of organic
concentrations in fish from the Lake Michigan
basin. Samples of carp, smallmouth bass,
largemouth bass, channel catfish, pumpkinseed,
bowfin, northern pike, and rock bass taken from 14
Lake Michigan nearshore tributaries and
embayments in 1983 showed levels of PCBs that
exceeded the 2.0 mg/kg Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and International Joint
Commission (IJQ action level (based on fillet with
skin on). Half of these samples exceeded the IJC
specific objective for DDT of 1 mg/kg.
Toxaphene, chlordane, heptachlor and heptachlor
epoxide, dieldrin and endrin,
bexachlorocyclohexane, and benzo(a)pyrene were
also detected in these samples (13). During the
early 1980s, fall run Coho salmon displayed high,
though declining, concentrations of PCBs, DDT,
chlordane and dieldrin as shown in Figure 2-1 (35).
In 1984, residue data from fillets of Lake
Michigan lake trout, coho salmon, chinook
salmon, and bloater chubs showed contamination
by PCBs, dieldrin, and chlordane (36). The
concentrations were higher in the larger (older)
fish, e.g., lake trout over 25 inches long had PCB
levels of 4.59 mg/kg, while smaller lake trout
(under 20 inches) showed levels of only 0.71
mg/kg. The increase in PCB levels in the older fish
exemplifies its btoaccumulative nature.
Residues of DDT, PCBs, and dieldrin were
traced in Lake Michigan bloaters (Coregonus hoyi)
from 1969-1986 (30). Bloaters, prey for predatory
fish, feed primarily on zooplankton and other
crustaceans, do not generally migrate, and have a
high lipid content which makes them susceptible to
the accumulation of lipophilic contaminants such
as DDT and PCBs. These trails make bloaters
especially useful in pesticide
bioaccumulation/biomagnification studies. In the
Hesselberg study (1990)(30), it was found that
both DDT and PCB residues in bloaters decreased
rapidly between 1969 and 1986 following bans on
the use of these chemicals. The decline of
contaminant residues in bloaters after 1980 may be
due to contaminant reduction in Lake Michigan or
may be the result of a change in the diet of the
bloaters.
A recent comparison of concentrations of
persistent toxic pollutants in fish tissues of Lake
2-12 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-4. RANGE OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH FROM THE LAKE
MICHIGAN BASIN
LOCATION
WISCONSIN
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Fox River below DePere
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Manitowoc River
Sheboygan River at HW T
Sheboygan below Kohler Dam
MICHIGAN
Kalamazoo River at Lake Allegan
Kaiamazoo River at Lake Allegan
Kalamazoo River at Lake Allegan
Kalamazoo River at Lake Allegan
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck
Lake Michigan Platte River
RSH SPECIES
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
White Bass
White Perch
Walleye
Rock Bass
Bluegill
Black Grapple
Bluegill
Rock Bass
Black Bullhead
Largemouth Bass
White Sucker
Northern Redhorse
Carp
Coho Salmon
Smallmouth Bass
Carp
Carp
Northern Pike
Smallmouth Bass
Brown Trout
Channel Catfish
Flathead Catfish
Largemouth Bass
Northern Pike
White Sucker
Chinook
YEAR
SAMPLED
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1992
1990
1990
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
POLLUTANT
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
Mercury
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
CONCENTRATION
RANGE (MG/KG)
0.220-1.400
0.580-1 .600
1.400-4.800
2.200-4.400
0.400-6.200
0.150-0.530
0.340-0.570
0.840-1.700
3.000 (1 sample)
1.500(1 sample)
2.500-5.100
4.400 (1 sample)
4.100-6200
4200 (1 sample)
5.000-15.000
1.400-2.600
9.900-24.000
1.360-25.716
0.120-0.510
1.710-3.090
1.390-5.140
1.320-4.620
3.450-12410
1.710-22200
0.520-2.020
0.510-3.360
0.440-2.820
1.620-2.360
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-4. RANGE OF ORGANIC CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS IN FISH FROM THE LAKE
MICHIGAN BASIN (continued)
LOCATION
Lake Michigan St. Joseph River
Lake Michigan South Haven
Lake Michigan South Haven
Lake Michigan Grand Haven
Lake Michigan Grand Haven
Lake Michigan Grand Haven
Lake Michigan Grand Haven
Lake Michigan Grand Haven
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Muskegon
Lake Michigan Menominee River
Lake Michigan Menominee River
Menominee River Mouth
Menominee River Mouth
Menominee River Mouth
Menominee River Mouth
Menominee River Mouth
Lake Michigan Grand Traverse
RSH SPECIES
Chinook
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Lake Trout
Walleye
Carp
Carp
Carp
Carp
Lake Whiteftsh
Lake Whitefish
Brown Trout
Brown Trout
Lake Sturgeon
Carp
Walleye
Walleye
Walleye
Brown Trout
YEAR
SAMPLED
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
1990
1988
1988
1991
1988
1988
1988
1988
1990
POLLUTANT
PCB
PCB
Chloidane
PCB
Dieldrin
Cniondane
Toxaphene
DDE
Mercury
PCB
Dieldrin
Chloidane
DDE
Dieldrin
Chloidane
PCB
Chlordane
PCB
PCB
PCB
Mercury
Chloidane
Chloidane
CONCENTRATION
RANGE (MG/KG)
1.880-2.490
1.440-4.380
0.280-0.767
1 .550-22490
0.139-0.393
0.316-2.572
0.750-8550
0.616-10.558
0.100-1.070
0.350-34.906
0.008-0.551
0.018-2.025
0.119-8.845
0.054-0.499
0.103-0.525
1.410-5.960
0.134-0.300
1.310-5200
0.088-5.860
0.157-5.520
< 0.100-0.960
0.004-0.532
0.141-0.319
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
1993 (47).
1992 (46) and Michigan Department of Natural Resoi
2-14 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-5. LEVELS OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE TROUT AND
CALCULATED AMBIENT WATER CRITERIA
TOXIC POLLUTANT
RGBs
DDT/DDE
Chlordane
Dieldrin
AVERAGE FISH TISSUE
CONCENTRATION (mg/kg)
2.720
1.390
0.440
0.198
CALCULATED FISH TISSUE CONCENTRATION
(mg/kg) CORRESPONDING TO 304 (a) CRITERIA
0.0140
0.3160
0.0830
0.0067
Michigan lake trout is shown in Table 2-5 (2).
Table 2-5 shows that average fish tissue
concentrations in Lake Michigan lake trout still
exceed federal criteria.
Halogenated organic contaminants moving up
the aquatic food chain become increasingly
concentrated at each new tier. As was shown in
Table 2-3, both salmon and lake trout, which are
predatory fish, have exhibited reproductive
impairments due to PCBs and related compounds
(6). PCB congeners of higher toxicity and
chlorination tend to bioaccumulate at levels higher
than would be expected from the mixtures of
congeners present in the aquatic environment
(37,6). Piscivorous wildlife and humans are
therefore exposed to high concentrations of these
compounds when they feed on Lake Michigan fish.
The results of a study conducted in 1991
showed an inverse relationship between the total
concentration of PCBs in Chinook salmon eggs
from Lake Michigan and egg hatching success
(38). However, another study (39) which also used
Chinook salmon from Lake Michigan, found no
correlation between egg mortality and
concentrations of total PCBs, TCDD-equivalents,
or individual PCB congeners. Additional data from
USFWS, GLNPO, or MDNR are required to
ascertain whether fish tissue contamination is
widespread and which pollutants are found in
tissues.
Birds and Other Wildlife
USEPA believes there are documented
correlations between reproductive failures in
piscivorous birds and high body burdens of
halogenated organic compounds in the Lake
Michigan watershed. For example, the
reproductive success of Fbrster's terns in Green
Bay was significantly impaired in 1983. Eggs
taken from the "dirty" Green Bay colony had
significantly higher concentrations of DDT
metabolites, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide, toxaphene, dioxins and PCBs
than eggs from a "clean" inland colony at Lake
Poygan (12). For example, PCB concentrations
ranged from 6.2-25.9 mg/kg wet weight in Green
Bay to 2.7-7.4 mg/kg wet weight in Lake Poygan.
The hatching success of eggs from nests where
eggs were taken for contaminant analyses was
75% lower at Green Bay than at Lake Poygan.
Hatchability of eggs taken from nests and
artificially incubated was about 50% lower for
Green Bay than Lake Poygan. The weight of a
day-old Green Bay chick was 22% lower than the
control (12). Two of the Green Bay chick embryos
failed to hatch and were discovered to have
developmental abnormalities: one had a crossed
beak and the other had a shorter lower beak and a
poorly ossified foot No abnormalities were found
in the control embryos that died. Hatchability was
greatly improved when Green Bay eggs were
incubated by Lake Poygan adults in an
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-15
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
egg-exchange experiment, but was sharply
decreased in Lake Poygan eggs incubated in Green
Bay nests. The study concluded that not only
contamination of the eggs, but contaminant-related
behavioral abnormalities (lack of attentiveness) in
adult birds contributed to reproductive failure in
adults (29).
Scientists studying dead, unhatched,
double-crested cormorant chicks from Green Bay
and the Beaver Islands in Lake Michigan in 1988
found that 32% and 30%, respectively, displayed
one or more deformities. Deformities found in the
dead chicks included subcutaneous edemas;
peritoneal edemas; hemorrhage; gasiroschisis,
large yolk sac attachment, no abdominal wall, or
an organ outside of the body; crossed bills and
other bill anomalies: Siamese twins, clubfeet, no
tail, abdominal cysts, and deformed eyes. Dead,
deformed Caspian tern chicks in the same locations
displayed deformity rates of 23% in Green Bay
and 26% in the Beaver Islands. These deformities
included most of those listed for the cormorants, as
well as neck deformities, missing vertebrae,
abnormally small size, permanently folded feet,
and incomplete skulls. These deformities are
consistent with the effects produced by exposure to
PCBs and dioxins (11). Reproductive impairments
in Great Lakes fish-eating birds (herring gulls,
common terns, Caspian terns, Forster's terns, and
double-crested cormorants) have been termed
GLMEDS, "Great Lakes embryo mortality, edema,
and deformities syndrome" (11).
A review of scientific literature indicates that
the presence of hatched, deformed birds prior to
the production of synthetic chlorinated and
brominated organic chemicals was extremely rare.
Before 1950, ornithological literature contained
almost no reports of deformities that could not be
explained by trauma after hatching. In the 1950s
and 1960s, researchers reported deformities in
colonial waterbirds with a slowly increasing
frequency (6). Since 1970, researchers have
located five definite clusters of birth defects in the
Great Lakes system, of which two are in the Lake
Michigan watershed, affecting various wildlife
species. The largest number of abnormal
individuals has been observed in Green Bay from
1971-1988. Seven species are known to be
affected, including three species of terns, two
species of gulls, double-crested cormorants, and
the Virginia rail. Genetic defects and infectious
disease have been largely ruled out as possible
causes of these deformities. The data suggest that
chemically-mediated toxicity is responsible
involving agents that induce toxic intermediary
production activity, such as polyhalogenated
aromatic hydrocarbons (28). A second cluster of
affected wildlife in Lake Michigan is found in the
Straits of Mackinac area (Figure 2-2).
FIGURE 2-2. WILDLIFE BIRTH DEFECT
CLUSTERS IN LAKE MICHIGAN
QREENBAY
STRAITS OF
MACtONACAREA
BIRTH DEFECTS
REPORTED IN THE YOUNG
OF LAKE MICHIGAN
FISH-EATING BIRDS,
1971-1985
2-16 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
At the top of the food web, bald eagles living
on Lake Michigan shorelines have shown elevated
PCB, DDE and dieldrin levels compared to inland
populations. Because bald eagles subsist on a
diverse, mobile prey base (e.g., large fish, gulls
and waterfowl), they are especially vulnerable to
biomagnification effects (8). DDE and dieldrin
have been directly linked with the degradation of
bald eagle populations on Lake Michigan
shorelines through various physiologic pathways
that act in concert to lower eagle ability to survive
and reproduce (e.g., eggshell thinning) (40). A
comparison of toxic pollutant concentrations in
bald eagle eggs between shoreline nests and inland
nests shows higher concentrations in the shoreline
nests in a study conducted in the mid-1980s. For
example, PCB concentrations in inland nest eggs
ranged from 2.0-29.0 mg/kg, while shoreline nest
egg concentrations ranged from 1.9-44.0 mg/kg.
Concentrations for DDE and dieldrin showed
similar relationships (2).
Human Health
Humans also have demonstrated effects from
exposure to halogenated organic compounds.
Reproductive and developmental abnormalities in
Lake Michigan humans and wildlife seem to have
both been linked to residual concentrations of
chlorinated organic substances in the environment
(41). For example, children born to women who
routinely consume Lake Michigan sportfish
displayed poorer short-term memory function on
both verbal and quantitative tests in a
dose-dependent fashion than did controls (41). In
other related studies, children born to women who
had been exposed to large concentrations of PCBs
in Taiwan in 1979 were shorter and lighter than
controls; had abnormalities of gingiva, skin, nails,
teeth and lungs more frequently than controls; and
showed delayed developmental milestones, deficits
on formal developmental testing, and
abnormalities on behavioral assessment (42). The
authors attribute some of these effects to toxins
other than PCBs. However, the methodology and
accuracy of this study has been questioned because
other variables were not properly accounted for.
TRENDS IN TOXIC POLLUTANTS
Although the effects of PCBs, DDT, dieldrin,
and other contaminants are still being observed in
the Lake Michigan watershed, data collected
during the 1980s has shown a trend toward
improving conditions. Environmental data,
particularly fish tissue contaminant monitoring and
wildlife monitoring, suggest that progress has been
made in reducing the inputs of a number of these
substances through bans, suspensions, and
restrictions on substance production and use, and
through limitations on point source discharges. For
example, the use of PCBs was banned May 1979
except in totally enclosed systems. In Lake
Michigan, fall run coho salmon fillets have shown
an almost five-fold decline in PCB tissue
concentration between 1980 and 1984 (see Figure
2-3) (35). Similar declines were observed for total
pjp' DDT; total chlordane; and dieldrin.
Although concentrations are decreasing, the
current trend data based on the 1980 -1984
samples suggests that fish tissue concentrations of
PCBs and cancelled pesticides may be leveling off
at values exceeding water quality criteria and at
values suggesting that ambient water quality
concentrations necessary to protect human health
and wildlife are being exceeded. Research has
shown that the less chlorinated, thus least toxic,
forms of PCBs are degraded first, leaving the most
toxic forms behind. The highly toxic forms may
persist indefinitely (2).
Reductions of contaminant concentrations in
herring gull eggs from colonies on Big Sister
Island and Gull Island within Lake Michigan have
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-17
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
RGURE 2-3. PCB LEVELS IN GREAT LAKES COHO SALMON
PARTS PER MILLION
HURON MICHIGAN ERIE ONTARIO
D-
80 81 82 83 84 85
YEAR
86
87
88
also been observed since 1974 for DDE; dieldrin;
mirex; hexachlorobenzene; PCBs; and
23,7,8-TCDD (43). However, a leveling off of the
downward trend similar to that observed for fish
tissue concentrations is evident for total PCBs and
DDE since 1985 (Figure 2-4) (44).
Reductions have also been observed for arsenic
levels in Lake Michigan bloaters from 1976 to
1984 (45). During this time, arsenic concentrations
decreased 50 percent or more.
Thus, although there is evidence of a downward
trend in levels of toxic pollutants during the past
decade, this decline appears to have leveled off in
recent years, suggesting that additional efforts to
reduce contaminated levels in the Lake Michigan
watershed are warranted.
CLEAN WATER ACT REQUIREMENTS
The goal of the dean Water Act (CWA) is to
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters. This
includes eliminating the discharge of toxic
pollutants into these waters. Sections 305(b),
30Xd), and 304(1) of the CWA require States to
identify State waters affected by toxic pollutants
and recommend pollutant reduction programs for
FIGURE 2-4. CONTAMINANTS IN HERRING GULL EGGS, SISTER ISLAND, GREEN BAY
PARTS PER MILLION
200
150
100
50
71 73 75 77 79 81
YEAR
83 85 87 89
2-18 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
these waters. The waters are often evaluated by
examining existing use impairments. Sections
305(b), 303(d), and 304(1) are described below.
State 305 ft) Reports
Section 305(b) of the Gean Water Act requires
each State to prepare and submit to USEPA a
biennial report describing the water quality of all
navigable waters in the State. USEPA uses this
report to relay to Congress the nation's progress in
achieving and maintaining the goals of the CWA.
This report must include an analysis of the extent
to which these waters provide for the protection
and propagation of a balanced population of
shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in and on the water. The report must also
examine the impacts of pollutants from point
sources and nonpoint sources on water quality,
evaluate the environmental quality of the waters,
and propose recommendations for controlling
these pollutant sources.
In general, the Lake Michigan basin States,
Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin, report
the water quality of the Lake Michigan watershed
as good, but not fully supporting beneficial uses.
This is due primarily to fish and wildlife
consumption advisories. All Lake Michigan basin
States have implemented toxic pollutant reduction
programs to address this issue, but it may take
many years to achieve water quality goals.
State 303(d) Waters
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires States to
identify waterbodies that do not meet water quality
goals. These lists assist States in developing annual
priorities for addressing water quality problems.
States must develop total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) for the waterbodies identified on the
303(d) list.
States may use several criteria for identifying
303(d) waters. These may include waters with fish
consumption advisories, waters with repeated fish
kills or abnormalities, waters having recreational
restrictions, waters which exceed water quality
criteria during effluent toxicity tests, or waters
which exceed water quality criteria due to
industrial discharges. Table 2-6 lists the 303(d)
waterbodies in Lake Michigan basin States not
meeting water quality goals during 1992.
State 304(0 Waters
Section 304(1) of the CWA requires each State
to submit to the Administrator a list of waters
within the State boundaries which 1) could not
reasonably be anticipated to attain or maintain
water quality standards because of the presence of
toxic pollutants, or 2) could not attain the water
quality that would assure protection of public
health, public water supplies, agricultural and
industrial uses, and the protection and propagation
of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and
wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on
the water (Section 304(1)(1)(A)). For each
waterbody listed as a 304(1) water, the State must
determine the source of the toxic discharge and
develop a control strategy that will reduce the toxic
discharge to acceptable levels. Table 2-7 lists Lake
Michigan streams on the 304(1) due (at least in
part) to toxic pollutants.
Within the Lake Michigan basin, 327 water
segments (identified by a unique reach code) were
identified by the States as not likely to attain water
quality standards or full uses as prescribed by the
Act because of point or nonpoint source pollution.
Of these 327 reaches, at least 96 reaches on 54
lakes and rivers within the Lake Michigan basin
were reported as having impaired water quality
because of persistent toxic pollutants. There are
five reaches that are nearshore segments of Lake
Michigan listed as unpaired: one in Wisconsin
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-19
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-6. STATE 303(d) WATERS IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN STATES
STATE
Indiana
Wisconsin
Michigan
Illinois
(none identified)
WATERBODY
Pigeon Creek and tributaries
Little Calumet River and tributaries
Grand Calumet River
Pox RiverASreen Bay
Lower Menoninee River (Proposed)
Sheboygan River (Proposed)
Milwaukee Estuary (Proposed)
Sycamore Creek
POLLUTANTS
Ammonia, Dissolved Oxygen
Cyanide, Ammonia, and Dissolved Oxygen
Metals, Cyanide, PCBs, Ammonia, Dissolved Oxygen
PCBs, Mercury, Metals
PCBs, Chlordane, Arsenic, Dioxin, Lead, Mercury,
Cadmium
PCBs
PCBs, Mercury, Chlordane, PAHs (Ruoranthene,
Pyrene, Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(a)anthracene), Dieldrin,
Dioxin, Lead, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Zinc,
Toxaphene, Arsenic, Puran, Cyanide
Dissolved Oxygen
HGURE 2-5. LAKE MICHIGAN AREAS OF
CONCERN
MANISTIQUE RIVER
LOWER MENOMINEE
RIVER
FOX RIVER/GREEN BAY
SHEBOYGAN
RIVER
MILWAUKEE
ESTUARY
WAUKEGAN HARBOR
WHITE LAIC
MUSKEGON RIVER
KALMAZOO RIVER
GRAND CALUMET
near Milwaukee Harbor, and four in Michigan,
three of those nearshore areas are river mouths.
AREAS OF CONCERN
An Area of Concern (AOC) is defined in
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement as a geographic area that fails to meet
the objectives of the Agreement, including that
waters shall be free from substances that directly
or indirectly enter the waters as a result of human
activity which may adversely affect fish or wildlife
or settle and form sludge deposits. AOCs usually
exhibit impairments of beneficial uses or cannot
fully support aquatic life. Annex 2 of the
Agreement directs the State and Provincial
Governments to develop and implement Remedial
Action Plans to restore and protect beneficial uses
in AOCs.
There are ten AOCs located on the Lake
Michigan shoreline as shown in Figure 2-5.
2-20 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 2-7. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN RIVERS ON 304(0 LIST CONTAINING TOXIC POLLUTANTS
NAME OF WATERBODY
REACH NUMBER
POLLUTANTS
WISCONSIN
Fox River
Lake Michigan
Pike River
Pettibone Creek
Root River
Kinnickinnic River
Menomonee River
Milwaukee River
Milwaukee River, LM
Milwaukee River. N Br
Milwaukee Harbor
Milwaukee River, E Br LL
Cedar Creek
Sheboygan Harbor
Sheboygan River
Manitowoc River
Sevenmile Creek
Onion River
Upper Fox River
Fox River
Lower Fox River
04030204002
04030204006
04040002002
04040002006
04040002002
04040002005
04040003
04040003
04040003013
04040003002
04040003006
04040003001
04040003003
04040003004
04040003008
04040003015
04030101003
04030101020
04030101021
04030101022
04030101026
04030101012
04030101
04030101028
04030201001
04030201026
04030201028
04030201010
04030204006
PCB
cyanide, copper, zinc, PCBs
copper
cadmium, chromium, copper,
cyanide, lead
copper, lead, zinc
copper
mercury, pesticides, PCBs
Metals, pesticides, PCBs
PCBs, metals, pesticides
PCBs, pesticides
copper, PCBs, pesticides, chromium
PCBs, pesticides
PCBs, pesticides
mercury
PCBs, pesticides
PCBs
PCBs, copper
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs
hexachlorobenzene
mercury
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS / L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-21
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 2-7. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN RIVERS ON 304(0 LIST CONTAINING TOXIC POLLUTANTS (eontlnu
NAME OF WATERBODY
WISCONSIN
Oconto River
Peshtigo River
Menorrinee River
Lower Green Bay
REACH NUMBER
POLLUTANTS
04030104010, 04030104011
04030105002
04030108001, 04030108003
04060200
ILLINOIS
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan (Waukegan Harbor)
copper, lead, zinc
PCBs
INDIANA
Harbor Ship Canal
Grand Calumet River
Trail Creek
04040001
04040001
04040001
cadmium, lead, zinc, cyanide
cadmium, copper, lead, zinc, cyanide
Metals
MICHIGAN
Board man River
Escanaba River
Grand River
Kalamazoo River
Menorrinee River
Manistique River
St. Joseph River
04060105
04030110
04050006
04050006
04050006
04050003
04030108
04030108
04060106
04060106
04050001
mercury
TCDD Pioxin)
mercury
chlordane
cadmium, zinc
PCBs
Dioxins
copper, mercury
PCBs
mercury
PCBs
Table 2-8 presents the AOCs in the Lake Michigan
basin, the uses impaired, and their associated
pollutants. The LaMP program will coordinate
with efforts within the AOCs to determine whether
or not these areas contribute significantly to
lakewide impairments.
2-22 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September30.1993
TABLE 2-8. USES IMPAIRED BY TOXIC POLLUTANTS IN AREAS OF CONCERN
AREAS OF CONCERN
Manistique River
Muskagon Lake
White Lake
Lower Menominee
Sheboygan River
Milwaukee Estuary
Fox River/Green Bay
Kalamazoo River
Waukegan Harbor
Grand Calumet River -
Indiana Harbor
USES IMPAIRED
Restrictions on fish consumption, dredging restrictions, loss
offish and wildlife habitat, and degradation of benthos
Degradation of benthos, tainting of fish and wildlife, dredging
restrictions, and loss of fish and wildlife habitat
Restrictions on fish consumption, tainting offish, loss of
habitat degradation of aesthetics, and degradation of
benthos
Restrictions on fish consumption, degraded fish and wildlife
populations, loss offish and wildlife habitat, benthos
degradation, dredging restrictions, and beach closings
Restrictions on fish consumption, dredging restrictions,
eutrophication, loss of fish and wildlife habitat, fish
deformities, and degraded fish and wildlife populations
Restrictions on fish consumption, eutrophication,
degradation of benthos, dredging restrictions, beach
closings, aesthetics degradation, loss offish and wildlife
habitat, degraded fish and wildlife populations, and
degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations
Restrictions on fish and wildlife consumption, fish tumors,
bird deformities and reproductive impairments,
eutrophication, degraded fish and wildlife populations,
degraded phytoplankton and zooplankton populations,
degradation of benthos, dredging of aesthetics, drinking
water restrictions, beach closings, and loss of fish and
wildlife habitat
Restrictions on fish consumption, dredging restrictions, and
toss offish and wildlife habitat
Restrictions on fish consumption, degradation of benthos,
restrictions on dredging, beach closings, degraded
phytoplankton and zooplankton, and loss offish and wildlife
habitat
Restrictions on fish consumption, degradation offish
populations, and fish tumors
POLLUTANTS
PCBs
PCBs, copper,
chromium, lead, zinc,
mercury
PCBs, chiordane,
mercury
PCBs, chiordane,
arsenic, dioxin, toad,
mercury, cadmium
PCBs
PCBs, mercury,
chiordane, PAHs
(Huoranthene, pyrene,
benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(a)anthracene)
dieldrin, dioxin, lead,
cadmium, chromium,
copper, zinc, toxaphene,
arsenic, furan, cyanide
PCBs, mercury, metals
(
PCBs
PCBs
PCBs, mercury, cyanide,
lead, copper, cadmium,
arsenic
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS/L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-23
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
EVALUATION OF DATA GAPS
In order to better demonstrate the
bioaccumulation/biomagnification effects of toxic
pollutants in the Lake Michigan ecosystem,
additional data is needed on the effects of the
pollutants on primary production, phytoplankton,
zooplankton, and forage fish (alewife, bloaters,
etc.) in Lake Michigan. Currently, much
information is available on the higher levels of the
food web, for example, numerous reports detailed
the effects of contaminants on colonial birds and
the bald eagle.
Geographic data specifying the location of the
species affected in the watershed are also needed
to develop a more thorough understanding of local
and lakewide effects. Use impairment data should
be provided for the AOGs to demonstrate why
these areas have been specially designated.
2-24 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LITERATURE CITED
1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and Wisconsin Division of Health. 1993. Health Guide for
People Who Eat Sport Fish from Wisconsin Waters. PUBL-IE-019 4/93 REV. Madison, WI.
2. U.S. EPA. 1993. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System and Correction; Proposed Rules.
Federal Register. Vol. 58 No. 72.20802-21047.
3a. Humphrey, H.E.B. and J .L. Hesse. 1986. State of Michigan Sport Caught Fish Consumption
Advisories: Philosophy, Procedures and Process: Draft Procedural Statement. Michigan
Department of Public Health. Center for Environmental Health Sciences. Lansing, Michigan.
3b. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Water Resources Management 1990. Wisconsin Water
Quality Assessment Report to Congress, 1990. Madison, WI.
4. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Surface Water Quality Division. 1990. Water Quality and
Pollution Control in Michigan, 1990 Report. Lansing, MI.
5. Colborn, T.E., A. Davidson, S.N. Green, R.A. Hodge, CI. Jackson and R.A. Liroff. 1990. Great Lakes,
Great Legacy? Washington, D.C: The Conservation Foundation and Ottawa, Ontario: The Institute
for Research on Public Policy.
6. Ludwig, J.P. and H. Kurita. 1988. Colonial Waterbird Deformities An Effect of Toxic Chemical
Residues in the Great Lakes? pp. 201-209 in Hickcox, D.H. (ed) The Great Lakes: Living with
America's Inland Waters. Bethesda, MD: American Water Resources Assoc.
7. Fitchko, J. 1986. Literature Review of tiie Effects of Persistent Toxic Substances on Great Lakes Biota:
Report ofttie Healtli of Aquatic Communities Task Force to the Inter national Joint Commission,
International Joint Commission, Great Lakes Field Office. Windsor, Ontario.
8. Environment Canada. Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Health and Welfare Canada. 1991. Toxic
Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects Synopsis.
9. Hallet, D J. and R.W. Brecher. 1984. Cycling of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the Great Lakes
Ecosystem, pp. 213-237 in Nruagu, J.O. and MS. Simmons (eds) Toxic Contaminants in the Great
Lakes. Vol. 14 in the Wiley Series in Environmental Science and Technology. New York: John
Wiley and Sons.
10. Bauman, P.C, M J. Mac, S.B. Smith, and J.C. Harshbarger. 1991. Tumor Frequencies in Walleye and
Brown Bullhead and Sediment Contaminants in Tributaries of the Laurentian Great Lakes. InPress.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences.
11. Gilbertson, M., T. Kubiak, J. Ludwig, and G. Fox. 1991. Great Lakes Embryo Mortality, Edema, and
Deformities Syndrome (GLMEDS) in Colonial Fish-Eating Birds: Similarity to Chick-Edema
Disease. J. Tax. andEnv. Health. Vol. 33:455-516.
12. Hoffman, D., B. Rattner, L. Sileo, D. Dogherty, and TJ. Kubiak. 1987. Embryotoxicity, Teratogenicity
and Aryl Hydrocarbon Hydroxylase Activity in Forster's Terns on Green Bay, Lake Michigan.
Environmental Research 42:176-184.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS/L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-25
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
13. Camanzo, J., CP. Rice, D.J. Jude, R. Rossmann. 1987. Organic Priority Pollutants in Nearshore Fish
From 14 Lake Michigan Tributaries and Embayments, 1983. J. Great Lakes Res. 13:296-309.
14. Eadie, B J., T.F. Nalepa, and P.P. Landrum. 1988. Toxic Contaminants and Benthic Organisms in the
Great Lakes: Cycling, Fate, and Effects, pp. 161-178 in Schmidtke, N.W. (ed). Toxic Contaminants
in Large Lakes, Vol. I: Chronic Effects of Toxic Contaminants in Large Lakes. Chelsea, MI: Lewis
Publishers.
15. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. Great Lakes Surveillance Branch. 1977.
Guidelines for tlie Pollution Classification of Great Lakes Harbor Sediments. Chicago, IL.
16. Lambe, R.N. and A.H. Smythe. 1987. Report on the Great Lakes Confined Disposal Facilities: Draft
Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region V. Chicago, IL, and US.
Environmental Protection Agency, Monitoring and Data Support Division, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards. Washington, DC.
17. Damata, M. 1990. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region V, Wisconsin/Illinois State Program
Manager for the Safe Drinking Water Branch. Personal Communication.
18. Muldoon, P. and M. Valiente. 1988. Zero Discharge: A Strategy for the Regulation of Toxic
Substances in tlie Great Lakes Ecosystem. Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation,
Toronto, Ontario.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Programs Office, 1982-1988. Annual
Beach Surveys. Unpublished.
21. Sicko-Goad, S. and E.F. Stoemer. 1988. Effects of Toxicants on Phytoplankton with Special Reference
to the Laurentian Great Lakes, pp. 19-51 in Evans, M.S. (ed.) Toxic Contaminants and Ecosystem
Health: A Great Lakes Focus. Vol. 21 in the Wiley Series in Advances in Environmental Science and
Technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
22. Glooschenko, V. and W. Glooschenko. 1975. Effect of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Compounds on
Growth of Great Lakes Phytoplankton. Can. J. Bot 53(7): 653-659.
23. Lin, K.C. and M.S. Simmons. 1981. Notes: Effects of Pentachlorobiphenyl on Growth of Nutrient
Enriched Phytoplankton from Lake Michigan./. Great Lakes Res. 7(4): 481-485.
24. Munawar, M., P.T.S. Wong, and G.Y. Rhee. 1988. The Effects of Contaminants on Algae An
Overview, pp. 113-123 in Schmidtke, N.W. (ed.) Toxic Contaminants in Large Lakes, VoL I:
Chronic Effects of Toxic Contaminants in Large Lakes. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
25. Evans, MS. and D.C. McNaughL 1988. The Effects of Toxic Substances on Zooplankton Populations:
A Great Lakes Perspective, pp. 53-76 in Evans, M.S. (ed) Toxic Contaminants and Ecosystem
Health: A Great Lakes Focus. Vol. 21 in the Wiley Series in Advances in Environmental Science
and Technology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
26. McNaught, D.C. 1982. Short Cycling of Contaminants by Zooplankton and Their Impacts on Great
Lakes Ecosystems. J. Great Lakes Res. 8(2): 360-366.
27. Gannon, J.E. and R.S. Siemberger. 1978. Zooplankton (especially crustaceans and rotifers) as
Indicators of Water Quality. Trans. Amer. Microsc. Soc. 97:16-75.
2-26 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT Septerrtber 30,1993
28. Flint, R.W. and J. Vena. 1991. HumanHealth Risks from Chemical Exposure: The Great Lakes
Ecosystem. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers, pg. 63.
29. Kubiak, TJ., HJ. Harris, L.M. Smith, T.R. Schwartz, D.L. Stalling, J.A. Trick, L. Sileo, D.E.
Docherty, and T.C. Erdman. 1989. Microcontaminants and Reproductive Impairment of the Forster's
Tern on Green Bay, Lake Michigan -1983. Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 18,706-727.
30. Hesselberg, R., J. Hickey, D. Nortrup, and W. Willford. 1990. Contaminant Residues in the Bloater of
Lake Michigan, 1969-1986. J. Great Lakes Res. 16(1)121-129.
31. Frank, R., R.L. Thomas, H.E. Braun, D.L Gross and T.T. Davies. 1981. Organochlorine Insecticides
and PCB in Surficial Sediments of Lake Michigan (1975). Journal of Great Lakes Research
7(1):42-50.
32. Halter, M.T. and H.F. Johnson 1977. A Model System to Study Desorbtion and Biological Availability
of PCB in Hydrosoils. Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Evaluation. Amer. Soc. Test and Mat. STP
634: 178-195.
33. Mac, M J., CC. Edsall and R. Hesselberg. 1985. Accumulation of PCBs and Hg by Fish and
Earthworms During Field and Laboratory Exposures to Green Bay Sediments. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Great Lakes Fishery Laboratory. No. USFWS-GLFL\AR-85-4.
34. DeVault, D.S. 1985. Contaminants in Fish from Great Lakes Harbors and Tributary Mouths. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14,587-594.
35. De Vault, D.S., J.M. Clark, and G. Lahvis. 1988. Contaminants and Trends in Fall Run Coho Salmon.
Journal of Great Lakes Research 14( 1 ):23-33.
36. Clark, J.M., L. Fink, and D. De Vault. 1987. A New Approach for the Establishment of Fish
Consumption Advisories. J. Great Lakes Res. 13(3):367-374.
37. Oliver, B.C. and AJ. Niimi. 1988. Trophodynamic Analysis of Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners
and Other Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Lake Ontario Ecosystem. Environmental Science
Technology 22(4):388-397.
t
38. Ankley, G.T., D. Tillet, J. Giesy, P. Jones, and D. Verbrugge. 1991. Bioassay-Derived 2,3,7,8-TCDD
Equivalents in PCB-Containing Extracts from the Flesh and Eggs of Lake Michigan Chinook Salmon
and Possible Implications for Reproduction. Can.J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. Vol. 48,1991.
39. Williams, L. and J.P. Giesy. 1992. Relationships Among Concentrations of Individual PCB Congeners,
23,7,8-TCDD-Eq, on Rearing Mortality of Chinook Salmon Eggs from Lake Michigan. J. Great
Lakes Research 18(1):108-124.
40. Colborn, T.E. 1991. Epidemiology of Great Lakes Bald Eagles. J. Toxicology and Environmental
Health 33(4):395-454.
41. Jacobson, J.L., S.W. Jacobson, and H.E.B. Humphrey. 1990. Effects of In Utero Exposure to
Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Related Contaminants on Cognitive Functioning in Young Children.
The Journal of Pediatrics 116(l):38-45.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS/L MICHIGAN ECOSYSTEM 2-27
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
42. Rogan, WJ., B.C. Gladen, K. Hung, S Koong, L. Shih, J.S. Taylor, Y. Wu, D. Yang, N.B. Ragan, and
C. Hsu. 1988. Congenital Poisoning by Polychlorinated Biphenyls and Their Contaminants in
Taiwan. Science 241:334-336.
43. Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1989.1989 Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Report to the
International Joint Commission. Kingston, Ontario.
44. Bishop, C and D.V. Weseloh. 1990. Contaminants in Herring Gulls from the Great Lakes.
Environment Canada. ENI-12190-2E.
45. Schmitt, C. and W. Brumbaugh. 1990. National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program: Concentrations
of Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, and Zinc in U.S. Fresh Water Fish,
1976-1984. Arch. Environ. Co/item. Toxicology 19:731-747.
2-28 CHAPTER 2
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
PROCESS FOR LISTING LAKE MICHIGAN
LaMP POLLUTANTS
The Critical Pollutant Work Group
recommends that LaMP Pollutants be categorized
based on degree of association with use
impairments and spatial distribution or frequency
of,occurrence. LaMP management activities, by
extension, also would be tiered based on a
pollutant's classification. Table 3-1 summarizes
this classification scheme and the distinctions
between the three categories.
Chemicals that violate the most stringent
Federal/State water quality standard or criteria,
exceed an FDA action level in Lake Michigan fish,
or are associated with lakewide use impairments
are classified as LaMP Critical Pollutants. These
substances are the focus of the LaMP program.
Prevention, reduction, and remediation activities to
reduce loads and ambient levels of these chemicals
in the environment will be pursued by the
participating Agencies.
"Pollutants of Concern" are those that are
associated with local or regional use impairments
(including in AOCs) or those for which there is
evidence that loadings to or ambient
concentrations in the Lake Michigan watershed are
increasing. Management actions for these
substances will emphasize pollution prevention
efforts, available load reduction opportunities, and
additional information collection. Pollutants of
Concern include any chemicals associated with a
use impairment in an Area of Concern, if it is not
already listed as a Critical Pollutant. In these
instances, the LaMP process will not duplicate or
interfere with RAP efforts. Listing pollutants
associated with impairments in only one or a few
AOCs as LaMP Pollutants of Concern is merely a
recognition that these substances are present in the
Lake Michigan watershed, have been associated
with an impairment (albeit on a local scale), and
may be transported into the Lake if control
measures are not taken. When the RAP process
determines that a chemical no longer contributes to
TABLE 3-1. PROPOSED CATEGORIES FOR LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP POLLUTANTS
DESCRIPTION
MANAGEMENT ACTION
Critical Pollutants
Pollutants that violate the most stringent State^ederal
water quality standard or criteria, exceed an FDA action
level in fish in Lake Michigan, and/or those associated
with lakewide use impairments in Lake Michigan.
Focus of LaMP activities. Load reductions through all
appropriate, available means, including prevention,
reduction, and remediation activities.
Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants associated with local/ regional use
impairments (including AOCs), or with increasing
loads/concentrations in Lake Michigan.
Develop information base. Target for pollution
prevention activities and available load reduction
opportunities.
Emerging Pollutants
Priority substances that have characteristics indicating a
potential for impacting Lake Michigan. Characteristics
include presence/use in the watershed,
bbaccumulation, persistence, and toxicrty.
Data collection, monitoring, and research only. Develop
summary of known information on chemical. Identify
data needs to determine whether the chemical be
moved up on or removed from the list
3-2 CHAPTER 3
-------
CHAPTER 3 — LaMP POLLUTANTS
INTRODUCTION
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
defines Critical Pollutants as substances that exist
at levels that impair beneficial uses due to their
presence in open lake waters, their ability to cause
or contribute to a failure to meet Agreement
objectives, or their ability to bioaccumulate. The
Agreement defines persistent toxic substances as
any substance with a half-life1 in water of greater
than eight weeks (Annex 12 Subsection l(a)).
In addition to addressing persistent toxic
pollutants which contribute to ecological
impairments, the LaMP process identifies those
pollutants which have not yet been associated with
an impairment, but whose characteristics suggest
the ability to impact the system. These include
pollutants that are present in the Lake Michigan
watershed, have known toxic characteristics,
persist in the environment, and/or bioaccumulate.
State and Federal agencies must identify and
reduce loadings of substances to Lake Michigan
waters through the LaMP process before they
reach levels sufficient to cause environmental
degradation.
This chapter discusses the classification and
definition of the Lake Michigan LaMP Critical
Pollutants, Pollutants of Concern, and Emerging
Pollutants; describes the proposed LaMP
Pollutants and presents data on their uses, general
sources, physical/chemical characteristics, and
contribution to use impairments; identifies gaps in
data collection and existing knowledge; and details
the process for reviewing and revising the LaMP
Pollutant list
A Critical Pollutant Work Group, consisting of
technical staff from USEPA, USFWS, USGS, and
the four Lake Michigan States, has developed a
process for listing and delisting substances as
LaMP Pollutants and identified those chemicals
that, based on existing information, are impacting
Lake Michigan and its watershed to some degree.
DEFINITION
LaMP Pollutants are substances that persist at
levels that, singly or in synergistic or additive
combination, are causing, or are likely to cause,
impairment of beneficial uses despite past
application of regulatory controls due to:
• presence in open lake waters;
• ability to cause or contribute to a failure to
meet agreement objectives through their
recognized threat to human health and
aquatic life; or
• ability to bioaccumulate.
1 "Half-life" means the time required for the concentration of a substance to diminish to one-half of its original value
in a lake or water body (Annex 12 Subsection 1 (b)).
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 3-2. PROPOSED LaMP POLLUTANTS FOR LAKE MICHIGAN
CATEGORY
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Critical Pollutant
Pollutant of Concern
Pollutant of Concern
Pollutant of Concern
Pollutant of Concern
Emerging Pollutant
POLLUTANT
Total PCBs
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT and metabolites
Mercury
Dioxins
Furans
Lead, Cadmium,
Copper, Zinc,
Chromium, Arsenic,
Cyanide
Hexachtorobenzene
Toxaphene
PAHs
Atrazine
REASON
Fish consumption advisories; exceedence of FDA action levels;
strong association with fish and wildlife deformities and
reproductive effects; evidence of reproductive and behavioral
effects in human, fish-eating populations.
Fish tissue concentrations exceed FDA action levels. Strong
association with fish mortality and reproductive suppression in
bald eagles. Association with wildlife deformities and
reproductive effects.
Fish tissue concentrations exceed FDA action levels. Association
with fish and wildlife deformities and reproductive effects.
Fish tissue concentrations exceed FDA action levels. Strong
association with eggshell thinning and reproductive suppression
in bald eagles. Association with wildlife deformities and
reproductive effects.
Fish tissue concentrations exceed FDA action levels in Little Bay
de Noc and Muskegon River; sediments classified as heavily
polluted by mercury in 6 Lake Michigan tributaries in accordance
with USEPA sediment guidelines, 1 977 (a).
In synergistic and additive combination with dioxirHike
compounds, strong association with wildlife deformities and
reproductive effects.
Present in Lake Michigan fish and wildlife. In synergistic and
additive combination with other dioxin-like compounds,
association with wildlife deformities and reproductive effects.
Sediments classified as heavily polluted by these metals in
several Lake Michigan ACCs and tributaries in accordance with
USEPA sediment guidelines, 1977(a). Association with
degradation of benthic and planktonic communities, restrictions
on dredging.
f
High bioaccumulation factor, low concentrations found in Lake
Michigan fish tissues. Causes porphyria (the generation of
abnormal porphyrins and blocking of metabolic pathways) in
animals and humans. Possible association with porphyria in Lake
Michigan herring gulls.
Technical grade toxaphene was produced as a pesticide;
toxaphene-like compounds include any of a number of
chlorinated camphenes. As a mixture of chlorinated camphenes,
toxaphene exceeds USEPA water quality criteria in Lake
Michigan Moderate association with fish abnormalities.
Known carcinogens, widely found in nearshore waters of Lake
Michigan, moderately associated with fish tumors, but effects
have not been documented in Lake Michigan.
Widely used pesticide in Great Lakes basin; breakdown rate in
the environment is slow; toxic to aquatic biota.
3-4 CHAPTER 3
-------
use impairments in any Lake Michigan AOC, it
will be removed from the LaMP Pollutant list
Another advantage of listing chemicals with
increasing loads and/or concentrations, and those
that are problems in AOCs, as LaMP Pollutants of
Concern is that it makes the LaMP more proactive.
Rather than waiting until a toxic pollutant is
already contributing to ecological impairments
before management action is taken, this process
allows the Agencies to take steps to prevent or
reduce loads prior to the chemical becoming a
lakewide problem.
Emerging Pollutants include those toxic
substances that, while not presently known to
contribute to impairments or to show increasing
loadings/concentrations, have characteristics that
indicate a potential to impact the physical or
biological integrity of Lake Michigan. These
characteristics include presence in the watershed,
ability to bioaccumulate, persistence (greater than
8 weeks), and toxicity. A brief summary of
information concerning these characteristics will
be developed for any pollutant listed as an
Emerging Pollutant, as well as a description of
information required to determine whether it
should be moved up on or removed from the
LaMP Pollutant list Listing pollutants under
"Emerging Pollutants" is another mechanism to
help prevent substances from becoming lakewide
problems. In terms of management action for
Emerging Pollutants, the Work Group
recommends data collection, research, and
monitoring efforts. Because they are limited,
LaMP resources will not be expended on data
collection and research activities for Emerging
Pollutants. Instead, the LaMP recommends
Emerging Pollutants as priorities for data gathering
and research activities by the Great Lakes
community.
Information regarding LaMP Pollutants will be
compiled and summarized, including data on
DRAFT September 30,1993
chemical properties (persistence, bioaccumulation,
and toxicity), ambient concentrations, loadings,
and sources. Much of this information is described
in this chapter and in Chapter 4. Where
information is lacking for specific pollutants, these
data gaps will be identified and recommendations
for future needs developed through the LaMP
process. The Critical Pollutant Work Group will
develop one page "fact sheets" that briefly
summarize pertinent information for the LaMP
Pollutants. These fact sheets will be updated as
more data become available. In some cases,
information collection may be a long-term process.
Although the level of effort dedicated by the
LaMP process will be dictated largely by the
categorization system, the LaMP Management
Committee will have to prioritize activities within
the three categories. This prioritization will be
based on the potential for significantly reducing
risk by focusing on load reductions of a given
pollutant, and on the perceived severity of the risk
posed by each pollutant
PROPOSED LaMP POLLUTANTS FOR
LAKE MICHIGAN
Table 3-2 lists the substances recommended by
the Critical Pollutant Work Group for listing as
Lake Michigan LaMP Pollutants, along with a
brief rationale for the proposed listing. Table 3-2 is
followed by a summary of available information
on these substances, including physical and
chemical characteristics, ambient concentration
and loadings, the contribution of each to the use
impairments described in Chapter 2, and uses and
generic sources. Data gaps and information needs
regarding LaMP Pollutants are also defined.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 3-2. PROPOSED LaMP POLLUTANTS FOR LAKE MICHIGAN (continued)
CATEGORY
Emerging Pollutant
Emerging Pollutant
POLLUTANT
Selenium
PCB Substitute
Compounds
(Isopropylbiphenyl,
Santosol100and150,
Suresol 290,
Diisopropylnaphthalene)
REASON
Present throughout Lake Michigan basin with numerous sources;
persistent and toxic.
Used in the Lake Michigan basin as substitute for RGBs;
detected in effluent, sediment, and fish in the basin;
bioaccumulative and toxic.
PROPERTIES OF THE LaMP POLLUTANTS
Important facts about the LaMP Pollutants are
summarized in the following pages, including
information on persistence, partitioning,
bioconcentration and bioaccumulation, toxicity,
ambient concentrations, State/Federal water
quality standards and criteria, and associated use
impairments. Brief definition of these important
physical/chemical characteristics are presented in
Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3. DESCRIPTIONS OF PHYSICAUCHEMICAL PARAMETERS
Persistence
(Half-life >8 weeks)
A persistent chemical has a slow degradation rate and will still be present after long periods
of time. The processes that contribute to a disappearance of a chemical in a certain media
depend on environmental factors as well as chemical specific properties. Usually all the
processes contributing to the degradation of a chemical are 'lumped* and an overall
degradation rate is assumed. The half-life is the time for degradation of one half of the
chemical's concentration and is a relative measure of a chemical's persistence.
Water Solubility
Water solubility provides considerable insight into the fate and transport of a chemical. Water
soluble chemicals do not partition to soil or sediment or bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.
There are also more likely to bfodegrade. Conversely, chemicals which are not soluble in
water have a tendency to partition to soil and sediments, bioconcentrate in aquatic
organisms, and are less likely to be biodegradable.
Vapor Pressure
The vapor pressure of a chemical gives indication on the transport of a chemical in the
environment The volatilization of a pure chemical from water depends on its vapor pressure
and water solubility. Also the form in which a chemical will be found in the atmosphere
depends on the vapor pressure; chemicals with a vapor pressure less than 10"6 mm Hg will
be mostly found associated with paniculate matter (1).
Soil Koc
The fate of chemicals in soils is highly dependent on the sorptive characteristics of the
compound. The sorptive properties generally correlate well with the organic carbon content
of soils. The organic carbon partitioning coefficient, Koc, is a measure of the sorptive
characteristics and gives insight on the adsorptionAnobility of a chemical in soils.
Octanol/Water
Partition Coefficient
Kow
The octanol/Vvater partition coefficient is the ratio of the chemical concentration in octanol
divided by the concentration in water. The octanol/water partition coefficient gives insight on
the fate and transport of a chemical since it correlates well with bioconcentration factors in
aquatic organisms and adsorption to soil or sediment.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 3-3. DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL PARAMETERS (continued)
Toxicity
Most of the tabulated information on toxitity is reported as Lethal Concentration 50 (LC50)
values. The LC50 is the concentration of a chemical which is lethal to 50 percent of the test
organisms as a result of periods sufficiently long that acute lethal action has ceased. When
LCSOs are not available, the Lethal Dose 50 (LD50) is reported. The LD50 is the oral dose
that is lethal to 50 percent of the tested organisms. The LD50 is reported for mammals.
Bioconcentration/
Bioaccumulation
Certain chemicals have a tendency to partition from the water column and bioconcentrate in
aquatic organisms. This bioconcentration is usually reported as bioconcentration factor
(BCF), which is the concentration of the chemical in the organism at equilibrium divided by
the concentration in water. On the other hand, bioaccumulation reflects uptake of a
substance by aquatic organisms exposed to the substance through all routes, as would
occur in nature. Both BCFs and BAFs are proportionality constants, relating the
concentration of a substance in aquatic organisms to its concentration in the surrounding
water. BAFs and BCFs are assumed to be equal for most inorganic chemicals. However, a
food chain multiplier (FCM) may be applicable to some metals (2). For organic chemicals
and in the absence of measured BAFs, a FCM can be applied to the BCF to predict the BAF
for a specific trophic level (2). In this report the BCF values are reported as well as BAF
values when available.
POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are industrial
compounds once widely used in a variety of
products, including electrical transformers and
capacitors, carbonless copy paper, plaslicizers in
plastic and rubber products, and hydraulic fluids.
Their high stability contributed to both their
commercial usefulness and their long-term
detrimental environmental and health effects. In
May 1979, EPA banned the use of PCBs except in
totally-enclosed systems. In 1982 these regulations
were revised to restrict uses of PCBs in electrical
equipment PCB transformers posing a risk to food
were banned in 1985. In limited access areas, PCB
transformers and large capacitors can be used until
the equipment is worn out Small PCBs capacitors
can continue to be used.
PCBs are a family of products that can be
mixtures of up to 209 different compounds. It is
estimated that annual production between 1971
and 1977 averaged 40 million pounds. The
Aroclors are the most common PCBs and are
characterized by four digit numbers. The first two
digits indicate that the mixture contains
biphenyls (first two digits =12),
triphenyls (first two digits = 54)
or both (first two digits = 25 or 44); the last two
digits give the weight percent of chlorine in the
mixture (e.g. Aroclor 1242 contains biphenyls with
approximately 42% chlorine).
PCBs differ in their behavior depending on the
chlorine content A higher weight percent of
chlorine makes the compound less soluble in water
and more persistent The physical and chemical
characteristics of PCBs are summarised in Table
3-4 which indicates that PCBs in general, are
relatively insoluble, persistent, sorb strongly to
organic matter, and have a high potential for
bioaccumulation. PCBs are significantly toxic to
aquatic life with observed acute LCSOs ranging
from 0.015 mg/1 to 0.135 mg/1. PCBs have been
linked to deformities in wildlife and are commonly
detected in the tissue and eggs of fish-eating birds
(3,4). PCBs administered orally have been shown
to cause liver tumors in rats and mice (5). Liver
damage is the major toxic effect in animals (6).
Other effects in animals include stomach, thyroid,
kidney damage, and immunosuppressive effects
(7)-
3-6 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
g
|f
•f,S
•^•s
III
$
g
I
g
If
IS?
it
8 —
I
•s
o
•I
i 3
ll
iff
I * •=*•
Ittf
m u. u. u. co u.
fefefefefebfe
no
•>" g
-
I
Cll
O CM OJ CM
8
CM
f
o
its
sljp
ill!
8
O CM CM
o> c?
7 in
SS
»- -5i"'
h»fsss
I
I
I
I
g
1
I
I £
i
•8
i
• I
•li
«j
55
S
.i
1
.S
«
S
3
I
I
a"
|i
8-s
b. a
to
i
ii
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
DIELDRIN
Dieldrin is an organochlorine pesticide that was
widely used from 1950 to 1974 for controlling
insects on cotton, corn, and citrus crops. It was
also used for the control of locusts and mosquitoes,
as a wood preservative, and for termite control for
electrical cables and buildings. All uses were
banned in 1985 expect for termite control and
dipping of nonfood roots and tops. These uses
have been voluntarily canceled by the industry.
Dieldrin is also an oxidation product of the
pesticide aldrin. Aldrin is na longer registered as
general use insecticide.
Table 3-5 summarizes the physical and
chemical characteristics of dieldrin. When released
to soil, dieldrin will persist for periods longer than
7 years (1). Because of its low vapor pressure and
high Koc, dieldrin is probably associated with
paniculate matter in the air (1). Measured Kocs
indicate that dieldrin will be immobile in most
soils (8) suggesting that it wfll not leach into
ground water, and will reach surface water mostly
through agricultural runoff (1). In surface waters, it
will adsorb strongly to sediments, and
bioconcentrate in fish. Dieldrin has moderate to
significant bioconcentration factors (100 to
10,000) in various aquatic species. Hydrolysis is
not an important degradation process for dieldrin
in water (1).
Dieldrin is significantly toxic to aquatic
organisms with LC50s ranging from 0.0005 to
0.018 mg/1. Dieldrin has caused liver carcinoma in
male and female mice and is classified by the
USEPA as a probable human carcinogen (8,9).
Reproductive effects were observed in hamsters
when exposed to high doses of dieldrin resulting in
fetal deaths, congenital defects and retarded
growth (10). Dieldrin has been identified as a
neurotoxin (11). Other observed chronic effects
include damage to liver in rats, dogs, and hamsters
and evidence of suppressed immune systems (12).
Studies on fish eating birds indicate that the
average level of dieldrin that put the animal at risk
is between 5.0 and 9.0 ppm (4). Dieldrin is
commonly found in the brain, tissues, and eggs of
fish eating birds that also have residues of
organochlorines such as DDE and PCBs. From
1971 to 1974,101 dead or dying bald eagles were
collected and analyzed for organochlorines. Four
of them have died from lethal concentrations near
5 ppm of dieldrin in the brain (13).
CHLORDANE
Chlordane is a chlorinated hydrocarbon
originally registered as a pesticide in 1948.
Chlordane had been released into the environment
primarily from its application as an insecticide. It
is estimated that prior to 1983,3.6 million pounds
were used annually in the US, (14). All
commercial use of chlordane has been canceled by
the USEPA since 1988. Technical grade chlordane
is a mixture of at least 50 compounds; the major
constituents are cis- and trans-chlordane,
beptachlor, cis- and trans-nonachlor, and alpha-,
beta- and gamma-chlordane (1,15). The
commercial product is a mixture containing 60 to
75 percent of the pure compound and 25 to 40
percent of related compounds.
The physical/chemical characteristics are
outlined in Table 3-6. Based on the solubility data
and Koc values, chlordane is expected to be
generally immobile or slightly mobile in soils. If
released to soil, chlordane may persist for long
periods of time as indicated by its soil mean
half-life of 33 years. If released to water,
chlordane is not expected to undergo significant
hydrolysis, oxidation or direct photolysis.
Adsorption to sediments is expected to be a major
fate process based on soil adsorption data and the
Koc values (1). In the aquatic environment,
chlordane is very persistent in the adsorbed state.
3-8 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
i
S
I
§
I
I
I
•B
12
.i
o
J
I
X
le
I
IE
S."
i
p
i
F
3
i
I
e-
D
!
&
o"
i
fc
CD
|.|ff|
• o o o ^
p e 9 o o
P O O O O
i§§ §§
• _l —I —I _J
f JC .C £
£.£.
IE 6l
99 0-EE
s
I
lot pr
a for
sijlf
111!
fi
in
**••*
i!l§
n o in o
^
CO
Ul
ill
• e •>
^11
ctl
i
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-9
-------
DRAFT Septerrfcer 30,1993
I
t
I
S
91
i
i
if
i
ll
o
M
I
or FT
Si 2,
8 sf
S &
If
Vs
X X
p r-
I
s
fit
8SS
S
•» •« TB
S 8 S
8
E
ff
1 11
.
a = = = B,
tf) n A O ^3
^01 p ••: e _
e? p 9 p 90
ss ss s°
o o o o o c
Ml*
_i 2. co _j
s
9
!
.i
I
|
[
s
l "8i
> J
L *
j S1
I
1
I
t-2
f um
iili
" «•? T
o o
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Based on the high bioconcentration factor (BCF)
values ranging between 7,240 and 20,000
chlordane is expected to have a high potential for
bioconcentration. The detection of chlordane in
remote atmospheres (Pacific and Atlantic Oceans,
the Arctic) indicates that long range transport
occurs (31).
Various species of heron were collected
nationwide and analyzed for organochlorines in a
1981 study (4). Most of the bird specimens
analyzed in the study were found either dead or
moribund. The highest concentration of heptachlor
epoxide (1.9 ppm), oxychlordane (0.87 ppm), and
trans-nonachlor (1.1 ppm in the brain), were found
in a great blue heron that apparently died from
dieldrin (4). Residues of chlordane components
and metabolites were detected in a high percentage
of dead or dying ospreys collected from the eastern
United States from 1975 to 1985. Cis-chlordane
was detected in 52 percent of the ospreys.
Trans-nonachlor was detected in 45 percent (3).
Chlordane administered orally has been shown to
cause liver carcinomas in mice and rats of both
sexes (32,33). USEPA classifies chlordane as a
probable human carcinogen (32). Chronic
(long-term low dose) chlordane exposure causes
liver disease in rats, mice, and dogs (32). It also
can cause blood disorders such as anemia (34).
DDT AND DDE
DDT is a polychlorinated pesticide first used in
1939. By 1961,1,200 formulations were available
for use on 334 crops. In 1963, DDT production
reached a peak of 180 million pounds (35). DDE is
a metabolic breakdown of DDT. DDT was banned
in 1972 and is no longer produced commercially in
the VS. The Merck Index (36) defines DDT as a
polychlorinated, nondegradable pesticide
indicating the extreme persistence of this pesticide.
Soil and sediment half-lives of up to 31 years have
been reported for DDT and up to 15.6 years for
DDE. The physical and chemical characteristics of
DDT and DDE are summarized in Table 3-7.
The volatilization and sorption in biota tissues
and sediments are the major processes for transfer
of DDT and DDE in the aquatic environment The
worldwide distribution of DDT clearly indicates
that volatilization of DDT from soil and/or aquatic
systems is an important process (30). It is
estimated that 98 percent of the load to Lake
Michigan is attributable to atmospheric deposition
(37). The sorption of DDT and DDE to suspended
sediments and bottom sediment is well established
and documented (30). Bioconcentration of DDT
and DDE is an important process in the aquatic
system, with reported bioconcentration factors
(BCFs) ranging from 23,000 to 363,000 and from
12,000 to 51,000 for DDT and DDE, respectively
(17). DDT and DDE are significantly toxic to
aquatic organisms with reported LCSOs ranging
from 0.001 to 0.002 mg/1 and from 0.0025 to 0.096
mg/1 for DDT and DDE, respectively. DDT is a
confirmed carcinogen with experimental
carcinogenic, tumorigenic, and teratogenic data
(43). DDE has caused liver tumors to mice and is
classified by the USEPA as a probable human
carcinogen. DDT and DDE are still present in the
tissue and eggs of many fish eating birds. A study
of black-crowned night-herons indicated that DDE
residues greater than 1.0 ppm reduced eggshell
thickness, and level greater than 8.0 ppm reduced
the percentage of successful nests and increased
the percentage of cracked eggs (47).
DDE residues at concentrations high enough to
affect reproductive success were observed in
herring gull eggs from the Great Lakes between
1974 and 1978 (48). DDE was detected in 97
percent of the 101 bald eagles specimens collected
nationwide between 1971 and 1974. Only one
death in these birds was attributed to DDE (13).
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
£
2
v
I
I
!
CO
S
i
r«
v
i
i
£
Si
i
'
I
S
IS
fr
f
Ss«*-fe
«lsfi§
g i v JB 8 «
liil
CO CD CD CD CD
8
l§§|i
o ci ea o d
!i*9i
I!!1
Ill*
Hi
TO .£ Z
11"
o I °
*- co m
§
- «* i
. o o -S-
a
f
I
!
I
M
.
II
|S|
til
Hi
1^2
?1
I
|
i
3-12 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
MERCURY
Mercury occurs naturally in coal and mineral
ores. About SxlO"6 percent of the earth's crust is
made of mercury mostly in combination with
sulfur to form more than 25 different minerals. It is
used in battery cells, barometers, thermometers,
switches, fluorescent lamps, mercury arc lamps
producing ultraviolet light, and as a catalyst in the
oxidation of organic compounds. Global releases
of mercury in the environment are both natural and
anthropogenic (caused by human activity). It is
estimated that about 11,000 metric tons of mercury
are released annually to the air, soil, and water
through anthropogenic sources (49). These sources
include combustion of various fuels; mining,
smelting and manufacturing activities; wastewater,
agricultural, animal and food wastes.
Table 3-8 summarizes the chemical and
physical parameters as well as toxicity and
bioconcentration data for mercury. As an
elemental metal it is extremely persistent in all
media. Mercury is readily sorbed to soil organic
matter, clays and some hydrous metal oxides.
Mercury also bioaccumulates with reported
bioconcentration factors in fish tissues in the range
of 1,800 to 85,000. BCF values for inorganic
mercury range from 1,800 to 5,000, while BCFs
for organic mercury are higher (10,000 to 85,000).
Most of the mercury in fish is present in the
methyl form. Mercury displays very high toxicity
to fish and other aquatic organisms as indicated by
the reported LCSOs for organic and inorganic
mercury ranging from 0.0044 to 0.42 mg/1 (50).
Both organic and inorganic forms of mercury
are toxic to developing fetuses. Human fetuses
chronically exposed (low doses over a long period
of time) to organic mercury were born mentally
retarded and exhibited cerebral palsy-like
symptoms (51). Symptoms such as numbness of
the extremities, tremors, spasms, personality and
behavior changes, difficulty in walking, deafness,
blindness, and death have been associated with the
long-term ingestion of mercury contaminated fish
(52).
DIOXINS AND FURANS
Dioxins are formed as unwanted impurities
during the manufacturing of other organic
compounds including herbicides containing 2,4,5
tricbJorophenoxy acids (2,4,5 T), 2,4,5
trichlorophenol, hexachlorophene,
pentachlorophenol and PCBs. Dioxins can be
generated as a by-product of paper and pulp mill
bleaching processes which use chlorine. It can be
released to aquatic systems in various wastewater
streams and sludges generated by these industries
(59). Incineration of municipal and industrial
wastes at too low a tempreature (<800 °C) can also
produce dioxin (60). TCDD (2,3,7,8
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) is the most toxic and
best understood of all the types of dioxin.
Pentachlorodibenzodioxin (1,23,7,8 PeCDD), and
hexaclorodibenzodioxins (HxCDDs) are other type
of dioxins.
Furans (polychlorinated dibenzofurans, or
PCDFs) are a group of 135 halogenated tricyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons with many structural and
toxicity similarities to the dioxins. Furans are also
unwanted trace impurities of PCBs,
hexachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, and
phenoxy herbicides such as 2,4,5 T. Table 3-9
summarizes the physical and chemical
characteristics as well as toxicity and
bioconcentration data of dioxins and furans.
Dioxins and furans are only slightly soluble in
water, strongly sorb to soils and sediments
(reported Kocs from 6.0 to 739 ml/g), persist in
soil and aquatic systems, and have a high potential
for bioaccumulation (BCF from 490 to 13,000)
(17,53,61).
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
3-14 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT Septenr*er30,1993
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-15
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TCDD oral exposure causes increased
incidence of tumors in liver, tongue, hard palate
and lungs in rats (62). USEPA classifies TCDD as
a probable human carcinogen. In combination with
herbicides such as trichlorophenols, dioxin is
classified by the USEPA as a limited evidence
human carcinogen (63). TCDD causes adverse
reproductive effects in a variety of animals
including reduced fertility and spontaneous
abortions in monkeys (64), and birth defects in
mice (65).
Toxicological studies of furans (PCDFs)
indicate that the effects of this group of
compounds are very similar to the dioxins (66).
TOXAPHENE
Toxaphene is a mixture of more than 175
components produced by chlorination of
camphene. Toxaphene is released into the
environment primarily from its application as an
insecticide for the protection of cotton. Registered
and used as a pesticide since 1947, most uses of
toxaphene have been banned since 1982 and
existing stocks were banned in 1990. Long range
atmospheric transport appears to be the major
pathway of toxaphene in the Great Lakes basin
(67).
Toxaphene is very persistent as indicated in
Table 3-10 which shows a soil half-life of 1 to 14
years. Toxaphene will strongly sorb to sediments
and bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms.
Toxaphene in the atmosphere is not expected to
readily degrade by direct photolysis. Half-life of
approximately 4-5 days for reaction of vapor phase
toxaphene has been estimated. ThelowLCSO
values reported in Table 3-10 indicate that
toxaphene is highly toxic to aquatic organisms.
Although toxaphene is relatively less toxic to birds
and mammals, bioaccumulation may result in
exposure to excessive concentrations. Bird kills
due to toxaphene have been reported (68).
The International Agency for Research on
Cancer has concluded that toxaphene is an animal
carcinogen and a suspected human carcinogen.
Toxaphene has produced both positive and
negative results in a series of different
mutageniciry studies.
POLYCYCUC AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS (PAHft)
PAHs are composed of carbon and hydrogen
arranged in the form of two or more fused
aromatic (benzene) rings. PAHs are components of
crude and refined petroleum, and coal. Most PAHs
are formed during incomplete combustion of
organic matter at high temperature. Oil spills are
also a major source of PAHs in the environment
Industrial and domestic sewage often contains high
concentrations of paniculate and soluble PAHs.
Storm runoff contains PAHs from wear and
leaching of asphalt road surfaces, and from wear of
vehicle tires. Most of the PAHs emitted to the
atmosphere are in the paniculate form.
Long-range transport of PAHs has been
demonstrated (72).
The chemical, physical, and biological
properties of PAHs, which are depicted in
Table 3-11, vary with their size and shape. PAHs
are relatively insoluble in water, and the dissolved
portion may undergo rapid photolysis. Solubility
tends to decrease as number of aromatic rings or
molecular weight increases. Naphthalene (2
aromatic rings) has a solubility of about 30 mg/1,
while five-ring PAHs such as, benzo[a]pyrene and
perylene, have solubilities in the range 0.4-4.0
mg/1. Because of their low solubilities and low Log
Kow, PAHs are strongly adsorbed on paniculate
materials. Organic particles tend to adsorb PAHs
more readily than clay panicles (73). Adsorption is
3-16 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-17
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
I
&
i
5
&
v>
Ul
l
8.
ft
Is
[I
it
H
M
I-
I II
II
i
s
o
? 8
I
§
f
8
f
& ID A CO CD
5TPT.
2.=.',
' " S S <
s" 5" a" i:-
li
fffl
o o e o
§§ g
«|*
t-g o js
§-*!
s §
"I!
s
^
? ?
I- ? ?
*l*
5S5
i
I
I
ii
!. o
ii
3-18 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
probably the dominant aquatic transport process.
PAHs are highly persistent in soils as indicated by
their half-lives ranging from 50 days to 1.86 years.
PAHs have a high potential for bioconcentration in
aquatic species. BCFs increase with PAHs
molecular weight PAHs in the molecular weight
range from naphthalene (MW128) to fluoranthene
and pyrene (MW 202) are acutely toxic to aquatic
organisms. Higher molecular weight PAHs are not
acutely toxic to aquatic organisms (74).
PAHs administered by various routes have
been found to be carcinogenic in several animals
species and to have both local and systemic
carcinogenic effects.
HEXACHLOROBENZENE (HCB)
Hexachlorobenzene is produced as a
by-product in the production of tetrachlorethylene,
trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, atrazine,
propazine, simazine, pentachloronitrobenzene, and
mirex (75). HCB has been detected in treated
wastewater from non-ferrous metal manufacturers.
HCB is emitted to the atmosphere in flue gases and
fly ash generated at waste incineration facilities.
Table 3-12 summarizes the physical and
chemical characteristics of HCB, which is a very
persistent environmental chemical due to its
chemical stability and resistance to biodegradation.
In water, HCB significantly partitions from the
water column to sediments and suspended
particles. HCB volatilizes rapidly from the water
column; however the strong adsorption to
sediments results in long period of persistence.
HCB persists in soils for extended periods of time
as indicated by the reported half-life of 1,530 days.
This is due to the strong adsorption to soil and
sediment HCB released to the atmosphere can
exist in both the vapor phase and adsorbed phase
with indication that the vapor phase strongly
dominates (76).
HCB bioconcentrates in different aquatic
species with reported bioconcentration factors
ranging from 7,400 to 35,000. Hexachlorobenzene
causes liver tumors in rats, mice and hamsters
(77). EPA classifies HCB as a probable human
carcinogen (78). Studies on the reproductive
effects of HCB indicates that it is teratogenic in
mice and rats and fetotoxic in rats and quail (77).
An increase in mortality in breast-fed babies
whose mothers have been chronically exposed to
HCB has also been reported (77).
LEAD
Lead is one of the most stable of metals
because of its corrosion resistance to air, water,
and soil. It may enter the atmosphere during its
mining, ore processing, smelting, refining, use,
recycling or disposal. Lead may also enter the
atmosphere from the weathering of soil and
volcanos, but these sources are minor compared
with anthropogenic ones (86). Lead is tightly
bound to most soil with virtually no leaching under
natural conditions. The soil's capacity to remove
lead from solution is correlated with the soil pH,
cation exchange capacity, organic matter and the
available phosphorus level (87). Lead is effectively
removed from the water column to the sediment by
adsorption to organic matter and clay minerals,
precipitation as insoluble salt, and reaction with
hydrous iron and manganese oxide. Under most
circumstances adsorption predominates. Table
3-13 summarizes the physical and chemical
characteristics as well as toxicity and
bioconcentration data of lead.
Much of the lead carried by river water is in the
form of suspended solids. One study of the
distribution of lead between filtrate and solids in
stream water from urban and rural areas reported
the ratio of lead in suspended solids to that in
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-19
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
3-20 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
?
ii
;ffi
: •> js
i!
1
.1
f
£ S
a
£
Ig
'^S
!l* 1
i m -S
:6 I
i CD < °. 5
o o !2.
•*
f
i
1
II
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-21
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
filtrate varied from 4 percent in rural areas to 27
percent in urban areas (88).
When released to the atmosphere, lead will
generally be in dust or adsorbed to paniculate
matter and subject to gravitational settling. General
lead exposure occurs from ambient air especially
in areas with high automotive traffic and sites near
industrial sources.
Lead does not appear to bioconcentrate
significantly in fish but does in some shellfish such
as mussels. Fowl, duck, geese and pigeons are all
susceptible to lead poisoning. They show anorexia
followed by excitement and loss of condition. Egg
production, fertility, and hatchability decrease
(89). Lead is classified as Group 2B carcinogen,
sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to animals
and insufficient evidence of carcinogenicity to
humans. Lead salts have been shown to induce
tumors at high doses in rats. Lead was detected in
Lake Michigan at a mean dissolved level of 0.14
ug/1 and a mean total level of 025 ug/1 (90). The
lead water quality objective in the Great Lakes
ranges from 10 to 25 ug/1.
CADMIUM
Cadmium is used in electroplating of
automotive, aircraft and electronic parts; in marine
equipment and industrial machinery; in the
preparation of cadmium sul fides, cadmium
selenides, and mixtures containing these salts for
use as pigments. Cadmium is a relatively rare
element that is concentrated in zinc-bearing sulfide
ores and, consequently, is found in all
zinc-containing products.
Table 3-14 summarizes the physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics for cadmium.
Cadmium is relatively mobile in the aquatic
environment compared to other heavy metals (91).
It is removed from aqueous media by complexing
with organic materials and subsequently being
adsorbed to the sediments. Although sorption
processes affect cadmium to a lesser extent than
most of the heavy metals pollutants, sorption by
mineral surfaces, hydrous metal oxides, and
organic materials probably removes more
cadmium from solution than does precipitation
(30). No evidence was found that photolysis is an
important mechanism in determining the fate of
cadmium compounds in the aquatic environment
Cadmium is not known to form volatile
compounds in the aquatic environment
Cadmium is accumulated by freshwater
organisms. Reported bioconcentration factors
range from 3,000 to 4,000. The reported LCSOs for
stripped bass and rainbow trout are 1 and 90 ug/1,
respectively. Reported acute LCSOs for 44
freshwater fish and invertebrates ranged from 1 to
28,000 ug/1 (92). Some evidence suggests the
linking of cadmium with cancer of the prostate in
humans (91). Animal studies indicate
subcutaneous injections can cause local sarcomas
in rats, whereas intramuscular injections of
cadmium powder and calcium sulfide can produce
local tumors. The International Agency for
Research on Cancer (LARQ classified cadmium as
a 2A carcinogen, indicating limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans but sufficient evidence
of carcinogenicity to experimental animals.
CHROMIUM
Chromium is used in metal alloys such as
stainless steel; protective coating on metal;
magnetic tapes; and pigments for paints, cement
paper, and rubber. Other uses include organic
chemical synthesis, photochemical processing and
industrial water treatment Sources include
atmospheric emission from the chemical
manufacturing industry and combustion of natural
gas, oil, and coal; incineration of municipal refuse
and sewage sludge, emissions from cooling towers
3-22 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
S
•5
I
e
i
9
i
§
•*
!S
1
i
-iff
ill
M
: T3
s
§
a.
sr
-I
I
if
«s
> o
i
i
I
si?
fl8
£s
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-23
-------
DRAFT Septerrfcer 30,1993
that use chromium compounds as rust inhibitors.
The physical and chemical properties of chromium
are depicted in Table 3-15.
Chromium is a heavy metal that generally
exists in either the trivalent (Or ID) or the
hexavalent (Or VI) oxidation state. Most of the
chromium in surface waters may be present in
paniculate form. Some of the paniculate
chromium would remain suspended and ultimately
be deposited in sediments. In the presence of
reducing agents it is rapidly converted to trivalent
chromium, which is strongly adsorbed to soil and
consequently is less mobile. Hexavalent chromium
is rather soluble and is quite mobile in surface
water and groundwater. Most of the soluble form
in surface water is present as Q (VI).
Chromium is associated with paniculate matter
in the air, and is not expected to exist in gaseous
form. Chromium is removed from air through wet
and dry deposition. The total yearly deposition of
chromium in urban areas may vary from 0.12
ug/mi2 to 3 ug/mi2. In general, urban areas have
higher total deposition than rural areas.
Chromium m, the naturally occurring form,
has low toxicity, while Or (VI) is highly toxic due
to strong oxidation characteristics (93). A variety
of chromate (Cr VI) salts are carcinogenic in rats
and an excess of lung cancer has been observed in
the chromate-producing industry (68). Chromium
does not accumulate in pelagic organisms to any
great extent (17). Chromium is an essential
nutrient and is especially accumulated in benthic
organisms.
Mean concentration of chromium in Lake
Michigan was 0.68 ug/1 for the total and dissolved
form (56).
COPPER
Copper is used in agricultural products,
anti-foul ing paints, catalysts, corrosion inhibitors,
electrolysis and electroplating processes,
plumbing, electronics, fabric and textiles,
flameproofing, fuel additives, glass and ceramics,
cement, food and drugs, metallurgy, printing and
photo copying, pyrotechnics, and wood
preservatives (94). Copper is found in nature as
sulfide, oxide, or carbonate ore at concentrations
ranging from 4 to 55 ppm. The physical, chemical,
and biological characteristics of copper are listed
in Table 3-16.
Copper forms salts and complexes with
valences of +1 (cuprous), and +2 (cupric), and,
very rarely +3. In water it is present as cupric
copper, Cu(n), since cuprous copper is unstable in
aerated water over the pH range of most natural
waters. Although most cupric salts are insoluble in
water, there are several exceptions, including
cupric chloride (Cudz), cupric nitrate
((Cu(NO3)2), and cupric sulfate (CuSO4). Because
these compounds are readily soluble, copper is
among the more mobile heavy metals.
Volatilization of copper compounds is not an
important aquatic fate (30). Copper has a strong
affinity for hydrous iron and manganese oxides,
clays, carbonate minerals, and organic matter.
Copper adsorbs to these materials both in the water
column and in the bed sediments.
As an essential nutrient, copper is accumulated
by plants and animals. BCF factors for freshwater
fish and invertebrates ranges from 200 to 1,000.
On the other hand, higher BCF factors of 2,400
were reported for algae. Acute toxicity values for a
large number of freshwater species range from
16.7 ug/1 to 10,240 ug/1. Toxicity tends to decrease
as hardness, alkalinity, and total organic carbon
increase (92).
3-24 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-25
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
•*!
5
i
I
j?
IS:
II
i!
I ™
ti
s
I-
ill
If
if
-
33
03 CD CD CD
!!
I !!
ii
1
fi
1
r%
«
I
i
f
8
U
E
:l
11
S
!
i
i
r
i
I
i
L
2
6
S
5
1
*1«
£•§ §
•2S5
i!!
if
l
IS
ifllKcSIZ
ill
3-26 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ZINC
Zinc is a naturally occurring element found in
the earth's crust at an average concentration of 123
mg/1. It is used as base alloys for die casting, as a
galvanizing agent, as a component in brass, bronze
alloys, and in wet batteries, in cadmium recovery,
and in cooling towers as an anodic inhibitor. The
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of zinc are presented in Table 3-17.
Zinc generally exists as a salt with a valence of
+2. Zinc is generally insoluble in water and
sorption of the divalent cation by hydrous metal
oxides, clay minerals, and organic materials is
probably the dominant fate in the aquatic
environment Concentrations of zinc in suspended
and bed sediments always exceed concentrations
in ambient waters. Zinc tends to be readily sorbed
at higher pH values. Volatilization of zinc is not an
important process for the determination of its fate.
Zinc is highly toxic to freshwater organisms
with reported LCSOs ranging from 0.066 mg/1 to
0.0093 mg/1. Zinc produces acute toxicity in
freshwater organisms over a range of
concentrations from 90 to 58,000 ug/1 (95). Acute
toxicity is affected by hardness. Chronic toxicity
values range from 47 to 852 ug/1 and appear to be
relatively unaffected by hardness (95). Zinc is an
essential nutrient and is strongly bioconcentrated
even in the absence of abnormally high ambient
concentrations.
Laboratory studies in foals living near lead-zinc
smelters suggest that excessive exposure to zinc
may produce bone changes, joint afflictions, and
lameness. In pigs given zinc at concentrations
greater than 1,000 mg/kg, decreased food intake
and weight were observed. At concentrations
greater than 2,000 mg/kg, death occurred two
weeks after exposure. Severe gastrointestinal
changes and brain damages were observed. High
concentrations of zinc were found in the liver (96).
ARSENIC
Arsenic is a metaloid element that is highly
toxic when ingested or inhaled. It is used as an
alloying additive for metals, especially lead and
copper. Arsenic is found to a small extent in
nature in the elemental form. It occurs mostly in
the form of arsenites of metals or as pyrites. The
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics
of arsenic are presented in Table 3-18.
Arsenic is used for hardening and alloying
(especially lead and copper). It is often used as a
doping agent for transistors. The main use of
arsenic is as an insecticide and pesticide. Arsenic
is severely toxic and accumulates in the body
faster than it can be excreted. Arsenic is generally
mobile in the natural environment, depending on
its chemical form and the surrounding medium.
Because of its general mobility, arsenic tends to
cycle through the environment. Its ultimate fate is
probably the deep ocean. Arsenic is a carcinogen,
is teratogenic, and has adverse reproductive effects
in animals.
CYANIDE
Cyanides are defined as organic or inorganic
compounds which contain the -CN group. <
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is the most common of
the cyanides. HCN is produced on a large scale by
the catalytic oxidation of ammonia-methane
mixture. HCN is soluble in water in all
proportions. Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is highly
volatile, exerting a vapor pressure of 658 mm Hg
at 22 °C In most natural waters, almost all of the
free cyanide in solution is present as HCN, with
the remainder present as CN". Cyanide ion (CN~)
can react with a variety of metals to form insoluble
metal cyanides which accumulate in the sediments.
Hydrogen cyanide is very resistant to photolysis
(98). In Table 3-19, the physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of cyanide are presented.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-27
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
3-28 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
z
1
if
li
I
!i
Its
I £i
_O •. C
IS 3
f
i
ii
lit
i
I
i
•s
Jl
a .
s
at n i
b d !
E
ii
i*
J
Ui
w
if
|
[
i
1
f
L
&
I
-_J
9Z
I
i
III
III
II
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-29
-------
DRAFT September 30,1998
I
i
«
r
!
i
•
i
|
if
i
a
:M 8.
•
f
f
r
m
$
i
s
§
i i
111
f
Jg
3-30 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Cyanides are acutely toxic to freshwater
organisms, causing death at levels of about 50 ug/1
in sensitive species and being fatal to many species
at levels above 200 ug/1. Data on the acute toxicity
of free cyanide ranged from 44 ug/1 to 2,490 ug/1
for a wide variety of freshwater species (92).
Effects such as reduced survival and reduced
reproduction were seen in fish chronically exposed
to free cyanide concentrations of 10 to 50 ug/1.
Hydrogen cyanide is extremely toxic to humans by
all routes. Chronic exposure to low levels of
cyanide salts has been reported to cause
enlargement of the thyroid gland in humans. The
National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) concluded that there was no
evidence of carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, or
teratogenicity for cyanides (99).
In biological systems, hydrogen cyanide is
quickly metabolized or the organism dies. Thus,
there is little potential for bioconcentration and
bioaccumulation of hydrogen cyanide (30). No
information is available to assess the
bioconcentration of metal cyanides which are
generally less toxic than hydrogen cyanide.
DETECTION OF EMERGING PROBLEMS
The Agencies view the designation of LaMP
Pollutants as an ongoing process. It is, therefore,
necessary to collect information on loadings and
ambient concentrations for pollutants that may be
toxic, persistent, and/or bioaccumulative. Two
processes designed to screen for pollutants being
released into the environment will be used to
detect emerging problems:
A) The Agencies will consider the feasibility of
screening sediments, biota, and effluents
within the watershed for bioconcentratable
substances using a new analytical
procedure developed by the USEPA
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory in
Duluth, Minnesota. This procedure is
currently being piloted on fish samples
from Lake Michigan tributaries in the
State of Michigan. When significant
concentrations of a pollutant are detected,
the Agencies will investigate the sources
of release, geographic extent of the
releases, and their potential ecological
effects. The Critical Pollutant Work Group
will consider, based on data collected,
whether additional chemicals should be
listed as LaMP Pollutants and whether
management actions should be
implemented to reduce releases.
B) The Agencies will take advantage of ongoing
processes to evaluate the risks posed by
pollutants in the Lake Michigan
watershed. The Annex 1 list of substances
developed pursuant to the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement is intended to
identify substances that are present or
potentially present within the Great Lakes
System, and are believed to have acute or
chronic toxic effects on aquatic, animal or
human life. The Agencies will use all
available information to determine
whether significant sources are
discharging Annex 1 pollutants into the
Lake Michigan basin. Such sources will
include air emissions inventories, Toxics
Release Inventory (TRT) data prepared
pursuant to Section 313(j) of the
Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act [42 U.S.C. Sec.
11023Q)], source and ambient monitoring
data, and other information.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-31
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE LaMP
POLLUTANT LIST
The Agencies will review and update the LaMP
Pollutant list for Lake Michigan as necessary
based on data generation and new information.
This process will include:
1. Convening the Critical Pollutant Work Group
to review available information regarding:
• Contaminants currently listed as LaMP
Pollutants for which data indicate that
either removal from the list or dropping
to a lower category is warranted.
Reasons could include load reductions,
elimination of association with use
impairments, and/or compliance with all
standards, criteria, or action levels;
• Pollutants listed as LaMP Pollutants or
not previously listed, for which current
information suggests moving up on or
adding to the list Such evidence would
include a lakewide (Critical Pollutant)
or local (Pollutant of Concern)
association with an ecological
impairment, a violation of a numerical
standard (Critical Pollutant), increasing
loads/ ambient concentrations (Pollutant
of Concern), or characteristics
indicating a potential to adversely
impact Lake Michigan (Emerging
Pollutant).
2. Critical Pollutant Work Group
recommendations, based on these reviews, to
the Management Committee concerning
chemicals for listing/delisting or changing
categories. These recommendations and
supporting documentation also will be
presented to the Lake Michigan Forum for
review and comment.
3. Management Committee review of Work
Group recommendations and Forum
comments regarding alterations of the
pollutant list and issuance of a final
recommendation. If the Management
Committee recommends changes to the list,
these recommendations will become final
pending their publication in the Federal
Register, a 45-day public comment period,
revisions to the list based on public
comments received, and publication of the
final, revised list.
Interested groups or citizens may at any time
suggest additional pollutants to be considered for
listing as Critical Pollutants, Pollutants of Concern,
or Emerging Pollutants. These suggestions should
be accompanied by supporting data or
documentation as to why a pollutant should be
added to the list, in order to ensure that the LaMP
stays focused on those chemicals that are having
the greatest actual or potential impacts on the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
Lake Michigan. Suggestions and supporting data
should be sent to:
Gary Kohlhepp
USEPA, Region 5 (WQ-16J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, IL 60604
The Agencies intend the development of the
Lake Michigan LaMP Critical Pollutant list to be
an iterative process, based on actual or potential
impairment of the Lake by a given pollutant
Listing of pollutants will be closely linked to
management activities and the potential for
success in terms of load reduction. Load
reductions to Lake Michigan and restoration of the
integrity of the Lake depends on the ability of the
Agencies to focus on the highest-risk problems.
3-32 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LITERATURE CITED
1. Howard, P.H. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Organic Chemicals, Vol
III, Pesticides. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers Inc.
2. U.S. EPA. 1993. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System and Correction; Proposed Rules.
Federal Register. Vol 58, No. 72. 20802-21047.
3. Weimeyer, S.N., S.K. Schmelimg and A. Anderson. 1987. Environmental Pollutant and Necropsy Data
For Ospreys from the Eastern United States, 1975-1982. Journal of Wildlife Diseases Vol 23(2), pp
279-291.
4. Ohlendorf, H.M., D.M. Swineford, and L.N. Locke. 1981. Organochlorine Residues and Mortality of
Herons. Pesticide Monitoring Journal Vol 14(4), pp 125-135.
5. Notback, D.H. and R.H. Weltman. 1985. Polychlorinated Biphenyls Induction of Hepatocellular
Carcinoma in the Sprague-Hawley Rat. Environmental Health Perspective Vol 20(9), pp 879-883.
6. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1978. IARC monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol 29. Lyon, France: IARC.
7. U.S. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1987. Draft
Toxicological Profile for Selected PCBs.
8. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1982. IARC monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Supplement 4. Lyon, France: IARC
9. U.S. EPA, Office of Emergency and Remediation Response. 1988. Public Health Risk Evaluation
Database (PHRED). Washington D.C
10. Proctor, N.H. and J.P. Hughes. 1978. Chemical Hazards of the Workplace. Philadelphia: Lippincott
Company.
11. Clayton, G.D. and F.E. Clayton, eds. 1981-1982. Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology*. 3rd
revised edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
12. Gosselin, R.E., R.P. Smith, H.C Hodge, and J.E Braddock. 1984. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial
Products. 5th. Edition. Baltimore: The Williams and Wilkins Company.
13. Barbehenn, K.R. and L Reichel. 1981. Organochlorine Concentration in Bald Eagles: Brain/Body
Lipid Relations and Hazard Evaluation. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Vol 8, pp
325-330.
14. Gianessi, L.P. 1986. A National Pesticide Usage Database. Summary of Report submitted to the
Office of Standards and Regulation, USEPA under cooperative agreement CR 811858-01-0 by
Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
15. U.S. Public Health Service. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 1989. Toxicological
Profile for Chlordane. Draft for Public Comment.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-33
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
16. Mabey, W.R., J.H. Smith, R.T. Podoll, H.L. Jonson, T.Mill, T.W. Chu, J. Gales, I.W. Partridge,
H Jaber, and D. Vandenberg. 1982. Aquatic Fate Process Data for Organic Priority Pollutants. SRI
International. EPA 440-4-81-014.
17. Socha, A.C, R. Aucoin, T. Dickie, R.V. Angelow, P.Kauss, and J. Rutherford. 1992. Candidate
Substances List for Bans and Phase-outs. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, PIBS 1921R
18. Monsanto, 1974. PCBs-Aroclors Technical Bulletin O/PL 360A. St Louis, MO.
19. Hansch, C and AJ. Leo. 1985. Log P Data Base. Pomona College, Claremont, California.
20. Marti, EA. and David E. Armstrong. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Lake Michigan Tributaries. Journal
of Great Lakes Research. Vol 16(3), pp 396-405.
21. Swackhammer, D.L. and D.E. Armstrong. 1988. Horizontal and Vertical Distribrution of PCBs in
Southern Lake Michigan Sediments and the Effect of Waukegan Harbor as a Point Source. Journal
of Great Lakes Research 14(3) :277-290.
22. Eisenheich, S J. and Strachan, W.M.G. 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances
to the Great Lakes. A Workshop held at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario,
January 31-February 2,1992.
23. Schmitt, CJ., J.L. Zajicek and P.H. Peterman. 1990. National Contaminant biomonitoring Program:
Resides of Organochlorine Chemicals in U.S. Freshwater Fish, 1976-1984. Archives of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology Vol. 19, pp. 748-781.
25. U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. 1986. Superfund Public Heath Evaluation
Manual. EPA-540/1-86/060 Washington, D.C
26. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Guide to Eating Illinois Sport Fish. Springfield, IL.
27. Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Division of Fish and Wildlife. 1993.1993 Fishing
Regulations. Indianapolis, IN.
28. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1992.1992 Michigan Fishing Guide. Lansing, MI.
t
29. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Division of Health. April 1993. Health
Guide for People Who Eat Sport Fish From Wisconsin Waters. PUBL-IE-019 4/93REV. Madison,
WI.
30. Callahan, M.A., M.W. Slimak, N.W. Gabel. I.P. May, C.F. Fowler, J.R. Freed, P. Jennings, R.L.
Durfee, F.C. Withmore, B. Maestri, W.R. Mabey, B.R. Holt, and C. Gould. 1979. Water-Related
Environmental Fate of129 Priority Pollutants, Vol. 1. Office of Water Planning and Standards, US.
Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-44-/4-79-029a.
31. Atlas E and CS. Giam. 1981. Science Vol 211, pp 163-165.
32. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1989. Chlordane. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C
33. Williams, G.M. and S. Numoto. 1984. Promotion of Mouse Liver Neoplasmas by the Organochlorine
Pesticides Chlordane and Heptachlor in Comparison to Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane.
Carcinogenesis Vol 5: pp 1689-1696.
3-34 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
34. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Research and Development 1984. Health Effects
Assessment for Chlordane. EPA-540/1-86-023. Cincinnati, OH.
35. McEwen, F.L. and G.R. Stephenson. 1979. The Use and Significance of Pesticide in the Environment.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
36. Budavari, ed. 1989. The Merck Index., llth Ed. Rahway, NJ: Merck & Co.
37. Environment Canada, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Health and Welfare Canada. 1991. Toxic
Chemicals in the Great Lakes and Associated Effects, Synopsis. Catalog Number En 37-94/1990E
38. Rao, P.S.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1982. Retention and Transformation of Selected Pesticides and
Phosphorus in Soil-Water Systems: A Critical Review. U.S. EPA 600/S3-82-060.
39. Sanborn J. R. et al. 1977. The Degradation of Selected Pesticides in Soils: A Review of Published
Literature. U.S. EPA 600/9-77-022.
40. Foreman, W.T., and T.F. Bidleman. 1987. Environmental Science Technology 21. pp 869-875.
41. Lyman, WJ., Reehl, W.F., and D.H. Rosenblatt 1982. Handbook of Chemical Property Estimation
Methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
42. USEPA. CLOGP. 1986. PCGEMS Graphical Exposure Modeling System.
43. SAX's Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, 8th Edition. 1992. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
44. Parrish, P.R. et al. 1979. Chronic Toxicity of Chlordane, Trifluralin, and Pentachlorophenol to
Sheephead Minnows, NTIS PB-278 269. pg. 67.
45. National Research Council of Canada. 1974. Chlordane; Its Effects on Canadian Ecosystems and its
Chemistry. NRCC No 14094.
46. Terriere, L.C., U. Kiigermagi, A.R. Gerlach and R.L. Borovicka. 1966. The Persistence of Toxaphene
in Lake Water and Its Uptake by Aquatic Plant and Animals, J. Agr. Food Chem. Vol 14, pp,.66-69.
47. Henny, CJ., L.J. Blus, AJ. Krynitsky, and CM. Bunck. 1984. Current Impact of DDE on
Black-Crowned Night-Herons in the Intermountain West. Journal of Wildlife Management Vol.
48(1), pp 1-13.
48. Weseloh, D.V., P. Mineau, and D J. Hallett. 1979. Organochlorine Contaminants and Trends in
Reproduction in Great Lakes Herring Gulls, 1974-1979. Transactions of North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference. Vol. 44, pp 543-557.
49. U.S. EPA. 1992. Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States, 1970 to 2000. Executive Summary. EPA530-S-92-013.
50. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 1984. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Mercury. Washington, D.C.
51. Marsh, D.0.1987. Dose-Response Relationships in Humans: Methyl Mercury Epidemics in Japan and
Iraq, in The Toxicity ofMetiiyl Mercury. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-35
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
52. U.S. EPA. Office of Emergency and Remedial and Remedial Response. 1981. An Exposure and Risk
Assessment for Mercury. EPA 440/4-85-011. Washington, D.C
53. U.S. EPA. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1985. Drinking Water Criteria Document
for 2^,7,8- Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins. EPA/600/X-84-194-1. Cincinnati, Ohio.
54. U.S. EPA. Office of Research and Development. 1985. Ambient Aquatic Life Water Quality Criteria
for Mercury. PB85-22745. Duluth, Minn.
55. Olson G.F. et al. 1975. Mercury Residues in Fathead Minnows, Pimpehales promelas Rafinesque,
Chronically Exposed to Methyl Mercury in Water. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology, Vol 14 No 2.
56. Rossman, R. 1984. Trace Metal Concentrations in the Offshore Waters of Lakes Erie and Michigan,
Special Report No 108 Ann Arbor: Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
57. Mudroch, A., L. Sarazin and T. Lomas. 1988. Summary of Surface and Background Concentrations of
Selected Elements in the Great Lakes Sediments. J. Great Lakes Res. 14(2): 241-251.
58. Schmitt, CJ. and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1990. National Contaminant Monitoring Program: Concentration
of Arsenic, Cadmium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Selenium, and Zinc in U.S. Freshwater Fish,
1976-1984. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, pp 731-747.
59. U.S. EPA. Office of Water. 1988. US. EPAfPaper Industry Cooperative Dioxin Screening Study.
EPA-440/1-88-025. Washington, D.C.
60. U.S. EPA. Office of Science and Technology Standards and Applied Science Division. 1992. National
Study of Chemical Residues in Fish: Volume II. Washington, D.C.
61 U.S. EPA. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Health Assessment Document for
PolychlorinatedDibenzo-p-dioxins. EPA/600/8-84/014F. Washington, D.C.
62. Kociba, RJ., D.G. Keyes, J.E. Beyer, and R.M. Carreon. 1978. Results of Two-Year Chronic Toxicity
and Oncogenicity Study of 2^3,7,8-TetrachIorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in Rats. Toxicol. Applied
Pharmacology. Vol 46(2), pp 279-303.
63. U.S. EPA. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 1989.23,7,8 TCDD. Washington, D.C
64. U.S. Public Health Service. Oak Ridge National Lab. 1987. Draft Toxicological Profile for 2,3,7,8
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin, Oak Ridge, TN.
65. U.S. EPA. Office of health and Environmental Assessment. 1985. Health Assessment Document for
Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p- dioxins. EPA 600/8-84/014F. Washington, D.C.
66. U.S. EPA. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1986. Review Draft. Health Assessment
Document for Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans. EPA 600/8-86/018 A. Cincinnati, OH.
67. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. 1985. Toxaphene, Status in die Great Lakes. Priority
Pollutant Status Report No 2., November 1985/WIS-SG-85-241.
68. U.S. EPA., 1985. Chemical, Physical, and Biological Properties of Compounds Present at Hazardous
Waste Sites.
3-36 CHAPTER 3
-------
DRAFT Septenr*er30,1993
69. Hazardous Substance Data Bank (HSDB), National Library of Medicines Toxicology Data Network
(TOXNET).
70. Marple, L,, R. Brunck and LThroop. 1986. Water Solubility of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 20, pp 180-182.
71. Schroy, J.M., Hileman F.D., and S.C. Cheng. 1985. Physical/Chemical Properties of 2,3,7,8 TCDD.
Chemosphere Vol 14, pp 877-880.
72. Lunde, G. and A. Bjorseth. 1977. Nature Vol 268, pp 518-519.
73. Herbes, S.E. 1977. Water Resources Vol 11, pp 493-496.
74. Gehrs, C. W. 1978. Energy and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Systems, edited by J.H. Thorp and
J.W. Gibbsons. CONF-771114, NTIS, Springfield, Virginia.
75. U.S. EPA. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1984. Health Assessment Document for
Chorinated Benzenes. 600/8-84-015A. Cincinnati, Ohio.
76. Bedleman T.F. et al, 1986. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 20, pp 1038-1043.
77. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1979. IARC Monographs on me Evaluation of the
Carginogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 20. Lyon, France: IARC.
78. U.S. EP.A. 1984. Health Effects Assessment for Hexachlorobenzene. EPA 540/1/86-017.
79. Bomberger, D.C. et al, 1983. ACS Symposium Series 225, pp 197-214.
80. Mayer, F.L., Jr., P.M. Mehrle, Jr., and W.P. Dwyer. 1977. Toxaphene: Chronic Toxicity to Fathead
Minnows and Channel Catfish. U.S. EPA -600/3-77-069
81. Schwarz, F.P., Wasik, S.P. 1976. Analytical Chemistry, Vol 48, pp 425-428.
82. May, W.E. 1980. Petroleum in the Marine Environment. L. Petrakis and F.T. Weis Editors, pp.
143-192. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C
83. Mackie, P.R., Hardy R., Whittle KJ., Bruce C, McGill A.S. 1980. PolynuclearAromatic
Hydrocarbons: Chemistry and Biological Effects. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 379-394.
84. Ontario Ministry of Environment 1990. The Environmental Toxicology ofPolycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons.
85. Newsted, J.L. and J.P. Giesy Jr. 1987. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. Vol 6, pp 445-461.
86. Howe, H.E. 1984. Kirk-Olhmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition. Volumes 1-26.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
87. Zimdane R.L., Hassett, J J. 1977. Lead in the Environment; Boggess W.R., Editor, National Science
Foundation NSF/RA-770214.
88. U.S. EPA. 1977. Air Quality Criteria for Lead. USEPA-600/8-77-017 89.Clarke, M.L.,etal. 1981.
Vetenary Toxicology. 2nd edition. London: Bailliere Tindall Editor.
LaMP POLLUTANTS 3-37
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
90. Rossman, R. and A.B. James. 1992. Contamination of Green Bay Water with Lead and Cadmium by a
37-m Long; 2-m Draft Research Vessel. The Science of the Total Environment Vol 125, pp 405-415.
91. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and Standards Division. 1980. Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Cadmium. EPA 440/5-80-025. Washington, D.C.
92. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. 1986. Quality Criteria for Water. EPA
440/5-86-001. Washington, D.C.
93. Leo, AJ. 1983. Log P Parameter Database, Ponoma College, Claremont, California.
93. National Research Council of Canada. 1976. Effects of Chromium in the Canadian Environment.
NRCCNol5017.
94. U.S. EPA. 1987. Health Issue Assessment: Copper. EPA 600/8-87/001.
95. Stokes, P.M., T.C Hutchinson, and K. Kraute. 1973. Water Pollution Research Canada, Vol 8, pp
178-201.
95. U.S. EPA. Office of Water Quality and Standard, Criteria and Standards Division. 1980. Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Zinc. EPA 440/5-80-079. Washington, D.C.
96. U.S. EPA. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1984. Health Effects Assessment for Zinc.
ECAO-CIN-H048. Cincinnati, Ohio.
97. Chapman, W.H., H.L. Fisher, and M.W. Pratt. 1968. Concentration Factors of Chemical Elements in
Edible Aquatic Organisms. UCRL-50564. Livermore, CArLawrence Radiation Laboratory.
98. Frank, S .N. and AJ. Bard. 1977. Journal of American Chemical Society, Vol 99(1), pp 1011-1016.
99. National Institute of Occupational Safety and Heath (N1OSH) 1977. Criteria for a Recommended
Standard-Occupational Exposure to Hydrogen Cyanide and Cyanide Salts. Washington, D.C DHEW
Publication No NIOSH-77-I08.
100. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety. Vols I and II. 1971. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co. pg. 115
101. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 68th ed. 1987-1988. B-73. Boca Raton, FL., CRC Press Inc.
102. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1980. Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document: Arsenic.
EPA 440/5-80-021. pg. A-l.
3-38 CHAPTERS
-------
CHAPTER 4 — POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
In order to address toxic pollutants in Lake
Michigan, the USEPA must evaluate the relative
loadings of these pollutants from the various
sources and environmental transport media that
carry these pollutants. This chapter provides a
brief history of pollution controls in the Great
Lakes Basin, with emphasis on the load reductions
achieved under the programs mandated by the
Gean Water Act This chapter also provides
information on the potential sources of the LaMP
Pollutants, and discusses the results of USEPA
efforts to identify sources and estimate loadings of
the pollutants to Lake Michigan.
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Federal and State efforts to control and
eliminate pollution have had a measurable effect
on the sources of toxic pollutants and their relative
load to Lake Michigan. Historically, the most
obvious targets for pollution control have been
point source discharges (industrial and municipal)
to the Lakes and tributaries. The primary
mechanisms for controlling waste water sources
have been limits on discharges through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and pretreatment requirements for
indirect industrial facilities established under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (hereafter,
Clean Water Act or CWA).
Effluent limitations guidelines for over 30
industrial categories, can be credited for limiting
discharges of LaMP Pollutants. Proposed
guidelines for several additional industrial
categories (see Table 4-1) could also result in
significant decreases in LaMP Pollutant loadings.
For example, the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
industry, which is associated with discharges of
dioxin, is heavily concentrated in the Great Lakes
Region. In 1982,260 out of 614 pulp and paper
mills in the U.S. (44 percent), were located within
the eight states surrounding the Great Lakes (2). In
1990,31 plants operating under the SIC codes
2600-2699 (paper and allied products), discharged
to the Lake Michigan basin alone. While the
specific parameters are unknown, most of the
TABLE 4-1. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
CATEGORY
Organic Chemicals, Plastics, and Synthetic Fibers (Renamed Issues)
Pesticide Chemicals (Manufacturing)
Waste Treatment (Phase I)
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing
Metal Products and Machinery
Coastal Oil and Gas Extraction
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
PROPOSAL DATE
Final Notice on 12/1/92
Final Notice on 12/1/92
4/94
8/94
11/94
1/95
10/03
Source: USEPA, 1992 (1).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
industries to be regulated are sources of several of
the LaMP Pollutants.
Water quality-based effluent permit limits are
another form of regulatory control that is being
implemented with increased frequency and can be
credited with limiting loadings of LaMP
Pollutants. The new Great Lakes Water Quality
Guidance proposes water quality criteria protective
of aquatic life, wildlife, and human health in the
Great Lakes basin. Improved detection levels are
making it possible to set permit limits at or near
the levels necessary to ensure that water quality
standards are met
Future reductions in LaMP Pollutants are
expected to result from the promulgation of storm
water permits, particularly, the NPDES General
Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated
With Industrial Activity (3). Industries targeted for
special monitoring requirements in the general
permit include facilities subject to SARA title ID
requirements, primary metal industries, land
disposal units and incinerators, wood treatment
facilities, coal pile runoff, battery reclaimers,
airports, coal-fired steam electric plants, animal
handling/meat packing, and various other facilities
with raw materials storage piles that come into
contact with precipitation. The General Permit
requires the facilities to monitor point source storm
water discharges for several pollutants and to
submit and implement pollution prevention plans.
The issue of storm water and pollution prevention
plans is discussed in further detail later in this
chapter. Future monitoring data may provide a
better indication of whether toxic pollutants in
storm water are entering the Great Lakes in
significant quantities. Further reductions in
loadings to the Great Lakes may result from the
pollution prevention plans. At the very least, the
data collected will allow for a determination of the
effectiveness of BMPs in controlling toxic
pollutants.
Restrictions under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and bans
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
have played a significant role in reducing the
amount of the LaMP Pollutants entering Lake
Michigan. While amounts have been reduced
because of restrictions, they have certainly not
been eliminated since some of the banned
pesticides carry exceptions. For example, although
toxaphene manufacturing and use is prohibited,
certain uses of existing stocks are allowed: cattle
dip for scabies control; and emergency treatment
of cotton, corn, and small grains.
Loadings of pollutants from industrial facilities
have been significantly reduced. Between the years
from 1967 to 1983, six major industrial sectors
(iron/steel, pulp/paper, petroleum foundaries,
electroplaters, and chemical manufacturers)
achieved significant reductions in both loading rate
and effluent concentrations of conventional,
nonconventional, and toxic pollutants (4). In
general, reductions in loading rates ranged from 56
percent for total metals in iron and steel effluents
to 99 percent for phenols in the same industrial
category1. In general, across all categories
evaluated, greater than 70 percent reductions have
already been achieved for most constituents.
Treatment of municipal waste water has
significantly improved. As of 1984, over 99
i Reductions in concentration batter reflect the history of regulatory control of effluent discharges since they do not
incorporate effluent reductions due to facility shutdown or production decreases, discharge to POTWs, or
non-process discharges caused by economic situations, business decisions, or other factors.
4-2
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
percent of the wastes from the sewered population
within the Great Lakes basin on the U.S. side of
the border received at least secondary treatment.
Approximately 79 percent of the sewage received
extra treatment above secondary for phosphorus
control. Fifteen percent of the municipal facilities
provided advanced waste treatment in addition to
phosphorus control. Approximately 8 percent
provided high level nitrogen control (5). With the
construction and expansion of publicly owned
treatment works, the discharge of conventional
pollutants has been greatly reduced and removal of
heavy metals and other toxicants, such as PCBs,
has also occurred. Between 1968 and 1982, the
discharge of oxygen demanding materials
(measured as biochemical oxygen demand) from
municipal facilities was reduced by over 76
percent and suspended solids have been reduced
by over 75 percent (5).
The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments will lead
to reductions of atmospheric deposition of many
toxic pollutants in the near future. Atmospheric
loadings to the Great Lakes are believed to have
peaked in the 1970s and to have declined to 1930
levels by the early 1980s. Through the Title m
Hazardous Air Pollutants Program and the Great
Waters Program, the CAA of 1990 will lead to
reductions in pollutant loadings of 189 pollutants,
many of which are found in the Lake Michigan
watershed. The relative atmospheric contribution
of many LaMP Pollutants will be quantified under
112(m) of the Great Waters Program. The Clean
Air Act and atmospheric contribution to Lake
Michigan are discussed in further detail in the
Atmospheric Deposition section of this chapter.
Data collected through the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) may serve as an indicator for
overall changes in quantities of LaMP Pollutants
released to the environment.
Future reductions in loadings of LaMP
Pollutants will largely depend on the success of the
regulatory programs, on the ability to prioritize
problems, use of pollution prevention techniques,
and of appropriate control and treatment
technologies. Additionally, the proposed Great
Lakes Water Quality Guidance, when
implemented, will reduce loads of LaMP
Pollutants. These regulations contain water quality
criteria for several of the LaMP Pollutants and for
determining "Tier IF criteria for the rest of the UC
critical pollutants.
SOURCES
The sources of pollutants to Lake Michigan can
be traced through various environmental media to
the manufacturing, the application or use, and
disposal of the pollutant or its associated
by-products.
The media that introduce pollutants to the Lake
Michigan system include point source inputs to the
lake or its tributaries, storm water or surface water
flows, ground water inputs and nonpoint sources,
and atmospheric deposition of airborne pollutants.
Pollutants can be introduced into these media from
manufacturing or disposal facilities in the Lake
Michigan basin, while additional inputs, as in the
case of case of airborne pollutants, can come from
outside the basin. Manufacturing processes can be
associated with direct discharges into surface
waters, direct discharges to POTWs which in turn
discharge to surface waters, or airborne emissions
of pollutants. Chemical use, such as pesticide
2 These reductions do not include storm or combined sewer overflows or treatment plant bypass situations.
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
application can introduce a pollutant to surface
water, ground water, soil or air.
A summary of sources and media through
which LaMP Pollutants are introduced into Lake
Michigan is provided. More details on the sources,
quantities, and transfer mechanisms are given later
in this chapter. Table 4-2 describes some of the
major sources of LaMP Pollutants. This
information is intended to provide general
information on the processes and sources, and not
replace site-specific data in determining the actual
sources of these pollutants.
Effluent limitations guidelines pertaining to
direct discharges to waters of the U.S. also provide
an indication of the sources of some of the LaMP
Pollutants. The effluent limitations are based on
either the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT), the Best Practicable Control
Technology currently available (BPT), the Best
Available Technology economically achievable
(BAT), New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS), and Water Quality-Based Effluent
Limitations (WQBELS).
Pollution prevention, otherwise known as
source reduction, is one way that sources and loads
of pollutants to Lake Michigan can be reduced.
Pollution prevention aspects of a Best
Management Plan (BMP) have recently become
required for industries subject to the storm water
regulations. Pollution prevention is the use of
materials, processes, or practices that reduce or
eliminate the creation of pollutants or wastes at the
source. For many industries in the Great Lakes
region, pollution prevention is often the most
cost-effective option to reduce pollution because it
may reduce raw material losses, reduce reliance on
expensive "end of pipe" treatment technologies,
and reduce or simplify disposal practices. Pollution
prevention is discussed in further detail in
Chapter 5.
4-4
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF UMP POLLUTANTS
CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
PCBs: PCBs are widespread and ubiquitous in the Great Lakes environment. PCBs were used in
transformer oils, capacitor dielectrics, carbonless copy papers, heat transfer fluids, hydraulic
lubricants, plasticizers, waxes, and pesticide extenders. PCBs were banned from all products
sold/used in the U.S. since 1979, except in totally enclosed systems such as electrical transformers
and capacitors. PCBs were used in a number of industries, Including steam electric generating plants,
recyclers of oil processing, and recyclers and disposers of transformers, foundries, and waste site
cleanups (6). The Pulp and Papermill industries, the deinking process where bleaching is employed, is
currently the primary process source of PCBs in waste water. Atmospheric deposition and
contaminated sediment inputs are also major pathways for PCBs. Atmospheric contributions of PCBs
to Lake Michigan come from solid waste incineration, Industrial fuel combustion, and electric power
generation.
DMdrin: The original source of dieldrin entering the Great Lakes was as a pesticide used to control
insects, and preserve wood, and control termites in electrical cable and in buildings. All uses of
dieldrin nave been banned or cancelled since 1971 in the U.S., except for termite control, and dipping
of nonfood roots and tops for pest control.
Chlordmnm: Chlordane is a pesticide whose manufacture and use were voluntarily cancelled in 1988.
Present sources of chlordane to Lake Michigan are limited to existing stocks (7). However, chlordane
is still used in some areas to control fire ants and as a termiticide. All other chlordane/heptachlor
products are either voluntarily cancelled, or suspended for failure to meet USEPA data requirements.
DDT: DDT was originally used as a pesticide. All usage of DDT and its metabolites has been
prohibited since 1971 in the U.S. However this pesticide persists in the Great Lakes environment.
DDT is found in sediments, and is subject to evaporation and photooxidation near the surface. DDT is
still used in the tropics for mosquito control and in the pesticide dicofol (<0.1%).
Mercury: Mercury is used in paint, chlor-alkali and electrical equipment, hospitals and dental offices,
and coal burning facilities. Mercury is discharged in waste waters from metal finishing operations,
manufacturers of caustic soda, and wood preserving (used in the fungicides). Mercury containing
products disposed of in municipal waste are also a significant source. Waste incinerators bum
household trash and release volatile mercury and mercury in the combined and/or particulate form.
The source of the mercury content in municipal wastes are identified in Figure 4-1 (8):
RGURE 4-1. RELEASES OF MERCURY IN MSW, 1089
ALL OTHERS (<1%)
/^PIGMENTS (1.4%)
PAINT RESIDUES (1.4%)
THERMOSTATS (1.6%)
THERMOMETERS (2.3%)
LIGHTING (3.8%)
BATTERIES (87.6%)
TOTAL MERCURY RELEASES = 709 TONS
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF LaMP POLLUTANTS (continued)
D/ox/n*: (2,3,7,8-TCDD) The primary sources of dioxins are atmospheric deposition from municipal
and medical waste incineration and a by-product of pulp and paper production processes. The
quantity of baseline or background levels of dioxin in the environment is uncertain because
improvements in analytical methods have resulted in greatly improved dioxin detection ability than
was possible in the past. The future may reveal the presence of dioxin is ubiquitous.
Furant: (2,3,7,8-TCDF) Primary sources are by-products of the pulp and paper production processes
and atmospheric deposition with the original source being emissions from waste incineration and
non-ferrous metal manufacturing, and burning of fossil fuels.
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Toxaphene: Toxaphene is an insecticide used for grain crops and fruits, as a dip to control scabies
on cattle and sheep, and used on cotton in the south. Toxaphene was used in the 1960s and 1970s
and has been prohibited or restricted to certain uses. Toxaphene enters the lakes either through
sewers (rinsing of equipment or disposal by individual users), by runoff, or by air deposition. When
applied to lakes as a piscicide, toxaphene remained present in toxic concentrations, precluding
restocking, for up to nine years (9). Long range atmospheric transport from the southern U.S has
been identified as the major pathway of toxaphene input to the Great Lakes basin. Toxaphene was
never manufactured in the Great Lakes Basin, and data indicate that only small amounts were applied
as pesticides in the basin.
PAH*: Poryaromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are a group of compounds that are ubiquitous and persistent
in the environment PAHs are formed during the incomplete combustion of organic materials and
thermal decomposition of polystyrene, polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride etc. PAHs are found in
automobile exhaust, heating system emissions, and industrial emissions. Major waste water sources
of PAHs include are petroleum refineries and organic chemical manufacturers.
Hexachlorobemene: HCB is produced as a by-product or waste material in the production of
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorine, dimethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate, vinyl chloride, atrazine, propazine, simazine, pentachloronitrobenzene, and
mirex (10,11). It has been detected in treated waste water from non-ferrous metal manufacturing
(12). It is a contaminant in several pesticides including dimethyl tetrachlorophthalate and '
pentachloronitrobenzene (10). HCB is emitted to the atmosphere as a by-product in flue gases and fly
ash generated at waste incineration facilities (13,14,15,16). Nonpoint source dispersal of
hexachlorobenzene results from its presence as a contaminant in pesticides. HCB is a very persistent
environmental chemical due to its chemical stability and resistance to biodegradation. If released to
the atmosphere, HCB will exist primarily in the vapor phase and degradation will be extremely slow
(estimated half-life with hydroxyl radicals is 2 years). If released to water, HCB will significantly
partition from the water column to sediment and suspended matter. Volatilization from the water
column is rapid; however, the strong adsorption to sediment can result in long periods of persistence.
If released to soil, HCB will be strongly adsorbed and not generally susceptible to leaching.
4-6 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF LaMP POLLUTANTS (continued)
Load: Lead is an ubiquitous metal found in industrial waste waters from a number of industries,
including metals manufacturing, finishing, and molding, electroplating, ore mining and dressing,
battery manufacturing, porcelain enameling, and manufacturing of electronics. Estimates of lead
dispersal into the environment indicate that the atmosphere is the major initial recipient (17). Lead
enters water from atmospheric fallout, runoff or waste water. Lead is effectively removed from the
water column to the sediment by adsorption to organic matter and clay minerals, precipitation as
insoluble salt (carbonate, sulfate, or sulfide), and reaction with hydrous iron and manganese oxide. In
the U.S. in 1984, 71.7 percent of the 1.2 million metric tons of lead metal consumed was used for
batteries, 6.5 percent was used as an intermediate for gasoline antiknock additives, 6.4 percent for
pigments and ceramics, 4.0 percent for ammunition, 2.0 percent for solder, 1.0 percent for cable
covering, 0.3 percent for caulking, 2.3 percent for pipe and sheet, 0.18 percent for type metal, 0.6
percent for brass and bronze. 0.4 percent for bearings, and 4.6 percent for miscellaneous uses (17).
Cadmium: Industrial waste water sources of cadmium include: electroplating, iron and steel
manufacturing, nonferrous metals manufacturing and forming, glass manufacturing, ore mining and
dressing, manufacturing of electrical and electronic components, and manufacturing of inorganic
chemicals, particularly cadmium pigments and salts. Cadmium and/or its salts used as stabilizers
and pigments in plastics could enter the environment, a process particularly facilitated by incineration
(18).
Chromium: Industrial waste water sources of chromium include: electroplating, inorganic chemicals
manufacturing, particularly chromium pigments production, lead monoxide, petroleum refining, iron
and steel manufacturing, leather tanning and finishing, porcelain enameling, and metal forming.
Chromium and its compounds are used in metal alloys such as stainless steel; protective coatings on
metal; magnetic tapes; and pigments for paints, cement, paper, rubber, composition floor covering
and other materials. Other uses include organic chemical synthesis, photochemical processing and
industrial water treatment. In medicine, chromium compounds are used in astringents and antiseptics
(19). The two largest sources of chromium emission in the atmosphere are from the chemical
manufacturing industry and combustion of natural gas, oil, and coal. Other sources include wind
transport from road dust, cement producing plants because cement contains chromium, the wearing
down of asbestos brake linings from automobiles or similar sources of wind carried asbestos which
contains chromium, incineration of municipal refuse and sewage sludge, exhaust emission from
automotive catalytic converters, emissions from cooling towers that use chromium compounds'as
rust inhibitors, waste waters from electroplating, leather tanning, textile industries when discharged
into surface waters, and solid wastes from chemical manufacture of chromium compounds or from
improperly disposed of municipal incineration wastes, sediments, and landfills (20). Air emissions
containing chromium result from the following major industries: paper mills, organic and inorganic
petrochemicals, fertilizers, steel and metal foundries, motor vehicles, glass, cement, asbestos
manufacture, textile mills and seam generation power plants (21).
Copper Industrial waste water sources of copper include: electroplating, inorganic chemicals
manufacturing (particularly chlor-alkali chlorine and sodium or potassium hydroxide production),
metals manufacturing and finishing, ore mining and processing, metal molding and casting, and
non-ferrous metals forming. Copper is used in agricultural products (insecticides, fungicides,
herbicides), anti-fouling paints, catalysts, corrosion inhibitors, electrolysis and electroplating
processes, electronics, fabric and textiles, flameproofing, fuel additives, glass, and ceramics. Copper
is also used in cement, food and drugs, metallurgy, nylon, paper products, pigment and dyes,
pollution control catalysts, printing and photo copying, pyrotechnics, wood preservatives, and copper
piping (22).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-2. MAJOR SOURCES OF LaMP POLLUTANTS (continued)
One: Major sources of zinc contributing to atmospheric loadings to the Great Lakes include energy
production, smelting and refining operations, manufacturing processes, and to a lesser extent mining
and commercial applications, zinc casting/plating, and industrial waste waters.
Anenlc: Sources of arsenic contributing to atmospheric loadings to the Great Lakes includes energy
utilities, smelting and refining, commercial applications, and to a lesser extent mining and waste
incineration. Arsenic is used as a catalyst in the manufacture of ethylene oxide and in semiconductor
devices (23,18).
Cyanide: Cyanide has various industrial uses including electroplating, dyes and specialty products,
and extraction of precious metals from ores. Hydrogen cyanide is the most common of cyanides
(HCN). which is produced on a large scale by the catalytic oxidation of ammonia-methane mixture.
4-8 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM SOURCES
Up until the past decade, water pollution
control has focused almost entirely on discharges
from point sources, largely because they were the
largest sources of pollutants. Two principal classes
of point sources are discussed here: industrial and
municipal discharges.
The location of all Major NPDES dischargers
in the Lake Michigan Basin are shown in Figure
4-2. Major NPDES dischargers are defined as:
1. All municipal waste water treatment plants
with discharge greater than 1 million
gallons per day (MGD) or a population
served greater than 10,000
2. All industrial waste water dischargers with a
score greater than or equal to 80 points
according to USEPA's NPDES Permit
Rating System.
Figure 4-3 presents the Major dischargers in
terms of total discharge volume. The dot size of
the location is proportional to the total average
discharge in MGD.
In 1989, the vast majority of flow discharged
directly into Lake Michigan and tributaries
originated from the iron and steel industries. On a
volume basis, these industries were followed by
the paper and allied products industry, chemical
manufacturing industry, and the petroleum refining
industry (see Table 4-3). The types of wastes
discharged from these facilities include waste heat
from cooling operations, toxic organics such as
PCBs and dioxin, toxic metals such as lead and
mercury, oxygen demanding materials (measured
by BOD and COD), ammonia and phosphorus, and
suspended or dissolved solid matter. It is important
to bear in mind that volume of flow and
concentration and toxicity of waste water do not
necessarily show a direct, positive correlation.
The locations of all iron and steel industries
which are NPDES Major dischargers are shown in
Figure 4-4. Virtually all such production in the
basin occurs in northwest Indiana. Iron and steel
industries are identified as those Standard Industry
Classification (SIC) codes 3300-3329. The size of
the location markers on the map is proportional to
the average volume of the discharge in MGD.
The actual estimates of loadings were made by
multiplying the average flow of the waste stream
permitted to discharge a potential LaMP Pollutant
by the concentration, which was obtained either
from the current NPDES permit, the USEPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS) national
database, or from the Guidelines for Categorical
Effluent Limit studies done by industrial category.
The discrepancies between load estimates, for
instance, the relatively high load estimate of PCBs
compared to the relatively low load estimate of
TCDD, is a function of the magnitude of the yearly
average flow and availability of concentration or
NPDES permit limit information. The need for a
comprehensive, systematic monitoring and data
management program is imperative, as the
estimates in Table 4-4 suggest by not only* the lack
of information, but the discrepancies in
information available.
Within the Lake Michigan basin, in 1990 and
1991, few industrial and municipal facilities have
reported data on any of the LaMP Pollutants to
PCS. Municipal and industrial facilities, however,
report data directly to the States. The States are
then only required to report a subset or summary
of the facility data into the PCS data base. This
summary information does not lend itself to
statistical analysis due to these incomplete data
sets. The following information on the LaMP
Pollutants in the Lake Michigan basin came from
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-9
-------
DRAFT Septerrtoer 30,1993
RGURE 4-2. LOCATIONS OF MAJOR NPDES DISCHARGERS IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
4-10 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
FIGURE 4-3. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR MAJOR NPDES DISCHARGERS IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-11
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
FIGURE 4-4. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY NPDES DISCHARGERS IN
THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
4-12 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-3. EFFLUENT FLOWS OF MAJOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN*
STANDARD
INDUSTRIAL
CODE GROUP
1000-1300
2000-2199
2400 - 2599
2600 - 2699
2800 - 2899
2900-2999
3000 - 3099
3300 - 3329
3330 - 3390
3400-3999
INDUSTRY
Extractives
Food and Kindred Products
Lumber, Wood Products
Paper and Allied Products
Chemical Manufacturing
Petroleum Refining
Rubber and Plastics
Iron and Steel Manufacturing
Nonferrous Metals
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
NUMBER OF MAJOR
DISCHARGERS IN BASIN
3
2
2
31
12
1
1
11
2
12
DISCHARGE (MGD)*
22.00
20.00
0.40
257.00
172.00
130.00
0.02
2117.00
0.20
6.00
' Flow volume does not necessarily correlate to the toxicity of a discharge.
the PCS data base (based on PCS retrievals from
12/90 and 6/93).
Five facilities track a suite of pesticides,
including DOT, chlordane, dieldrin, and
toxaphene, while DDE is tracked by one additional
facility. These facilities have been tracking these
parameters since May, 1990, but have reported
either zero discharge values, or have not reported
to PCS at all.
The five facilities tracking the suite of
pesticides, along with two additional facilities,
have also been monitoring hexachlorobenzene.
Again, virtually no data has been reported in PCS.
Benzo(a)pyrene is tracked by three facilities,
but according to PCS, only one steel mill has
reported any monitoring results. Three facilities
monitor 2,3,7,8-tetrachiorodibenzofuran, but only
one facility has a reported observation. Dioxin has
been monitored by 11 facilities in the Lake
Michigan basin from 1989 to 1990. The 82 total
monitoring events reported included only one
discharge value, which was reported by a pulp and
paper mill.
Lead and mercury have been monitored,
limited, and reported in PCS for over five years,
and are tracked by 106 and 57 facilities,
respectively.
Many of the LaMP Pollutants, such as dioxins
and some of the pesticides, have not been detected
in effluents. Regulation of most of the pollutants
on the proposed LaMP Pollutant list is most likely
to be through water quality-based effluent
limitations (WQBELS), or in fewer cases through
BAT. Not all the industries are regulated under
BAT and most were originally regulated under
BCT. The current round of permits are being
written to incorporate toxic and bioaccumulative
pollutant limits based on water quality standards.
Table 4-4 shows statistical loading estimates of
LaMP Pollutants in the Lake Michigan basin. The
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-4. STATISTICAL LOADING ESTIMATES FOR LaMP POLLUTANTS BASED ON DATA IN
USEPA'S PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS (PCS) DATA BASE
POLLUTANT
YEAR
Total Copper
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Total Lead
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Total Mercury
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Total Zinc
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Benzo(a)pyrene
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Polychlonnated Biphenyte
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Hexachlorobenzene
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOXICS LOADINGS BY YEAR IN UNITS OF KILOGRAMS
ILLINOIS
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
Not
Reported
in PCS
3,569
3
2
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0.5
Not
Reported
in PCS
INDIANA
9,153
9,355
8,754
8,397
5,069
3,762
4.663
4,314
£561
1,528
Z095
35
60
47
38
38,028
50,387
69,298
33,670
29,691
Not
Reported
in PCS
Not
Reported
in PCS
Not
Reported
in PCS
MICHIGAN
1,610
2,863
5,034
5,099
4,499
748
1,443
1.353
1.179
599
22
10
6
13
3
20,815
14,215
17,937
13,675
12,941
Not
Reported
in PCS
22
7
21
3
0
Not
Reported
in PCS
WISCONSIN
13,912
10,408
12,567
10,680
12,165
£750
3,061
5,078
3,416
£722
22
18
33
18
10
40,458
35,008
42,684
39,912
37,896
Not
Reported
in PCS
8
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
24,675
22,626
26,355
24,178
21,735
7.260
9,168
10,745
7,156
4,850
2,139
63
99
77
51
102,869
99,614
129,921
87,260
80,530
0
0
0
0
•• 0
29
10
22
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
4-14
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-4. STATISTICAL LOADING ESTIMATES FOR LaMP POLLUTANTS BASED ON DATA IN
USEPA'S PERMIT COMPLIANCE SYSTEMS (PCS) DATA BASE (continued)
POLLUTANT
YEAR
4,4-DDT
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
DioxirvFuran
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
TOXICS LOADINGS BY YEAR IN UNITS OP KILOGRAMS
ILLINOIS
Not
Reported
in PCS
Not
Reported
in PCS
INDIANA
Not
Reported
in PCS
Not
Reported
in PCS
MICHIGAN
Not
Reported
in PCS
0
0
0
0
0
WISCONSIN
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTALS
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
source of the data is entirely from USEPA's PCS.
Monthly monitoring data was averaged over each
of the years of 1988 through 1992 for various
toxics parameters. The difference in loadings for
each year may reflect a change in discharge, but
may also be due to changes in reporting
requirements, changes in NPDES permit limits
and/or changes in analytical methods. The standard
error is, in general, extremely high. This is partly
due to seasonal variation in flows and
concentrations, compounded by inconsistent
reporting of effluent concentration data and errors
in actual reporting of data.
WISCONSIN BASIN-SPECIFIC LOADING
ESTIMATES
The Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources has assembled detailed studies
examining toxic loadings to the major tributaries
entering Lake Michigan (24,25,26,27,28). The
data assembled to complete the loading
calculations came from three primary sources:
• NR101 Industrial Reporting and Fees
Program • industrial facilities which
discharge greater than 10,000 gallons per day
or hold a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (WPDES) permit are
required to file an annual report on pollutants
discharged. Loadings are taken either from
WPDES Discharge Monitoring Reports
(DMRs) (for permitted parameters) or from
single composite samples.
• SARA Title 313 data retrieved from the
Toxic Releases Inventory (TRI) - facilities
manufacturing or using chemicals listed
under Federal Section 313 above threshold
levels must file annual reports which are
entered into the TRI.
• WPDES DMRs - DMRs for permitted
facilities contain flow and concentration data
for chemicals which are limited under the
discharge permit Flows in MGD were taken
as monthly averages. Concentrations were
averaged from daily measurements after first
setting all non-detect data equal to zero.
It should be noted that a report of zero loading
for a given chemical under this analysis indicates
only that no discharges of the particular chemical
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-15
-------
DRAFT Septerrt>er30,1993
were reported. The TRI contains reports of
chemical discharges only over certain threshold
limits and WPDES DMRs contain only reports for
chemical parameters specified under the discharge
permit.
Table 4-5 contains the results of loadings
calculations for the studied river basins for the
Critical Pollutants.
POTWs
Lake Michigan and its tributaries receive
approximately 12 billion gallons per day of
effluent from Publicly-Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs). Twenty to 25 percent of this effluent is
industrial rather than domestic waste. Many of the
plants that serve older cities are connected to
combined sewer systems that transport storm water
as well as sewage treatment plant effluent
Because these systems are of fixed capacity, they
are equipped with locations known as overflows
where, during rain events, a mixture of storm
water, sewage and industrial wastes can be directly
released into the environment prior to receiving
any treatment.
Pollutants normally conveyed to sewage
treatment plants from domestic sources include
fecal coliform and other types of bacteria, BOD,
nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, and
some heavy metals. Municipalities can also
discharge pathogens, residual chlorine, and
chlorination products.
Many POTWs receive process waste water
discharges which may contain hazardous wastes,
the most common of these being corrosives,
solvents, and electroplating rinse waters. The most
frequently reported sources of such wastes were
spills, illegal discharges from industry, and routine
discharges from industry. Some POTWs have
noted discharges of explosive or flammable
materials (such as gasoline, jet fuel, benzene, and
xylene) and many report corrosion of sewer lines
due to acids and hydrogen sulfide gas. Many
POTWs have also experienced one or more
biological treatment upsets (malfunction of the
plant due to high mortality in degradation
TABLE 4-5. RESULTS OF LOADING CALCULATIONS FOR SELECTED WISCONSIN RIVER
BASINS FOR LaMP CRmCAL POLLUTANTS
POLLUTANT
RGBs
Chtordane
DieWrin
DDT and
metabolites
Mercury
Dioxins
Furans
LOADING (KG/YEAR)
LOWER FOX
RIVER
35
0.005
0
0
174
0
0.005
ROOT
RIVER
0
0
0
0
6.4
0
0
SHEBOYGAN
RIVER
0
0
0
0
7.3
0
0
MILWAUKEE
RIVER
0
0
0
0
3.4
0
0
MANTTOWOC
RIVER
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
TOTAL
35
0.005
0
0
315
0
0.005
4-16
CHAPTER 4
-------
organisms) since 1980 as a result of significant
quantities of hazardous materials contained in
plant influent
Although current estimates of releases of the
LaMP Pollutants for the Lake Michigan basin
POTWs are not yet available, the IJC Great Lakes
Water Quality Board (1989) (29) estimated that a
total of 2834 tons/year of hexachlorobenzene,
PAHs and PCBs were released in effluents, to the
atmosphere, or through sludge disposal by POTWs
in the Great Lakes basin (Table 4-6). No estimates
were available for dioxins or furans or the
remaining LaMP Pollutants in the IJC document.
POTWs contribute a significant amount of
waste water to the Great Lakes and Lake
Michigan. Because they receive waste water from
diverse sources including domestic, commercial,
and industrial indirect dischargers (lUs), they
potentially contain a wide array of the LaMP
Pollutants.
The locations of POTW discharges in the Lake
Michigan watershed identified as NPDES majors
are shown in Figure 4-5. The sizes of the location
markers on the map are proportional to the average
discharge volume from each facility in MGD.
For any given POTW and any given LaMP
Pollutant present in the effluent, it may be
impossible to attribute the source of the pollutant
to industrial or domestic sources without doing a
detailed evaluation, yet some trends exist.
Industries with large water requirements, and
especially those with cooling water discharges
such as Pulp and Paper Mills, Steam Electric
Power Plants, Organic Chemicals manufacturers
and Petroleum Refineries, are less likely to
discharge to POTWs. Metal finishing and
electroplating plants, because of their smaller
flows, sometimes discharge to POTWs. In
addition, domestic sewage may also contain high
concentrations of LaMP Pollutants that are present
DRAFT September 30,1993
in household products, such as cleaning products,
pesticides, and insecticides. Because ten of the
LaMP Pollutants are metals characteristic of
discharges from metal finishers and electroplaters,
these industries appear to be the primary source of
LaMP Pollutants discharging to POTWs (though
other significant sources do exist).
Sources within the POTW must not be
excluded. Laboratory wastes and incinerator
scrubber condensate and recycle wastestreams are
potential sources. For example, the wastestreams
of the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District
(WLSSD) were evaluated to determine the sources
of mercury contributing to high effluent
concentrations. The evaluation identified
extremely high concentrations at the point where
scrubber water from a municipal garbage
incinerator was added (30).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-17
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-6. ESTIMATE OF THE TOTAL RELEASES AND ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF LaMP
POLLUTANTS FROM MUNICIPAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS IN THE GREAT
LAKES BASIN
NE = No Estimate; NS = Assumed to be not significant; * Via landfill or land application.
CONTAMINANT
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs (Total)
2,3,7,8-
Tetrachlorodibenzo- p-dioxin (TCDD)
Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Base-Neutral
Extractabte
PAHs
Anthracene
Naphthalene
% OF TOTAL RELEASE EMITTED VIA
Effluent
76
49
43
59
44
51
NS
50
NE
NE
NE
53
Air
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
25
NS
NE
NE
NE
20
Sludge
Disposal*
24
51
57
41
56
49
75
50
NE
NE
28
TOTAL RELEASE
(KG/YR)
23,600
581,000
272,000
527,000
£450
1,180,000
36
272
NE
NE
2,450
Source: Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1989 (29).
4-18
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
RGURE 4-5. AVERAGE FLOWS FOR POTWs IN THE LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-19
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
URBAN RUNOFF
Urban runoff is a type of nonpoint source
pollution which is usually unregulated and diffuse
pollution and, therefore, difficult to monitor at the
point of origin. Since precise monitoring data are
hard to obtain, nonpoint source loadings are very
difficult to quantify. Nonpoint source runoff,
which originates from many different sources and
land use types, contains a wide range of pollutants
from conventionals to toxics, and contributes to
many different types of water quality problems.
Nonpoint source runoff enters surface waters at
intermittent intervals that are associated with the
occurrence of climatological events.
Because so many different land uses (ranging
from low density residential to industrial)
comprise the urban fabric, numerous pollutants are
found in runoff from these areas (see Table 4-7).
Land disturbance and construction activities
associated with urban areas are the most
significant source of sediments in urban storm
water discharges. Other pollutants found in urban
runoff originate from wet and dry atmospheric
deposition, as well as non-atmospheric sources
such as animal waste, leaf litter, landscaping
activities, vehicle leakage, and the general
deterioration of urban surfaces (31). Table 4-8
shows the sources of some of these pollutants.
All of these pollutants contribute to the overall
decline in water quality associated with urban
areas. In general, pollutant loadings from urban
streams are one to two orders of magnitude greater
than those reported in undeveloped (e.g., forested)
watersheds (31).
The most comprehensive assessment of urban
runoff remains USEPA's Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP). The program, completed
in the early 1980s, provided direction and
assistance to 28 different projects located
throughout the United States. The resulting
national database represented a cross-section of
regional climatology, land use types, slopes, and
TABLE 4-7. POLLUTANTS FOUND IN RUNOFF FROM VARIOUS LAND USES IN THE GREAT LAKES
I LAND USE
General Agriculture
Cropland
Improved Pasture
Forested/Wooded
Idte^erennial
General Urban
Developing Urban
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
SUSPENDED
SEDIMENT
(KQ/HA-YR)
5-8000
30-7500
50-90
2-900
9-900
300-2500
10,000
900-4000
75-1000
750-2000
TOTAL NfTROGEN
(KQ/HA-YR)
0.6-75
6-60
5-15
1-8
0.6-7
8-10
90
6-9
3-12
3-13
TOTAL
PHOSPHORUS
(KQ/HA-YR)
0.1-9
0.3-7
0.1-0.5
0.03-0.7
0.03-0.7
0.5-4
10
0.6-1
0.09-0.9
0.9-6
LEAD
(KQMA-YR)
0.003-0.09
0.006-0.007
0.005-0.002
0.01-0.05
0.01-0.05
0.2-0.6
3-7
0.08
0.3-1
No estimate
Source: Novotny and Chesters, 19B1 (32).
4-20
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 4-8. LaMP POLLUTANTS AND SOURCES IN URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTANT
PCBs
Dieldrin
Chlordane
Lead
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Cyanide
Sediment and Other
Parttculates
SOURCE (MAJOR CATEGORY/MINOR CATEGORY)
Highway Runoff: PCS catalyst in synthetic tires.
Industrial Use: electrical, insulation.
Pesticide Use: insecticide.
Industrial Use: wood processing.
Pesticide Use: termite control.
Highway Runoff: auto exhaust, tire wear (lead oxide filler), lubricating oil and
grease, bearing wear.
Automobile Use: gasoline, batteries.
Industrial Use: paint.
Highway Runoff: tire wear (filler material), insecticide application.
Highway Runoff: metal plating, bearing and bushing wear, moving engine parts,
brake lining wear, fungicides and insecticides applied by maintenance operations.
Automobile Use: Metal corrosion.
Highway Runoff. -tire wear (filler material), motor oil (stabilizing additive), grease.
Automobile Use: metal corrosion, tires, road salt
Pesticide Use: wood preservative.
Industrial Use: paint, metal corrosion.
Highway Runoff: metal plating, moving engine parts, brake lining wear.
Highway Runoff: anticake compounds (ferric ferrocyanide, prussian blue or
sodium ferrocyanide, yellow prussiate of soda) used as deep deicing salt
granular.
Highway Runoff: pavement wear, vehicles, atmosphere, highway maintenance.
Soil Erosion: land disturbance.
Streambank Erosion: land disturbance.
Industrial Use: atmospheric deposition of aromatic hydrocarbons, metals, and
other chemicals.
Sources: USEPA, 1990 03), Kobhger, 1984 034).
soil conditions, and thereby provided a basis for
identifying patterns of similarities or differences
and testing their significance. Consistent with
other urban runoff studies, NURP showed that the
concentrations of pollutants in urban runoff vary
considerable from site to site. Concentrations at
individual sites also varied through the course of a
storm event and between events. However,
representative pollutant concentrations were
developed (using event mean concentrations) from
statistical analyses of the extensive data set
Urban runoff is primarily due to changes in the
natural hydrology of an area, resulting from an
increase in impervious area. Impervious surfaces
decrease the infiltration capacity of the ground,
resulting in increased volumes of runoff and
decreased time needed for runoff to reach the
stream. This can cause a host of problems
including stream bank erosion, bottom scouring,
and the degradation of aquatic ecosystems. Table
4-9 provides examples of urban Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control and mitigate urban
runoff.
Because urban runoff is diffuse, variable from
site-to-site, and variable throughout the course of a
storm event, it is very difficult to quantify the
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-21
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-9. SELECTED EXAMPLES OF URBAN BMPs
BMP
Comprehensive
Site Planning
Buffer Zones
Detention Basins
Artificial Wetlands
Infiltration
Practices
DEFINITION
Use of site planning techniques that will minimize
the environmental impacts of development These
techniques include identifying and preserving
sensitive areas (e.g., wetlands), enforcing minimum
tree cover requirements, conducting phased
development, minimizing the amount of disturbed
area, and cluster development
Vegetated areas (e.g., grassed, forested, or native
riparian vegetation) of varying widths left around
sensitive water resources.
Basins (can be wet or dry) that capture and hold
storm water runoff for a certain period of time so
that it can be released in a controlled fashion,
enabling pollutants and sediments to settle.
Created or constructed wetlands that treat storm
water runoff through filtering.
Infiltration devices work by slowing or storing storm
water runoff so that it permeates the soil to remove
pollutante and recharge ground water. Devices
include infiltration basins, trenches, leaching
facilities, dry wells, leaching catch basins, and
infiltration islands.
PURPOSE
Erosion and sediment control; water
quality improvement
Erosion and sediment control; water
quality improvement
Water quality control by enabling
pollutant removal (including sediments)
through settling and vegetative uptake;
detention of runoff in basin could
increase opportunity for soluble
materials to be leached to ground water.
Water quality control by enabling
pollutant removal (including sediments)
through settling and vegetative uptake.
Water quality improvement through
filtering effect; the process of infiltration
could increase opportunity for soluble
materials to be leached to ground water.
Source: Phillips, 1992 (35) and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1992 (31)
nature and extent of these pollution sources.
Typically, it is necessary to do extensive
monitoring and modeling to understand these
pollution sources. Very few comprehensive studies
of this son have been done in the Great Lakes.
Therefore, to better characterize the origin of these
pollutants, an urban targeting manual is being
prepared by USEPA Region 5 that will set forth
procedures to determine the greatest generators of
nonpoint source runoff within specific urban areas.
This project will provide guidance for selecting
appropriate BMPs for a particular area.
4-22
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT Septerr*er30,1993
AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
Agricultural runoff is frequently one of the
most significant forms of pollution to affect
watersheds. Since so much of the Lake Michigan
basin is agricultural land, agricultural runoff is one
of the more significant problems affecting the
Lake. Many pollutants originate from agricultural
sources, including paniculate-bound or soluble
nutrients (especially nitrogen and phosphorus),
sediments, oxygen-demanding substances, and
various chemicals, especially pesticides. These
pollutants are mostly derived from the use of
chemical or organic fertilizers in a dry or liquid
form, manure and other wastes associated with
animal production facilities, tillage practices that
lead to sediment erosion, improper irrigation
practices, and pesticide use. The relative
contribution of pollutants from these agricultural
sources varies tremendously on a site-to-site basis,
but nutrients and sediment are typically the most
common problem. Many of the pollution problems
associated with agriculture (e.g., high nitrogen
loadings) can be averted with the use of proper
farming and nutrient management techniques and
the effective implementation of BMPs.
Traditionally, BMPs have focused on reducing
soil loss from farm fields. Table 4-10 shows some
examples of typical BMPs. Since nutrients and
other pollutants often are adsorbed onto soil
particles, decreasing soil loss is frequently
accompanied by a reduction in nutrient and other
pollutant loadings. Thus, pollutant concentrations
in receiving waters can be reduced by decreasing
the carrier mass, or controlling the amount of soil
lost through erosion. Recent studies indicate,
however, that reducing soil erosion does not
necessarily lead to attainment of nutrient loading
reduction objectives. In fact, some BMPs that
reduce flow velocities primarily trap coarser
sediments, allowing finer sediments, to which
sediment-bound chemicals are preferentially
adsorbed, to escape. Also, most common erosion
control BMPs do little to control pollutants that
dissolve in surface or subsurface flow, and can
sometimes exacerbate the leaching potential of
these soluble chemicals. Studies by Dillaha (1988)
(36) showed that, while many BMPs are effective
in preventing soil loss, only nutrient and pesticide
management planning has a high likelihood of
reducing chemical losses to surface and ground
water. While the majority of existing BMPs were
found to be highly effective in controlling
sediment losses, very few were considered equally
effective in reducing pollutant loadings.
Because so many factors affect the potential
effectiveness of BMPs at a site (e.g., soil
characteristics, topography, land use, and weather),
it is very difficult to assess the cost-effectiveness
of BMPs, although such information is obviously
useful to fanners trying to efficiently manage their
land. Studies are beginning to collect this type of
information, but to date the results have been
highly variable. Reduction in chemical use through
management planning is the best way to reduce
loadings in an efficient manner. Management
planning involves activities such as integrated pest
management practices, better sprayer calibration to
reduce drift and the use of extra chemicals, to make
up for missed targets, and anti-backflow devices.
An Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant Program study (37)
examined the impacts of farming practices on
streams, and the cost-effectiveness of nonpoint
source abatement efforts in selected reaches of
Lake Michigan tributaries in southwestern
Michigan. The results suggest that targeted
management practices can greatly improve water
quality in a cost-effective way. Targeting is
especially important to determine the most
effective BMPs for certain conditions. For
example, erosion and sediment controls were
found to be inappropriate BMPs for areas where
soluble pesticides are the main problem.
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-23
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-10. SELECTED EXAMPLES OF AGRICULTURAL BMPs
BMP
DERNmON
PURPOSE
Conservation
Cover
The practice of establishing and maintaining a
perennial vegetative cover to protect soil and water
resources on land retired from agricultural
productioa
Erosion and sediment control.
Conservation
Tillage
Any tillage or planting system that maintains at
least 30 percent of the soil surface covered by
residue after planning to reduce soil erosion by
water; or, where soil erosion by wind is the primary
concern, maintains at least 1,000 pounds of flat,
small-grain residue equivalent on the surface during
the critical erosion period.
Erosion and sediment control.
Contour Farming
Farming sloping land in such a way that preparing
land, planting, and cultivating are done on the
contour. This includes following established grades
of terraces or diversions.
Erosion and sediment control.
Diversions
Channels constructed across the slope with a
supporting ridge on the lower side. Used to collect
runoff and move it away from the slope.
Erosion and sediment control.
Filter Strip
A strip or area of vegetation that is useful in
removing sediment, organic matter, and other
pollutants from runoff and waste water.
Erosion and sediment control; water
quality improvement through filtering
effect
Grassed
Waterway
A natural or constructed channel that is shaped or
graded to required dimensions and established
suitable vegetation for the stable conveyance of
runoff.
Erosion and sediment control; water
quality improvement through filtering
effect
Sediment Basins
A basin designed and constructed to collect and
store runoff and affiliated sediments and debris.
Sediment control; could improve surface
water quality by retaining sediments,
however, detention of runoff in basin
could increase opportunity for soluble
materials to be leached to ground water.
Nutrient
Management
Procedure to reduce the application of nutrients to
the land, with the ultimate goal of leaving very few
or no nutrients in the soil at harvest time. Considers
all nutrient sources, crop residues, and various
fertilizers. Nutrient management plans are
developed that specify the extent of nutrients to be
applied, the form of the nutrients, and the
application time and method.
Surface and ground water quality.
Pesticide
Management
Procedure to reduce the amount of pesticides used
on crops and to foster the effective and safe use of
pesticides without causing degradation to the
environment. A central aspect of pesticide
management is Integrated Pest Management
(IPM), such as applying pesticides efficiently and at
times when runoff losses are unliKery.
Surface and ground water quality.
Source: USEPA, 1993 (38) and Chesapeake Bay Program, 1991 (39).
4-24
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT Septerrtoer30,1993
Clean Sweep Activities (40)
To partially address the agricultural runoff
problem of canceled or suspended pesticides
adversely impacting the Lake Michigan basin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin have
conducted "clean sweep" programs to dispose of
privately held pesticide stocks (see Figure 4-6).
These sweeps have uncovered large quantities of
canceled pesticides, including those on the list of
LaMP Pollutants. From 1988 through 1992, more
than 380,000 pounds of pesticides (over 25 percent
of which were canceled or suspended) were
collected in the four Great Lakes States. In
addition to collecting pesticides, clean sweep
programs also provided educational information on
the proper use and disposal of pesticides and on
pollution prevention aspects of pesticide usage.
This information is important in building a strong
base for nonpoint source protection.
Wisconsin conducted a pilot program in
November, 1990, which included two counties in
the Lake Michigan basin: Door and Portage
counties. The Door County sweep netted 10,000
Ibs. of pesticides; 24,000 Ibs. were collected in
Portage county. One person alone brought in 2,000
Ibs. of DDT. Other pesticides recovered include
dieldrin; 2,4, D; captan; malathion, and lead
arsenate. Based on these results, Wisconsin
estimates that a total of 4 million Ibs. of surplus
pesticides exist on the State's 82,000 farms.
During 1990-92,132,900 Ibs. of pesticides were
collected. Fourteen clean sweeps are planned in
1993, including 3 in the Lake Michigan Basin:
Racine, Outagamie and Sheboygan counties.
Michigan has recovered 127,000 Ibs. of
pesticides from 1988-92 with an average amount
per participant of 150 Ibs. Michigan will now
focus on counties in the Lake Erie and Huron
Basins and use its $30,000 FIFRA grant to conduct
a clean sweep project in the Saginaw Bay Area of
Concern.
Indiana's clean sweep programs netted 16,700
Ibs. during the years 1990-92. Future plans include
completing the Lake Michigan project in LaPorte
County and adding projects in Lake, DeKalb,
Porter, St. Joseph, Steuben, and Whitley counties.
Clean sweep programs in Illinois from 1990-91
recovered 20,000 Ibs. and averaged 120 Ibs. of
pesticides. Illinois plans to conduct more clean
sweeps downstate because of the higher number of
farms than in the urbanized northern part of the
State.
LOADING ESTIMATES
Identifying sources of urban and agricultural
runoff of LaMP Pollutants and quantifying the
loading rates from such diffuse sources presents a
major technical challenge. Theoretical runoff
loadings estimates could be calculated by
subtracting the point source loadings from the
tributary loadings and any loadings from
contaminated sediments. In practice, these
loadings estimates are difficult to obtain. Tributary
loading data is sparse, especially for PAHs and
organochJorine contaminants. In addition, the data
quality from STORET may not be adequate, given
the large uncertainty and error associated with the
data.
Other point source data such as PCS and TRI also
contain much uncertainty.
Most runoff loading estimates are developed
using computer models. These modeling efforts
can range from very elaborate models having
multiple inputs and taking many years to develop,
but capable of assessing an entire watershed, to
more simple, microcomputer-based models that
are best used for site-specific applications. It is
important to recognize that models are not good
substitutes for good field sampling programs, but
in instances where data are sparse or unavailable,
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-25
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
FIGURE 44. LAKE MICHIGAN LAKE WIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1992-93 CLEAN SWEEPS ACTIVITIES
COUNTYWIDE PESTICIDE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
Completed 1992
Planned 1993
USEPA Region 5. Agricultural Sweeps: Waste Pesticide Removals 1988-199Z
4-26 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
models can be used to characterize the nature and
extent of nonpoint source loadings.
There are many different types of models that
can be used to estimate runoff loadings. Some are
designed for very small scale applications and a
particular land use (e.g., to estimate the
effectiveness of a certain BMP applied to a farm
field), while other more complex models can
account for multiple land uses and conditions. It is
well beyond the scope of the LaMP to describe all
of the different types of models available, although
such an assessment should be completed before a
model is selected for a particular application.
Regardless of the model used, the success or
failure of any model is dependent on the data that
are used to support the model. Perhaps the most
important aspect of modeling is to ensure that high
quality input parameters are used, because model
outputs are only as good as the inputs. All models
that calculate runoff loadings require different
input parameters ranging from land use
information to climatic data. The most common
types of information needed for this modeling and
potential sources of that information are arrayed in
Table 4-11.
Given an effective model design and high
quality input data, computer models, integrated
with a geographic information system (CIS), can
be a very effective too! for runoff assessment and
program targeting. Although modeling efforts for
Lake Michigan have been limited to date, other
watersheds are using models with great success.
One of the premiere modeling efforts is occurring
in the Chesapeake Bay basin, as two
comprehensive models (Watershed Model and the
Three-Dimensional Mainstem Bay Model) work
together to identify the impacts of Bay tributaries
on overall Bay water quality and to assess the
efficacy of nonpoint runoff control measures. The
Watershed Model is also being used to target
subbasins for priority nonpoint source control.
Precise loading estimates of urban and
agricultural runoff are not readily available.
Through interagency efforts, USEPA is increasing
its capacity to measure and control these
pollutants. USEPA's NURP demonstrated that
site-specificity and natural hydrology are
important factors affecting runoff composition.
USEPA has targeted agricultural runoff through
BMP guidance and dean sweep programs. A
number of other activities related to reducing
agricultural runoff are ongoing. These include the
Farmstead Assessment Program, integrated pest
management research and outreach, and the use of
label changes requiring lower application rates and
set-back zones from surface waters. To estimate
runoff of LaMP Pollutants, USEPA is developing
a mass balance model for Lake Michigan (see
Action Agenda, Chapter 5 for more details).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-27
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 4-11. INPUT DATA SOURCES FOR WATERSHED SCREENING MODELS
INPUT DATA
SOURCES USED
Land Use Parameter*
Land Use Distribution
Runoff Coefficients
Drainage Areas
Soil Types
Percent I mpervious Area
National Resources Inventory (USDA)
Soil Interpretations Records (SCS-SOi-5 data) File (USDA)
Agricultural Census
USGS Land Use/Land Cover Data Files
Conservation Tillage Information Center (CTIC) Data Files and Informal
State and Local Geographic Information Systems (QIS)
Local Maps and Zoning Information
Published Literature
Watershed Weather and Initial Condition*
Rainfall Data
Temperature
Initial Conditions
NCAA Meteorological Data
Local Weather Stations
Local Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Files
Published Literature -
Watershed Response Parameter*
Watershed Recession Coefficients
Ground Water Seepage Coefficients
Transport Delivery Ratio
USGS Row Files
Natural Resources Inventory
Soil Interpretations Records (SCS-SOI-5) File (USDA)
USGS Land Use/Land Cover Data Files
Published Literature
Local Maps
Hydrdogle Monthly Parameter*
Evapotranspiration Cover
Average Hours of Sunlight
Rainfall Erosivtty
Plant Growing Season
USGS Land UseA-and Cover Data Files
NCAA Meteorological Data
Local Weather Stations
Site Specific Information
Local and Regional Publications
Published Default Values
Poffutont Parameters
Unit Loading Rates
Point Sources
Published Literature (e.g., Nationwide Urban Runoff Program)
EPA Computer Data Bases (e.g., PCS, IFD, TRI)
Local Publications
Local Inventories and Monitoring Data
Source: USEPA, 1992 (41); Doragian etal., 1990 (42).
4-28
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
Overview
Air deposition is believed to be a major
pathway for some pollutants entering the Lake
Michigan system, and to the Great Lakes system as
a whole. Trace substances in the atmosphere exist
in the vapor phase, adsorbed to particles and
associated with water droplets or ice particles.
Paniculate and gaseous forms of these substances
are removed from the atmosphere through dry
deposition of particles and direct gas exchange.
Gases and particles are also scavenged by water
and ice particles, both within clouds and below
clouds (43).
Within the Lake Michigan basin, many
urban/industrial centers provide sources of
airborne pollutants. The combustion of fossil fuels
in residential, industrial and transportation
activities, as well as manufacturing processes such
as steel and cement making, are principal sources.
At least half of the time, prevailing winds give rise
to greater than 80 km long trajectories over the
Lake for air masses moving over the Chicago,
Illinois and Gary, Indiana areas (44). Air
deposition can be characterized as both a point and
nonpoint source. Air emissions from stacks or
stationary sources are considered point sources
while area or mobile sources are nonpoint sources.
The rest of the section addresses primarily
nonpoint sources of atmospheric deposition.
According to information compiled in response
to the 1990 dean Air Act amendments,
atmospheric deposition of many toxic pollutants
has declined in recent years and continues to
decline. Atmospheric loadings to the Great Lakes
are believed to have peaked around 1970 and
declined to 1930 levels by the early 1980s. Recent
atmospheric loadings of PCBs, DDT,
hexachlorobenzene, and toxaphene to peat bogs in
the U.S. and Canada are lower than levels recorded
for the 1960s and 1970s. Data from Ontario
suggest that atmospheric concentrations of PCBs
and pesticides declined between 1989 and 1990.
Some researchers have suggested that the
atmosphere currently serves as a sink for PCBs
recycling between water and the atmosphere. New
inputs of DDT and other organochlorines may be
transported from Mexico and Central America,
where such pesticides are still being manufactured
and used (45),
Atmospheric sources of lead have been found
to be 50 percent anthropogenic and 50 percent
natural inputs. Statewide estimates for mercury
emissions in Michigan include over 5 tons from
fuel combustion (including 4 tons from coal
burning utilities), 3.5 tons from incineration
(including 2.5 tons from municipal waste
incinerators) and over 8 tons from consumer
products. Other States in the region are believed to
have similar emission levels (46).
Mechanisms of Deposition
Contaminants enter the atmosphere in a variety
of ways. Most organic chemicals are volatized and
enter the atmosphere in a vapor stage. Depending
on their physical characteristics, they may'
condense and form aerosols, may agglomerate
onto other paniculate matter in the atmosphere or
may remain in the vapor phase. Heavy metals
primarily result from coal combustion, primary
metals processing and incineration. Although
metals may be vaporized by these processes, they
most typically form paniculate matter as metal
sulfates, or nitrates. Paniculate matter becomes
suspended in the fluid stream of an exhaust plume
and then becomes suspended in the atmosphere.
Particles can be borne by the wind for long
distances. Particles have a settling velocity that
determines the rate at which they drop out of the
atmosphere. Large particles drop out quickly and
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-29
-------
DRAFT September 30, 1993
small particles slowly. Over land, particles drop
out of the atmosphere and some are resuspended in
the atmosphere. Over water, it is assumed that
there is no resuspension. This process of particles
dropping out due to settling is the basis of dry
deposition.
Wet deposition is a much more complex
process. Wet deposition includes a variety of
mechanisms that increase the removal rate of
contaminants from the atmosphere. Rainfall and
snowfall can remove gaseous contaminants that
would otherwise remain in the atmosphere, they
also increase the removal rate of paniculate matter.
A number of recent research efforts (43,47,48,49)
have dramatically improved estimation methods
for modeling wet deposition.
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network (IADN) measures wet deposition and
rainfall, as well as any airborne paniculate
concentrations at 5 sites (3 in the US. and 2 in
Canada). The enhanced procedures for estimating
wet and dry deposition and the IADN data as well
as other deposition studies have led to recent
revisions in the estimates of loadings into the Great
Lakes.
GASEOUS EXCHANGE
Gaseous contaminants in the atmosphere
establish an equilibrium with contaminants in lake
water. This is a dynamic equilibrium and under
differing temperature, concentration and pressure
regimes, the lake can be either a source of or a sink
for air contaminants. Lake models contain
algorithms for estimating this transfer between
media. These models are essentially based on
Henry's Law Constants for the particular gaseous
contaminants. Organic contaminants can also have
an equilibrium between vapor and aerosol phases.
This equilibrium can shift as contaminants are
deposited into the lake.
LaMP POLLUTANTS
The Lake Michigan LaMP Critical Pollutant
Work Group has identified three categories of
LaMP Pollutants that have been prioritized for
action in lake cleanup. Some of these pollutants
can be traced to ongoing industrial process or other
anthropogenic activities. DDT and PCBs are no
longer entering the environment in large amounts.
Although these chloro-organics are no longer
produced (with the exception of the pesticide
dicofol which contains minute amounts of DDT),
they are extremely persistent Explanations of
continued detection of these compounds in the
atmosphere include long range transport from
Mexico and beyond, low level persistence in soils
and dust, and desorbtion from lakes and streams.
(50)
Air pollution sources are defined as stationary,
mobile, and area. Stationary sources are classified
as large industrial, commercial, or institutional
facilities that emit significant amounts of
pollutants and are independently inventoried.
Mobile sources include automobiles, trucks and
buses as well as aircraft, boats, railroads, and
off-road equipment. Area sources are generally
small sources that are considered as a group, these
can include residential combustion, forest fires,
and smaller industrial combustors that are not
included in the point source inventory (see Table
4-12). Pollutants are tied to the sources through
inventories or through monitoring efforts.
CAA AND LaMP POLLUTANTS
The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990 contains sections that will have direct
impacts on Lake Michigan and LaMP Pollutant
loading. These are the Title III - Hazardous Air
Pollutants Program and the Great Waters Program.
Title m represents the first comprehensive
national effort to control air toxicants. This
4-30
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-12. AREA SOURCE CATEGORIES AND POSSIBLE POLLUTANTS
SOURCE CATEGORY
Residential Heating
Waste Oil Combustion
Cooling Towers
POSSIBLE POLLUTANTS
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium,
Dioxins, Furans, Lead, Mercury, PAHs
Dioxins, Furans, Lead, Mercury, PAHs,
PCBs
Chromium
program lists 189 pollutants for which major
sources will need to employ Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) to control. These
standards are currently being developed.
The Great Waters Program is also a
Congressional mandate to protect the nation's
waters from air pollutants. Section 112 (m) of the
1990 CAAA requires the USEPA and NOAA to
estimate the importance of atmospheric deposition
of hazardous air pollutants to the Great Waters,
which include the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain,
the Chesapeake Bay, and other coastal waters. The
agencies are required to determine whether
atmospherically-derived contamination results in
exceedances of water quality standards, to estimate
the fraction of contaminants accumulating in biota
which are atmospherically-derived, and to propose
more stringent standards if atmospheric deposition
is contributing significantly to exceedances of
water quality standards. A report to Congress will
be issued in November 1993 and every two years
thereafter.
Title IV contains the Acid Rain Provisions.
These requirements are designed to limit acidic
deposition through control of major electric utility
stations in Phase I and smaller units in Phase II.
The technologies that scrub acid gases will also
remove some heavy metals.
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Regulatory and non-regulatory development to
reduce LaMP Pollutants to levels that meet Lake
water quality goals requires specific impact
evaluations. Potential sources must be investigated
and costs and specific reductions identified. For
measures that impact area and mobile sources,
social impacts as well as costs are often
significant. There are two principal methods of
source identification, including the inventory
approach and monitoring methods.
Inventory Approach
The inventory approach has been fundamental
for building regulatory programs for control of air
pollutants. Most States have invested effort in air
toxics inventories. The inventory process involves
initial identification of possible sources of relevant
pollutants. The Superfund Amendments
Reautborization Act (SARA) Title HI - TRI is also
a source of information. Table 4-13 lists 1990 TRI
data.
The next step involves developing emission
factors and developing specific information
appropriate to the emission factors for selected
sources. This type of initial inventory is often
called a Phase I or screening inventory. The 1990
Lake Michigan Inventory is an example (see
Appendix D). Also, the Great Lakes Comission
Regional Air Toxics Emission Inventory is being
developed. Initially it will include Chicago,
Milwaukee, and Gary and analyze 43 compounds,
with the intent to include the entire eight state
Great Lakes region. These types of inventories
provide valuable information in locating sources
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-31
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-13.1990 TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY FOR AIR EMISSIONS IN THE GREAT LAKES BASIN
CRnXAL. POLLUTANTS
Organocniorlnes
Total-RGBs
TOTAL (KG/YR)
0
Trace Metals
Mercury
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
7
TOTAL (KG/YR)
Porycydic Aromatic Hydrocarbon*
Anthracene
Trace Metals
Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
8,414
12
31.720
1,365
21,388
43,206
211.278
and evaluating relative contributions between
different sources. A screening inventory is usually
followed by more detailed efforts that involve
source visits and other specific investigations to
confirm and augment the initial data. The
Governors of the eight Great Lakes States are
currently working through the Great Lakes
Commission to create this detailed inventory. The
inventory will support detailed dispersion
modeling efforts as well as future regulatory
efforts.
Special Monitoring Techniques
Receptor modeling involves using ambient
monitoring data to identify sources of pollutants.
Although these techniques have never been
generally endorsed, new technologies are bringing
back these techniques. One of the most interesting
is a fingerprinting technique for aerosols and
paniculate matter called Computer Controlled
Scanning Electron Microscoping / X-Ray
Fluorescence (CCSEM/XREF). As pan of the
Green Bay/Fox River Study, limited
CCSEM/XREF sampling was conducted. This
technique can identify groups of particles and can
identify the source and relative contribution
through a chemical profile or fingerprint The
morphology or physical appearance of particles
can also be used to aid in identification. The Green
Bay Aerosol Study (51) was a limited effort to
apply these techniques based on one month of data
acquisition. The results of this study are presented
in Figure 4-7. This technique allows a quick
profiling of important source categories. Control
strategies can then be initiated more quickly via
this monitoring technique than through
conventional approaches. This technique can also
4-32
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
RGURE 4-7. GREEN BAY CHEMICAL MASS BALANCE (CMB) RESULTS FOR FINE FRACTION IN
AIR DEPOSITION.
NH4(15%)
ELEMENTAL CARBON (2%)
MINERALS (2%)
OTHERS (23%)
ORGANIC CARBON (18%)
S03(3%)
N03(1%)
S04(36%)
be used to direct and confirm inventory and
dispersion modeling efforts.
LOADING ESTIMATES
The next step is to take these atmospheric
loadings and convert them to Lake loadings.
Again, there are two main approaches to
estimation of loading.
Ambient Measurement
This is the method used by Eisenreich and
Strachan in their 1992 updates to estimates of
Great Lakes loadings. These estimates take
advantage of the IADN data that includes
measurements of both dry and wet deposition of
total loads. The 1992 estimates of total loadings
are presented in Table 4-14. Because these loading
estimates are based on actual data, their accuracy
is high. However, the representativeness of these
estimates has been called into question.
The concentration values obtained from the
IADN network and used in the Eisenreich study
represent long term averages from land based,
rural monitoring stations. As particles tend to drop
out of the atmosphere relatively quickly, the
potential to underestimate the impact of urbanized
areas is increased. Although the Eisenreich Study
may represent the best current estimate of loading
through deposition, these data should be used
cautiously.
Similar constraints apply to estimates of
gaseous exchange based on spatially and
temporally limited information. Small changes in
ambient concentrations and temperatures can
change the net flow of volatile compounds
converting the lake from a sink for air toxicants
into a source of air toxicants. A recent study of
deposition of PCBs into San Francisco Bay
showed this conversion occurring solely on the
assumption of what percentage of atmospheric
PCBs exist as vapors and what percentage as
paniculate matter. (52)
Dispersion Modeling
The other approach to estimating loads is the
use of dispersion modeling. Dispersion modeling
uses inventory and meteorological data as inputs.
This information is processed through dispersion
algorithms to estimate ambient concentrations and
deposition at discrete receptor locations. Models
can be improved and calibrated through the use of
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-33
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-14. ESTIMATED WET, DRY AND TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION TO LAKE MICHIGAN
CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
WET(KQ/YR)
DRY (KG/YR)
TOTAL (KQ/YR)
Organochlorines
Total-PCBs
Total-DDT
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Dioxin (TCDD)
Fuian (TCDF)
91.3
22.8
6.8
1.8
0.0
0.3
22.5
2.0
2.7
2.0
not reported (NR)
NR
113.8
24.8
9.5
3.8
NR
NR
Trace Metals
Mercury
913.0
655.0
1,568.0
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Organoehlorines
Toxaphene
9.1
3.4
12.5
Polycydte Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Acenaphthene
Acenapheytene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Ruorene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
45.7
22.8
68.5
114.0
91.3
45.7
320.0
114.0
228.0
228.0
NR
NR
15.2
44.7
44.7
68.7
12.7
0.2
18.7
8.8
46.0
23.0
84.0
159.0
136.0
114.0
333.0
t
114.0
247.0
237.0
Trace Metals
Arsenic
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Zinc
Cyanide
9,130.0
12,800.0
6,850.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
3,280.0
13.120.0
1,970.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
12,410.0
25,920.0
8,820.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
4-34
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-14. ESTIMATED WET, DRY AND TOTAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION TO LAKE
MICHIGAN (continued)
EMERGING POLLUTANTS
Atiazine
Isopropylbiphenyl
Santosol 100
Santosol 150
Suresol290
Diisopropylnaphthatene
Selemium
WET (KG/YR)
6050.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
DRY (KG/YR)
2072.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TOTAL (KG/YR)
8122.0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Eisenreich and Stachan, 1992 (52).
ambient monitoring data. Models can provide
estimates for locations where no monitoring exists
and can provide estimates for a variety of time
periods and conditions.
In recent years, a considerable effort has been
made to improve the ability of dispersion models
to estimate wet and dry deposition (50,53,54).
The RELMAP model, used to estimate deposition
into Lake Michigan, was developed to study acid
deposition and works with a geographic grid based
on units of latitude and longitude. Due to the high
cost of atmospheric monitoring, a combination of
monitoring, modeling, and emissions inventories is
the most reasonable approach to resolve the many
complex issues related to estimation of loadings
into Lake Michigan resulting from atmospheric
deposition of toxic pollutants.
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-35
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TRIBUTARIES
STORE! DATA RETRIEVAL OF
TRIBUTARY LOADINGS OF LaMP
POLLUTANTS
Tributary loading of LaMP Pollutants is
potentially a major source. Tributaries serve as a
reservoir for point and nonpoint pollutants and can
carry these pollutants into the Lake.
Loading data for all stream segments in the
Lake Michigan basin were retrieved from the
USEPA STORET data base, which is the largest
single repository of water quality data in the
country. The search concentrated on the list of
LaMP Pollutants and data collected after January
1,1985. USGS hydrologic unit codes were used to
isolate data from the lake subregions making up
the Lake Michigan basin. The following major
hydrologic subregions were searched (Table 4-15):
TABLE 4-15. HYDROLOGIC SUBREQION
LOCATIONS
HYDROLOGIC
SUBREQION
0403
0404
0405
0406
LOCATION
Northwestern Lake Michigan
Southwestern Lake Michigan
Southeastern Lake Michigan
Northeastern Lake Michigan
The data retrievals were restricted to stream,
ambient water quality monitoring stations in these
subregions. Due to time constraints, the initial
retrieval was not constrained to tributary mouth
data. Instead the sampling stations were selected
by comparison with hydrologic unit maps. The
lower 15 miles of tributaries in the adjacent
subbasins to the Lakes were located. If data did not
exist for the lower-most tributary, the next
upstream point was chosen. In the case where the
lower-most tributary data was scarce, an upstream
tributary was retained if additional data was
present Table 4-16 contains the complete list of
tributaries from STORET used to calculate
loadings to the Lake.
Concentration and flow data were retrieved
from STORET and converted into loadings using a
STORET subroutine. The subroutine calculated
loadings using daily average flows where
available. Where daily average flows were not
available, loadings were calculated using
instantaneous flows. It should be noted that
loadings were calculated using the concentration
and flow from the same sample.
Loadings for each of the stations were reported
as individual measurements and as mean loadings.
Mean values are presented separately for
detectable and non-detectable concentrations and
are the product of all loading data for a given
parameter for the entire period 1985 to the present
Total loadings to the Lake Michigan basin
based on STORET data were determined using the
mean loading values. The calculated loadings in
kg/yr are presented in Table 4-17. Non-detect
values were incorporated into the loading
calculations by three methods: First, by assuming
non-detect data had zero concentrations; second,
by using half the detection limit as the '
concentration; and third, by assuming the full
detection limit as the concentration. This allows
the loadings to be shown as a range based on the
uncertainty of the non-detect values. These three
values are presented in Table 4-17.
Table 4-17 presents only metals data for the
basin. PCB data were available from STORET and
several other sources and are presented Table 4-18.
There were no ambient stream data for other
LaMP Pollutants found within STORET for the
selected basins.
4-36
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-16. LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARIES AND LOCATIONS FOR WHICH STORE! DATA WAS
RETRIEVED
STATION LOCATION
Manitowoc River at Manitowoc, Wisconsin
East Twin River Near Two Rivers, Wisconsin
West Twin River Near Shoto, Wisconsin
Sheboygan River at Station 28 Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Kewaunee River Near Kewaunee, Wisconsin
Duck Creek Near Howard, Wisconsin
Pensaukee River at Bell Bridge Road Pens, Wisconsin
Oconto River at the Mouth in Oconto, Wisconsin
Oconto River at Oconto, Wisconsin
Peshtigo River at Mouth Near Peshtigo, Wisconsin
Peshtigo River at Peshtigo, Wisconsin
Menominee River at Mouth in Marinette, Wisconsin
Menominee River Left 1/3 at 26th Street in Menominee,
Wisconsin
Ford River at M-35 Bridge at the Mouth in Ford River
Township, Michigan
Escanaba River at Mouth in Escanaba, Michigan
Escanaba River at US-2 & 41 Bridge; Wells Township,
Michigan
Fox River at De Pere, Wisconsin
Fox River above De Pere Dam, Wisconsin
Root River at Johnson Park, Wisconsin
Oak Creek (North Branch) at Puetz Road (Bl), Wisconsin
Milwaukee River at Locust Street, Wisconsin
Milwaukee River at Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Menomonee River at Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
Kinnikinnic River at 7th Avenue, Wisconsin
Milwaukee River at North Avenue Dam, Wisconsin
Milwaukee River at Estabrook Park, Wisconsin
St Joseph River at C&O Railroad Bridge in St. Joseph,
Michigan
BASIN AND REACH NO.
04030101
04030101006
04030101009
04030101020
04030102
04030103
04030103006
04030104
04030104002
04030105
04030105002
040301 08
04030106001
04030109005
04030110
04030110001
04030204
04030204004
04040002
04040002
04040003
04040003
04040003
04040003001
0404003001
04040003001
04050001
AVAILABLE DATA
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
Metals
Metals
Metals, flow
Flow
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
Fbw
Metals, flow
PCBs.flow
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
PCBs.flow
Metals, flow
Flow
Metals, flow
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals, flow
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-37
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-16. LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARIES AND LOCATIONS FOR WHICH STORET DATA WAS
RETRIEVED (continued)
STATION LOCATION
Kalamazoo River at Old
US-31 Bridge in City of Saugatuck, Michigan
Kalamazoo River at Saugatuck, Michigan
Grand River at the Mouth in the City of Grand Haven, Michigan
Pere Marquette River at Pere Maiquette Road in Pere
Marquette Township, Michigan
Muskegon River at the South Bank to Outlet in the City of
Muskegon, Michigan
Manistee River at Manistee, Michigan
Manistee River at Maple Street Bridge in the City of Manistee,
Michigan
Battle Creek Near Williamsburg, Michigan
Tobeco Creek Near Bk Rapids, Michigan
Yuba Creek Near Acme, Michigan
Acme Creek at Acme, Michigan
Boardman River at Traverse City, Michigan
Williamsburg Creek Near Williamsburg, Michigan
Manistique River at the end of Hartorview Drive at Mouth in
Manistique, Michigan
Manistique River Above Manistique, Michigan
BASIN AND REACH NO.
04050003003
04050003003
04050006
04060101029
04060102
04060103
04060103001
04060105
04060105005
04060105005
04060105005
04060105005
04060105012
04060106003
04060106003
AVAILABLE DATA
Metals, flow
Metals
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
Metals, flow
Metals
Metals, flow
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals
Metals, flow
Metals
4-38
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-17. LAKE MICHIGAN TRIBUTARY LOADINGS CALCULATED FROM STORETDATA
CONTAMINANT
Cadmium (Cd.Tot)
Cadmium (Cd.Tot)
Cadmium (Cd.Tot)
Cadmium (Cd, Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
Chromium (Cr.Tot)
Chromium (Cr.Tot)
Chromium (Cr.Tot)
Chromium (Cr.Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
Copper (Cu.Tot)
Copper (Cu.Tot)
Copper (Cu.Tot)
Copper (Cu.Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
Lead (Pb, Tot)
Lead (Pb, Tot)
Lead (Pb, Tot)
Lead (Pb, Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
Mercury (Hg, Tot)
Mercury (Hg, Tot)
Mercury (Hg, Tot)
Mercury (Hg, Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
Zinc (Zn. Tot)
Zinc (Zn, Tot)
Zinc (Zn, Tot)
Zinc (Zn, Tot)
LAKE TOTAL
SUBREGION
0403
0404
0405
0406
0403
0404
0405
0406
0403
0404
0405
0406
0403
0404
0405
0406
0403
0404
0405
0406
0403
0404
0405
0406
Loading for ND = 0
(KGflTR)
520
328
1,866
868
3,581
1,811
3,903
3,621
460
9,796
11,904
12.417
39,712
18,003
82,037
27,672
16,184
74,838
16,166
134,860
416
0
0
227
642
65,403
0
242,053
109,946
417,402
Loading f or ND=1/2DL
(KG/YR)
836
435
2,551
1,604
5.427
6,818
507
1,646
11,189
39,542
12,285
13,220
39,773
18,421
83,699
35,889
16,979
75.128
18,263
146,259
1.012
0
1.515
1,472
4,013
66,471
57,818
242.324
111,653
478,266
Loading for ND=DL
(KG/YR)
1,154
545
3,237
2,341
7,277
11,825
6,240
29,303
21,917
69,285
12,664
14,023
39,833
18,838
85,358
44,106
28,204
75,416
20,359
157,655
1,608
0
3,028
2,747
7,382
67,537
58,972
242,596
113,360
482,465
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-39
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
PCB LOADINGS
PCB data were rarely available from STORET
and the data found frequently constituted
non-detects. PCB data was available from several
other sources and these data are shown in the table
above along with the non-detect data found within
STORET (See Table 4-18). A study (55) on PCB
loadings to Lake Michigan found that mean
tributary concentrations would correspond to a
total PCB loading of about 134 kg/yr, which is
consistent with the range of PCB loadings found
for major Lake Michigan tributaries.
Since STORET does not have data on many of
the LaMP Pollutants, alternative methods of
estimating loading rates can be used based on the
proposed IJC suspended solid method (56). The
first step in this estimation procedure is to
calculate suspended loading rates, which will be
estimated from surficial sediment data (assuming
that surficial sediment can approximate suspended
solids in the water column). Factors were then
applied to the sediment loading quantities to
estimate LaMP Pollutants loading rates. Beale's
Ratio Estimator was used to calculate suspended
solids loading (=sediment loading) rates. Beale's
Ratio is a statistical means to account for data gaps
in flow and suspended solid measurements.
Usually, suspended solid data is recorded weekly
or less frequently along with daily average flow.
The Beale ratio is thus a weighted loading estimate
defined as follows:
average daily flow
) loading estimate
total average flow
After calculation of suspended solid loading
rates for each tributary, a separate factor, based on
contaminants in suspended particulates from Lake
Michigan Areas of Concern, was used to estimate
contaminant loading rates. These "contaminant
factors" would have to be agreed upon through
peer review.
4-40
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-18. PCB LOADING ESTIMATES
STATION LOCATION
Fox River at the De Pere Dam, Wisconsin1
Fox River at the mouth, Wisconsin1
Fox River, Wisconsin3
Milwaukee River, Wisconsin3
Sheboygan River, Wisconsin3
Peshtigo River at the mouth, Wisconsin1
Peshtigo River at the mouth, Wisconsin2
Peshtigo River, Wisconsin3
Oconto River at the mouth, Wisconsin1
Oconto River, Wisconsin3
Menonrinee River at the mouth, Wisconsin1
Menominee River at the mouth, Wisconsin2
Menorrinee River, Wisconsin3
Escanaba River at the mouth, Wisonsin1
Escanaba River at the mouth, Wisconsin2
Escanaba River, Wisconsin3
Manistique River, Michigan3
Manistee River, Michigan3
Pere Marquette, Michigan3
Muskegon River, Wisconsin3
Kalamazoo River, Michigan3
St Joseph River, Michigan1
SUBREGION
0403
0403
0403
0404
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0403
0406
0406
0406
0406
0405
0405
LOADING (KG/YR)
142.0
178.1
394.0
37.0
22.0
2.8
non-detect
9.0
1.3
6.0
6.0
non-detect
50.0
3.0
non-detect
34.0
41.0
20.0
9.0
18.0
62.0
51.0
1 —U.S. EPA, GLNPO. 1993 (57).
2 —Loadings from STORET retrieval.
3 —Marti and Armstrong, 1990 (55).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-41
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
WASTE PROGRAMS
(RCRA AND CERCLA)
Facilities designed to treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous materials can potentially discharge these
materials to surface or ground water or emit them
to the air. Inactive hazardous waste sites are
regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), or Superfund program. Active sites,
including incinerators and hazardous waste
landfills, are managed under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
A recently completed USEPA study of 35
CERCLA sites and 153 RCRA facilities within the
Lake Michigan basin and in counties adjacent to
the basin (58,59) identified facilities that are
known to handle toxic substances, including the
proposed LaMP Pollutants, and could therefore be
releasing these substances to the Lake. The
number of RCRA facilities handling LaMP
Pollutants are provided in Table 4-19. A list of the
facilities handling LaMP Pollutants is provided in
Appendix B.
Of the 35 CERCLA sites evaluated, 15 sites
were contaminated with at least one of the LaMP
Pollutants (Table 4-20). The USEPA has
completed the remedial design stage for seven of
these sites, completing construction on one, the
Johns Manville Disposal Area in Illinois.
LOADINGS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM
RCRA AND CERCLA SITES
In an effort to estimate loadings of pollutants to
the Lake Michigan basin from RCRA and
CERCLA sites the USEPA Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement commissioned the study
Phase 2 Toxics Reduction Initiative: Estimate of
Constituent Loadings from RCRA TSD Facilities
and Superfund Sites-Final Report (59). The report
develops worst-case estimates for potential
releases of LaMP Pollutants through ground water,
surface water and air emissions (primarily through
volatilization). The study included all facilities
located in counties directly bordering Lake
Michigan. Since the loadings in the report are
estimates based on a number of simplifying
assumptions that may be unrealistic, the results
must be considered preliminary. Conservative
assumptions were used in the creation of the
estimates and so the loadings from the report likely
constitute overestimates (59). For instance, VOC
emissions are assumed to occur over the entire
surface area of the site, which is generally not the
case and will generally overestimate the level of
VOC emissions.
Estimated loadings from RCRA facilities for
LaMP Pollutants are presented in Table, 4-21.
Estimated Loadings from Superfund Facilities for
LaMP Pollutants are presented in Table 4-22.
4-42
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-19. LaMP POLLUTANTS POTENTIALLY EMITTED FROM RCRA FACILITIES IN COUNTIES
ADJACENT TO LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
STATE
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
Indiana
POLLUTANT
Toxaphene
Aldrin*
Dieldnn
DDT
Hexachlorobenzene
6enzo(a)pyrene
Lead
Mercury
Aldrin
Dieldrin
DDD
DDT
Purans
Hexachlorobenzene
Toxaphene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Lead
Mercury
Toxaphene
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Benzo(a)pyrene
DDD
DDT
Purans
Hexachlorobenzene
Lead
Mercury
Lead
* FACILITIES
POTENTIALLY
DISCHARGING
TO AIR
1
1
1
3
1
2
25
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
8
f FACILrriES
POTENTIALLY
DISCHARGING TO
GROUND WATER
1
1
1
3
1
2
25
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
8
TOTAL NUMBER OF
POTENTIALLY
DISCHARGING
FACILITIES
1
1
1
3
1
2
25
9
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
5
5
1'
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
8
* Aldrin breaks down to dieldrin in the environment
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-43
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-20. SUPERFUND SITES ADJACENT TO LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
CONTAMINATED WITH LaMP POLLUTANTS AND THE CLEANUP STATUS OF
EACH SITE
IRslnitial Response; SS=Site Studies; RS=Rermdy Selected; RD=Remedy Design; CO=Ctean-up Ongoing;
CC=Construction Complete; RPM=Remedial Project Manager
STATE
Michigan
srrE
Mason Co.
Landfill
Botefs
Nobel
BectroVoice
Packaging
Corp. of
America
Whitehall
Municipal Wells
ThermoChem
Allied Paper
BendixCorp.,
Allied
Automotive
Petovskey
Manufacturing
Corp.
SCA
Independent
Landfill
LaMP POLLUTANT
DDE, PAHs, Lead,
Copper, Zinc, Cadmium,
Chromium
Lead, Mercury,
PAHs, Furans, Copper,
Chromium, Zinc,
Cadmium
PAHs, Lead, Furans,
Cadmium, Chromium,
Zinc, Copper
4,4'-DDT, Lead.
Mercury, Furans,
Copper, Chromium, Zinc
Aldrin, Lead, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Zinc
PCB, Lead, 4.4DDT,
Zinc, Cadmium,
Chromium
PCB
Lead, Cadmium, Zinc
Lead, Mercury.
Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Zinc
Lead, Zinc
IR
X
X
X
X
SS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RS
X
X
X
X
X
RD
X
X
CO
CC
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-20. SUPERFUND SITES ADJACENT TO LAKE MICHIGAN AND ITS TRIBUTARIES
CONTAMINATED WITH LaMP POLLUTANTS AND THE CLEANUP STATUS OF
EACH SITE (continued)
STATE
Indiana
Wisconsin
Illinois
SITE
Waste, Inc.
Lake Sandy Jo
Landfill
Ninth
Avenue
Dump
Midcol
Midcoll
Moss
American
Hunts
Disposal
Landfill
Algoma Landfill
Sheboygan
Harbor
Kohler Landfill
Outboard
Marine
Johns
Manville
Disposal
Area
LaMP POLLUTANT
PCB, PAHs, Lead,
Mercury, Furans,
Cadmium, Chromium,
Zinc
4,4'-DDT, 4,4'-DDE,
PCB, PAHs, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper,
Lead, Zinc
4,4'-DDE, 4.4--DDT,
4,4'-DDD, Aldrin
PAHs, Lead, Mercury,
Copper, Cadmium,
Chromium, Zinc
PAHs, Lead, Mercury,
Chromium, Zinc
PAHs, Lead, Mercury,
Chromium, Cadmium
PAHs, Furans,
Dioxins, Cadmium,
Chromium, Zinc,
Copper, Lead, Mercury
4.4'-DDE, PCB, PAHs,
Lead, Cadmium,
Chromium, Zinc,
Copper, Mercury
Lead, Mercury,
Cadmium, Chromium,
Zinc
PCB, Lead, Chromium,
Cadmium, PAHs
Lead, Cadmium,
Chromium, Copper, Zinc
PCB
PCB, Lead, PAHs,
Chromium, Cadmium,
Zinc, Copper, Mercury
IR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
ss
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RD
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
X
X
X
X
cc
f
X
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-45
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-21. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM RCRA TSD FACILITIES
CRITICAL
POLLUTANTS
PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT and
metabolites
Mercury
Dioxins
Furans
ANNUAL LOADING IN KILOGRAMS
VOC
(SWMUr
0
0.002
0
3.43x10"*
0.095
6.2x10"*
N/A
Parti culate
(SWMU)
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
VOC
(soil)
2
0
0.003
6.2 X10*5
1.46
0
N/A
Paniculate
(•oil)
0
0
0
0
0
0
N/A
Ground
Water
0
0
0
0
140
0
N/A
Total
2
0.002
0.003
4.0 X10"4
140
6.2x10"*
N/A
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Lead
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Arsenic
Cyanide
Hexachloiobenzene
Toxaphene
PAHs
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
0.0027
0.0029
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
0.029
N/A
0
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
3.3x10"*
N/A
0.0015
0.0036
N/A
N/A
1.5x10-*
N/A
0
420,000
N/A
3,600
1.8
N/A
N/A
67
N/A
0
420.000
N/A
3,600
1.8
N/A
N/A
67
N/A
0.0027
t*
EMERGING POLLUTANTS
Atrazine
Selenium
PCB substitutes
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
1,200
N/A
N/A
1,200
N/A
•SWMU - Solid Waste Management Unit
Source: PRC, 1992 (59).
4-46
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-22. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS FROM SUPERFUND SITES
CRfTICAL
POLLUTANTS
PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT and metabolites
Mercury
Dioxins
Furans
ANNUAL LOADINGS IN KILOGRAMS
VOC (soil)
196
N/A
N/A
27,000
420
N/A
N/A
Partteulate (soil)
0
N/A
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
Ground Water
20
N/A
N/A
0
30
N/A
N/A
Total
216
N/A
N/A
27,000
450
N/A
N/A
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Lead
Cadmium
Copper
Zinc
Chromium
Arsenic
Cyanide
Hexachtorobenzene
Toxaphene
PAHs
0
N/A
0
0
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
0.082
N/A
0.027
0.074
N/A
N/A
4.6x10's
N/A
N/A
1,100,000
N/A
16,000
740,000
N/A
N/A
860
N/A
N/A
1.100,000
N/A
16,000
740,000
N/A
N/A
860
N/A
N/A
EMERGING POLLUTANTS
Atrazine
Selenium
PCB substitutes
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
1.4X10"5
N/A
N/A
48
N/A
N/A
48
N/A
Source: PRC, 1992 (59).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-47
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
GROUND WATER
Direct ground water contributions to Lake
Michigan through bottom sediments may be as
much as 18 percent of tributary contributions to the
Lake, and indirect ground water contributions via
streams entering the Great Lakes on the U.S. side
of the border may account for over 50 percent of
the How in those streams (60). Ground water can
pick up contaminants from many sources,
including waste disposal facilities, infiltration from
chemical applications in agriculture and forestry,
and accidental discharges such as spills and leaks.
Contaminants from these sources typically include
simple inorganic substances, heavy metals, and
complex synthetic organic compounds.
Siegel et al. (61) suggest that naturally
occurring metals loadings through ground water
may be relatively high, rivaling those produced by
tributaries (61). They used regional concentrations
of metals found in ground water and ground water
flow models for the Great Lakes basin to predict
influx of metals to the lakes through ground water.
Natural ground water discharge of lead to the
Great Lakes was calculated to be approximately
210 kg/day whereas total flux of lead from the
Niagara River is 500 kg/day. This would make
ground water one of the predominant lead sources
for the entire Great Lakes system. Unfortunately,
the authors do not offer a breakdown of ground
water contributions by lake basin but ground water
lead levels for the Lake Michigan Basin are as
high as those for any other segment of the Great
Lakes. The authors do not offer data for mercury
or any other LaMP Pollutants.
If the estimates of Siegel et al. (61) are correct,
then natural sources may account for the
preponderance of ground water loadings of metals
to Lake Michigan and the other Great Lakes.
However, this analysis does not account for
ground water contribution of non-natural chemical
contaminants such as toxic organics and pesticides.
While the source of ground water metals
mentioned above is primarily the deep regional
aquifers which have ground water residence times
in the range of a hundred to thousands of years,
organic ground water contaminants may be
expected to reside in the shallow, local aquifers
since their introduction has occurred primarily in
the last century.
Several studies of ground water contributions
of contaminants to the Lake Michigan basin have
been performed on a more local level. For
instance, studies of ground water contributions of
contaminants have been performed on both the
Grand Calumet River (62a, 62b) and Lower Fox
River/Green Bay (63) systems. The ground water
in the Grand Calumet River area is characterized
by a layer of oil capping the surface of the aquifer
over a substantial area.
Injection wells may be one indirect source of
contaminant loading to Lake Michigan via ground
water seepage to tributaries. Injected contaminants
reaching the Lake are probably coming exclusively
from Class V and Class IV wells which dispose of
liquid wastes into shallow groundwater. Many of
these aquifers are in direct physical contact with
surface waters. Other classes of injection wells
dispose of wastes in strata isolated from surface
waters. Although in most situations disposal of
hazardous wastes such as the LaMP Pollutants in
shallow wells has been banned since 1980, it is
possible that waste injected prior to that time
reached Lake Michigan. It is also possible that
some unknown wells remain active today.
Hundreds and perhaps thousands of shallow
disposal wells are currently injecting nonhazardous
wastes within the Lake Michigan basin. A more
complete inventory and selected closure of these
wells is currently being sought by the USEPA.
Because the universe of wells is as yet largely
undefined, potential hazardous waste wells and
4-48
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
nonhazardous wells which exceed the maximum
contaminant levels of the Drinking Water
Standards and thereby have a high potentive risk to
human health are given priority.
PRC (59) has estimated loadings from RCRA
and Superfund sites in the Lake Michigan basin as
pan of the Lake Michigan Toxics reduction
initiative. Their estimates of loadings through
ground water at RCRA and Superfund Sites
throughout the basin (59) and are presented in
Table 4-23.
Since there are limited data regarding the actual
contaminant release from most potential sources of
ground water contamination, it is difficult to
estimate the actual loads to surface water bodies.
In an effort to quantify the ground water
contribution to the toxic chemical load to Lake
Michigan, the USEPA will rely largely on
computer based models to obtain more precise
estimates of ground water flow into the Lake
Michigan basin. In addition, it is intended to use
the best available data from the Remedial Action
Plans (RAPs) developed for the Areas of Concern
to estimate the ground water load contribution to
the tributaries flowing to Lake Michigan as these
data become available.
TABLE 4-23. ESTIMATED ANNUAL LOADINGS OF CRITICAL POLLUTANTS THROUGH GROUND
WATER FROM RCRA TSD AND SUPERFUND SITES
CRmCAL POLLUTANT
RGBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
DDT and metabolites
Mercury
Dioxins
Furans
ESTIMATED ANNUAL GROUND WATER
LOADINGS IN KILOGRAMS
RCRA
0
0
0
0
136
0
N/A
SUPERFUND
20
N/A
N/A
0
30
N/A
N/A
TOTAL
20
0
0
0
166
0
N/A
Source: PRC, 1992 (59).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS
4-49
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
STORM WATER
In response to the need for comprehensive
requirements for discharges of storm water,
Congress amended the CWA in 1987 to require
USEPA to establish phased NPDES requirements
for storm water discharges. To implement these
requirements, USEPA published the initial permit
application requirements for "Phase r categories
of storm water discharges on November 16,1990
(64). NPDES permit applications are required
from the following "Phase I" facilities:
• discharges from large municipal separate
storm sewer systems (systems serving a
population of 250,000 or more) and medium
municipal separate storm sewer systems
(systems serving a population of 100,000 or
more, but less than 250,000);
• storm water discharges associated with an
industrial activity; and
• discharges which are designated by USEPA
or an NPDES-approved State as needing an
NPDES permit because the discharge
contributes to a violation of a water quality
standard or is a significant contributor of
pollutants to waters of the United States.
All storm water discharges associated with an
industrial activity that discharge through municipal
separate storm sewer systems or that discharge
directly to waters of the US. are required to obtain
NPDES permit coverage. Discharges of storm
water to a sanitary sewer system or to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW) are excluded.
USEPA has defined the term "storm water
discharge associated with industrial activity" to
include storm water discharges from:
manufacturing facilities; construction operations
disturbing more than five acres; hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; landfills;
POTWs with a design flow greater than 1.0 mgd,
recycling facilities; power plants; mining
operations; some oil and gas operations; airports;
and transportation facilities. Statutorily excluded
from the NPDES requirements under the CWA are
general agricultural storm water, irrigation return
flows, and uncontaminated runoff from oil and gas
or mining operations.
Federal, State or municipally owned or
operated facilities that meet the description of
storm water discharges associated with an
industrial activity are required to submit permit
applications. However, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Transportation Act) provided an exemption from
storm water permitting requirements for certain
industrial activities owned or operated by
municipalities with a population of less than
100,000. Such municipalities must submit storm
water discharge permit applications only for
airports, power plants, and uncontrolled sanitary
landfills that they own or operate, unless a permit
is otherwise required by a permitting authority.
In addition, to regulating Phase I storm water
discharges, USEPA is targeting illicit connections,
cross connections, improper waste disposal, and
spills that contribute sanitary or industrial waters
directly to municipal storm sewer systems as a
high priority under the Phase I NPDES storm
water programs. These "non-storm" water
pollution discharges lead to high metal, nutrient, or
bacterial concentrations of receiving waters.
Phase I storm water NPDES discharge permits
require large and medium sized municipal systems
to develop and implement structural and source
control measures that will reduce storm water
pollutants, to the maximum extent possible, from
commercial and residential areas. Municipal storm
water management plans have not been fully
implemented, therefore USEPA is unable to
4-50
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
determine the effectiveness of the management
plans on storm water runoff to Lake Michigan.
The NPDES storm water permit requirements
for Phase I industrial discharges direct the facility
operators to develop and implement storm water
pollution prevention plans. Storm water pollution
prevention plans require good housekeeping
measures, sediment and erosion controls,
preventive maintenance, inspections, and the
certification that the storm water discharge has
been evaluated for the presence of non-storm water
discharges. However, Phase I industrial facilities
are not required to implement storm water
pollution prevention plans until October 1,1993.
Therefore, the effectiveness of storm water
pollution prevention plans to reduce contaminated
storm water runoff, from Phase I industries, into
Lake Michigan is unknown at this time.
The 1987 amendments to the CWA created a
temporary moratorium on the general requirements
of the CWA that point source discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United States must be
authorized by an NPDES permit Under the
moratorium, USEPA is prohibited from issuing
NPDES permits for non-Phase I discharges
composed entirely of storm water prior to October
1,1992.
USEPA is currently evaluating a number of
options for identifying Phase II storm water
discharges to be regulated. Of the options being
considered, perhaps the most difficult to address is
whether to expand the categories of individual
facilities requiring permits, or rather to include
these within an expansion of municipal separate
storm sewer systems requiring permits.
On the other hand, individual facilities
specifically identified as new categories under
Phase II could be regulated through requirements
in NPDES permits. USEPA could specify new
categories of storm water discharges to be
regulated separately or under Phase II municipal
separate storm sewer systems.
For municipal separate storm sewer systems
under Phase n, USEPA is considering expanding
NPDES requirements to urban areas having
populations less than 100,000. The counties that
were addressed in the November 1990 rule were in
a handful of States, primarily Maryland, Virginia,
Florida, and California. In most parts of the
country, the regulations only address core cities
and exclude suburban or "urban fringe"
development This is typified for the Milwaukee,
Wisconsin area, where only the incorporated city
of Milwaukee and none of the urban fringe within
Washington, Waukesha, Ozaukee, Milwaukee, and
Racine counties were required to apply for storm
water permits. The 1990 population for the
Milwaukee urbanized area is about twice that of
the City of Milwaukee and the population densities
are similar.
Since storm water loadings data are still being
analyzed and evaluated for the Storm Water
Report to Congress, no estimates can be given at
the present time.
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-51
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SEDIMENTS
Although quantification of the loadings of
toxics to Lake Michigan from contaminated
sediments is difficult, the impacts of contaminated
sediments on the Lake Michigan ecosystem are
significant. Contaminated sediments can retard or
even prevent the recovery of the Areas of Concern
(and Lake Michigan) impacted by past discharges
of toxics, even after all applicable source controls
are put in place. For example, in many locations,
in-place contaminated sediments are thought to be
the principal cause for continued fish and wildlife
contamination by banned persistent toxic
substances such as PCBs and pesticides. This
contamination of fish, shellfish, waterfowl and
fish-eating mammals results not only in ecosystem
degradation, but also in direct human health
impacts from the recreational or commercial
harvesting of these fish and game. Increased
awareness of these impacts has emphasized the
need to include sediment contamination issues in
setting priorities for enforcement, remedial action
and pollutant prevention efforts.
Chemicals tend to sorb onto sediments and
attain higher concentrations than in the ambient
water. As a result, sediment monitoring data can
be useful in identifying potential problem areas
and sources of contamination even when ambient
water column concentrations are below detectable
levels. Finding contaminated sediments can serve
as an indicator of the need to undertake additional
monitoring to better define the nature and extent of
a potential problem and its sources.
USEP A, other Federal agencies such as the
US. Army Corps of Engineers, the VS. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the State
environmental agencies have sediment monitoring
programs. USEPA Region 5 has begun to
assemble existing sediment contamination data
into a systematic contaminated sediment sites
inventory (64). The Lake Michigan basin was
included hi a pilot effort to determine the utility of
such an inventory. The Sediment Inventory is
intended to allow USEPA to:
• Determine the scope and extent of
contaminated sediment problems.
• Provide important information that can be
used in developing priorities for remediation.
The information generated can be used by
the various programs in selecting sites for
enforcement actions and other remediation or
prevention activities.
• Allow for the selection of sites for which
further assessment work is necessary.
The locations of all sites in the Sediment
Inventory located on waterbodies which have Lake
Michigan as their ultimate receiving waters are
listed in Appendix C
USEPA has initiated the development of
sediment quality criteria for the protection of
aquatic life. However, because sediment quality
criteria are not yet available, an alternative analysis
was used to do an initial assessment of potential
sources of contaminated sediments to Lake
Michigan. Since surface sediments are generally
the most recently deposited sediments, they tend to
reflect recent loadings of pollutants. As loadings
decrease, concentrations of toxics in surface
sediments will also tend to decline (except perhaps
in areas where erosion exceeds deposition). Such
declines have already been noted for pollutants
such as lead, mercury, PCBs, and banned
pesticides as their loadings were curtailed. The
result is that the deeper (older), more contaminated
layers of sediments are covered over by more
recent, less contaminated sediment Due to the low
sedimentation rates in Lake Michigan and the
effects of resuspension and mixing by currents due
to storms and thermal overturn, this natural
4-52
CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
recovery process can take several decades. In order
for this recovery to take place, fresh sediment
entering Lake Michigan should be less
contaminated than what is already in the Lake
sediments.
As an initial attempt to identify potential
sources of contaminated sediments to Lake
Michigan, data in the Sediment Inventory were
compared to available information on the
concentrations of LaMP Pollutants in the surface
sediments of Lake Michigan (Table 4-24). Median
sediment concentrations from the Sediment
Inventory were used in the comparison since the
median is more likely to give a representative
picture of the extent of sediment contamination.
The Sediment Inventory was used to identify sites
in toe inventory where concentrations of LaMP
Pollutants exceed open lake levels. From these
sites, the ones with the highest median sediment
concentrations are listed in Table 4-25. The sites
are listed in alphabetical order. An assessment
needs to be made regarding the significance of the
waterbodies identified in this analysis as sources of
these LaMP Pollutants to Lake Michigan. Such
investigations are already underway at a number of
these sites under Superfund or other authorities. If
these and others are found to be significant sources
of contaminated sediment to the Lake, they will
need to be given priority for additional monitoring,
enforcement, pollution prevention, and
remediation efforts in order to reduce levels of
sediment contamination in these streams.
TABLE 4-24. SURFACE SEDIMENTS AND BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OF LaMP
POLLUTANTS IN OPEN LAKE MICHIGAN
LaMP POLLUTANT
(Concentration Unto)
PCBs (ppb)
RGBs (ppb)
Mercury (ppm)
Lead (ppm)
Cadmium (ppm)
Chromium (ppm)
Copper (ppm)
Zinc (ppm)
Arsenic (ppm)
OPEN LAKE SURFACE SEDIMENT
CONCENTRATIONS
150(65)
81 (surface: dep. zones) (66)
26 (surface: trans, zones)
72 (surface: non-dep. zones)
0.030-0.380 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
10-130 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
8-10 (background)
0.05-1.8 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
0.5-0.7 (background)
140 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
50 (background)
54 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
15 (background)
40-350 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
40-50 (background)
5-15 (surface: dep. zones) (67)
5-8 (background)
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-53
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-25. EPA REGION 5 SEDIMENT INVENTORY SFTES WITH ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS
OF SELECTED LaMP POLLUTANTS
SITE NAME
Black River, Ml
Bumham And South Menomonee
Canal, Wl
Butternut Lake, Wl
Carton Creek, Ml
Cedar Creek And Ponds, Wl
Cedar River, Ml
Drain Number Thirty, Branch
County, Ml
Emily Lake, Wl
Fox River. Wl
Grand Calumet River, IN
Great Lakes Naval Training
Center Harbor, IL
Hayworth Creek, Ml
Indiana Harbor And Indiana
Harbor Canal, IN
Kalamazoo River, Ml
Kewaunee Harbor, Wl
Kirmickinnic River, Wl
Lake Calumet, IL
Little Black Creek, Ml
Little Lake Bute Des Morts, Wl
Manistique River And Harbor, Ml
Menorrinee Harbor, Wl
Metonga Lake, Wl
Michigan City Harbor. IN
Milwaukee Harbor, Wl
Milwaukee River, Wl
Noquebay Lake, Wl
Pettibone Creek, IL
PCBS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
MERCURY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LEAD
•
•
•
•
•
•
CADMIUM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
COPPER
•
•
•
•
•
ZINC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CHROMIUM
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ARSENIC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4-54
CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-25. EPA REGION 5 SEDIMENT INVENTORY SITES WfTH ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS
OF SELECTED LaMP POLLUTANTS (continued)
SITE NAME
Pine Creek, Ml
Portage Creek, Ml
Rabbit River, M!
Ruddiman Creek And Pond, Ml
Rudy Road Drain, Ml
Ryerson Creek, Ml
Sheboygan Harbor, Wl
Sheboygan River, Wl
St Johns Drain, Ml
Trail Creek, IN
Union Lake, Ml
White Lake, Ml
PCBS
•
•
•
MERCURY
•
•
LEAD
•
•
•
•
CADMIUM
•
•
•
COPPER
•
- •
•
•
•
•
ZINC
•
•
•
CHROMIUM
•
•
ARSENIC
•
•
•
•
USEPA and the USGS are conducting a study
which is intended to produce a rough estimate of
the potential inputs of toxic pollutants from
sediments carried by tributaries into Lake
Michigan. Rivers and harbors such as Fox River in
Wisconsin, Grand Calumet River in Indiana, and
Waukegan Harbor in Illinois have been or are now
significant sources of PCBs to Lake Michigan.
These areas are being addressed through a variety
of remedial actions.
POLLUTAMT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-55
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
COMPARISON OF LOADINGS
FROM SOURCES OF LaMP
POLLUTANTS
Based on the information assembled for the
LaMP, an attempt was made to compare relative
loadings from various sources. Due to the paucity
of loadings data, especially from nonpoint sources,
few meaningful comparisons (even qualitative)
could be made. The literature has provided relative
source loadings based on estimates from other
waterbodies, but to date, no overall comparisons
for Lake Michigan exist Table 4-26 attempts to
summarizes loading estimates of LaMP Pollutants
to Lake Michigan. The data gaps are readily
apparent. Runoff from urban, agricultural, and
RCRA/CERCLA areas; ground water, and in-place
sediments are likely significant sources.
Atmospheric deposition and tributaries are
probably also major sources. However, a source's
contribution to overall loadings depends on many
factors such as pollutant type and chemistry,
weather conditions, etc. Thus, in order to rank
source loadings, a mass balance model for Lake
Michigan must be developed. The Agency is in the
initial phases of model development
4-56 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 4-26. SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE LOADING ESTIMATES TO LAKE MICHIGAN
LaMP
POLLUTANTS
SOURCES
NPDES
(KC/YR)
URBAN AND
AGRICULTURAL
RUNOFF
(KQ/YR)
ATMOSPHERIC1
DEPOSITION
(KG/YR)
TRIBUTARIES
(KO/YR)
RCRA*
AND
CERCLA
(KQ/YR)
QROUNDWATER
(KQ/VR)
STORUWATER
(KG/YR)
SEDIMENT
(KG/YR)
CRITICAL POLLUTANTS
Total PCBs
DMdrin
CMoidane
Total DOT
Mercury
Dtoxin
Furmns
1.0-29.0
Unavailable
Unavailable
If
51.0-2,139
0s
0s
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
UnsvaHabto
UfWMilafato
Urawwtatato
57-228
33
9£-47
243
1.568
0.007-0.028
0.1350540
136-1019*
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
642-7.382
Unavailable
Unavailable
218
0.003
0.002
27.000
590
0.00082
Unavailable
Unavailable but
-^j^—il-i—
puBVUMB
•ignificanifor
matate
Unavailable
1 ' M— a-l—
VFWWIMIN0
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
LMd
Cadmium
Capper
Zinc
Chromium
Arsenic
Cyanide
HOXsMnlCMD*
Lwnzaww
Tnii»ntiai«iai
lOXBpnanv
PAHs
4350-10,745
Unavailable
21, 73446 455
80530-129.921
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
0*
Unavailable
O*4
EMERQINQ POLLUTANTS
Atranne
GvlOfMUffl
PCB
Substitutes
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavwtable
Unm^tafato
UnMdtabto
UmMiWito
UMWrtBllfcl
Urav^Ufato
UfHMdwfal*
Umnwlabto
UravwtaMe
25520
8320
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
125
1.7525
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
72
Unavailable
UnavaJlaMe
134380-157.6657
8S8-7.2277
82.037-85 J587
417.387-482.4657
8.796-a»32S7
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unequable
Unavailable
1520.000
Unavailable
19300
740.002
Unavailable
UnavaHeMe
927
UnaNdlehli
.0027
Unavailable
Unavailable
1^48
Unavailable
UnavaJWMa
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavaiabli
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
UnafAAalaTJlBV
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unanailahle
Unavailable
Un^iUbl.
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
but
prabaMy
StQMICWtt
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
I §•»•.— a—ui-.
Wim^aWHaWlV
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
Unavailable
1 -Baaed on 1988-1992 five year paiiod. SOT dtouaion on NPDES loadings in tart for compMe
2 - fctoaaurad in Watconein only.
3 - Reported at aum of (toxins and furane
4 - Reported as benzo(e)pyiene
5 - Eiaannich and SUachan (1992) (52)
6 - Marti and Amietrong (1990) (55)
7-STORETvahras
8 - Wont case estimates indicate that RCRA and CERlAaftasarapotonliaNy abftMcantimtmiuton.
Value* am sum of RCRA and CERLA loadings f>RC. 1992) (59).
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-57
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LITERATURE CITED
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 174, Tuesday, September
8,1991
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Effluent Guidelines Division. 1982. Development Document
for Effluent Limitations. Guidelines and Standards for Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point Source
Category. EPA/440/1-82/025.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 175, September 9,1991
4. Whitescarver Associates, Inc. 1984. Effluent Loadings from Selected Industries into the Great Lakes:
Iron and Steel Plants, Pulp and Paper Mills, Chemical Manufacturers, Petroleum Refiners,
Foundries, and Electroplates. Final Report February 1984.
5. Sutfin, C. 1984. Progress in Qean Water, The Great Lakes Basin Example. US. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region V. Presented at the Water Pollution Control Federation Annual Meeting,
October 1984.
6. Fink, L. 1991. Toxic Substances Target Load Reductions in the Great Lakes: Part 2-Evaluation of
Waste Load Allocation Issues. National Wildlife Federation, Great Lakes Natural Resource Center,
Ann Arbor, ML
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances. Office of
Compliance Monitoring. 1990. Suspended, Canceled, and Restricted Pesticides. 2OT-1002.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Characterization of Products Containing Mercury in
Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1970 to 2000. Executive Summary. EPA530-S-92-013.
9. Sullivan, J.R and D.E. Armstrong. 1985. Toxaphene. Status in the Great Lakes. Priority Pollutants
Status Report No. 2. University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.
10. IARC; Monograph. Some Halogenated Hydrocarbon 20:155-78 (1979).
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office. 1984. Health
Assessment Document for Chlorinated Benzenes, USEPA 6000/8-84-015a. Cincinnati, OH.
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1981. Treatability Manual. USEPA-600/2-82-001a. pg 1.9.7-3
13. Eiceman, GA. et al. 1991. Anal Chem 53:955-9.
14. Tiernan, T.O., et al. 1985. Environ Health Persp 59:145-58.
15. Oberg, T. and J.G.T. Bergstrom. 1985. Chemosphere 14:1081-6.
16. Oehme, M. etal. 1986. Chemosphere 16:143-53.
17. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Air Quality Criteria for Lead USEPA-600-8-83-028bF.
18. International Agency for Research on Cancer. 1976. Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Man., 1972-PRESENT. (Multivolume work). VI1 50.
4-58 CHAPTER 4
-------
DRAFT Septerrt>er30,1993
19. DHHS/NTP. 1985. Fourth Annual Report On Carcinogens. NTT 85-002. pg. 58. Bowne, N. The Lake
Michigan Ozone Study: The Data for presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the
Air and Waste Management Association, Kansas City, Missouri, June 21-26,1992.
20. DHHS/ATSDR. 1987. Toxicological Profile for Chromium (Draft 10/87) p.l
21. Dean, J.G. et al. 1972. Envir Sci Technol 6:518-22.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1987. Health Issue Assessment: Copper EPA/600/8-87/001.
pg.15.
23. Howe, H.E. 1984. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 3rd Edition. Volumes 1-26.
New York: John Wiley and Sons.
24. Glaser, G. 1991 Estimated Loadings of Toxic Substances to the Sheboygan River Basin From Major
and Minor Industrial and Municipal Point Sources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Bureau of Wastewater Management Madison, WI.
25. Glaser, G. 1992. Estimated Loadings of Toxic Substances to the Lower Fox River Basin From Major
and Minor Industrial and Municipal Point Sources - DRAFT. Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources. Bureau of Wastewater Management Madison, WI.
26. Glaser, G. 1992. Estimated Loadings of Toxic Substances to the Manitowoc River Basin From Major
and Minor Industrial and Municipal Point Sources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Bureau of Wastewater Management Madison, WI.
27. Glaser, G. 1992 Estimated Loadings of Toxic Substances to the Milwaukee River Basin From Major
and Minor Industrial and Municipal Point Sources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Bureau of Wastewater Management Madison, WI.
28. Glaser, G. 1992. Estimated Loadings of Toxic Substances to the Root River Basin From Major and
Minor Industrial and Municipal Point Sources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Bureau
of Wastewater Management Madison, WI.
29. Great Lakes Water Quality Board. 1989. Report on Great Lakes Water Quality. Great Lakes Water
Quality Board Reported to IJC. Presented at Hamilton, Ontario October 1989.
30. Glass, G.E., J A. Sorensen, K.W. Schmidt, and G.R. Rapp, Jr. 1990. New Source Identification of
Mercury Contamination in the Great Lakes. Environmental Science Technology 24:1059-1069.
31. Schueler, T.R., J. Galli, L. Herson, P. Kumble, and D. Shepp. 1992. Developing Effective BMP
Systems for Urban Watersheds. Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. p Jl.
32. Novotny, V. and G. Chesters. 1981. Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution. New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, Water Division. 1990. Urban Targeting and BMP
Selection. Chicago, IL.
34. Kobriger, N.K. 1984. Sources and Migration of Highway Runoff Pollutants. Rexnord Inc., Milwaukee,
WI, EnviroEnergy Technology Center. U.S. Dept of Transportation, Federal Highway
Adminstration, Report No. B86-227923, Washington, DC, 1984.
POLLLTTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-59
-------
DRAFT September X, 1993
35. Phillips, N. 1992. Decisionmaker's Stonnwater Handbook: A Primer. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA), Region V.
36. Dillaha, T. 1990. Role of Best Management Practices in Restoring the Health of the Chesapeake Bay:
Assessment of Effectiveness. Published in Chesapeake Bay Program Perspectives on the Chesapeake
Bay, 1990 - Advances in Estuarine Sciences.
37. Larson, R.S., EE Herricks, and J.B. Braden. 1990. Efficient Protection of Fisheries Habitat in Great
Lake Tributaries From Agricultural Pollutants. Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Source
of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. 840-B-92-002.
39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chesapeake Bay Program. 1991. Baywide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy 1990 Program Report
40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Region 5. Agricultural Clean Sweep: Waste Pesticide
Removals 1988-1992.
41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. 1992. Environmental Impacts of Storm Water
Dischargers: A National Profile. Washington, DC.
42. Donigian, A-S, Linker, L.C., and Chang, C. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Program: Watershed Model
Application to Calculate Bay Nutrient Loadings. USEPA, Environmental Research Laboratory,
Office of Research and Development Athens, GA.
43. Arimoto, R. 1989. "Atmospheric Deposition of Chemical Contaminants to the Great Lakes. Journal of
Great Lakes Research, 15(2): 339-356.
44. Seivering, et al. 1979. An Experimental Study of Lake Loading by Aerosol Transport and Dry
Deposition in the Southern Lake Michigan Basin. Great Lakes National Program Office, US.
Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/4-79.
45. ICF, Inc. 1991. Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Chemicals to Surface Waters: Identification and
Summary of the Recent Literature. Draft Report prepared for the US. Environmental Protection
Agency. Office of Air Quality, Planning and Standards. August 30,1991 draft
46. Miller, R. 1991. Chief, Air Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Personal
communication.
47. Campbell, S., K. Jones, E Liebsch, K. Winges, and K. Richmond. 1992. Improved Methods for Wet
Deposition Modeling for Waste Combustion Risk Assessments. For Presentation at the 85th Annual
Meeting & Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association. Kansas City, Missouri. June,
1992.
48. Jindal, M. and D. Heinold. 1992. A dimatological Algorithm for the Wet Depostion of Paniculate
Matter. For Presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting & Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management
Association. Kansas City, Missouri. June, 1992.
49. Eisenreich, S J. and Franz. 1993. Gray's Freshwater Biological Institute, Navarre, Minnesota. Personal
communication.
4-60 CHAPTER4
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
50. Ritts, D. and R. Williamson. 1992. The Atmospheric Deposition of PCBs into San Francisco Bay. For
Presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting & Exhibition of the Air & Waste Management Association.
Kansas City, Missouri. June, 199Z
51. Green Bay Aerosol Study (USEPA AREAL/SARB) February, 1990.
52. Eisenreich, S J. and Strachan, W.M.G., 1992. Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic Substances
to the Great Lakes. A Workshop held at the Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario,
January 31-February 2,1992.
53. Clark. T., P. Blakley, and G. Mapp. 1992. Model Calculations of the Annual Atmospheric Deposition
of Toxic Metals to Lake Michigan. For Presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting & Exhibition of the
Air & Waste Management Association. Kansas City, Missouri. June, 1992.
54. Noll, K. T. Holsen, G Fang, and J. Lin. 1992. Mass-Size Distribution and Dry Deposition Flux of
Panicles and Metals in Chicago. For Presentation at the 85th Annual Meeting & Exhibition of the
Air & Waste Management Association. Kansas City, Missouri. June, 1992.
55. Marti, EA. and D.E. Armstrong. 1990. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in Lake Michigan Tributaries./, of
Great Lakes Res. 16(3): 396-405.
56. International Joint Commission. 1993. Report to the Virtual Elimination Task Force: Source
Investigation for Lake Superior. Windsor, Ontario: Virtual Elimination Task Force.
57. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office. 1993. Draft,
Development and Validation of an Integrated Exposure Model for Toxic Chemicals in Green Bay,
Lake Michigan.
58. PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 1991. Lake Michigan Toxics Reduction Initiative: Estimate of
constituent Loadings from RCRA TSD Facilities and Superfund Sites: Final Phase I Report
Prepared for UJS. Environmental Protection Agency. Chicago, EL
59. PRC Environmental Management, Inc. 1992. Phase 2 Lake Michigan Toxics Reduction Initiative:
Estimate of constituent Loadings from RCRA TSD Facilities and Superfund Sites, Final Report
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement,
Washington, D.C July 6,1992.
60. Colborn, T.E., A. Davidson, S.N. Green, R.A. Hodge, CI. Jackson and R.A. Liroff. 1990. Great
Lakes, Great Legacy? Washington, D.C The Conservation Foundation and Ottawa, Ontario: The
Institute for Research on Public Policy.
61. Siegel, D.I., S. Frape, A. Martini, R. Drimmie, and R. Thomas. 1990. Heavy Metal Transport to the
Great Lakes by Natural Ground Water Discharge: an Initial Evaluation, in JJE. Fitzgibbon, ed.,
Proceedings of the Symposium on International and Transboundary Water Resources Issues,
American Water Resources Association, Bethesda, Maryland, 1990.
62a. Watson, J.R. and J.M. Fenelon. 1988. Geohydrology of Thin Water-Table Aquifer Adjacent to lake
Michigna, Northwestern Indianan. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Great Lakes: Living with
North America's Inland Waters. American Water Resources Association. Bethesda, MD.
POLLUTANT SOURCES AND LOADS 4-61
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
62b. Watson, L. R., RJ. Shedlock, KJ. Banaszak, L.D. Arihoood, and P.K. Doss. 1989. Preliminary
Analysis of THe Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal, Northwestern Indiana. US. Geological
Survey. Open-File Report 88-492. Indianapolis, IN.
63. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office. 1989. Green
Bay/Fox River Mass Balance Study. EPA-905/8-89/001. GLNPO Report 06-89, April 1989.
64. U.S. Envrionmental Protection Agency. Region 5. Water Divison. 1992. EPA Region 5 Inveontary of
Contaminated Sediment Sites - DRAFT, Chicago, IL.
65. Hermanson, M.H., E.R. Christensen, D J. Buser, and L. Chen 1991. Polychlorinated Biphenyls in
Dated Sediment Cores From Green Bay and Lake Michigan./. Great Lakes Res. 17(1): 94-108.
66. Swackhammer, Dl~, and D.E Armstrong. 1988. Horizontal and Vertical Distribution of PCBs in
Southern Lake Michigan Sediments and the Effect of Waukegan Harbor as a Point Source. J. Great
Lakes Res. 14(3):277-290.
67. Mudroch, A., Sarazin, L~, and T. Lomas. 1988. Summary of Surface and Background Concentrations
of Selected Elements in the Great Lakes Sediments. J. Great Lakes Res. (14(2): 241-251.
4-62 CHAPTER 4
-------
The process for reducing loads of LaMP
Pollutants to Lake Michigan consists of three basic
steps: load/ambient assessment, source
identification, and prevention, reduction, and
remediation activities for the most significant
sources and where potential success is greatest.
While monitoring and modeling helps to refine
estimates of sources and loads from all media,
actions to achieve immediate load reductions will
take place. The tables in this chapter are organized
to distinguish between those activities related to
assessment and source identification from those
that are designed to directly reduce toxic chemical
loads (prevention, reduction, and remediation).
The Lake Michigan Lakewide Management
Plan (LaMP) represents an assessment of
ecological impairments in the Lake Michigan
watershed caused by toxic pollutants, an
identification of the pollutants associated with
these impairments, and an evaluation of sources
and loads of these pollutants based on available
data. Based on this assessment, the participating
Agencies have developed a list of activities to
restore and protect the ecological health of Lake
Michigan. These activities fall into two categories:
toxic load reduction actions and data collection
and assessment
I. TOXIC LOAD REDUCTIONS
USEPA believes that some actions critical to
restoring and protecting Lake Michigan should be
identified and implemented based on current
information. The items listed below address known
or suspected sources of LaMP Pollutants and
represent actions to reduce loadings to the Lake
Michigan system. A refined list of actions will be
included in the final Lake Michigan LaMP based
on public comment on this list as well as a more
detailed review of existing data by the Agencies.
USEPA and the other Federal and State agencies
recognize that as more data are collected and
analyzed, load reduction priorities may change and
additional actions likely will be identified.
Four broad categories of load reduction actions
have been established. Actions that are currently
being developed and implemented, either through
the LaMP process directly or through other
programs and initiatives, comprise the first
category. The second category contains those
actions that are not currently being implemented
(except on a limited basis in some instances), but
that could be pursued and implemented on a
short-term basis (0-3 years). The third group of
actions are those that will lead to environmental
improvement in the Lake Michigan system, but
realistically will require a longer period of time
(3 years) to develop and implement The fourth
load reduction category includes actions that may
be critical for reducing inputs of LaMP Pollutants
into Lake Michigan, but require additional data
collection or review of existing information to
determine whether these actions should be a
priority and, if so, how such actions can be
implemented in a cost-effective manner.
A. Ongoing
1. Maximum Achievable Control Technology
(MACT) standards should be developed
under the Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 with LaMP Pollutants as a high
priority. To date, MACT standards have
been developed for a number of source
categories. While these MACT standards
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
are being developed, Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for LaMP
Pollutants should be required, as agreed to
in the Great Lakes States' Air Permitting
Agreement In addition, Section 112(m) of
the CAAA directs USEPA to determine
the impact of toxics air deposition on
Great Lakes water quality, and to
promulgate additional regulations as
necessary to eliminate impacts from air
emissions.
2. USEPA and the States, when pursuing
enforcement actions against facilities
violating environmental statutes, should
continue to emphasize pollution
prevention and environmental clean up in
addition to, or in lieu of, obtaining fines.
Ultimately, incorporating remediation,
restoration, and pollution prevention
actions into penalties and settlements does
more to restore and protect the ecological
health of Lake Michigan than only the
collection of fines and penalties.
3. Fnalize and implement Great Lakes Water
Quality Guidance and the Great Lakes
Enforcement Strategy. The Great Lakes
Water Quality Guidance, when finalized,
will establish uniform water quality
criteria protective of aquatic life, wildlife,
and human health, implementation
procedures for translating these criteria
into enforceable limits, and
antidegradation procedures to protect
water quality. The Great Lakes
Enforcement Strategy is designed to
reduce noncompliance by major
dischargers in the Great Lakes basin. The
Strategy, which utilizes an enforcement
screening criteria that is more stringent
than the national definition of significant
noncompliance, is being developed by
USEPA and the Great Lakes States.
4. Continue to develop and implement actions
in the Lake Michigan Areas of Concern
(AOCs) to reduce loadings of toxic
pollutants into Lake Michigan through the
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) process. The
10 AOCs around Lake Michigan are
contaminated with many LaMP Pollutants
and are potential sources of contaminants
to the Lake. Remediation, reduction, and
prevention activities implemented in these
locations will benefit the local AOC, and
Lake Michigan as a whole.
5. Expedite the Superfund process to the extent
possible. There are a number of Superfund
sites in the Lake Michigan watershed
which directly impact surface water, many
of which are contaminated with LaMP
Pollutants. The Superfund Accelerated
Clean-Up Model (SACM) is a pilot effort
by USEPA to remediate sites. This
approach involves conducting a rapid
assessment of a site to determine whether
immediate remedial action can and/or
should be taken, as opposed to performing
a long, detailed Rl/FS. The SACM
approach has potential to accelerate the
Superfund process and ensure more timely
remedial action. The Agencies
participating in the Lake Michigan LaMP
process fully support these efforts to
expedite Superfund actions.
6. Pollution prevention projects should be
implemented in major urban areas around
Lake Michigan. During Fiscal Year 1994,
USEPA is funding multi-media technical
assistance and education/outreach
pollution prevention projects in Chicago,
northwest Indiana, Milwaukee, and
western Michigan. In addition, a LaMP
5-2 CHAPTER 5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Pollution Prevention workgroup currently
is evaluating sources of LaMP Pollutants,
reviewing past and ongoing pollution
prevention initiatives, and identifying
where additional pollution prevention
efforts would contribute to load reductions
of LaMP Pollutants.
7. The Agencies have conducted a number of
agricultural, urban, and residential clean
sweeps around the Lake Michigan
watershed over the past few years. These
efforts continue to be a high priority and
should be conducted in all counties in the
basin as resources allow.
8. Although not well quantified, combined
sewer overflows likely are a source of
many LaMP Pollutants to surface waters.
Efforts to improve storage and holding
facilities to reduce sewer overflows should
be undertaken at locations where pollutant
inputs from this source are greatest.
USEPA recently proposed a CSO policy
whose elements include implementing
minimum technology-based controls,
giving priority attention to
environmentally sensitive areas, and
requiring municipalities to develop
long-term CSO control plans. The policy
also indicates USEPA's intent to initiate
enforcement actions against dry-weather
CSOs, and provides guidance on
enforcement of wet weather policy
elements.
B. Short-Term
1. Federal and State agencies should strive to
proactively identify toxics that, while
perhaps not yet impacting the Lake
Michigan watershed, have characteristics
indicating that future impacts are likely if
they continue to be released into the
environment This concept was recognized
by the LaMP Critical Pollutant Workgroup
in creating Level 3 (described in Chapter
3). Specifically, chemical evaluations
should carefully consider impacts in a
number of media. For example, pesticide
toxicity and persistence analyses should
not only be conducted in soil, but also
consider impacts and properties in the
surface waters and sediments to which
they frequently are transported. In
addition, the Federal and State agencies
should develop a process to identify
chemical properties that are not acceptable
for use in the basin due to known impacts
and toxicity.
2. Cross-media transfer of pollutant releases
should be restricted or minimized to the
extent possible. For example, decreases in
water discharges should not be achieved
by increasing pollutant emissions to the
air. The integrated rulemaking for pulp
and paper mills is an excellent example of
this multi-media approach. This approach
should be applied to all major source
categories of toxic pollutants.
3. The Agencies should conduct multi-media
audits of facilities in industrial sectors
known or suspected to release LaMP
Pollutants. Permits for these facilities
should be multi-media, and contain toxics
waste minimization plans. Such audits will
help to prevent the cross-media transfer of
pollutants described above.
4. Phaseout of PCB transformers should be
completed and phaseout of mercury lights
should be accelerated. All enforcement
actions and settlements should include
environmental audits and, as appropriate,
phase out PCB transformers, mercury
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACT! ON AGENDA 5-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
lights, and other sources of LaMP
Pollutants.
5. Blk storage of coal and scrap metal near
Lake Michigan tributaries without runoff
containment and treatment systems should
be prohibited.
6. Sediment remediation activities must be
prioritized, funded, and implemented.
USEPA has recently completed a
contaminated sediment inventory for the
Lake Michigan watershed and is working
with the States to finalize a prioritization
system to identify the most critical sites.
Application of all enforcement authorities,
as well as voluntary efforts, should be
used in order to ensure sediment
remediation, with costs should be shared
by Federal and State agencies. Site
remediation should be to minimum levels
which lead to elimination of fish and
wildlife consumption advisories.
Appropriate Agencies should assist in
selecting and developing sediment
disposal technology and in permitting
activities for sediment disposal.
7. The Agencies should continue and expand
public education and outreach activities.
These efforts must emphasize the role of
the individual in ensuring a healthy
environment and the impact of personal
decisions on water quality in Lake
Michigan.
8. The Agencies should aggressively promote
the maintenance of buffer strips along
streams and rivers through nonpoint
source programs. The presence of riparian
vegetation plays a critical role in water
quality by reducing soil and stream bank
erosion and subsequent sediment transport
to surface waters. Because most LaMP
Pollutants are hydrophobic and are
associated with sediment particles, these
buffer strips should reduce inputs of toxic
chemicals into surface waters.
9. Incentives to conduct industrial clean sweeps
should be explored.
10. USEPA, Soil Conservation Service, and the
States should design and implement
demonstration projects for agricultural and
urban best management practices on a
watershed basis. These projects must
strive to quantify progress and load
reductions of all pollutants to the extent
possible, in order to better understand the
significance of runoff relative to other
sources and gauge the success of BMPs.
C. Long-Term
1. Labeling and analysis of all materials used in
industrial and agricultural practices should
be improved to ensure that "inert"
materials are truly inert (see also action
Bl).
2. The U.S. must recognize the contribution of
LaMP Pollutants from air deposition from
neighboring countries. The U.S. should
seek to work with these countries to
reduce emissions of toxic pollutants. This
is especially critical for substances whose
use and production have been banned in
the U.S. Potential opportunities for such
dialogue could include joint environmental
clean-ups and trade agreements.
3. All uses and production of PCBs, DDT,
chlordane, dieldrin, and toxaphene in the
U.S. should be banned completely.
Though all of these substances have been
restricted to varying degrees, many of
them continue to be approved for certain
limited uses. In addition, many of these
5-4 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
substances are still produced in the U.S.
for sale in countries where their use has
not been restricted. Because these
substances are so persistent and readily
bioaccumulate, they likely will continue to
contribute to use impairments even with
very limited use and production.
D. Dependent On Monitoring and Review of
Existing Information
1. Data from the tributary and atmospheric
deposition monitoring will help identify
significant sources of LaMP Pollutants,
drive additional load reduction actions,
and allow the Federal and State agencies
to better target resources on high priority
activities.
2. If stormwater proves to be a significant
source of LaMP Pollutants, the Agencies
should support the development and
implementation of stormwater ordinances
for small communities not currently
covered by stormwater regulations.
Existing data on stormwater are currently
being evaluated. One possibility is to
develop a "model" ordinance that can be
used by these small communities that do
not have the resources to develop their
own on an individual basis.
3. Targeted planning and management
practices should be identified and
implemented in watersheds where
agricultural runoff is identified as a
significant source of LaMP Pollutants.
These efforts should incorporate the full
range of Federal and State programs and
authorities.
II. DATA COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT
Ambient, source, and loadings data for LaMP
Pollutants generally are scarce. The Federal and
State agencies have developed a tributary and
atmospheric deposition study (described in
Chapter 5) for LaMP Pollutants, with the bulk of
the sample collection scheduled to occur during
calendar year 1994. This comprehensive study will
provide relative estimates of pollutant loadings
from major tributaries to Lake Michigan and from
atmospheric deposition. These data will help
identify significant sources of LaMP Pollutants,
better target limited resources, and refine priorities.
A number of data collection and assessment
needs necessary for tracking ambient conditions,
identifying pollutant sources, and better
quantifying loads are identified below. Activities
are listed as short-term, long-term, or dependent on
monitoring or review of existing information.
A. Ongoing
1. Identify tributaries contributing the greatest
quantities of LaMP Pollutants to Lake
Michigan, and then identify pollutant
sources to these tributaries.
2. Quantify the relative importance of tributary
and atmospheric deposition loadings of
LaMP Pollutants to Lake Michigan in
order to better focus load reduction efforts.
B. Short-Term
1. A comprehensive inventory of
PCB-containing equipment in the Lake
Michigan basin should be conducted by
the USEPA and the States.
2. Biological and chemical indicators of
ecological integrity should be identified in
order to measure program impacts and
trends. The Federal and State agencies
should establish numerical targets for
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACT! ON AGENDA 5-5
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
LaMP Pollutants in all media and
environmental compartments (fish tissues,
water, sediments, etc.).
3. USEPA and the States should conduct a
comprehensive review of the 14 beneficial
use impairments (listed in the Great Lakes
Water Quality Agreement) in the Lake
Michigan watershed. The Agencies should
identify all stressors associated with these
impairments, including toxic and
conventional pollutants, habitat loss and
degradation, exotic species, and
exploitation.
4. Multi-media facility audits should be
conducted to identify use, extent and
potential for release of pollutants that have
characteristics indicating a potential for
impacting Lake Michigan.
5. Pilot studies should be initiated in the Lake
Michigan basin to quantify loads of LaMP
Pollutants from urban runoff and to
document specific sources.
6. The Federal and State agencies need to
assess bioaccumulation of critical
pollutants in terrestrial organisms. A
standard protocol for monitoring
contaminant burdens in terrestrial biota
needs to be established.
C. Long-Term
1. Reporting requirements to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) should be
expanded to include all LaMP Pollutants.
Among the LaMP Pollutants, the TRI
database only contains information on
PCBs, heavy metals, and naphthalene and
anthracene (PAHs). The expansion of TRI
reporting requirements to include all
LaMP Pollutants would provide valuable
information on sources of these
substances, as well as rough estimates of
pollutant releases.
2. Federal and State Agencies should complete
contaminated sediment assessments of
major tributaries, harbors, and bays
throughout the Lake Michigan basin.
Some of this work has already occurred
through the contaminated sediment
inventory for the Lake Michigan
watershed and the development of the
prioritization system to identify the most
critical sites. However, there are many
locations where sediments may be
contaminated but have not been fully
assessed. Ultimately, these assessments
should lead to remediation of
contaminated sites on a priority basis.
3. The Federal and State agencies should
establish and fund a long-term monitoring
program for the chemical and biological
indicators identified under
recommendation IIB(2).
4. Research into the dynamic interactions of
phosphorus, total suspended solids,
phytoplankton, and hydrophobic
compounds and the impact on trophic
conditions and aesthetics should, be
conducted as a way to prioritize ecosystem
stressors.
5. Investigations into lexicological effects of
new chemicals or substances whose
ambient levels are increasing should be
conducted and appropriate risk
assessments considered. For those
chemicals determined to pose an
unacceptable risk, the chemicals should be
targeted for elimination from the basin
through pollution prevention programs.
6. High performance liquid
chromatography/gas chromatograph mass
5-6 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
spectrometry (HPLC/GCMS) or
semi-permeable membrane device
(SPMD) sampling should be implemented
in tributaries to detect and identify
discharges of non-priority pollutant
compounds.
7. Stormwater should be monitored for LaMP
Pollutants. The Source Loading And
Management Model (SLAMM) for critical
pollutants could be calibrated based on
monitoring information. Land uses and
industrial types likely to contribute
pollutants through slormwater discharges
should be targeted for stormwater
permitting.
8. A comprehensive habitat inventory should
be conducted in the Lake Michigan
watershed. This inventory should assess
habitat quality and quantity for terrestrial
and aquatic organisms, provide a summary
of limiting habitats, and prioritize needs
for restoration, rehabilitation, and
acquisition. The inventory also should
provide recommendations for managing
important habitat, which may include
securing through acquisitions, easements,
etc.
The Agencies' action agenda for the
assessment, prevention, reduction, and remediation
of toxic pollution in the Lake Michigan watershed
is presented below. Some of the activities listed
have been initiated directly through the LaMP
process, while other efforts directly related to the
LaMP are being implemented through other
Federal, State, and local programs. Thus, the
action agenda presented below consists largely of
the identification of ongoing activities occurring
within the Lake Michigan basin. Many of these are
listed as "ongoing" in completion date columns of
the tables. Also, there is a number in parentheses
after each specific activity in the tables. This
number indicates the load reduction or data
collection recommendation(s), listed above, to
which each specific action corresponds.
The time-frame for these activities varies
substantially. Some represent annual, ongoing base
program efforts, some will be completed during
the next year, and others will require more than
one year to complete. Members of the Lake
Michigan Forum are invited to participate in the
work groups responsible for identifying additional
specific activities and developing more detailed
schedules. The LaMP Management Committee
and Forum will review and revise this action
agenda each year, during the annual workpianning
process, to evaluate progress, identify new
priorities, and develop new milestones. The next
revision of Lake Michigan LaMP will begin in
1995 with a Federal Register Notice. The LaMP
will incorporate new information on use
impairments and LaMP Pollutants, a re-evaluation
of the LaMP Pollutant list, information on habitat
quality and quantity, a review and revision, as
appropriate, of priorities and recommendations,
and a revised action agenda to reflect all of these
changes and revisions.
ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS
AND LaMP POLLUTANT IDENTIFICATION
There are a number of existing and proposed
efforts in the Lake Michigan watershed concerned
with the assessment of ambient conditions and
identification of toxic pollutants. Some noteworthy
activities include the development of
environmental objectives and indicators,
completion of the contaminated sediment
inventory, and the bioconcentratable substances
protocol pilot study in Michigan tributaries. These
activities, along with the others listed in the Table
5-1, will allow the Agencies to identify pollutants
that are impacting Lake Michigan and the media in
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
which these impacts are manifested, and to
monitor the success of the LaMP process in terms
of environmental improvements.
TABLE 5-1. AClWmES FOR ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS AND LaMP POLLUTANT
IDENTIFICATION
ACTION
LEAD AGENCY
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
COMPLETION DATE
Development of Environmental
Objectives: (IIB2)
• Convene workshop to
develop Lake Michigan
objectives
• Solicit Forum, public input
and comment on objectives
• Management Committee
approval of objectives
USEPA-Water
Division
All Management Committee
agencies
Completed
9/93-10/93
12/93
Development of Environmental
Indicators (IIB2)
• Convene work group to
identify quantitative indicators
and set measures for success
• Solicit Forum, public input
and comment on indicators
• Management Committee
approval of indicators
To Be Determined
All Management Committee
agencies
FY94
FY94
9/94
Bioconcentratable substances
protocol study for fish tissue
and sediments for Lake
Michigan tributaries in the state
of Michigan in order to detect
emerging problems
(IIA1JIC5, IB1)
MDNR
USEPA - Water Division
10/93
Inventory Lake Michigan
contaminated sediments and
rank sites most heavily
contaminated with LaMP
Critical Pollutants and
Pollutants of Concern (IB6, IIC2)
USEPA-Water Division
States, USCOE, USDA,
USGS
5-8 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-1. ACTIVITIES FOR ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS AND LaMP POLLUTANT
IDENTIFICATION (continued)
ACTION
• Complete regional
contaminated sediment
inventory
• Prioritize sites based on
extent and severity of
contamination
Assessment and Remediation
of Contaminated Sediments
study to assess sediments in
Sheboygan Harbor and Grand
Calumet River, test remediation
options and technologies, and
analyze their impacts on
ecological health (IB6, IA4, IIC2)
Sediment analysis,
maintenance dredging, and
disposal in Lake Michigan
navigational channels
(IBS, IIC2)
Fish tissue contaminant
analysis from fish collected in
Lake Michigan, tributaries, and
harbors (IIA1, IIC3)
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP)
for the Great Lakes (IIC3. IIB3)
• Collection of chemical and
biological data
National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA)
Program for western Lake
Michigan tributaries (IIA1, IIC2)
• Collect and analyze surface
water, groundwater, fish
tissue, and bed sediment
samples forconventionals,
metals, and a number of toxics
Review information to identify
substances being released into
the Lake Michigan basin in
large quantities in order to
identify those pollutants which
may be causing or may cause
an ecological impairment in the
future (IIC5, IB1).
LEAD AGENCY
USEPA-GLNPO
USCOE
USEPA-GLNPO.
States, USFWS
USEPA- Office of
Research and
Development
USGS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
USCOE, USFWS, NOAA,
MDNR, IL Natural History
Survey, Michigan State
University, U.S. Bureau of
Mines. NYDEC
COMPLETION DATE
Completed for Lake
Michigan and Lake
Superior basins
Completed for Lake
Michigan and Lake
Superior basins
12/93
Ongoing
Ongoing (annual)
Ongoing thru FY96
Final report to be
completed in FY96;
sample collection is
ongoing
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACT! ON AGENDA 5-9
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-1. LaMP ACTIVITIES FOR ASSESSMENT OF AMBIENT CONDITIONS AND LaMP
POLLUTANT IDENTIFICATION (continued)
ACTION
• Complete evaluation of Toxic
Substances Release
Inventory data for the Lake
Michigan basin
• Compare Critical Pollutant list
of pollutants with TRI data to
identify pollutants that are
released in large quantities in
the Lake Michigan basin and
known present and toxic in
the Great Lakes
Review any other ambient and
source monitoring data and
new research and propose
specific additions and deletions
to the LaMP Pollutant list
(including Pollutants of Concern
and Emerging Pollutants) so
that the LaMP for Lake
Michigan may address all
significant pollutant-related
problems (IB1. IIA1, IIB3. IIC5):
• Complete review of available
information
• If the Management
changes in the Critical
Pollutant list, publish
proposed revisions to the
Critical Pollutant list in
Federal Register
• Following public comment
period, publish final revised
Critical Pollutant list
LEAD AGENCY
USEPA-Water
Division,
Environmental
Sciences Division
USEPA-Water Division
USEPA, States,
USGS, USFWS
All participating
Agencies
USEPA-Water Division
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
COMPLETION DATE
Annual
Annual
Annual
As needed
As needed
5-10 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LOAD QUANTIFICATION AND SOURCE
IDENTIFICATION
Because many ongoing and proposed activities
involve both load quantification and source
identification, these two topics cannot easily be
separated and therefore are considered together in
the table below. The most substantial effort in this
category initiated through the LaMP process is a
comprehensive tributary and atmospheric
deposition monitoring program for LaMP Critical
Pollutants and Pollutants of Concern. Eleven
tributaries will be sampled, including the Grand
Calumet, St. Joseph, Kalamazoo, Grand,
Muskegon, Pere Marquette, Manistique,
Menominee, Fox, Sheboygan, and Milwaukee
Rivers. Air deposition samples will be collected at
nine locations around Lake Michigan. Tributary
and air deposition samples will be analyzed for
PCB congeners, DDT and metabolites,
hexachlorobenzene, dieldrin/aldrin, chlordane,
trans-nonachlor, toxaphene, atrazine,
octachlorostyrene, PAHs, total organic carbon,
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, zinc, mercury,
phosphorus, and total nitrogen. Analyses of
tributary samples also will include chlorophyll a,
hardness, Ph, total suspended solids, alkalinity,
temperature, specific conductance, dissolved
oxygen, chloride, and dissolved silica. Shakedown
sampling will take place in the summer 1993, in
order to refine the parameter list, develop methods,
train field crews, and assess the performance of
automatic samplers. The full load monitoring is
scheduled to begin in February 1994 and will run
one full year to February 1995.
This monitoring program is a cooperative effort
among USEPA (Region 5 Water and Air,
GLNPO), States (Water and Air), and USGS.
Some of the impetus for the air deposition
monitoring came from requirements in the 1990
Clean Air ACL This program will provide valuable
information from a number of perspectives. First,
it will provide accurate estimates of LaMP
pollutant loadings to Lake Michigan from
tributaries and the air. Second, the data will allow
the Agencies to determine the relative
contributions from air sources and sources along
the tributaries. Also, relative contributions among
tributaries can be compared. If tributary X
contributes 70% of total tributary loads of PCBs,
for example, then the Agencies can investigate
upstream sources of PCBs to tributary X and take
steps to reduce these loads. Thus, this monitoring
exercise will serve dual purposes, i.e. quantify
loads and identify pollutant sources and pathways.
TABLE 5-2. ACTIVITIES FOR LOAD QUANTIFICATION AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
ACTION
Implement tributary and air
deposition load monitoring
study for LaMP Level 1 -2
chemicals (I IA1,IIA2,ID1)
• Initiate tributary and air
shakedown study
• Initiate full load monitoring
study
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Water Division &
GLNPO, States, USGS,
USEPA-Airand Radiation
Division, ORD, OAQPS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
COMPLETION DATE
9/93
2194
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-2. ACTIVITIES FOR LOAD QUANTIFICATION AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION (continued)
ACTION
Produce and submit Great
Waters Study report to
Congress OA1.IC2, II A2)
• Quantify air toxics
deposition to the Great
Lakes
• Examine impacts of air
toxics deposition on water
quality standards and
criteria
Conduct Urban Air Toxics
Study (IA1, 11 A2)
Air toxics emissions
inventory (IA1, II A2)
• Establish inventory
• Update inventory
Complete the air toxicant
dispersion and deposition
studies (IA1, IIA2)
Initiate development of
emission factors for LaMP
Critical Pollutants and
Pollutants of Concern under
the Great Lakes Regional
Toxic Emissions Inventory
Project QA1, IIA2)
Produce Level 1 Mass
Balance model for Lake
Michigan to estimate Critical
Pollutant toads to Lake
Michigan (IIA1, IIA2, ID1)
Develop Level 2 mass
balance model for Lake
Michigan (II A1, 1 IA2.ID1)
Develop Green Bay Mass
Balance for RGBs Loadings
To Lake Michigan (II A1, IA4)
Compile existing State
NPDES facility discharge
data not reported to the
Permit Compliance System
(PCS) for LaMP Critical
Pollutants and Pollutants of
Concern (I A3).
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Air & Radiation
Division, OAQPS, NOAA
USEPA-ORD & OAQPS,
academia
States
USEPA-AREAL, OAQPS,
ORD
USEPA-AREAL, OAQPS
USEPA- Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Grosselte
USEPA-GLNPO, Water
Division, Air and Radiation
Division, States. UGSS,
ORD, OAQPS
USEPA-GLNPO, WDNR
States
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
States, USEPA-AREAL,
academia
USEPA-Air & Radiation
Division, OAQPS
Academia, USGS
COMPLETION DATE
9/93— First report to
Congress biannual
reports thereafter
Complete
8/95
Annually after 1995
Complete
Ongoing
Complete
FY96
Complete
Complete
5-12 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 5-2. ACTIVITIES FOR LOAD QUANTIFICATION AND SOURCE IDENTIFICATION (continued)
ACTION
Estimate pollutant loadings
to Lake Michigan from
contaminated sediments in
tributaries (IB6, IIC2)
Complete the inventory of
all RCRA treatment,
storage, and disposal
facilities and National
Priorities List CERCLA sites
within the Lake Michigan
basin (IIB4).
• Identify fatilities&tes that
treat, store or dispose of
or are contaminated with
LaMP Critical Pollutants
and Pollutants of Concern
• Estimate potential
pollutant loads from
facilities/sites to Lake
Michigan
• Use loadings estimates to
target fadlities^ites for
RCRA compliance
inspections
Estimate releases of LaMP
Critical Pollutants and
Pollutants of Concern to
Lake Michigan from AOCs
(IA4, IIA1).
Conduct Phase I inventory
of Class V wells within the
Kalamazoo River watershed
in order to identify potential
sites of shallow-aquifer
contamination.
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Water Division,
USGS
USEPA-Waste
Management Division,
States
USEPA-Water Division,
States, USGS
USEPA-Water Division
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
COMPLETION DATE
5/94
Complete
Complete
Ongoing
FY96
Complete
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution Prevention: A New Approach
The passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 marked a dedication to protect the
environment beyond the scope of the USEPA's
traditional role of setting standards and enforcing
actions against violators. Much improvement in
the environment has been achieved through
regulations governing individual environmental
media, i.e. air, water, land. However, pollution can
undergo cross-media transfers: deposition of toxics
from air, for example, can pollute surface waters.
Once persistent pollutants are released into the
environment, they may travel from media to media
and are reclaimed only with great difficulty and
expense. Therefore, preventing pollution at the
source becomes the preferred way to minimize or
remove threats to the environment.
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 describes
pollution prevention as any practice which:
• reduces the amount of any hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant entering
any waste stream or otherwise released into
the environment (including fugitive
emissions) prior to recycling, treatment or
disposal; and,
• reduces the hazards to public health and the
environment associated with the release of
such substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
• The Act declares pollution prevention to be
National policy, and establishes the
following hierarchy for environmental
management:
— pollution should be prevented or reduced
at the source whenever feasible;
- pollution that cannot be prevented should
be recycled in an environmentally sound
manner; and,
— where there are no feasible prevention or
recycling opportunities, environmentally
sound treatment and disposal should be
used as a last resort
Pollution Prevention vs. Traditional Approaches
While end-of-pipe control technologies have
resulted in the extraordinary improvement of water
quality in the Great Lakes in the last twenty years,
pollution prevention will be critical for attaining
the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in the future, which is virtual
elimination of discharges of all persistent and/or
bioaccumulative toxics. Pollution prevention calls
for industries, regulators and even citizens to look
beyond traditional approaches to environmental
management. For example:
Industry
Pollution prevention calls for industries to
evaluate the use of hazardous substances in
manufacturing processes long before those
substances reach the "end of the pipe" - the point
where they have historically been discharged and
regulated. Industries can reduce the amount of
materials needed to yield a product, or the amount
of energy required to run a plant or an office; both
reductions would prevent the creation of pollution
and would save the industry production and
overhead costs and possibly eliminate the need to
purchase expensive control equipment. In addition
to process or procedural modifications,
substitution of raw materials, and improvements in
housekeeping, maintenance, training, and
inventory control can effectively reduce pollutant
generation. A facility that aggressively pursues
pollution prevention will likely find itself
achieving lower emissions and reductions in waste
5-14 CHAPTER 5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
generation, as well as lower costs and savings of
raw materials. Consequently, the facility should
see a decrease in liability in both environmental
and worker safety costs, and an increase in
production and cost efficiency.
Government
In the past, environmental protection agencies
regulated pollutant discharges at the
end-of-the-pipe within a single medium (air, water,
land). However, increased awareness about
cross-media transfers of pollution has caused
pollution prevention to emerge as the most
effective tool for pollution reduction, and
consequently for the reduction of risks to public
health and the environment Environmental
protection agencies can probably best serve
pollution prevention by acting as a facilitator and
by including pollution prevention provisions into
permits, inspections, and enforcement settlements.
Additionally, all governmental entities should be
reviewing their own environmental management
practices and focusing on pollution prevention
wherever possible.
Agriculture
Sustainable agricultural practices are being
promoted throughout the nation and are focusing
on reducing the use of hazardous pesticides. Three
of the Critical Pollutants in Lake Michigan are
banned or canceled pesticides including chlordane,
dieldrin, and DDT/DDE metabolites.
The elimination in the use of these pesticides
has been an important step in the reduction of
pollutants generated in the agricultural sector. The
USEPA and the Department of Agriculture are
working together to develop private/public
partnerships to reduce the negative impacts of
agricultural products and activities on the
environment While the use of many pesticides
have been banned or canceled, existing stocks are
still being stored that need to be collected to
prevent contamination from leaks and improper
storage. Currently underway in the Great Lakes
Basin is the collection of out-dated, canceled,
unused pesticides through the "clean sweep"
programs. These programs allow farmers to
dispose of the unwanted pesticides in an
environmentally sound manner, thus preventing
releases from entering the local ecosystem, and
providing education to those using pesticides. In
addition, a PPIS grant to Purdue University
provides for the formation of the Indiana
Agricultural Industry Pollution Prevention
Advisory Council, training for cooperative
extension agents on the Farmstead Assessment
Program and the SARA Title III regulations,
establishing an information hotline, and
developing pollution prevention material for
pesticide applicator training.
Consumers
Consumers are becoming more aware of their
individual and collective impact upon the
environment and are more frequently making
consumer choices based upon the "environmental
friendliness" of products and services. USEPA is
working with the Federal Trade Commission and
t
the Office of Consumer Affairs to address the
definitions of terms such as "recycled" and
"recyclable"; standardizing the terms will provide
important information to consumers. Educational
programs are conducted in conjunction with
household hazardous waste clean sweep projects to
provide consumers with a better understanding of
the choices they have in purchasing fewer products
with toxic constituents in the future. The USEPA
is sponsoring a project to develop life-cycle
methodology that traces the pathway of pollutants
through the production process, and convey this
life-cycle information to consumers. Additionally,
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-15
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
recycling programs of waste oil, aluminum, glass
and paper are now commonplace.
The Strategy for Integrating Pollution
Prevention Into the LaMP
Although remedial efforts and strong
enforcement of existing regulatory controls will be
keys to mitigating past and ongoing sources of
toxic pollution, pollution prevention efforts will be
an integral component of the actions identified in
the LaMP to reduce the loadings of critical
pollutants and pollutants of concern to Lake
Michigan. Pollution prevention activities will be
planned through a joint USEPA and State effort
focusing on these pollutants released in the Lake
Michigan Basin.
Identification of Sources of Critical Pollutants
Source identification is the First step in the
development of a pollution prevention strategy for
Lake Michigan. In order to determine the most
significant sources of these pollutants, the Lake
Michigan LaMP Pollution Prevention work group
has developed a matrix of the likely pathways of
entry for these pollutants (e.g. atmospheric
deposition versus seepage from hazardous waste
sites or tributary loadings) into the Lake Michigan
Basin. The information contained in the matrix
will be verified by a monitoring program for the
Lake that is scheduled to begin in 1993.
The Pollution Prevention Work Group will use
available information to assist in the identification
of sources of these pollutants for a pollution
prevention focus. Industrial sources have been
selected as the focus of the first phase due to the
current availability of information relating to
releases of the Critical Pollutants. USEPA is
working to identify nonpoint sources of pollutants,
such as agricultural applications of pesticides,
contaminated groundwater, and volatilization from
landfills.
Industrial sources will be identified by SIC, and
by individual companies which release the Critical
Pollutants in the Lake Michigan Basin. Pollution
prevention opportunities for the identified
industries will be cataloged through a review of
current on-going pollution prevention activities
within the Basin and literature relevant to the
industrial SIC codes. In addition to these sources,
individuals within participating agencies will be
identified as resource contacts who can provide
input into the pollution prevention activity
planning process. Because information regarding
pollution prevention techniques, opportunities,
successes, and failures is still in the development
stage, best professional judgement will often be
relied upon in formulating plans for the future.
After identify ing specific industrial categories
and facilities as potential sources of Critical
Pollutants, and after cataloging existing pollution
prevention programs and strategies, the Pollution
Prevention Work Group will evaluate existing
pollution prevention programs and strategies for
coverage of areas of focus. The LaMP program
will attempt to fill gaps in existing programs by
providing incentives and funds for development of
pollution prevention activities where such
activities are sparse or absent, and by assisting in
marketing existing strategies. Activities may
include developing training materials on pollution
prevention for the sources of concern; conducting
conferences; targeting industries for technical
assistance; targeting geographical areas for
regulatory-related activities such as including
pollution prevention activities in enforcement
settlements, or in permits.
Currently there are many pollution prevention
activities underway within the Lake Michigan
Basin which are being sponsored at all levels. The
Greater Milwaukee Toxics Minimization Task
Force is a local level project which is focusing on
pollution prevention to minimize the discharge of
5-16 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
toxic substances into the environment, based on
consideration of financial, social, and public health
impacts. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC), Illinois
EPA, Illinois Hazardous Waste Research
Information Center, Chicago Department of
Environment, and USEPA are working jointly on a
project to provide pollution prevention information
and technical assistance to MWRDGC industrial
users.
The Michigan Office of Waste Reduction
Services is the lead government participant in the
Auto Industry Pollution Prevention Project, which
is a partnership with the auto industry to promote
voluntary reductions of persistent toxics in the
Great Lakes Basin. The Indiana Department of
Environmental Management is working with the
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) participants in
incorporating pollution prevention into the Grand
Calumet RAP. USEPA, in conjunction with
WRTTAR, held a workshop focusing on pollution
prevention.
In addition to planned pollution prevention
activities, agencies will be focusing on
incorporating pollution prevention into their base
programs. There are many opportunities for
regulatory agencies in the pollution prevention
arena; in enforcement settlements, pollution
prevention actions may be undertaken by the
violator in return for penalty mitigation. In
permits, pollution prevention may be the
agreed-upon method of obtaining compliance.
Pollution prevention can also be integrated into
inspections. Pollution prevention must be
integrated into every Agency's day to day
activities in order to maximize its effectiveness to
the fullest extent practicable.
Compatibility With Other Great Lakes Initiatives
This strategy complements the following
efforts that are already underway:
Pollution Prevention Action Plan
The USEPA Great Lakes National Program
Office has developed a Great Lakes Pollution
Prevention Action Plan in partnership with the
Great Lakes Basin States. The Action Plan
recognizes pollution prevention as a critical tool
for achieving the virtual elimination of the release
of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes
Basin, and establishes new initiatives and
re-directs existing activities to promote innovative
prevention practices throughout the Basin. The
development of Lakewide Management Plans for
each of the Great Lakes will greatly facilitate the
implementation of the Action Plan.
National Pollution Prevention Strategy
USEPA's National Pollution Prevention
Strategy includes the integration of pollution
prevention concepts into specific economic
sectors, including industry, agriculture, energy and
transportation, consumers and the Federal
government This "targeting" by sector allows the
Agency to focus on problems with high relative
risks, good potential for risk reduction, and high
probability for environmental improvement. The
heart of the Industrial Pollution Prevention Sector
Strategy is the "33/50 Program". Initiated in
January 1991, the USEPA asked companies to
voluntarily reduce the discharge of 17 pollutants to
all media (air, land, water). The goal of the
Program is to achieve a nationwide aggregate,
(rather than facility by facility) reduction of the
pollutants of 33% by the end of 1992, and 50% by
the end of 1995. Of the 17-33/50 pollutants, five
are also LaMP Pollutants in Lake Michigan,
including hexachlorobenzene, toxaphene,
chlordane, mercury, and lead.
Remedial Action Plans (FlAPs)
States have taken the lead on the development
and implementation of RAPs. These plans specify
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-17
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
remedial strategies for the contamination in
designated Great Lakes Areas of Concern.
Integrating pollution prevention activities into
RAPs will protect current investments in the
clean-ups by taking measures to prevent future
releases.
While the primary goal of the Lake Michigan
LaMP is to restore and protect the beneficial uses
associated with open lake waters, and the primary
goal of RAPs is to restore and protect beneficial
uses associated with geographically designated
areas, there will be instances where the two
overlap. For example, when a Critical Pollutant
impairs one or more beneficial uses in the open
lake waters of Lake Michigan and in an AOC, both
the RAP and LaMP processes should assign a high
priority to actions that will reduce the loadings of
that pollutant to both the AOC and the Lake.
State Pollution Prevention Programs
The LaMP will support the existing State
programs which advance the LaMP's goals, and
establish a cooperative and productive relationship
between State and Federal Agencies.
In 1991, Region 5 published a document
entitled "Pollution Prevention: Meeting the
Environmental Challenges of the 1990's", which
provides a full description of pollution prevention
activities at both the State and Regional level.
Additionally, the Ohio EPA published a report
titled "Great Lakes State and Provincial Pollution
Prevention Programs and the Great Lakes
Pollution Prevention Action Plan" in September
1992. These documents are being used as a
reference tools in implementing pollution
prevention programs.
Conclusion
Achieving the goals of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement will require the cooperation
and input of all individuals who live and work in
the Great Lakes Basin. Pollution prevention
activities must become a pan of all decisions in the
environmental management of the Great Lakes.
This pollution prevention strategy is just one of
many efforts that government agencies, industry
and individuals are undertaking to protect and
restore Lake Michigan. Table 5-3 highlights these
activities.
TABLE 5-3. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVmES
ACTION
Encourage the
institutionalization of
pollution prevention into
USEPAand State program
activities (inspections,
permits, enforcement)
(IA6, IA2, IB3)
Incorporate pollution
prevention into enforcement
and compliance cases and
settlements QA6. IA2)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-all media
divisions, States
USEPA4II media
divisions, States
PARTICIPATING AGENCY
COMPLETION DATE
Ongoing
Ongoing
5-18 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-3. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES (continued)
ACTION
Develop Lake Michigan
Pollution Prevention
Strategy (1A6)
Pollution Prevention
Outreach and Multi-Media
Technical Assistance
Project in Greater Chicago
OA6)
Technical assistance and
Pollution Prevention (P2)
education for small
business in western
Michigan (IA6)
Pollution prevention
education video for small
business in Milwaukee (IA6)
Identify Pollution Prevention
(P2) opportunities at
industrial facilities releasing
significant quantities of
LaMP Critical Pollutants and
Pollutants of Concern (IA6,
IA2)
• Identify facilities by SIC
code using TRI data that
release LaMP pollutants
• Based on SIC code
identification, implement
P2 activities such as
technical assistance,
education/outreach,
information exchange,
and/or conferences
Grand Calumet Toxic
Pollution Prevention
Technical Assistance
Project for the Gary,
Hammond, and East
Chicago Sanitary Districts
(IA6)
33/50 Pollution Prevention
Initiative For 17 Toxic
Pollutants (1A6)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Waste
Management Division
Illinois Hazardous Waste
Research and Information
Center
Grand Valley State
University
Greater Milwaukee Toxics
Minimization Task Force
USEPA-Waste
Management and Water
Divisions
USEPA-Waste
Management and Water
Divisions
IDEM, USEPA-Water
Division
USEPA
PARTICIPATING AGENCY
USEPA-Water, Air and
Radiation, & GLNPO, States
USEPA-Planning &
Management & Water
Divisions, IEAP, Chicago
POTW
MDNR
States, USEPA- GLNPO &
Planning and Management
Division
Lake Michigan Federation
States
COMPLETION DATE
Complete
FY94-95
9/94
9/94
6/93
Annual
FY94-95
Ongoing
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-19
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 5-3. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES (continued)
ACTION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
PARTICIPATING AGENCY
COMPLETION DATE
Waste Minimization
Program for Wisconsin
hazardous waste TSDs and
generators through
inspections and
informational seminars
(IA6, IA2, IB3)
WDNR-Office of Pollution
Prevention & Hazardous
Waste Management
Ongoing
Installation of Best
Management Practices to
prevent pollution from
nonpoint sources
(1A6. IBS, IB10, ID3)
USEPA-Water Division,
States
Annual
Evaluate sources and focus
pollution prevention
activities already underway
within the Lake Michigan
basin to reduce releases of
lead (IA6)
USEPA-Region 5, States
Identify P2 activities already
underway in the Lake
Michigan basin and identify
gaps and opportunities (IA6)
USEPA-Region 5, States
12/93
Compete generic and
pesticide-specific Pesticide
State Management Plans
for managing, minimizing, or
eliminating the use of
pesticides in areas that are
vulnerable to groundwater
contamination (IA6, IBS)
States
USEPA-Water Division, ESD
Ongoing
Implement the Great Lakes
Pollution Prevention Action
Plan, including (IA6):
• Target pollutants and
sources for pollution
prevention efforts based
on risk reduction potential,
among other things
• Ensure effective
stakeholder involvement
• Set goals in releases of
chemicals and focus
efforts on meeting these
goals
USEPA, States
Ongoing
5-20 CHAPTER 5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-3. POLLUTION PREVENTION ACTIVITIES (continued)
ACTION
Technical assistance and
educational seminars and
outreach for facilities
(IA6, IBS)
Greater Milwaukee Toxics
Minimization Task Force
OA6)
Michigan Auto Pollution
Prevention Project (IA6)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
University of Wisconsin
Extension Service, Illinois
Hazardous Waste and
Information Center,
Michigan Office of Waste
Reduction Services
Milwaukee Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Office of Waste Reduction
Services
PARTICIPATING AGENCY
USEPA-Office of RCRA
USEPA-Headquarters,
GLNPO
COMPLETION DATE
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION OF
CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
While pollution prevention is the preferred
approach to environmental protection, pollution
reduction and remediation also are important
components for reducing chemical loadings to, and
ambient levels in, Lake Michigan and its
watershed. Most State and Federal agency base
programs are geared toward reducing pollutant
releases, such as NPDES, RCRA, and air
permitting programs, enforcement and compliance
programs, and nonpoint source programs. The
Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance, when
finalized, will lead to load reductions from
industrial and municipal facilities. Pollution
remediation involves cleaning up contamination
that already exists. Remediation activities
generally focus on cleaning up contaminated
sediments in surface waters or hazardous waste
sites on land (Superfund program). There are
several sediment remediation and investigations
being conducted in the Lake Michigan watershed
(see Table 5-4).
TABLE 5-4. LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITES FOR CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
ACTION
Municipal Compliance
maintenance Program (IBS)
• Provide operator training
and assistance, planning,
and water conservation
Lincoln Park Gun Club
Sediment Project (IBS)
Manistee Lake Sediment
Assessment (IB6)
Trail Creek Sediment
Remediation ((IBS)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
US EPA-Water Division,
States
IEPA
MDNR
USCOE
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
USEPA-Water Division
USEPA-Water Division
USEPA-Water Division, IDEM
COMPLETION DATE
Annual
11/93
10/93
10/93
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-21
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-4. LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITES FOR CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (continued)
ACTION
Continue remediation of
contaminated sediments in
the watershed through
enforcement actions that
include remediation as a
remedy. Such actions are
underway at a first tier of
sites in the Lake Michigan
basin that includes the
Sheboygan River, the
Kalamazoo, Grand
Calumetrtndiana Harbor
and Ship Canal, and
Waukegan Harbor.
Manistique River and
Harbor. Little Lake Butte
des Mort, and Cedar Creek
(IB6, IA5. IA4).
Installation of BMPs
including possible UIC well
closure to reduce runoff into
surface waters from urban
and agricultural runoff
(IIB8, IIB 10, II B 11,1103)
Conduct agricultural clean
sweeps for banned or
Michigan basin counties
(IA7)
Urban dean sweep in
northwest Indiana to provide
safe disposal for a variety of
household hazardous
wastes (IA7)
Conduct household clean
sweep programs in state of
Wisconsin. Establish
permanent household
hazardous waste collection
centers (IA7)
Identify facilities with air
emissions that release
Critical Pollutants or
Pollutants of Concern to
ensure compliance with
permits (IA1)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Water Division,
States, USCOE, USFWS,
USDA
USEPA-Water Division,
States
USEPA-Environmental
Sciences and Waste
Management Divisions,
State Departments of
Agriculture
USEPA-Waste
Management Division,
IDEM
WDNR-Hazardous Waste
Program
USEPA-Airand Radiation
Division, States
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
USEPA-Environmental
Sciences Division
USDA
COMPLETION DATE
Ongoing
Ongoing
FY92-94
FY93-94
t
Annual
Ongoing
5-22 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-4. LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITES FOR CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (continued)
ACTION
Conduct airborne lead
initiative to reduce lead
emissions to the air, identify
major sources and, if
necessary, initiate an
enforcement program.
Assure that P2 is
considered in all
enforcement actions
(IA1. IA6).
Develop MAC! standards
for significant air source
categories of Great Lakes
pollutants (IA1)
Promulgation of additional
air quality regulations based
on results of the Great
Waters Study (1A1)
Develop a framework for
using regulatory and
analytical tools to reduce or
eliminate air deposition of
toxic pollutants to the Great
Lakes (IA1)
Target for inspection RCRA
and CERCLA facilities/sites
which store, handle, or
generate Critical Pollutants
or Pollutants of Concern
(IBS)
Expand scope of electric
utility voluntary reduction
and phaseout of PCB
transformers in Lake
Michigan basin by utilities
(IB4, IBS)
Identify and eliminate the
discharge of any Critical
Pollutants to shallow
underground injection wells
(IBS)
Continue RAP activities to
remediate contaminated
sediments and reduce
pollutant loads to the Lake
(IA4, IBS)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-Airand
Radiation Division
USEPA
USEPA, States
USEPA-Airand Radiation
Division
USEPA-Waste
Management Division,
States
USEPA-Environmental
Sciences Division
USEPA-Water Division
States
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
States
USEPA-GLNPO. - ORD,
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards, States
USEPA-Water and Waste
Mannage merit Divisions,
USCOE, USFWS
COMPLETION DATE
Ongoing
Ongoing; already
developed for some
sources
Nov. 95
FY92-93
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-23
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-4. LOAD REDUCTION AND REMEDIATION ACTIVITES FOR CRITICAL POLLUTANTS AND
POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN (continued)
ACTION
Implement the Great Lakes
Water Quality Guidance to
reduce toxics loads from
industrial and municipal
facilities (IA3)
Require permits for
stormwater discharges of
Critical Pollutants and
Pollutants of Concern (ID2)
Continue groundwater
assessments and
remediation in northwest
Indiana
Develop Grade Thickness
Criterion for Identification of
TSCA-regulated sediments
Define 'adequate
protection* approach to
disposal of TSCA-regulated
dredged material
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
States, USEPA- Water
Division
USEPA-Water Division,
States
USEPA-Water Division,
IDEM
USEPA-Environmental
Sciences Division
USEPA-ESD
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
USEPA-Office of Water
USGS, Indiana DNR
COMPLETION DATE
Ongoing
Ongoing
FY93
Ongoing
DEVELOP DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
TO MANAGE GREAT LAKES
INFORMATION
Two major impediments to comparing loadings
data on specific chemicals to Lake Michigan is the
lack of relevant data on toxic pollutant loadings,
and the lack of accessibility of data that does exist
to a wide array of agencies and research
institutions. Several agencies monitor levels of
toxics, conventional*, contaminants in fish and
wildlife tissue, or biota population levels in the
Great Lakes. However, agencies have not typically
applied the same standards to the collection,
storage, and management of toxics data as for data
on conventional pollutants. This makes data
comparisons and data access from other agencies
very problematic. Development of a consistent
data format and database to store this information
and provide accessibility to all interested agencies
clearly is a major undertaking.
The immediate concern for this Great Lakes
Basin information management system is the
storage and retrieval of the data that will be
generated from the comprehensive tributary and
atmospheric deposition load monitoring for LaMP
pollutants. The primary function of this system
will be to provide access to specific chemical and
tributary information, and allow ranking of
tributaries and watersheds based on relative
loadings of LaMP Pollutants.
In addition, USEPA-GLNPO is developing a
system to allow access to Great Lakes ambient and
loadings data (see Table 5-5). This system, Great
Lakes Envirofacts, will allow staff from Federal
and State agencies to retrieve data from existing
5-24 CHAPTER 5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
programmatic databases such as PCS, Storet,
RCRIS, and AIRS. Ambient data also could be
input into this system and accessed along with
existing loadings databases. Representatives from
various user groups have met to begin the process
of defining user needs and data requirements for
different programs. Based on the information
needs identified during these sessions, system
development will proceed, beginning with the
highest priority pieces of information. This will be
a long-term effort requiring much time and input
from a broad array of agencies and programs.
TABLE 5-5. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
ACTION
Develop database to store
chemical loadings data
generated torn the LaMP
monitoring program and
other Stats and Federal
monitoring and load
estimation activities.
• Develop database
structure and data
reporting requirements
• Complete system
development based on
database structure and
reporting requirements
Develop Great Lakes
Envirofacts system to allow
access to existing program
databases and information
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
USEPA-GLNPO
USEPA-GLNPO
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
States, USCOE, USGS,
USFWS, tribes, USEPA-Air
and Radiation Division, Water
Division
USEPA-Region 5, States
COMPLETION DATE
2£4
5/94
t
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-25
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
TABLE 5-6. ACTIVITIES TO INCORPORATE HABITAT INTO THE UMP
ACTION
Identify beneficial use
impairment caused by all
stressois (IIC8)
• Identify beneficial use
impairments in Lake
Michigan
• Identify beneficial use
impairments in tributaries
and the watershed
Identify other ongoing
habitat protection and
restoration workgroups and
activities (IIC8)
Establish Lake Michigan
Habitat Workgroup
Combine existing
databases to develop a
comprehensive Great Lakes
habitat database (1IC8)
Mapping and assessment to
describe the status of
habitat sites (IIC8)
Define criteria for
designating critical habitats
(IIC8)
Establish priority system for
ranking habitats (IIC8)
Provide recommendations
for management of priority
sites (IIC8)
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
States
USEPA-Water Division,
GLNPO
USEPA-Water Division,
GLNPO. States, USFWS
States
States. USFWS
States, USFWS
States, USFWS
States, USFWS
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
USEPA. USFWS
USFWS, States
USEPA. USFWS
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
USEPA
COMPLETION DATE
9/94
9195
2/94
12/93
1/94-1/95
1/94-1/95
1/95
9/95
1/96
5-26 CHAPTERS
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE 5-7. LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP UPDATES AND REVISIONS
ACTION
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
PARTICIPATING AGENCIES
COMPLETION DATE
Revise Lake Michigan
LaMP to reflect new
information
• Update loadings and
sources section
• Re-evaluate critical
pollutant list
• Update summary of
beneficial use impairments
• Incorporate habitat data
and issues into the LaMP
• Identify, revise, priorities
and recommendations for
action
• Update action agenda to
reflect new priorities and
activities
USEPA-Water Division
States, USFWS, USGS.
USEPA-GLNPO,
Air-Radiation Division
9/95 - 9/96
LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP ACTION AGENDA 5-27
-------
APPENDIX A: ONGOING ACTIVITIES
INTRODUCTION
Many Federal, State, local and private sector
agencies are already engaging in programs and
activities that will support the goals of the Lake
Michigan LaMP. Several ongoing programs are
briefly described below in the context of the
proposed LaMP process: identification of
ecosystem impairments and the responsible LaMP
Pollutants, identification of sources of LaMP
Pollutants, quantification of loads, establishment
of load reduction targets, and identification and
implementation of remediation, abatement, and
prevention targets. This chapter is not
all-inclusive; many academic institutions and
government agencies are engaged in research
activities on the Great Lakes that will contribute a
vast store of knowledge to the LaMP process.
IDENTIFY ECOLOGICAL IMPAIRMENTS IN
LAKE MICHIGAN
Activities are underway to gauge the severity
and extent of the ecosystem perturbations and
toxic accumulations that are responsible for
causing or contributing to the impairment of the
Lake Michigan ecosystem. The presence of
contaminants is being or will be investigated by
various agents at all levels of the ecosystem, from
the water column to top predators and human
beings. These activities are listed essentially in the
order by which bioaccumulative substances move
through the ecosystem, from water to sediments to
invertebrates and fish and, finally, into the tissues
of top predators.
Sediment Contamination
Sediments serve as a repository for toxic
substances, as well as a source of these substances
to Lake Michigan biota. Even if active sources of
toxics to the lake were eliminated immediately,
unless the contaminated sediments in the system
are remediated, biota will continue to receive doses
of contamination through the food chain. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) has the lead
responsibility for removing accumulated sediments
from navigable waterways. Other agencies are also
investigating ways to evaluate and remediate
contaminated sediments.
Lake Michigan Federation: The Lake Michigan
Federation is a public education, watchdog, and
coalition-building organization native to the Lake
Michigan Basin. In 1989, the Federation published
A Citizen's Guide to Cleaning Up Contaminated
Sediment (1). The document educates the public as
to the large role contaminated sediments play in
the pollution problems of the Great Lakes,
describes the pros and cons of various remediation
methods, and advocates citizen involvement in
catalyzing government attention to this problem.
Wildlife Contamination
The USFWS has conducted extensive research
linking the presence of persistent,
bioaccumulative, toxic substances to nest failures
and deformities in piscivorous birds throughout the
Great Lakes basin. In FY 1989, the agency funded
three studies that assessed the impacts of
contaminants on wildlife resources originating
from the Great Lakes ecosystem, as pan of the
Colonial Bird Contaminant Surveys. The first
study, the St. Lawrence River Contaminants Study,
collected samples of water and bird eggs to
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
analyze for levels of PAHs. The remaining studies,
which were conducted in cooperation with the
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, investigated
the levels of contaminants in two Great Lakes
migratory birds, the double-crested cormorant and
black-crowned night heron. The USFWS also
periodically collects samples of water, sediment,
and biota in the national wildlife refuges for
chemical contamination. In FY1989, samples
were collected in the Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore, Grassy Island-Wyandotte National
Wildlife Refuge, Michigan Island National
Wildlife Refuge, Iroquois Refuge, and Montezuma
Refuge.
GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
GUIDANCE
The Great Lakes Water Quality Guidance is an
effon to achieve consistency in state water quality
standards in the eight Great Lakes states and to
achieve compliance with the Specific Objectives
set forth in the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement The Guidance focuses on toxic
substances, and defines criteria for concentrations
of these pollutants that are protective of the plants
and animals that depend on the Great Lakes as a
source of food.
The initiative generated new USEPA criteria
for water quality in the Great Lakes, which the
states can use to review and revise their own water
quality standards. The guidance for the Great
Lakes basin included water quality criteria for the
protection of human health, aquatic life and
wildlife. In addition, the following areas were
addressed: mixing zones/zones of initial dilution,
procedures for establishing water quality-based
effluent limits in permits, anti-degradation,
biomonitoring requirements, pollution prevention,
use designations and variances from meeting water
quality standards. Much of the initial development
of guidance was done by the USEPA, using
existing federal criteria and state water quality
standards as a starting point.
USEPA anticipates that, to the extent that
criteria developed in conjunctions with the Water
Quality Initiative is truly protective of Great
Lakes-dependent plants and animals, these criteria
will provide the interim chemical objectives for the
Lake Michigan LaMP, with virtual elimination of
persistent toxic substances as the ultimate
objective. Through the LaMP program, USEPA
and our State, Tribal, and Federal partners will
strive to achieve load reductions from sources not
currently regulated under the dean Water Act that
will result in compliance with these criteria.
Identify Sources of LaMP Pollutants
Permit programs, such as those administered
pursuant to the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) provide a means by which sources can be
identified and tracked. Emissions inventories and
voluntary reporting programs provide additional
information on additional sources. Diffuse,
nonpoint sources of pollutants are more difficult to
identify, and most characterization work on these
sources is qualitative, rather than quantitative.
SURFACE WATER POINT SOURCES
In accordance with the Clean Water Act,
dischargers to surface waters must apply for
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits. The four Lake Michigan basin
states have assumed responsibility for managing
this program from the USEPA. The NPDES
permits contain limits on the quantities of certain
pollutants that can be discharged by any single
facility, as well as monitoring requirements for
those pollutants. Many permits require periodic
monitoring for the 129 USEPA Priority Pollutants.
A-2 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT Septerrber30,1993
Some of this information is recorded on the Permit
Compliance System (PCS) data base or kept in
paper flies by the appropriate state.
TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY
The Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act, passed in 1986, requires
certain manufactures to report to the USEPA and
to the states the amounts of over 300 toxic
chemicals that they release directly to air, water or
land, or that they transport to off-site facilities. In
addition, the law specifies that the USEPA
compile these reports into an annual inventory of
releases and transfers: the Toxics Release
Inventory. The TRI is published every year, and
provides source information for facilities that
produce, import, or process 75,000 or more pounds
of the 328 TRI substances, or that use in any other
manner 10,000 pounds or more of a TRI substance.
CERCLA AND RCRA
The Federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) was enacted to institute a
comprehensive national program to identify and
clean up the most threatening hazardous waste
sites, make responsible parties pay for cleanups
whenever possible, and set up a trust fund, known
as the Superfund, for the dual purpose of
performing cleanups in cases where responsible
parties cannot be held accountable and for
emergency situations involving hazardous
substances. This program provides a vehicle for
tracking repositories of hazardous materials that
may become sources to the lake.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976 (RCRA) authorized the USEPA to
establish a program to manage hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
Whereas the mission of the Superfund program is
to cleanup past, uncontrolled hazardous wastes,
RCRA is designed to create guidelines for current
and future hazardous waste management so as to
ultimately preclude the need for a Superfund
program. Subtitle C regulations pertain to the
"cradle-to-grave" management of newly generated
hazardous wastes, including generation,
transportation, and treatment/storage/disposal. This
program, like CERCLA, provides the LaMP with a
current database of potential sources of pollutants
to the lakes.
ESTIMATE LOADS OF LaMP POLLUTANTS
Loads of pollutants to surface water systems
can be quantified through monitoring studies,
Total Daily Maximum Load (TMDLs) programs,
and Mass Balance studies. These approaches
depend on the collection of information regarding
the quantities of pollutants discharged from
specific sources, and on monitoring of
contaminants in the sediments, water and biota of
the ecosystem.
TMDLs
A TMDL is a numerical quantification of the
pollutant loading which can be received by a
waterbody and is based on the applicable water
quality standard. The TMDL is comprised of
Wasteload Allocations for point sources, Load
Allocations for nonpoint sources, and a margin of
safety. In accordance with Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act, states are required to identify
waters that do not meet applicable water quality
standards with technology-based controls alone.
The states are also required to develop a priority
ranking for these waters, taking into account the
pollution severity and designated uses of waters.
TMDLs are to be established for pollutants in
order to achieve applicable water quality
standards, including restoration of beneficial uses.
The USEPA has recommended that states develop
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-3
-------
DRAFT Septenrtoer 30,1933
TMDLs on a watershed basis, in order to improve
the efficiency of the program.
Green Bay Mass Balance
In a mass balance approach, the law of
conservation of mass is applied in the evaluation of
the sources, transport and fate of contaminants.
The approach requires that the quantities of
contaminants entering the system, less the
quantities stored, transformed or degraded within
the system, must equal the quantities leaving the
system. Once a mass balance budget has been
established for each Critical Pollutant, the
long-term effects on water quality of the lakes can
be simulated by mathematical modeling. Mass
Balance modeling has been successfully applied to
the regulation of nutrient loads in the Great Lakes
during the past decade.
The ongoing Green Bay Mass Balance Study is
a project of GLNPO, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, and other federal and state
agencies and academic institutions. The project is
estimating mass balance budgets for PCBs,
dieldrin, lead, and cadmium. The anticipated final
results of the study (August, 1993) include an
indication of the relative importance of the sources
of major contaminants entering the Green Bay
ecosystem, a contribution to the development and
testing of methods that later can be used for
lakewide toxic investigation, and the testing of a
modeling framework that can be applied to larger
ecosystems, such as the entire Lake Michigan
basin (2).
Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring
Under the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990,
the USEPA, in cooperation with the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), is required to investigate sources of
atmospheric deposition of hazardous air pollutants
and transformation products to the Great Lakes
and other waters, evaluate adverse impacts of
aerially-deposited pollutants in the Great Lakes on
human health and the environment, and monitor
the aerial deposition of hazardous pollutants into
the Great Lakes. These requirements are included
in the Section 112(m) requirements for assessment
of atmospheric loadings and a report to Congress
by the end of 1993. This study, which will include
Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay, and a series of
coastal waters, is referred to as the "Great Waters
Study."
The measurement of atmospheric deposition to
the lake provides information on toxics for which
the air is the immediate source to the lake. Efforts
are underway to improve deposition monitoring of
toxics in the Great Lakes. In July, 1988, the
International Joint Commission published the
report to the Water Quality Board prepared by the
Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Task Force of
the Surveillance Work Group. The report outlined
a three-phase plan for addressing the problem of
airborne toxic substances in the Great Lakes basin.
A key element of this plan was the establishment
of an Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
for the basin. This network would consist of
several Master (research grade) stations
augmented by a number of Satellite (routine)
stations. The objective of this network was to
acquire sufficient, quality assured data to estimate
with a specified degree of confidence, the loading
to the Great Lakes basin of selected toxic
substances. The relative importance of the
atmospheric pathway could then be ascertained
and appropriate control strategies developed. The
IJC report also identified many critical research
issues that must be addressed in order to
understand and quantify the importance of the
atmospheric pathway for toxic substances. The
United States established a Master station at Green
Bay in Lake Michigan in 1987; in 1988, a
Canadian Master Station was established at Point
A-4 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Petre. In December 1989, a binational group of
managers and scientists met in Detroit to begin
preparation of an implementation plan for the
envisioned Integrated Atmospheric Deposition
Network. This plan provides detail and specific
directions over the next 6 years (3).
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1990
expedited the schedule for implementation of the
of the IADN network by requiring that at least one
facility capable of monitoring the atmospheric
deposition of hazardous air pollutants in both wet
and dry conditions be established in each of the
Great Lakes by December 31, 1991 [Section
The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) received a grant in November,
1990 to assist in initiating a one-year sampling
network at three sites in Michigan. The goal of the
project is to confirm the presence and magnitude
of persistent, toxic pollutants to provide baseline
data to direct future research projects. To follow
this preliminary program, the University of
Michigan worked with MDNR to conduct a study
investigating the transport, deposition, and source
regions measured across Michigan. This project
will collect ambient samples of PCBs, organic
compounds, and metals in the Traverse City area,
South Haven and Port Sanilac area, followed by
analysis by hybrid receptor modelling to evaluate
atmospheric transport and source areas. This report
has recently been completed and is available.
IDENTIFY AND IMPLEMENT POLLUTION
REDUCTION ACTIVITIES
The LaMP will go beyond traditional
command-and-control strategies to make use of a
wide range of potential strategies for reducing
toxic loadings in the lake and restoring ecosystem
functions. The following programs represent the
diversity of approaches for achieving pollution
reduction and ecosystem protection.
POLLUTION REMEDIATION
Federal
Remediation in the Lake Michigan basin will
take place under a number of existing programs,
including EPA's Superfund program, the Corps of
Engineers' dredging program, and the Coast
Guards' spill response program. Other programs,
such as the Northwest Indiana Initiative (see
section on abatement, below), have strong
remediation components. Remedial Action Plans
are described below as tools for eliminating the
most significant in-place toxic problems in the lake.
State
Remedial Action Plans:
Annex II of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement, in addition to requiring the
development and implementation of LaMPs,
requires the parties to designate Areas of Concern
and design Remedial Action Plans for them.
In accordance with the agreement, an AOC is a
geographic area that fails to meet the General or
Specific Objectives of the Agreement where such
failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment
of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support
aquatic life. The Agreement provides that AOCs
will be designated by the Parties, in cooperation
with state and provincial governments and the
International Joint Commission. A total of 43
AOCs have been designated throughout the Great
Lakes. As discussed in Chapter 2, Lake Michigan
contains 10 AOCs.
Remedial Action Plans are developed primarily
by the states and the Province of Ontario, with
technical support and guidance provided by the
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
USEPA and Environment Canada. In accordance
with the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement,
the plans are to include the following components:
i) a definition and detailed description of the
environmental problem in the AOC,
including a definition of the beneficial
uses that are impaired, the degree of
impairment, and the geographic extent of
such impairment;
ii) a definition of the causes of the use
impairment, including a description of all
known sources of pollutants involved and
an evaluation of other possible sources;
iii) an evaluation of remedial measures in place;
iv) an evaluation of alternative additional
measures to restore beneficial uses;
v) a selection of additional remedial measures to
restore beneficial uses and a schedule for
their implementation;
vi) an identification of the persons or agencies
responsible for implementation of
remedial measures;
vii) a process for evaluating remedial measure
implementation and effectiveness; and
viii) a description of surveillance and
monitoring processes to track the
effectiveness of remedial measures and the
eventual confirmation of the restoration of
uses (4).
Also in accordance with Annex 2 of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the RAPs are to
be submitted to the IJC for review and comment at
three stages: when a definition of the problem has
been completed, when remedial and regulatory
measures are selected, and when monitoring
indicates that beneficial uses have been restored
[Annex 2, Section 4(d)]. A number of RAPs from
around the lakes have been submitted to the IJC
already, and the IJC and governments which wrote
the documents are working on final revisions.
Table A-l gives the completion dates of the Lake
Michigan Stage I and II RAPS which have been
submitted to the IJC Figure 2-5 in Chapter 2
shows the locations of each Lake Michigan AOC.
Cleanup operations have already begun at a
number of AOCs, in some cases independent of
the RAP process.
POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Federal
Pollution abatement activities include the
standard regulatory programs initiated by the
Clean Air and dean Water Acts. The nonpoint
Source activities of the Soil Conservation Service
and USEPA represent a more recent approach to
pollution abatement The LaMP will encourage the
implementation of these programs for the purpose
of reducing loads of toxic pollutants to the
maximum extent possible, and the identification of
any additional authorities necessary to strengthen
these programs. Ecosystem impairment in Lake
Michigan indicates that extra effort is needed to
reduce toxics; the Great Lakes Toxic Substances
Control Agreement and the Northwest Indiana
Initiative are attempts to maximize the use of
existing programs to reduce toxics in the lake.
Nonpoint Source Grants and Technical Assistance:
The Clean Water Act of 1972 authorized the
USEPA to demonstrate pollution control
technologies in the Great Lakes Basin. The
program under which this demonstration was
conducted addressed a wide variety of pollution
control technologies, such as soil conservation,
conservation tillage, and animal waste
management, through grants to municipalities and
soil and water conservation districts. This pilot
A-6 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
TABLE A-1. LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN STAGE I AND STAGE II RAP COMPLETION SCHEDULE
AREA OF CONCERN
Fox River/Green Bay,
Wisconsin
Milwaukee Harbor,
Wisconsin
Waukegan Harbor,
Illinois
Grand Calumet/Indiana Harbor,
Illinois
Kalamazoo River,
Michigan
Muskegon Lake,
Michigan
Manistque River,
Michigan
Sheboygan Harbor,
Wisconsin
White Lake,
Michigan
Menomnee River,
Wisconsin^ ichigan
DATE OF SUBMISSION TO IJC:
STAGE I
October 1987
February 1991
—
January 1991
—
October 1987
October 1987
July 1989
October 1987
October 1990
DATE OF SUBMISSION TO UC:
STAGE II
October 1987
—
—
—
—
October 1987
October 1987
—
October 1987
—
program was partly responsible for the inclusion of
Section 319 in the Water Quality Act of 1987.
In accordance with Section 319 of the dean
Water Act, the USEPA gives grants to the states
for the development and implementation of
nonpoint source control programs. The first grants
were made under this program in 1989. The
USEPA is currently participating in seven
nonpoint source projects in the Lake Michigan
basin. (See Action Agenda)
The Soil Conservation Service, pursuant to
P.L. 566, designs, implements and funds soil
conservation efforts on small watersheds. These
programs can result in a significant decrease in
nonpoint run-off of pollutants into surface water
bodies.
Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(SWCDs) are generally county-level agencies
established to reduce nonpoint pollution. The
Districts were founded on the belief that
conservation decisions should be made at the local
level by individual landowners with technical
funding assistance provided by federal, state, and
local governments. The SWCDs are undertaking in
conjunction with the Leelanau Soil and Water
Conservation District (Leelanau County,
Michigan) the following activities: the Northwest
Lower Michigan Cooperative River Basin Study to
prioritize County water quality problems and
suggest water quality improvements; North Lake
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Leelanau Water Quality Special Project to study
best management practices (BMPs), including
integrated crop management and pesticide
containment facilities; Michigan Energy Technical
Assistance Program Grant to provide assistance to
orchardists for improving spray efficiency. (5)
In addition to the Soil Conservation Service
and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts, the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service and Cooperative Extension Service
support on-farm programs to reduce nonpoint
source pollution. The USDA supports a number of
Water Quality Initiatives, including demonstration
projects and hydrologic unit area projects. In 1989,
the total local, state and federal funding for
nonpoint source pollution reduction in the Lake
Michigan basin was approximately $8.8 million
(6).
Greaf Lakes Basin Program:
In November, 1987 the Great Lakes
Commission appointed a Soil Erosion and
Sedimentation Task Force with member State and
Federal agency representation. The Task Force
was to design in detail the elements, activities, and
funding levels of a proposed Federal Great Lakes
Basin Program; to develop an action strategy to
generate State, Federal, and Congressional support
for the program; and to advise the Commission in
the conduct of such a strategy. The purpose of the
program is to protect and improve the Basin's
water quality by controlling erosion and
sedimentation; limiting the input of associated
nutrients and toxic contaminants; and minimizing
off-site damages to harbors, streams, fish and
wildlife habitat, recreational facilities, and the
Basin's system of public works.
The Great Lakes Basin Program is composed of
five principle elements: program grants and
technical assistance to State and local entities to
develop and strengthen nonpoint source pollution
control programs; financial assistance and
demonstration grants to State and local entities to
support demonstration projects; demonstrations
and special projects to provide for the application
of scientific knowledge to existing problems;
evaluation and monitoring to track progress and
identify areas of concern for future attention; and
education and information to promote participation
in the program and build coalitions and networks
among water quality and soil conservation
interests at the Federal, State, regional and local
levels (6).
Council of Great Lakes Governors:
The eight governors of the Great Lakes basin
states formed a council in 1982 in order to forge a
regional approach to addressing the economic and
environmental challenges facing the Great Lakes.
In 1986, the eight governors signed the Great
Lakes Toxic Substances Control Agreement
(GLTSCA). This agreement committed the states
to continue efforts to reduce toxics in the Great
Lakes basin to the maximum extent possible,
consistent with the Clean Water Act goal of
prohibiting the discharge of toxic substances in
toxic amounts, as well as the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement's aim to virtually eliminate the
discharge of all persistent toxic substance?.
In accordance with the GLTSCA, the eight
basin states have shifted many program priorities
in order to reduce the discharge of toxic substances
into the Great Lakes. Among the more significant
program changes has been a commitment to
identify and reduce sources of airborne toxics.
Additional state activities pursuant to this
agreement include stepped up efforts on
notifications of accidental discharges of oil or
other hazardous substances, more rigorous
management of hazardous wastes, and review of
and comment on federal programs (7).
A-8 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
The Great Lakes Pollution Prevention Action
Plan has two distinct components. First, it includes
new initiatives designed to promote innovative
pollution prevention practices throughout the
basin. Second, it involves reorienting and
refocusing existing activities, such as enforcement
actions, to ensure that pollution prevention is an
integral part of the government's environmental
protection efforts. In the Action Plan, USEPA, in
partnership with the States and municipalities, will
take the following actions:
• target particular pollutants, geographic areas
and/or sources for pollution prevention
efforts on the basis of their risk reduction
potential, among other factors;
• set interim goals on the way to virtual
elimination for the reduction in releases of
targeted pollutants;
• focus government institutions and programs,
and private sector efforts, on meeting these
goals;
• continue to integrate pollution prevention
into existing regulatory and non-regulatory
efforts; and
• ensure effective stakeholder involvement in
all facets of the program.
This program will be carried out in
coordination with pollution prevention activities
being implemented by the Canadian government.
The LaMPs and RAPs will serve as major
implementation vehicles for the Great Lakes
pollution prevention program. Conversely,
pollution prevention activities will be important
tools in the reduction of discharges into the lakes
and restoration of ecosystem functions and
beneficial uses.
State
The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, the Office of Waste Reduction
Services, Chrysler, Ford, General Motors and the
American Automotive Manufacturers Association
are working together on the Auto Industry
Pollution Prevention Project Each auto company
is working with their plants in the Great Lakes
States to focus pollution prevention efforts on 65
persistent toxics. The auto companies are also
working with their suppliers to promote pollution
prevention of these targeted toxics.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Hazardous Waste Management Program has
established a program to encourage waste
minimization at hazardous waste TSDs and
generators. This program includes checking for
waste minimization activities as part of inspections
and conducting informational seminars targeted at
groups of generators.
Local
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District
conducted a "Survey of Sewerage Districts on
Pollution Prevention Activities." (11) The purpose
of the survey was to document the types and
variety of pollution prevention activities'
undertaken at publicly owned treatment works and
facilitate the sharing of this information. Some
results of this survey were that metals were the
pollutants of greatest concern (50% of 191
respondents) followed by cyanide and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs), dioxins, pesticides,
and PAHs. Industries are the focus of 90 percent of
the respondent's pollution prevention programs
while hazardous waste generators and residential
sources are around 25 percent. Respondent's
pollution prevention programs consisted of (in
order of most frequent): monitoring activities
related to LaMP Pollutants, pretreatment and
enforcement, internal/organizational activities,
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Within the GLTSCA program, the eight Great
Lakes basin States signed a Great Lakes States'
Air Permitting Agreement in November, 1988.
This agreement commits the air regulatory
programs of each State to require air emissions
sources of Great Lakes critical pollutants to utilize
the best available controls to the maximum degree
allowed under existing authority. The agreement
also provides that the States will exchange permit
applications for potentially significant sources in
order to assure consistent reviews and control
requirements.
Federal Facilities Initiative:
The USEPA is piloting an initiative to reduce
loads of toxic pollutants released by government
owned, contractor operated facilities in the Great
Lakes basin. The goal of the initiative is to develop
a chemical-specific, risk-based prioritization
scheme for federal facilities in order to:
• Prioritize federal facility inspections based
on chemical-specific data and the relative
risks posed to human health and the
environment;
• Identify risk-based opportunities;
• Identify pollution prevention/source
reduction opportunities;
• Facilitate regulatory compliance by
identification of problematic areas and
promote emission reductions beyond those
required by regulations; and
• Accomplish the above goals with an easy to
use, computer-driven methodology using
readily available data sources.
The project is currently in the methodology
development stage (8).
Northwest Indiana Initiative:
The Northwest Indiana area, specifically the
Grand Calumet River/Indiana Harbor Canal
sub-basin, is one of the major contributors of toxic
pollutants to Lake Michigan. This area has also
been designated an AOC. Pollution problems in
the sub-basin include the presence of
approximately 4 to 5 million cubic yards of
contaminated sediments in the harbor river and
canal, about 157 thousand cubic yards of which are
estimated to move into the southern end of Lake
Michigan annually; point sources on the river and
canal that discharge over one billion gallons per
day; millions of gallons of petroleum distillates
that float on top of the shallow groundwater table
(the recent release of 200,000 gallons of oil from
the Ed site and from LTV Steel spotlight the ease
of movement from the groundwater to the river,
canal, and ultimately Lake Michigan), and air
sources in and around the sub-basin that emit
substantial quantities of toxic materials.
The Northwest Indiana Initiative proposes to
carry out six major actions, assess the results while
underway, and, as an interim product, establish a
quantifiable estimate of the reduction of toxic
discharges to southern Lake Michigan that will be
achieved by these actions and the amounts of
toxics that will be interdicted in the future". The six
facets of the Initiative will be as follows:
1. Ensure the dredging of the Federal
Navigation Channel and, where possible,
other segments of the Grand Calumet
River using enforcement under all
available environmental statutes.
2. Achieve a high level of compliance (90%
or greater) with all federal environmental
statutes.
3. Assess and begin remediation of mill ions
of gallons of petroleum distillate currently
floating on top of the groundwater.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-9
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
4. Initiate a broad spectrum pollution
prevention initiative with the local
industries and municipalities as a
component enforcement, actionsand
settlements.
5. Ensure compliance with Annex II of the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
through the development of the RAP and
the development of the Lake Michigan
LaMP.
6. Enhance the chances of success by
incorporating the affected publics; such as
local units of government, environmental
groups and industry into the process. This
will be done through an aggressive public
outreach process/public participation
component woven into each major aspect
of the initiative.
Local
Milwaukee's Metropolitan Sewerage District
(MMSD) has enacted Discharge Regulations and
Enforcement Procedures which prohibit the
discharge of 24 bioaccumulating substances into
the sewer system (9). Section 11.202(8) states,
"[The User may not discharge into the sewer
system] any substance that will cause the sewerage
system's treatment residues, sludges, or scums to
be unsuitable for reclamation and reuse, that
causes interference with the reclamation process,
or that inhibits the marketing of treated sewage
sludge." The regulations also include local
pretreatment standards for five LaMP metals and
PAHs. It should be noted that all POTWs have
Industrial Pretreatment Programs.
The City of Algoma, Wisconsin has completed
a 5 million dollar improvement in its wastewater
treatment facility, which included an advanced
tertiary/filter system. (10)
The city of Grand Rapids and Lansing have
initiated a CSO Abatement Program. Muskegon
and Ottawa have begun a waste reduction program.
POLLUTION PREVENTION
The passage of the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 marked a dedication to protect the
environment beyond the scope of EPA's
traditional role of setting standards and enforcing
actions against violators. Much improvement in
the environment has been achieved through
regulations governing individual environmental
media; however, pollution can undergo
cross-media transfers and stem from dispersed or
nonpoint sources, which are difficult to regulate.
Preventing pollution at the source thus becomes
the preferred way to minimize or remove threats to
the environment.
Federal
Region 5 is integrating pollution prevention
concepts into its base programs, incorporating
them throughout its regulatory functions and
non-regulatory activities. On April 12,1991, the
USEPA released a Great Lakes Pollution
Prevention Action Plan. In cooperation with the
eight Great Lakes basin States, USEPA
implemented this plan to significantly reduce the
levels of toxic substances found in the Great Lakes
basin by promoting pollution prevention activities
to significantly reduce or eliminate the use and/or
release of toxic substances at the source, with a
special focus on reducing or eliminating persistent,
bioaccumulative toxic substances. Pollution
prevention activities complement current Great
Lakes efforts to reduce toxic pollution, such as
placing stringent permit limits on generators of
toxic substances and remediating contaminated
sediments.
A-10 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
technical assistance and coalition building,
education, and incentives/recognition. Pollution
prevention was incorporated into existing
programs instead of completely new initiatives.
Twenty percent of the POTWs arc applying the
zero discharge concept in the regulation of LaMP
Pollutants discharged. Finally, most respondents
indicated the need for outside assistance to
enhance their pollution prevention programs and
plan to expand pollution prevention activities over
the next three years.
The Grand Traverse County (Michigan) Drain
Commissioner's Office in responsible for
administering the Mitchell Creek Watershed
Implementation Program, which is targeted at
reducing nonpoint sources of phosphorus loadings
into the Grand Traverse Bay system. Major
components include: land protection and education
program by the Grand Traverse Regional Land
Conservancy, a master development plan,
agricultural and recreational BMPs,
comprehensive wetlands mapping, and flow
monitoring and biological assessments (12).
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
involves over 100 organizations in the five-county
region surrounding the Grand Traverse Bay in
such activities as sub-watershed planning and
BMPs, education and public awareness programs,
and land conservation and protection plans (13).
A-12 APPENDIX A
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
LITERATURE CITED
1. Sullivan, J. and A. Bixby. 1989..A Citizen's Guide: Cleaning Up Contaminated Sediments. Lake
Michigan Federation, Chicago, IL.
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Great Lakes National Program Office. 1989. Green Bay Mass
Balance Study Plan: A Strategy for Tracking Toxics in the Bay of Green Bay, Lake Michigan.
EPA-905/8-89/001, Chicago, IL
3. U.S./Canada Coordinating Committee on Annex 15.1990. Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network
Implementation Plan. Presented to the Parties to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement June 14,
1990.
4. International Joint Commission. Great Lakes Regional Office. 1987. Revised Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of1978 as Amended by Protocol signed November 18,1987. 1987. Windsor,
Ontario.
5. Long, B.H. Memorandum to the USEPA, Region 5, LaMP team, April 5,1993. Ongoing Water Quality
Activities of the Soil Conservation Service and Leelannau Soil and Water Conservation District in
Leelanau County in Leelanau County Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation
Service. Lake Leelanau, MI.
6. Great Lakes Commission. 1990. Conservation Districts and Great Lakes Water Quality: Present and
Prospective Roles. A Report to the National Association of Conservation Districts, Committee on the
Great Lakes. Ann Arbor, MI.
7. Great Lakes Governors Task Force on Toxic Substances Control. 1986. Final Report: Great Lakes
Governors Task Force on Toxic Substances Control. Council of Great Lakes Governors, Chicago,
IL.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. 1991. Federal
Facilities Toxic Project (Draft document).
9. Skavroneck, S. Memorandum to the USEPA, Gary Kohlhepp, April 15,1993. Local Pollution
Prevention Initiatives. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. Milwaukee, WI.
10. Theys, CJ. Letter to the USEPA, Gary Kohlhepp, April 8,1993. Specific county, city, or other local
pollution reduction programs. City of Algoma. Algoma, Wl.
11. Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District. 1992. Survey of Sewerage Districts on Pollution
Prevention Activities. 10/14/92 92587.
12. Templeton, M.K. Letter to the USEPA, Gary Kohihepp, April 26,1993. Local Pollution Reduction
Programs tftroughout tiie Lake Michigan Basin. Grand Traverse County Drain Commissioner.
Traverse City, MI.
13. Johnson, A. Letter to the USEPA, Gary Kohlhepp, April 27,1993. Ongoing Pollution Prevention
Activities in the Lake Michigan Basin. Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation & Development
Council. Traverse City, MI.
ONGOING ACTIVITIES A-13
-------
?S^;vf . - '• '-%?'r ' '" J- : -:r: ' : ;;;; • '****£*
":v:f|tif •:|4?iF-.;'^v:-;:f-: • I- ;.;:-;:^.;c;«w3iunY
Chicago, Illinois
North Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Northlake, Illinois
McCook. Illinois
McCook, Illinois
Franklin Park, Illinois
Melrose Park, Illinois
Harvey, Illinois
Matteson, Illinois
Schiller Park, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bellwood, Illinois
Bamngton, Illinois
Maywood, Illinois
Oaklawn, Illinois
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
Argonne, Illinois
Willow Springs, Illinois
Calumet City, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
AB Dick Company
Abbott Labs
Able Electro Polishing Company
Advance Transformer Company
AG Communication System Corp.
Akzo Chemie Ameri Company
Akzo Chemie Ameri Company
AL Laboratories, Incorporated
Album Graphics
Allied Tube and Conduit
Allis-Chalmers
Amco Engineering
American Can Company Inolex Div.
American National Can Company
American National Can Company
American Waste Processing LTD
Amsted Industries
Armrtage John & Company
Argonne National Lab
Ashland Chemical Company
Ashland Chemical Company
Barker Chemical Company
Barker Chemical Company
Baron Blakeslee Incorporated
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ILLINOIS
-' \:y. ' FACJUTV -v- V *
Chicago Heights, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Miles, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
Chicago Heights, Illinois
Melrose Park, Illinois
Des Plaines, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Nites, Illinois
Great Lakes, Illinois
Northbrook. Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Franklin Park, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Northbrook, Illinois
3ridgeview, Illinois
Harvey, Illinois
Countryside, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Evanston, Illinois
Waukegan, Illinois
Lake Bluff, Illinois
Calumet City, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bartlett, Illinois
Columbia Tool Steel Company
Continental Can Co. Plant No. 64
Continental Can Co. USA Plant 5
Grouse-Hinds Co. Lighting Product
CWM Chemical Services
Dana Corp Victor Products Division Chicago
Daniy Machine Corporation
Desoto Incorporated .
Detrex Chemical Industries
Diversey Corporation, The
Dormeryer AF Mfg. Company
Dover Industrial Chrome Inc.
Drawn Metal Products
DRMO Great Lakes
Dublin Company
Ecko Houseware Company
Electronic Circuit Associates
Elkwood Platng Incorporated
Engineered Coating Products Inc.
Enthone Incorporated
Envirite Corporation
ESB Inc. Exide Services
Ethicon Incorporated
Ethyl Molded Prat VCA Federal
Fansteel Inc.
Fanstel Inc. VR/Wesson Division
Fanstel Inc. VR/Wesson Division
Fina Oil and Chemical Co.
Fisher -Calo Chemical Corporation
Flexonics
B-2 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
. " • " : ' ILLINOIS '. "•""' • -I • C". ;' }:<::--:,.:;':::;:'
FACIUTY -• : ': •'••-= -I* >•*
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
; iLLir
^OIS . I... .;. ,.:,,.,.:.:
•;.•-: '•;.,' .-:- .. • • . FACILITY . '-h:.:.. ;,:-.;'::i;;:;t:,.
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Schaumbutg, Illinois
Franklin Park, Illinois
North Chicago, Illinois
Bedford Park, Illinois
Des Plaines, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
McCook, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Bridgeview, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Skokie, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Rolling Meadows, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
Arlington Heights, Illinois
Melrose Park, Illinois
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
McCook, Illinois
Franklin Park, Illinois
Schaumburg, Illinois
Des Plaines, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
Lissner Corporation
LTV Chicago
Lunt Mfg. Company, Incorporated
Magie Brothers Oil Company
Marley Ingrid Company
Martin Chas Inspection & Control
Martin Sprocket and Gear
Martin Vamish Company
McCook Lead Supply Incorporated
McKesson Chemical Company
McKesson Chemical Company
Mead Corp. Containers Division
Mercury Finishing Company
Metal Finishing Research Corp.
Metal Finishing Research Corp.
Metal Removal
Metal Treating and Eng. Inc.
Methods Etectonics Incorporated
Methode
Midwest Electric Mfg. Corporaton
Mobil Oil Corp Cicero Lube Plant
Mobil Oil Corp Des Plaines Term
Moore Benjamin & Company
Morton-Norwich Products Inc. Morton
Motor Oils Refining Company
Motorola Incorporated
Motorola Incorporated
MVM Incorporated
Nalco Chemical
National Castings Inc.
B-4 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
,; \ ;-:?v;;y;:-:;:r;' ' " '• • 'ILLINOIS" ;• '•" •• • '^:^-^k^
.;-:'. ::F' ">••••;•.:: ,. - : FACJUTY .. .-' •' : Vy- L'^'U' ^
North Chicago, Illinois
Rolling Meadows, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Waukegan, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Elk Grove Village, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Schiller Park, Illinois
Bedford Park, Illinois
Melrose Park , Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Franklin Park, Illinois
Zion, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Cicero, Illinois
Northlake, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bridgeview, Illinois
North Chicago Refiners & Smelters
Northrop Corp Defense Systems Div
Nyco Products Company
Outboard Marine Corp. Johnson
Parco Products
Perfection Plating Incorporated
Pheoll Manufacturing Company
Playskool Incorporated
PMC Specialties Group Div of PMC 1
Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co
PVS Chemical
Qu Voe Chemical Ind Inc Refinery 8
RBH Dispersions Inc.
Reflector Hardware
Regal Tube Co.
Reichhold Chemicals Inc.
Reliable Electric Company
Reliance Universal Inc. Illinois
Rock-Ola Manufacturing Corporation
Safety-Kleen Corp. Equip.
Sandoy Corporation Protection
Saporito CJ Plating Company
Scnolle Corporation
Schwinn Bicycle Plant 2
Schwinn Bicycle Plant 4
Schwinn Bicycle Plant 1
SCM Corp Glidden Macco Adhesives
Sherwin Williams
Sherwin Williams Co the Technical
Signode Supply Corporation
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
f 4|% ••;•/* .. .v . •••- • =:• . . ILLINOIS.;'--. ..,-•.,.
S^^'r-fe-".^'' "••'-.•':-• •' FACILITY i :-
Franklin Park, Illinois
Bellwood, Illinois
Chicago Heights, Illinois
North Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bedford Park, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Schaumburg, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Waukegan, Illinois
Chicago Heights, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bedford Park, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Lemont, Illinois
Des Plaines, Illinois
Barttett, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago Heights, Illinois
Schaumburg, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Bedford, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Harvey, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
Sloan Valve Company
Stanadyne Inc Chicago Division
Standard T Chemical Company Inc
Stone Container Corp N. Chicago Div
Sun Chemical Corp GP1 Division
Sun Chemical Corp GP1 Division-CL
Tarn Industries Incorporated
Textron Inc Townsend Division
Thorn Creek Basin Sanitary District
Three J's Industries Incorporated
Transport Service Company
Travenol Labs Incorporated
Them Steel & Processing Inc
Troch Disposal Company
United States Can Company
Universal Metal Finishing Company
University of Chicago
University of IL Medical Center
UNO-VEN Chicago Refinery
UOP Incorporated
UOP Inc Ftesonics Division
Valspar Corporation, The
Van Waters and Rogers Chicago Heights
Van Waters and Rogers Incorporated
Viskase Corporation
Viskase Corporation
Western Electric Company
Whiting Corporation
Wisconsin Steel Plant 1 Trust 4800045
Witco Chemical Corporation
B-6 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ILLINOIS
FACILITY : .-• y.'jvX-
Chicago, Illinois
Chicago, Illinois
WR Grace and
Company
Wrigley WM VR, Company
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
;k:....:..v:,x--'-' - •• - • - • INDI
|rl:&,.;. '••••••- -LOCATION
South Bend, Indiana
Griffith, Indiana
Mishawaka, Indiana
Whiting, Indiana
Whiting, Indiana
Michigan City, Indiana
Goshen, Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
La Porte, Indiana
Westchester/Township, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Schereville, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Westville, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Portage, Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Hammond, Indiana
Kingsbury, Indiana
Hammond, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
last Chicago, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
ANA : ,.,,..:.,,,::,:.;,.,:.:.
FACILITY --I - ...^v^il
Allied Signal
American Chemical Service Inc
Amland
Amoco Chemical Co Whiting Refinery
Amoco Oil Company - Boat Docks
Anderson Company
Anderson-Boiling Manufacturing
Ashland chemical Company
Bemel Foam Production
Bethlehem Steel Corp Bums Harbor
Breslue USA, Incorporated
By Product Management Incorporated
CCA of Indiana
Chem-Metals Incorporated
Chem Leamon Tank Liners
CIP Incorporated
CITGO Petro
Conservation Chemical Company
Cont Can Company
COPCO
CTS Corporation (Mein)
CTS Corporation (Plastics)
Energy Corporation, Incorporated
Federated Metals
Fisher Calo, Chemical Waste Mgt.
Fluids Eng. Corporation
Gary Landfill
Gemeinhardt
General American Transp Corporation
General American Transp Corporation
B-8 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
INDIANA
LOCATION
Hammond, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
New Paris, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Wheeler, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Kingsbury, Indiana
Goshen, Indiana
Middlebury, Indiana
Mishawaka, Indiana
Griffith, Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Schererville, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Portage, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Michigan City, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Hammond, Indiana
Hammond, Indiana
FACILITY
Hammond Valve Corporation
Hermaseal Company
Hickson Corporation
Hoskins
ILC Products
Indiana Waste Sys Inc Wheeler LF
Inland Steel Company
Industrial Tectonics
IR ECO Chemicals
Johnson Controls
Keene Products
Kordell Incorporated
LaSalle Steel Fluid
LTV Aerospace and Defense
LTV Steel Company, Indiana
Luria Brothers
Mason Metals Company, Incorporated
McGrill Manufacturing
Mercier Corporation
Midwest Steel Company
Miles Incorporated
Miles Incorporated
NIBCO Incorporated
NIPSCO DH Mitchum Gen Sta
NIPSCO
O/C Tanks Corp.
Owen's-Coming Fiberglass
Pollution Control Indiana
Rapid Liquid Waste Rolf
Rhone Poutene
RCRA FACILJTIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-9
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
•:..'.-, • INDIANA ..... .. . ,. . ;.h:.:;,4,,:,|:yi
LOCATION
Kingsbury, Indiana
South Bend, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Mishawaka, Indiana
Valparaiso, Indiana
Chesterton, Indiana
Gary, Indiana
East Chicago, Indiana
Michigan City, Indiana
Michigan City, Indiana
Westville, Indiana
Mishawaka, Indiana
Elkhart, Indiana
...'". • . . FACitrry . •.,.: " J '-::: ; %3^1::|
Roll Coaler Incorporated
South Bend Tog
South Haven Water Works
Teaumsch Products
Union Carbide Incorporated Gas
Uni Royal Plastics Company
Urschel Lab
US Can Company
US Steel Gary Works
USS Lead Refinery
Waste Incorporated
Weil-McLaine Div Mariey Wylin Co
Westville Oil
Wheelabrator
Yoder Oil
B-10 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
MICHIGAN :! :; ::::.:: -
:"" LOCATION
Plainwell, Michigan
Allegan, Michigan
Boyne City, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Ada, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
St Joseph, Michigan
Hartford, Michigan
Holland, Michigan
Holland, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Wyoming, Michigan
Albion, Michigan
Wayland, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Benton Harbor, Michigan
Kalamazoo. Michigan
East Lansing, Michigan
Buchanan, Michigan
Comstock, Michigan
St Joseph, Michigan
North Muskegon, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Dowagiac, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Ludington, Michigan
Plainwell, Michigan
Hartford, Michigan
FACILITY '-•
A-1 Disposal Corporation
Allegan Metal Finishing Company
Allied Bendex Aerospace
American Cyanamid Company
American Porcelain Enamel Company
Americhem Corporation
Amway Corporation
Ashland Chemical Company
Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co
Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co
BASF Corporation
BASF Corporation
Baxter Healthcare Corp.
Benteler Corporation
Brooks Foundry
Bush Oil Company
Cascade Resource
Certified Metal Finishing, Inc
Checker Motors Corporation
Ciba-Geigy Corp Ren Plastcs Div
Clark Equipment Co Axly Division
Consumers Power
Continental Can Co USA Plant 95
Cordova Chemical Co of Michigan
CWC Castings Plant 3
Davis Products
Detrex Corporation - Solvents Division
Dow Chemical Co Ludington Plant
Drug & Lab Disposal, Incorporated
Duwell Products, Incorporated
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-11
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
£..,:, .;:::.,.r,, ,.,;.,... . ... . MICHIGAN
:'&VLr- LOCATION
Montagne, Michigan
Flint, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
East Jordon, Michigan
Battle Creek, Michigan
Escanaba, Michigan
Greenville, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Spring Lake, Michigan
Ionia, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Three Rivers, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Lansing, Michigan
Coppersville, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Battle Creek, Michigan
Kingsford, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
^iddteville, Michigan
Zeeland, Michigan
Calamazoo, Michigan
Holland, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Whitehall, Michigan
FACILITY
Dupont El Denemours Co Montagne
Dupont El De Nemours & Company
East Shore Chemical Company, Inc
East Jordon Iron
Eaton Corporation
Escanaba Paper Company
Federal-Mogul Corporation
Fenske Enterprises
FL Industries Inc. Blackburn Division
Gencorp Automotive Ionia Plant
Georgia-Pacific Corporation Kalamazoo Division
GMC Buick Olds Cad GRP
GMC Fisher Body Division GR Rap Trim Plant
GMC Fisher Body Division Lansing Plant
GMC Hydra-Matic Division Three Rivers
GMC Oldsmobile Division Plant 1
GMC Oldsmobile Division Plant 5
GMC Oldsmobile Division Plant 2 & 3
GMC Rochester Production Division Coppersville
GMC Rochester Production Division Wyoming
GR Manufacturing Company
Grand Trunk Western Railroad
Grede Foundries
GRM Industries
Gulf & Western Manufacturing Co
Hexcel Corp Chemical Products Div
International Paper Co Liquid Pack
KHI, Inc
Knape & Vogt Manufacturing Company
Koch Chemical Company
B-12 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30.1993
••:,:""• >?' '. U-':V:" " -• MICHIGAN ;f • ^
<•••<-•<:" T • LOCATION
Rothbury, Michigan
Cadillac, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Saranac, Michigan
Belaise, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Niles, Michigan
Niles, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Cadillac, Michigan
Montague, Michigan
Grandville, Michigan
Holland, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Wyoming, Michigan
Walker, Michigan
Muskegon. Michigan
Wyoming, Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Kalamazoo. Michigan
Oowagiac, Michigan
Muskegon, Michigan
Muskegon Heights, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
Kalamazoo, Michigan
-.' ^%: ; FACILITY
Kurzeil Iron Industries Inc
Kysor Industry Corp Cadillac Div
Lacks Industries
Lacks Industries
Lamina Incorporated
Lomac Inc.
Michigan Environment Recovery, Inc
National Standard Company
National Standard Co City Complex
National Water Lift Company
Nor-Am Chemical Co/BFC Chemicals I
Nothemaire Plating Company, Inc
Occidental Chemical
Organic Chemicals Incorporated
Parke Davis and Company
Peninsular Plating
Rozema Industries Waste Inc
Rozema Industries Waste Inc
Sealed Power Div Sanford St Plant
Spartan Chemical Company
Steelcase Incorporated
Stebor Incorporated
Sunchemical Corp GPI Division
Sunstrand Heat Transfer, Inc
Tetedyne Continental Motors GPD
Tricil Environment Services
Union Camp Corporation
UpJohn Company
UpJohn Company, The
UpJohn Kal Warehouse & Distrib Cntr
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-13
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
:•:: -^ i|-.-^-.f -.;;.-. ••;-/.* -.--.- .--..-- MICHIGAN .,.=.-. =......
:.:::^i;|;f,.;;-.:;i;;:;- A-; ^LOCATION . • . v
Dutton, Michigan
Grand Rapids. Michigan
Grand Rapids, Michigan
South Haven, Michigan
:~: v ,:, FACIUITy
Van Waters & Rogers Grand Rapids
Verbrugge Oil Incorporated
Wickes Manufacturing Bumper Div
Wyckoff Chemical Company, Inc
B-14 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
WISCONSIN .;....-,%, .........
;•;;;; LOCATION
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Neenah, Wisconsin
Waukesha, Wisconsin
no releases
Port Washington, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Minasha, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Minasha, Wisconsin
Menominee Falls, Wisconsin
Glendale, Wisconsin
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
Wauwatosa, Wisconsin
Brookfield, Wisconsin
Racine, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wl (no release)
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Menominee Falls, Wisconsin
Saukville, Wisconsin
Glendale, Wisconsin
New London, Wisconsin
De Pere, Wisconsin
Watertown, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
." : : FACILITY !. : ::;
A. 0. Smith
Accutec
Aldrich Chemicat Company, Inc
Aldrich Chemical Company, Inc
American National Can Company
Amron Corporation
Aqua-Tech, Incorporated
Aqua-Tech, Incorporated
Ashland Chemical Company
Ashland Chemical Incorporated
Benlo Chemicals, Incorporated
Betten Processing
Borden Inc Printing Ink Division
Briggs & Stratton Corporation
Briggs & Stratton Corporation
Briggs & Stratton Corporation
Briggs & Stratton Corporation
Cadence Design Systems
Case Jl Company
Commerce Industrial Chemicals, Inc
Commerce Industrial Chemicals, Inc
Controlled Waste Management, Inc.
Cook Composites and Polymers
Crown Beverage Packing
Curwood, Incorporate
De Pere Foundry
DO Corporation
Deere John Horicon Works of Deere
Falk Corporation
Fort Howard Steel, Incorporated
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-15
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
i/:;fr->v- :::-•••• • • WISCONSIN . : :
U^r't- LOCATION
West Bend, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Wakesha, Wisconsin
New Berlin, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Wakesha, Wisconsin
New Berlin, Wisconsin
Wakesha, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Wakesha, Wisconsin
Wakesha, Wisconsin
Two Rivers, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Sturtevant, Wisconsin
Appleton, Wisconsin
Neenah, Wisconsin
Cohler, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Appleton, Wisconsin
Franklin, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
FACILITY
Gehl Company
GE Medical Systems Division CMD
General Electric Appliances
General Electric Company
General Electric Medical Sys Div W-
General Electric Medical Sys Div W-
General Electric Medical Sys Div W-
General Electric Co PWBA Plant
General Fiberglass Polydyne Div
GMC AC Rochester Division
GMC Delco Electronics Mil, PLA
GTE Automatic Electric, Inc
GTE Automatic Electric, Inc
Hamilton Industries
Hamischteger Corporation
Hentzen Chemical Coatings, Inc
Hydrite Chemical Company
Hydrite Chemical Company
James River Paper Company, Inc
Johnson Controls, Inc Humooldt Factory
Johnson Controls, Inc National Avenue WRHS
Johnson SC & Son, Incorporated
Kimberly-Clark Corp Atlas Mill
Kimberly-Clark Corp Dev Fac North
Kohler Company
Master Lock Company, Incorporated
McKesson Chemicals Company
Metro Landfill & Development
Mobil Oil Corp Green Bay Term
Moore Oil Company, Incorporated
B-16 APPENDIX B
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
: ; wise
t •:.;;•:* ::-:C-: -'. ••:••:. LOCATION
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
West Allis, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Ashippun, Wisconsin
Germantown, Wisconsin
Strugeon Bay, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Racine. Wisconsin
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Portage, Wisconsin
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
Jackson, Wisconsin
Racine, Wisconsin
Kaukauna, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Green Bay, Wisconsin
Oak Creek, Wisconsin
Cudahy, Wisconsin
Eden, Wisconsin
Fon Du Lac, Wisconsin
Waupaca, Wisconsin
Waupaca, Wisconsin
Eden, Wisconsin
Marinette, Wisconsin
DNSIN : ;
=, .. FACILITY , . .:.;: ;.;:
National Strch & Chemical Thiem Div
National Tank Service of Wisconsin, Incorporated
OMC-Evinrude Plant 1
OMC-Evinrude Plant 2
Oconomowoc Electncplating
Omega Hills North LD
Peterson Builders
PPG Industries, Incorporated
Printing Developments, Inc
Rexworks, Incorporated
Samuels H. Company, Inc
Sheyboygan Paint Company
Sherwood Medical Industries
Shurpac Incorporated
Sun Chemical Corporation GPI Div
Swift Adhesives
Texaco Inc Texaco USA Division
TP Industrial Incorporated Purex
UOP Inc Bostrom Division
Van Water & Roger, Incorporated -
W6250 West Pioneer Road
Waupaca Foundry
Waupaca Landfill
Western Lime & Cement
Wormald US Inc Ansul Fire Protection
RCRA FACILITIES IN LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN B-17
-------
-------
SITE NAME
Great Lakes Naval Training Center Harbor
Lake Calumet
Pettibone Creek
Waukegan Harbor, Outer
Waukegan River
Bums Ditch
Bums Waterway
Grand Calumet River
Indiana Harbor And Indiana Harbor Canal
Indiana Harbor Canal, Lake George Branch
Lake Michigan, Indiana Harbor Vicinity
Michigan City Harbor
Trail Creek
Arcadia Harbor
Bear Lake
Belanger Creek
Black River, South Branch
Black River, Unnamed Tributary
Carlton Creek
Cartton Creek, Unnamed Tributary
Carrier Creek
Cedar River
Cedar River, Unnamed Tributary
Charievoix Harbor
Coldwater River
Craig Lake
Drain Number Thirty, Branch County
Ennis Creek
STATE
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
COUNTY
Lake
Cook
Lake
Lake
Lake
Porter
Porter
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
La Porte
La Porte
Manistee
Muskegon
Leelanau
Van Buren
Van Buren
Oceana
Oceana
Eaton
Antrim
Antrim
Charievoix
Branch
Branch
Branch
Leelanau
SEDIMENT SITES CONTAMIMATED WITH LaMP POLL. C-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SFTENAME
Fawn River
Frankfort Harbor
Qalien River, South Branch
Grand Haven, Confined Disposal Facility
Grand River
Grand River Harbor
Grand Traverse Bay Unnamed Tributary Greilickvilte
Grand Traverse Bay. West Arm, Unnamed Tributary
Gun River
Hayworth Creek
Kalamazoo River, Albion
Kalamazoo River, Allegan
Kalamazoo River, Allegan To Kalamazoo Lake
Kalamazoo River, Auto Ion Site
Kalamazoo River, Battle Creek
Kalamazoo River, Kalamazoo Lake
Kalamazoo River, Morrow To Portage
Kalamazoo River, Ostego
Kalamazoo River, Portage To Plainwell
Kalamazoo River, Saugatuck Harbor
Kalamazoo River, Trowbridge
Lake Michigan, Kalamazoo River Vicinity
Lake Michigan, St. Joseph
Leland Harbor
Little Black Creek
Ludington Harbor
Macatawa, Lake
Manistee River
Manistique River/Harbor
Muskegon Channel
Muskegon Lake
STATE
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
COUNTY
St Joseph
Benzie
Berrien
Ottawa
Jackson, Ingham, Eaton
Ottawa
Leelanau
Leelanau
Allegan
Clinton
Calhoun
Allegan
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Calhoun, Kalamazoo
Allegan
Kalamazoo
Allegan
Kalamazoo, Allegan
Allegan
Allegan
Allegan
Berrien
Leelanau
Muskegon
Mason
Ottawa
Manistee
Schoolcraft
Muskegon
Muskegon
C-2 APPENDIX C
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SfTENAME
Muskegon River
New Buffalo Harbor
Nye Drain
Paw Paw River
Pentwater Harbor
Pine Creek
Pine Lake, Mi
Portage Creek
Portage Lake Harbor
Prairie River
Prairie River Lake
Rabbit River
Red Cedar River
Rogue River, Downstream Of Duke Creek
Rogue River, Upstream Of Duke Creek
Ruddiman Creek
Ruddiman Pond, Unnamed Tributary
Rudy Road Drain
Ryerson Creek
Sandstone Creek
Shaw Creek, Reed City
South Haven Harbor
Spring Creek
StClairLake
St Johns Drain
St Joseph River
St Joseph River, Berrien Springs
St Joseph River, Calhoun County
St Joseph River, Hillsdale County
St Joseph River, Morrison Channel
St Joseph River, Mottville
STATE
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
COUNTY
Mecosta
Berrien
St Joseph
Berrien
Oceana
Cass
Cass
Kalamazoo
Manistee
St Joseph
St Joseph
Allegan
Livingston, Ingham
Kent
Newaygo, Kent
Muskegon
Muskegon
Cass
Muskegon
Eastern
Osceola
Van Buren
Kalamazoo, St Joseph
Antrim
Clinton
Berrien
Berrien
Calhoun
Hillsdale
Berrien
St Joseph
SEDIMENT SITES CONTAMINATED WITH LaMP POLL. C-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SITE NAME
St Joseph River, Miles
St Joseph River, St. Joseph
St Joseph River, Union City
Tannery Creek
Traverse City Harbor
Union Lake
White Lake
Algoma Harbor
Algoma Harbor, Small Boat Harbor
Big Suamico Harbor
Buffalo Lake
Bumham And South Menomonee Canal
Butternut Lake
Cedar Creek, Columbia Pond
Cedar Creek, Hamilton Pond
Cedar Creek, Ruck Pond
Cedar Creek, Ruck Pond Raceway
Cedar Creek, Wire And Nail Pond
Clark Lake
Duck Creek
East Twin River
Emily Lake
Evergreen River
Fond Du Lac River
Fox River
Fox River, Oshkosh
Fox River, Portage
Fox River, Upper
Fredonia Creek
Qliske Creek
Green Bay
STATE
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Michigan
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
COUNTY
Berrien
Berrien
Branch
Emmett
Leelanau
Branch
Muskegon
Kewaunee
Kewaunee
Brown
Marquette
Milwaukee
Forest
Ozaukee
Ozaukee
Ozaukee
Ozaukee
Ozaukee
Door
Outagamie. Brown
Manitowoc
Florence
Menorrinee
Fond Du Lac
Brown
Winnebago County
Columbia
Marquette
Ozaukee
Forest
Door
C-4 APPENDIX C
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SITE NAME
Green Bay Harbor
Green Bay, Green Island
Green Lake
Kenosha Harbor
Kewaunee Harbor
Kinnickinnic River, 1st Street To Greenfield
Kinnickinnic River, Wilson To Chase
Little Green Lake
Little Lake Butte Des MoDs
Little Menomonee River
Manitowoc Harbor
Menorrinee Harbor
Menomonee River, 25th To Muskego
Menomonee River, Hampton To Hawtey
Metonga Lake
Milwaukee Harbor, Inner
Milwaukee Harbor, Outer
Milwaukee River, Hampton To Locust
Milwaukee River, Walnut To C&Nw
Mole Lake
Noquebay Lake
Oak Creek Park Lagoon
Oak Creek, Grant Park
Oconto Harbor
Oconto River
Oconto River. North Branch
Onion River
Otter Creek
Pensaukee Harbor
Pickerel Creek
Popple River
STATE
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
COUNTY
Brown
Door
Green Lake
Kenosha
Kewaunee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Green Lake
Winnebago
Milwaukee
Manitowoc
Marinette
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Forest
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Forest
Marinette
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Oconto
Oconto
Forest
Sheboygan
Forest
Oconto
Lang lade
Florence
SEDIMENT SITES CONTAMINATED WITH LaMP POLL. C-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
SITE NAME
Port Washington Harbor
Racine Harbor
Rat River
Red River
Red River, West Branch
Rice Lake
Root River
Rowley Bay
Sheboygan Harbor, Inner
Sheboygan Harbor, Navigation Channel
Sheboygan Harbor, Small Boat Harbor
Sheboygan River
Sheboygan River, CNW To 1 .1
Sheboygan River, Falls To Waetderhaus
Sheboygan River, Waelderhaus To CNW
Sturgeon Bay Ship Canal
Sturgeon Bay, Peterson Builders Slip
Sturgeon Bay, Yacht Harbor
Swamp Creek
Torpee Creek
Trout Creek
Two Rivers Harbor
Winnebago, Lake
STATE
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
COUNTY
Ozaukee
Racine
Forest
Shawano
Langlade, Shawano
Forest
Racine
Door
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Fond Du Lac
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Door
Door
Door
Forest Langlade
Forest
Brown
Manitowoc
Winnabago
C-6 APPENDIX C
-------
• .•:•:>>••€?•; ILLINOIS
FACILITY ; ^:- •.-: '• .^V.:,":-.--
Trumbull Asphalt Company
H P Smith Paper Company
Nuclei Chemical Company
Shell Oil Company
3M Company
Argo Com Products
Bong-Warner Corporation
Signode Corporation
Calumet Steel Company
Stauffer Chemical Company
Crowley-Sheppard
National Castings
AT & T Technologies
General Electric
Northwestern University
Amoco Oil Company
Tri-Central Marine
General Motors
Material Service
Motor Oil Refining
Vulcan Materials
Benjamin Moore & Company
International Harvest
Addressograph
COUNTY
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
LaMP POLLUTANT
Chromium, Lead
Arsenic, Chromium
Hexachloro benzene
Arsenic, Chromium
Chromium, Lead
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Phenanthrene, Ruoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene, Ruoranthene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Lead
Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium, Lead
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
LIST OF FACILITIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
' ^ ' - "' -- - ILLINOIS x, x ^'V%^iv^^
fAciurY * *%
A B Dick Company
H B Fuller Company
ACME Riverdale
Stickney Terminal
Marblehead Lime Company
Material Service Company
Winnetka Electric
GTE Communication
Entenmann's
Central Can Company
W F Hall Printing
Great Lakes Carbon
Marblehead Lime Company
Proctor & Gamble
Sherwin-Williams Company
Campbell Soup Company
Commonwealth Edison
PVS Chemicals Incorporated
USX-South Works
ACME Chicago
LTV Steel Chicago
Meyer Steel Drum Incorporated
ABEX Corporation
ACME Barrel Company
A Finkel & Sons Company
Cook County Hospital
General Mills Incorporated
ACME Coke Plant
COUNTY
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
LaMP POLLUTANT / " * :" \-;, ;f?l:^
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium
Lead
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene
Chromium, Lead
Chromium
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium, Chromium
Cadmium, Chromium
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
D-2 APPENDIX D
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
;;•:;;;;,• ^^|.::::.;.:rv,;.-., .v-^v -•.;.,. ?; : ILLINOIS - * ;
;FACJUTYi:-":'-:""? ''::;' ' '":
General Iron Industry
Batchelder-Beilin
Allied Hastings
Northwest Waste
American Steel
University of Illinois-Chicago
National Can Corporation
Cinders
Heckett Engineering
American Decal
Ekco/Qlaco Ircorporated
Beverly Gravel Company
Ford Motor Company
Lake-River Terminals
Loyola University
Regal Tube Company
Nalco Chemical Company #2
Calumet STP
West-Southwest STP
CID#1
Litho Strip
SCA Chemical Service
CE Plating
Aircraft Gear
Brookline Industry
CentraAmenca Steel
Chicago Fin. Materials
Chrome Crank
Diesel Recon
COUNTY
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
LaMP POLLUTANT
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium, Chromium
Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Fluoranthene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium, Lead, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium
Lead
Chromium, Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Chromium
Chromium, Selenium
Chromium, Selenium, Fluorantnene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
PCBs
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
LIST OF FACILITIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-3
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
.[ILLINOIS A,r:: .:/ ::;i.::.ff. ....;.;
FACILITY
General Motors
Hobart
Lawrence Mold
Omega Plating
Van Norman Molding
Yale Polishers
Allegheny S & B
Allied T & C
American Clyboum
HBM Electric
Litton Precision
Riverdale Plating
Advance Metal
Alsa Plating
Blue Island Polish
Budding
Bumette
C&C
Chicago Steel & Pick
Clayton
Finished
Harvey
Industrial
Keystone
R&R
Roll
Safety Kleen
South Holland
Southwest
SW Polish
COUNTY w:;,
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
UMP POLLUTANT * :
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
D-4 APPENDIX D
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ILLINOIS * ' * - -,; \: •••• ,„ ,
rAcmiY
Thomson
Basick Polish & Buff
Calumet Plate
Chicago Process
Mobil Chicago
Album Incorporated
AMCA International
Chicago Streets
Intertake LF & Coke
Moreco
Old Pullman Farm
Them Steel
Container Corporation
General Mills, Incorporated
Argonne National
Norchem Incorporated
Northern Illinois
Akzo Chemie America
Alurnax Mill Product
Commonwealth Edison
E 1 DuPont De NeMour
Material Service Corporation
All Steel Equipment
Jefferson Smurfit
Central Limestone Company
Avery Gravel Company
COUNTY
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
DuPage
DuPage
DuPage
Grundy
Grundy
Grundy
Grundy
Grundy
Grundy
Kane
Kane
Kane
Kendall
Kendall
taMP POLLUTANT
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium
Chromium, PCBs
PCBs
Cadmium
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)anthracene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium
Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Ruoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium '
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene,
Ruoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium, Fluoranthene
Lead
Cadmium, Chromium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Selenium
Lead
Lead
LIST OF FACILITIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
ILLINOIS , \ ^ ^
FAWUTY
Caterpillar Tractor
AT & T Consumer Production
Abbott Laboratories #1
Commonwealth Edison
Johns -Manville
Theten Sand and Gravel
Abbott Laboratories #2
Great Lakes Naval
Road Materials
Morton Thiokol Incorporated
Mobil Chemical Company
Bennett Industries
Mobil-Joltet
Amoco Chemical Corporation
Gltdden-Durkee
Stepan Chemical Company
Dow Chemical Company
Bmhurst Chicago
Vulcan Materials Company
Peoples Gas Light
Uniroyal
COUNTY
Kendall
Kendall
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
McHenry
Lake
Lake
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
LaMPPOOUTANT - ^ - ^ '
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene
Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Selenium, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
^.ead
Arsenic. Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
Chromium, Selenium, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
D-6 APPENDIX D
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
^;v?h :%•'%•!- •' "' ;"• f; "'.'... ."' .'" : "ILLINOIS * ' * -, - x-
••pAcirryKj" "• • -"v '
Caterpillar Tractor
Mannville Building
Commonwealth Edison-Joliet
Olin Corporation
Texaco Refining
Commonwealth Edison
Material Service Corporation
Kerr Glass Manufacturer
Avery Gravel Company
Boughton Trucking & Railroad
COUNTY
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
Will
UMP POLLUTANT
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium
Lead
Chromium, Selenium
Lead
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium
LIST OF FACILJTIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-7
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
INDIANA ./.,,: : ::
FACILITY
Nipsco Dean H Mitche
Lehigh Portland Cement
USX Gary Works
Commonwealth Edison
Lever Brothers Company
Stauffer Chemical Company
Blaw Knox Foundry
East Chicago Municipal
Inland Steel I
Inland Steel II
LTV Steel Indiana
United States Gypsum Company
U S S Lead Refinery Incorporated
Bairstow Company
House's J-Yard
Ind Cinders
Keil Chemical
Luria Brothers
Swift Ad hesives
Bethlehem Steel Corporation
Bailly Generating
National Steel Midwest Steel Division
COUNTY
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Porter
Porter
Porter
taMPPpUUTANT
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Chromium, Selenium, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, PCBs
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead
Arsenic, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Arsenic
Chromium
Mercury
PCBs
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
D-8 APPENDIX D
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
MICHIGAN , 4 >
rAciutv ; ,
Owens-Coming Fiberglass
S D Warren Company
Consumers Power Company
Sealed Power Corporation
Grand Haven Light and Power
Holland Public Works
Consumers Power Company
HJ Heinz Company
Eagle-Ottawa Leather Company
Grand Haven Brass Foundry
COUNTY
Berien
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Muskegon
Muskegon
Muskegon
Muskegon
Muskegon
Muskegon
taMPPOLtUTAMT . » * •
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Chromium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Phenanthrene
Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene
Lead
LJST OF FACILITIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-9
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
WISCONSIN
FACILITY
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation
Green Bay Packaging Incorporated
Procter & Gamble Paper Production Company
#1
James River Corporation
Nicolet Paper Company
Fort Howard Paper Company
Procter & Gamble Paper Production Company
#2
Wisconsin Electric Power
American Motors Corporation
Manynard Steel Casting Company
Briggs & Stratton Corporation #1
Briggs & Stratton Corporation #2
Milprint Incorporation
Ladish Company
Miller Brewing Company
Wisconsin Electric Power
Wisconsin Electric Power - Valley Station
Motor Castings Company
Briggs & Stratton Corporation #3
A O Smith Automotive Products Company
COUNTY
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Brown
Kenosha
Kenosha
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
taMP POLLUTANT * * £
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Selenium,
Phenanthiene, Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Fluoranthene
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Chromium, Selenium
Chromium, Selenium
;
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium
Chromium, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
D-10 APPENDIX D
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
WISCONSIN . ,
FACILITY
Continental Can Company, Incorporated
Prister & Vogel Tanning Company
H & HS Power Plant
PPG Industries - Resin Plant
Krause Milling Company
Miller Compressing Company
PPG Industries - Paint Plant
Wisconsin Electric Power
J I Case - Tractor Plant
Vulcan Materials Company
S C Johnson & Son Incorporated
J I Case - Agricultural Equipment Division
Plastics Engineering Company
Kohler Company
Wisconsin Power and Light
Medalist State Foundry
CityofSheboyganDPW
Inter - Community Incinerator District
Vulcan Materials Company
Halquist Stone Company - Lannon
Waukesha Incinerator
Halquist Stone Company - Sussex
COUNTY- „, *
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Ozaukee
Racine
Racine
Racine
Racine
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Sheboygan
Waukesha
Waukesha
Waukesha
Waukesha
UiMPPOaUTANT , - v^
Chromium, Mercury, Selenium, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene
Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Selenium,
Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene
Chromium, Selenium
Chromium, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Selenium
Lead
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene
Lead
Chromium, Lead, Selenium, Phenanthrene
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury,
Selenium, Phenanthrene, Fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene
Arsenic, Chromium, Lead, Phenanthrene,
Fluoranthene, Benzo(a)pyrene ••
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Lead
Mercury, Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs
Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs
Chromium, Lead, Mercury, Selenium
Lead
Benzo(a)pyrene, PCBs
Lead
LIST OF FACILITIES WITH AIR DISCHARGES D-11
-------
Acute Toxicity: The ability of a substance to
cause poisonous effects that result in severe
biological harm or death soon after a single
exposure or dose. (See chronic toxicity, toxicity.)
Administrative Order: A legal document signed
by EPA directing an individual, business, or other
entity to take corrective action or refrain from an
activity. The order describes the violations and
actions to be taken and can be enforced in court
Such orders may be issued, for example, as a result
of an administrative complaint whereby the
respondent is ordered to pay a penalty for
violations of a statute.
Adsorption: The adhesion of molecules of gas,
liquid, or dissolved solids to a surface.
Advanced Wastewater Treatment: Any
treatment of sewage that goes beyond the
secondary or biological water treatment stage and
includes the removal of nutrients, such as
phosphorus and nitrogen, and a high percentage of
suspended solids. (See primary, secondary waste
treatment)
Advisory: A nonregulatory document that
communicates risk information.
Agricultural Pollution: The liquid and solid
wastes from fanning, including runoff and
leaching of pesticides and fertilizers, erosion and
dust from plowing, and animal manure.
Airborne Particuiates: Total suspended matter
found in the atmosphere as solid particles or liquid
droplets. Airborne participates include windblown
dust, emissions from industrial processes, smoke
from the burning of wood and coal, and the
exhaust of motor vehicles.
Air Pollutant: Any substance in air that could, if
in high enough concentration, harm living things.
Algae: Simple rootless plants that grow in sunlit
waters in relative proportion to the amounts of
light and nutrients available. They are food for fish
and small aquatic animals.
Anoxia: The absence of oxygen necessary for
sustaining most life. In aquatic ecosystems, this
refers to the absence of dissolved oxygen in water.
Antidegradation Policies: Pan of Federal air
quality and water quality requirements prohibiting
environmental deterioration.
Aquifer An underground geological formation,
or group of formations, containing groundwater
that can supply wells and springs.
Areas of Concern: A geographic area that fails to
meet the general or specific objectives of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement where such
failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment
of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support
aquatic life. In general, these are bays, harbors,
and river mouths with damaged fish and wildlife
populations, contaminated bottom sediments, and
past or continuing loadings of toxic and bacterial
pollutants.
Atmospheric Deposition: Pollution from the
atmosphere associated with dry deposition in the
form of dust, wet deposition in the form of rain
and snow, or as a result of vapor exchanges.
B
Bacteria, Coliform Group: A group of bacteria
that predominantly inhabits the intestines of man
or animals.
GLOSSARY 1
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
Benthic Organism (benthos): A form of aquatic
plant or animal life that is found near the bottom of
a stream, lake, or ocean. Benthic populations are
often indicative of sediment quality. The benthos
comprise:
1. Sessile animals, such as sponges, some
worms, and many attached algae
2. Creeping forms, such as snails and
flatworms
3. Burrowing forms, which include most
clams, worms, mayflies and midges.
Benthic Region: The bottom layer of a body of
water.
Bioaccumulative Substances: Substances that
increase in concentration in living organisms (that
are very slowly metabolized or excreted) as they
breathe contaminated air or water, drink
contaminated water, or eat contaminated food.
(See biological magnification.)
Bioassay: An evaluation using organisms to
measure the effect of a substance, factor, or
condition by comparing before and after data.
Biological Magnification: Refers to the process
whereby certain substances become more
concentrated in tissues at each successive stage up
the food web. (See bioaccumulative substances.)
Biomass: All the Irving material in a given area:
often refers to vegetation. Algal biomass is often
indicative of the trophic status of a water body.
Bog: A type of wetland that accumulates
appreciable peat deposits. Bogs depend primarily
on precipitation for their water source and are
usually acidic and rich in plant residue with a
conspicuous mat of living green moss.
Byproduct: Material, other than the principal
product, that is generated as a consequence of an
industrial process.
Cap: A layer of clay, or other highly impermeable
material that is installed over the top of a closed
landfill to prevent entry of rainwater and to
minimize movement of leachate.
Carcinogen: Any substance that can cause or
contribute to the production of cancer.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons: These include a
class of bioaccumulative insecticides, such as
DDT, aldrin, dieldrin, heptachlor, chlordane,
lindane, endrin, mirex, hexachloride, and
toxaphene, that linger in the environment Other
examples include TCE, which is used as an
industrial solvent, and PCBs, formerly used as
hydraulic fluids.
Chlorophyll-a: The photosynthetic pigment
found in most algae. Chlorophyll-a is used to
measure the rate of photosynthesis in a body of
water.
Chronic Toxicity: The capacity of a substance to
cause poisonous effects in an organism after
long-term exposure. (See acute toxicity.)
Clear Cut: The harvesting of all the trees in an
area. Under certain soil and slope conditions, soil
erosion may occur.
Combined Sewers: A sewer system that carries
both sewage and stormwater runoff. Normally, its
entire flow goes to a waste treatment plant, but
during a heavy storm, the stormwater volume may
be so great as to cause overflows (combined sewer
overflow). When this happens, untreated mixtures
of stormwater and sewage may flow into receiving
waters. Stormwater runoff may also carry toxic
chemicals from industrial areas or streets into the
sewer system.
Consent Decree: A legal document, approved by
a judge, that formalizes an agreement reached
between EPA and Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) through which PRPs will conduct all or
pan of a cleanup action at a Superfund site, cease
2 GLOSSARY
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
or correct actions or processes that are polluting
the environment, or otherwise comply with
regulations where the PRP's failure to comply
caused EPA to initiate regulatory enforcement
actions. The consent decree describes the actions
PRPs will take and may be subject to a public
comment period.
Containment Cells: Enclosures that confine
contaminants.
Conventional Pollutants: Such contaminants as
organic waste, sediment, acid, bacteria and viruses,
nutrients, oil and grease, or heat
D
Dissolved Oxygen (DO): The oxygen freely
available in water. Dissolved oxygen is vital to fish
and other aquatic life. Traditionally, the level of
dissolved oxygen has been accepted as the single
most important indicator of a water body's ability
to support desirable aquatic life.
Drainage Basin: A water body and the land area
drained by it
Dredging: Removal of sediment from the bottom
of a water body.
E
Ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological
community and its environmental surroundings.
Effluent: Wastewaler—treated or untreated—that
flows from a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial
outfall. Generally refers to discharges into surface
waters.
Emission: Discharges into the atmosphere from
such sources as smokestacks, residential chimneys,
motor vehicles, locomotives, and aircraft
Enrichment: The addition of nutrients (e.g.,
nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon compounds) to a
water body. This fertilization process greatly
increases the growth of aquatic plants. Common
nutrient sources are sewage and agricultural runoff.
Epidemiology: The study of diseases as they
affect population, including the distribution of
disease or other health-related states in human
populations, the factors (e.g., age, sex, occupation,
economic status) that influence this distribution,
and the application of this study to control health
problems.
Erosion: The wearing away of land surface by
wind or water. Erosion occurs naturally but can be
caused by farming, residential or industrial
development, mining, or timber-cutting.
Estuary: Regions of interaction between rivers
and oceans where tidal action and river flow create
a mixing of freshwater and saltwater, including
bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes, and lagoons.
These brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed
marine life, birds, and wildlife. (See wetland.)
Eutrophication: The process of fertilization that
causes high productivity and biomass in an aquatic
ecosystem. Eutrophication can be a natural process
or it can be a cultural process accelerated by an
increase of nutrient loading to a lake by human
activity.
Exotic Species: Species that are not native to the
Great Lakes and that have been intentionally
introduced to or have inadvertently infiltrated the
system. Exotics prey upon native species and
compete with them for food or habitat
F
Feasibility Study (FS): Analysis of the
practicability of a proposal (e.g., a description and
analysis of the potential cleanup alternatives for a
site on the National Priorities List). The feasibility
study usually recommends selection of a
cost-effective alternative. It usually starts as soon
as the remedial investigation is underway;
together, they are commonly referred to as the
RI/FS. The term can apply to a variety of proposed
corrective or regulatory actions.
GLOSSARY 3
-------
DRAFT September 30, 1993
Fen: A type of wetland that accumulates peat
deposits. Fens are less acidic than bogs, deriving
most of their water from groundwater rich in
calcium and magnesium. (See wetland.)
Food Chain: A sequence of organisms, each of
which uses the next, lower member of the
sequence as a food source. Members of a chain are
interdependent so that a disturbance to one species
can disrupt the entire hierarchy.
Food Web: The complex feeding network
occurring within and between food chains in an
ecosystem, whereby members of one food chain
may belong to one or more other food chains.
G
Game Fish: Fish species caught for sport, such as
trout, salmon, or bass.
Groundwater. The supply of fresh or saline
water found beneath the Earth's surface, usually in
aquifers, often supplying wells and springs.
H
Habitat: The place where a population (e.g.,
human, animal, plant, micro-organism) lives and
its surroundings.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS): The principle
screening tool used by EPA to evaluate risks to
public health and the environment associated with
inactive hazardous waste sites. The HRS calculates
a score based on the risks posed by the site. This
score is the primary factor in deciding if the site
should be placed on the National Priorities List and
addressed by the Superfund program.
Hazardous Waste: Substances that can pose a
substantial or potential hazard to human health
and/or the environment Waste is classified as
hazardous if it possesses at least one of four
characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or toxicity) or appears on special EPA
lists.
Heavy Metals: Metallic elements with high
atomic weights (e.g., mercury, chromium,
cadmium, arsenic, and lead) that tend to be toxic
and bioaccumulate.
Herbicide: A chemical pesticide designed to
control or destroy plants, weeds, or grasses.
I
Indicator An organism, species, or community
whose characteristics show the presence of
specific environmental conditions.
Insecticide: A chemical specifically used to kill
or control the growth of insects.
International Joint Commission (IJC): A
binational commission, established by the 1909
Boundary Waters Treaty, with responsibility for
decisions regarding obstruction or diversion of
U.S./Canadian boundary waters. In 1972 the
Commission was tasked with monitoring
implementation of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement
J,K,L
Lampricide: A chemical used to kill sea lamprey.
Landfills: 1. Land disposal sites for nonhazardous
solid wastes at which the waste is spread in layers,
compacted to the smallest practical volume, and
covered with material applied at the end of each
operating day. 2. Land disposal sites for hazardous
waste designed to minimize the chance of release
of hazardous substances into the environment
Larva: The early, free-living form of any animal
that changes structurally when it becomes an adult,
usually by a complex metamorphosis.
Leachate: A liquid that results from water
collecting contaminants as it trickles through
wastes or soils containing agricultural pesticides or
fertilizers. Leaching may occur in farming areas,
feedlots, and landfills and may result in hazardous
4 GLOSSARY
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
substances entering surface water, groundwater, or
soil.
Leaded Gasoline: Gasoline to which lead has
been added to raise the octane level.
Linen A relatively impermeable barrier designed
to prevent leachate from leaking from a landfill.
Liner materials include plastic and dense clay.
Loading: The addition of a substance to a water
body.
M
Marsh: A type of wetland that does not
accumulate appreciable peat deposits and is
dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Marshes may
be either freshwater or saltwater and tidal or
nomidal. (See wetland.)
Mass Balance Approach: An analytic method,
based on conservation of mass, used to assess the
quantity and cycling of contaminants throughout a
water system.
Metabolite: A substance that is the product of
biological changes to a chemical.
Modeling: A theory or a mathematical or physical
representation of a system that accounts for all or
some of its known properties. Models are often
used to test the effect of changes of system
components on the overall performance of the
system.
Monitoring: A scientifically designed system of
continuing standardized measurements and
observations and the evaluation thereof.
Mulch: A layer of material (e.g., wood chips,
straw, leaves) placed around plants to hold
moisture, prevent weed growth, protect the plants,
and hold the soil.
N
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES): The national program for
controlling discharges of pollutants from point
sources (e.g., municipal sewage treatment plants,
industrial facilities) into the waters of the United
States.
National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list of the
most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for long-term remedial action
under Superfund. A site must be on the NPL to
receive money from the Trust Fund for remedial
action. This list is based primarily on the score a
site receives from the Hazard Ranking System.
EPA updates the NPL at least once a year.
Navigable Waters: Waters sufficiently deep and
wide for navigation by all or by specified sizes of
vessels. Maintenance of navigation is a Federal
responsibility carried out by the Army Corps of
Engineers.
Nitrate: A compound containing nitrogen and
oxygen that can exist in the atmosphere or in water
and that can have harmful effects on humans and
animals at high concentrations.
Nonpoint Source: Pollution sources that are
diffuse and do not have a single point of origin or
are not introduced into a receiving stream from a
specific outlet The pollutants are generally carried
off land by stormwater runoff. Commonly used
categories for nonpoint sources are agriculture,
forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams and
channels, and land disposal.
O
Open Lake Waters: All waters with Lake
Michigan from a line drawn across the mouth of
tributaries including all bays, harbors and inlets
and water enclosed by constructed breakwaters.
Organic Chemicals/Compounds: Animal- or
plant-produced substances containing mainly
carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
Organochlorine: An organic compound
containing chlorine.
GLOSSARY 5
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
P,Q
Parasitic: Any organism that lives on or in an
organism of another species from which it derives
sustenance or protection without benefit to, and
usually with harmful effects on, the host
Permit: An authorization, license, or equivalent
control document issued by EPA or a State agency
to implement the requirements of an
environmental regulation (e.g., a permit to operate
a wastewater treatment plant or to operate a facility
that may generate harmful emissions).
Persistent Pesticides: Pesticides that do not break
down chemically or that degrade very slowly.
Persistent Toxic Substance: Any toxic substance
with a half-life in water of greater than eight weeks.
Pesticide: A substance intended for preventing,
destroying, repelling, or mitigating any pest. Also,
any substance or mixture of substances intended
for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.
Phosphorus: An essential chemical food element
that can contribute to the eutrophication of lakes
and other water bodies.
Photosynthesis: A process occurring in the cells
of green plants and some micro-organisms in
which solar energy is transformed into stored
chemical energy.
Phytoplankton: That portion of the plankton
community comprising tiny plants (e.g., algae,
diatoms).
Plankton: Microscopic plants and animals that
live in water.
Point Source: A stationary facility from which
pollutants are discharged or emitted. Also, any
single identifiable source of pollution (e.g., a pipe,
ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack).
Pollution Prevention: Measures taken to reduce
the generation of a substance that could be harmful
to living organisms if released to the environment.
Pollution prevention can be achieved in many
ways.
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any
individual or company, including owners,
operators, transporters, or generators, potentially
responsible for, or contributing to, the
contamination problems at a Superfund site.
Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through
administrative and legal actions, to clean up
hazardous waste sites that they may have created.
Pretreatment: Processes used to reduce,
eliminate, or alter pollutants from nonresidential
sources before they are discharged into publicly
owned sewage treatment systems.
Primary Waste Treatment: This treatment
consists of the first steps in wastewater treatment
during which screens and sedimentation tanks are
used to remove most materials that float or will
settle. Primary treatment results in the removal of
about 30 percent of carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand from domestic sewage.
Productivity: Refers to the efficiency with which
an ecosystem generates life.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs):
A waste treatment facility owned by a State, unit
of local government, or Indian tribe.
R
Radiotracers: A radioactive substance, usually
an isotope, used to mark the progress of a process
(e.g., the physical movement of sediment).
Record of Decision (ROD): A public document
that explains which cleanup alternative(s) will be
used at Superfund National Priorities List sites.
Remedial Action Plans (RAPs): Environmental
plans aimed at restoring all beneficial uses to Great
Lakes Areas of Concern.
Remedial Design: A phase of remedial action
that follows the remedial investigation/feasibility
6 GLOSSARY
-------
DRAFT September 30,1993
study and includes development of engineering
drawings and specifications for a site cleanup.
Remedial Investigation (RI): An in-depth study
designed to gather the data necessary to determine
the nature and extent of contamination at a
Superfund site, establish criteria for cleaning up
the site, identify preliminary alternatives for
remedial actions, and support the technical and
cost analyses of the alternatives. The RI is usually
conducted with the feasibility study; together, they
are usually referred to as an RI/FS.
Removal Action: Quick remedies taken to
address immediate hazards at contaminated waste
sites.
Resuspension (of sediment): The remixing of
sediment particles and pollutants back into the
water by storms, currents, organisms, and human
activities, such as dredging.
Retention Time: The time it takes for the volume
of water in a lake to exit through its outlet (i.e.,
total volume/outlet flow = retention time).
Risk Assessment: A qualitative and quantitative
evaluation to define the hazards posed to human
health and/or the environment
Run-Off: That part of precipitation, snow melt, or
irrigation water that drains off land into surface
water. It can cany sediments and pollutants into
the receiving waters.
S
Secondary Waste Treatment: The second step
in most waste treatment systems in which bacteria
consume the organic parts of the waste. It is
accomplished by bringing together waste, bacteria,
and oxygen in trickling filters or in the activated
sludge process. This removes floating and
settleable solids and about 90 percent of the
oxygen-demanding substances and suspended
solids. Disinfection is the final stage of secondary
treatment. (See primary, tertiary waste treatment.)
Sediments: Soil, sand, and minerals eroded from
land by water or air. Sediments settle to the bottom
of surface water.
Sewage: The waste and wastewater discharged
into sewers from homes and industry.
Sewer A channel or conduit that carries
wastewater and stormwater runoff from its source
to a treatment plant or receiving stream. Sanitary
sewers carry household, industrial, and
commercial waste; storm sewers carry runoff from
rain or snow; and combined sewers carry both,
Site Inspection: The collection of information
from a Superfund site to determine the extent and
severity of hazards posed by the site, including
information to score the site, using the Hazard
Ranking System, and to determine if the site
presents an immediate threat that requires prompt
removal. It follows and is more extensive than a
preliminary assessment
Stratification (or layering): The tendency in
deep water bodies for distinct layers of water to
form as a result of vertical change in temperature
and, therefore, in the density of water. During
stratification, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and
other parameters of water chemistry do not mix
well between layers, establishing chemical as well
as thermal gradients.
Superfund: The program under the legislative
authority of QERCLA and SARA that carries out
EPA's solid waste emergency and long-term
remedial activities. These activities include
establishing a National Priorities List of the
nation's most hazardous inactive waste sites and
conducting remedial actions. Sites are cleaned up
by potentially responsible parties whenever this
can be arranged.
Surface Water: All water open to the atmosphere
(e.g., rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams,
impoundments, seas, estuaries) and all springs,
GLOSSARY 7
-------
DRAFT September 30, 1993
wells, or other collectors that are directly
influenced by surface water.
Swamp: A type of wetland that is dominated by
woody vegetation and that does not accumulate
appreciable peat deposits. Swamps may be
freshwater or saltwater and tidal or nontidal. (See
wetland.)
T
Tailings: Residue of raw materials or waste
separated out during the processing of crops or
mineral ores.
Technology-Based Standards: Limits on
contaminants in effluent that EPA sets by industry
and treatment technology.
Tertiary Waste Treatment: Advanced cleaning
of wastewater that goes beyond the secondary or
biological stage and removes nutrients, such as
phosphorous and nitrogen, and most biological
oxygen demand and suspended solids.
Toxic Substance (or toxicant): A substance that
can cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities,
cancer, genetic mutations, physiological or
reproductive malfunctions, or physical deformities
in any organism or its offspring. The quantities and
length of exposure necessary to cause these effects
can vary widely.
Trophic Status: A measure of the biological
productivity in a body of water. Aquatic
ecosystems are characterized as oligotrophic (low
productivity), mesotrophic (medium productivity),
or eutrophic (high productivity).
U
Urban Runoff: Stormwater from city streets and
adjacent domestic or commercial properties that
may pickup terrestrial contamination and carry
pollutants of various kinds into sewer systems
and/or receiving waters.
V
Vaporization: The change of a substance from a
liquid to a gas.
Volatile Substance: A substance that evaporates
readily.
W
Waste Treatment Plant: A facility containing a
series of tanks, screens, filters, and other processes
by which pollutants are removed from water.
Wastewaten The spent or used water from
individual homes, a community, a farm, or an
industry that often contains dissolved or suspended
matter.
Watershed: The land area that drains into a river,
stream, or lake.
Water Table: The level of groundwater.
Water Quality Standards: State-adopted and
EPA-approved standards for water bodies.
Standards are developed considering the uses of
the water body and the water quality criteria that
must be met to protect the designated uses.
Wetbnd: An area that is regularly saturated by
surface water or groundwater and is characterized
by a prevalence of vegetation that is adapted for
life in saturated soil conditions (e.g., swamps,
bogs, fens, marshes, and estuaries).
Wildlife Refuge: An area designated for the
protection of wild animals, within which hunting
and fishing are either prohibited or strictly
controlled.
X,Y,Z
Zooplankton: Microscopic aquatic animals.
8 GLOSSARY
------- |