* 't
RESULTS OF A NATIONAL SURVEY ADDRESSING
WHOLE-EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) REQUIREMENTS"
Outstanding
Resource
Waters
Kentucky Division of Water
Sioassay Section
. March 1995.
-------
-------
RESULTS OF A NATIONAL. SURVEY ADDRESSING
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICTY (WET) REQUIREMENTS:
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF WATER
BIOASSAY SECTION
.14 REILLY ROAD
FRANKFORT, KENTUCKY 40601
This report has been approved for release:
ack A. Wilson, Director
'Date
-------
Results of a National. Survey Addressing Whole Effluent
. . Toxicity (WET) Requirements
fay
Charles A. Roth
Division of Water
Bioassay Section
March 13, 1995
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Marshall Hyatt of EPA Region IV for his
assistance, in designing and distributing this survey. This effort
would not have been possible without his input.
111
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement . '. . .". ...... .
Introduction .'!!!!!!!!!**"*"""*"'
. Results of the Survey ....../! 1 i | *"'*"'"* ^
Tables:' Summary of Survey" Results
Table 1. ''States of EPA Region-I ...... 4
Table 2. States .of EPA Region II 6
Table 3. States of EPA Region III ......'*'"'" 8
Table 4. States of EPA Region IV ......... ' ' "" 11
Table 5. States of EPA Region V . . . . . . . * " "' 15
Table 6. . States of EPA Region VI 19
Table 7. States of EPA Region VII 21
Table 8.. States of EPA Region VIII 23
Table 9.. States of EPA Region IX ..... 25
Table 10. States of EPA Region X ............. 27
Figure 1: States Which Allow For WET
Compliance Schedules 29
Figure 2: States Where Each Toxicity
Test Fail is a Permit Violation . .30
Figure 3: States with WET Limits for a 2.2 MGD POTW
and a 0.0 MGD 7Q10 Receiving Stream ...... 31
Figure 4: States with WET Limits for a 2.2 MGD POTW
and an 8.1 MGD Receiving Stream . . 32
Figure 5: States with WET Limits for a 2.2 MGD POTW
and a 3000 MGD Receiving Stream 33
Appendix A: Kentucky Whole Effluent Toxicity Survey . . . A-l
IV
-------
r
INTRODUCTION
In August 1994, Kentucky with the assistance of EPA Region iv
distributed nationwide a whole effluent toxicity (WET) survey. The
intent of this survey was to gain some knowledge of the way EPA
Regions and states were implementing their WET programs.
The survey was designed as a series of questions regarding,.any
WET requirements' for. a facility meeting the. following basic
permitting situations/conditions: . .: . ' '' ;"'''.'
- major municipal POTW with approved pretreatment
. program.
- freshwater discharge to a Fish & Wildlife
classified receiving stream, Tier 1 - no endangered
. species; no outstanding resource waters.
no diffuser
this facility's expiring permit contains no WET
monitoring or limits. Their permit application
contains historical WET data and the permit writer
has concluded that reasonable potential to exceed
state water quality standards now exists.
The survey then identified three different scenarios involving
a POTW with a design flow of 2.2 mgd. Namely receiving stream
critical low-flows of:
1) 0.0 mgd
2) 8.1 mgd
. 3) 3000 mgd
Participants were then asked to respond to questions
describing their WET requirements for each of .these situations.'
These questions addressed issues such as permit limits, compliance
schedules, violations, test species and enforcement procedures.
This report is a summary of completed surveys received from
all 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Again the intent of
this survey was to provide an overall view of how WET programs are
being implemented nationally and how consistent these programs are
between states and EPA regions.
-------
RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
Programs relating to WET testing are present in every state as
well as the District of Columbia. The implementation of these
programs varies, ranging from recently promulgating regulations for
WET-to well-defined WET strategies.
The manner i'n which effluent"toxicity testing is incorporated
into individual permits does vary from state to state and EPA.
region to region. WET requirements may be only a monitoring
requirement in some states, while a permit limit in other states.
Enforcement strategies also vary among states and regions.
Furthermore, toxicity reduction evaluations (TREs) are a permit
required response to effluent, toxicity in some areas but are
addressed outside the .permit in others.
There is some consistency in the types of tests conducted and
the, test species used. Most states use EPA's acute and chronic
toxicity testing manuals. The water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and
the fathead minnow Pimephales promelas are the most commonly
utilized-test species.
Several generalizations can be made from this study:
( Numbers include the District of Columbia)
- 27 states allow for some type of compliance schedule
WET.
41 states consider each toxicity test failure a
permit violation.
36 states use 7Q10 as the receiving stream low-flow
measurement for determining the instream waste
concentration (IWC). . .
- All states use Ceriodaphnia dubia and the fathead
minnow as the required freshwater test species.
25 states-allow for the testing of a most sensitive
species.
39 states require multiple concentration tests.
38 states require additional tests after an.initial
failure.
34 states utilize the TRE as a permit required
response to a toxic effluent.
When given - a specific permitting situation for WET, the
responses are summarized as follows:
1) Situation: POTW average design flow =2.2 mgd
receiving stream 7Q10 =0.0 mgd
7 states with acute limits
- 24 states with chronic.limits
.. - 11. states with both acute & chronic limits
- 9 states with no WET limits or monitoring only
-------
2) Situation: POTW average design flow = 2.2 mgd
Receiving stream 7Q10 = 8.1 mgd
- 6 states with acute limits
21 states with chronic limits
15 states with both acute & chronic limits
- 9 states with no WET limits or monitoring only
3) Situation: POTW average-design flow = .2.2 mgd
Receiving stream 7Q10 = 3000 mgd .'"'.'
33 states with acute limits '
- 3 states with chronic limits
4 states with both acute and chronic limits
-"11 states with no WET limits or monitoring only
A summary of WET requirements and conditions required by
individual states are presented in the following tables and
figures;
-------
3
x
. c
o
rH
cn
0)
a;
0)
0)
4->
(0
4-1
05
CQ
&
*
1
fc=
' 'ง
t/i
o> o
'"-
51-S
5
c
i
c
,,
O
0
a
o
O
O
5
<
to
I I
Cj U
o. ซ!ฃ
2 i. 4)
|Q
|O
XI
-------
^
c
o
u
u
J
m
Q"; .
C3 :
ง
n
. . O!
Ql!
(^ !
i';
Q
o
CM
CN '
2
2
a
. 0
5
CO
0
O
7
Q
O
CM
CM
g
2
CM
a*
!
Q.
0
HI POIW2.2MGD 7Q10=O.OM
i
LU
!
I
i
:
i
i ^
i
ง
a
'S
1
, 3
|
5 o
o o
3s
i
'
ง _:
ilt-NOAEL>l
lor situation 1
5 8
JD m
3 ฃ
s!
I
s
a
ฃ
"5
Acute Limit NOAEb 100%
Chionlc Drotectlon based on 5%
^
.
c
1
i .?
' i
_ j
3
i.
o
S
c- -
ฃ
~ i
>
i- ;
5 1
8
I Q
73
.1
3
.'
i
O
-
5
WS have Urn
nonltortng.
5 s
a.
1^
<
f ^
*O v
1!
Noael Is assumed to be 1/3 LC5C
IWC>5%-UmltlซNOAEL>100%. T.
i
1
1
i
t
1
i
i
i
."5
3
o
survival where dilution Is limited.
i
.
; ,
; i
1 ! !
i ,
.
'. '
! *
s :
S? M "*"
.j sz n ~3
1 ! 5
ill I
UJ
/-> 5
aซ =
CN O
0 5
i ฃ
u "
1 o X
' 5 ? ง
|g | ' *
08 - 5
ฎ j G. ป
? "2 P
~i S
? *i
< .52
5 J5
S A
A ^,
O
8 C?, M
Compliance-no slg. mortality at
up to 100%.
Acute/Chronic Limit
LC50ป100%: C-NOEC>-IWC(10ff
quarterly lesltna.
SNC-Revtew last 6 tests by type:
Acute Limit
|1
x IS >
UJ.ฐ ? ^
Z e/; is
2 | z ฃ
i
i
i
i
i
i
)
>
5
i
j
i ?
: " 3
i 1
5 "
j
i
2
^
E
K
- ' S
i i
= ^
^ o
I
ง <
s^
!3
5. '
i ?
05,
28
P c
If fall then: (1 ) priority pollutant r
language for formal enforceme
Acute/Chronic Limit
Q .- .
J
c/2
LLJ
cฑ
-------
M
JJ
C
o
H
Ol
(U
a:
U)
0)
4-1
(0
(N
CO
a
m
<
E-
2
c
c
1
a
X
IT
i
I
After Foil 1
V
t
1
(
c/
c
7
c
c
CO
o
0
1
ซ>
1
i
^
c
c
1
^
c
1
1
u_
Q
$
1
^
a.
LU
1
1
j
1
i
i
1
_
Z
o
o
UJ
ac
i
1
1
'
1
!
t
O
3
^
c
1
|
VI
0
vป
O
O
O
r*-
g
LJ
5
>
2
i
V
1
E
0
5
^
=
Q
1
i
s
!
!
j
i
|
|
iiu
a
^
c
]
a
!i
1 ?
i
i
i
!
S
1
vO
I
1
i
!
i
1
c
(
t
o
J-a
S
I
VI
ffl
C
ID
a
J
.
-_
j
i
i
1
T
a
t
"c
c
1
bflor to IRE.
|
.J '
i
j
ปi
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
V)
C
1
a
>
g
1
g
D
>
JJ
^
|
I
-.
|
C
<
c
ปฃ:
"c
c
c
1
a
t
C
^
u
j.
1
0
1
5
X
J
c
>>
I
1
'S
9
1
|
^
S
g
U
|
3
5
ง
u
^
7
a>
3
^
5
3
CD
5
|
J
ซ
1
J
ft
3
v>
=
3
p
5
1
j
n
\
-
i
D
13:
:. then limit.
g
c
i
:s
UJ
c
a
j*j
2
O
s
i
1
SJ
5
u
i
ฃ
f
~"
3
i
D
3
8
^T
r
D
1
"5
CD
ฃ
one of
S;
i
1
r
i
\
*
i
i
1
-i
J
i
i
-------
I
T3
Q)
3
C
H
4-1
C
o
CJ
OJ
U
CO
ง
0
2
H
O
5
ซ3 POTW 2.2 MGD-
O
0
2
=5
.
CM
S
s
O
s
z
1
7
J
1
o
>c
Q
c5
i
a
o
Chfonic Unlt-NOEC/l
5.
ซ
in
i
Lu
7-
5
iMInlmum stole slond
ง^
"c
a
*
>
s
8
o
^
J3
^
Most senstttve endpolf
.
-
1
No WET Monitoring or
g
ซฃ
^
5
|
1
Acute/Crvonlc Monltc
o;
o
ฃ
LU
7
O
1
D
C
O
g
J;
O
o
DC toxics
Gtven pollution sped:
o
c
t
2
x
o
.n
Would consider llfnlt Ir
I
"5
0)
8
o
-------
ง2
c
o
HI
O)
(U
a
U-l
o
U)
0)
XJ
(0
CO
3
CQ
<
e-
CD
,O
CD
e
S
CL
VI
ซ2
* *
c
"C
<
CD
.ฃ*
2
ON
1
I
S
3
>
a
g
o
1
<(.
I
c,
I
0
u
Q
c\
' O
5
21
, E
I
UJ
t_
CO
! Cซ
u
u
Ci
_^
_
"t
L
<
;
<
tn
(
O
(
Q
CO
V
(
7
(
V
c-
13
<
C
a
c-
1
c
a
c-
c
c
'c
c-
~
CD
:*"
C
1
a
1
|
1
.
S
^
1
g
DISTRICT OF
o
5
:ฃ
'<
a.
O
f
CD
S
I
CD
vt
ซ
>
C
vt
a
2
C
i
f
s
i
S
"V
I
0
fs.
DELAWARE
x^
c
1
2
c
i
^
ง
i
s
f
s
^
Q
CM
If (ail 2 tests in
a.
C
c
3
c
o
8
o
g
1
Q
0
c
c
1
2
S
;j
u
H-
s
^
o
o
in
CD
2
o
s
3
JD
S
1
S
1
Ol
51
<
PENNSYLVANI
j
i
a.
O
Q
^
c
CD
8
ง
^>
f
i
1
u.
v
%
v
s
^
8
s
2
o
i
0
3
<
|
U
S
5
c
a.
o
Q
2
-------
X
JJ
1
"S
c
H
'c
o
CJ
n ,
CQ.
C-H ' .
ฃ
o
in; | '
Q.
|Q
oio ?
' i i
,
' ; i
Si
ฎ
a
g
ฃ
S3
o c 1
S! g
' C^;
.,: :
i i
si
./, o> !
| 1
.0 p
6 6 :
i 2 1 '
1 ; '
1 * !
' ' i
1
-------
3
>s
I
3
C
H
o-i
C
o
o
n
CQ
2
o
0
2
Q
Cfl
CD
2
1
a
0>
Q
g
"
?s
0
I I
|
*
I
'ฃ=
'I <ป
!!
5
ซ
A
O
^J
o
U
o
O
3
|
D
5
CO
*O
5
I
10
-------
3
x
TJ
C
o
' -H
cn
a)
0)
.u
(0
4-1
cn
TABLE
11 .
-------
O
0)
3
C
H
4->
C
O
u
CQ
<
E-
12
-------
-a
0)
c
o
u
TABLE
13
-------
D
<
D
3
TJ
0)
3
C
C
o
9
u
m
14
-------
c
o
'en
o;
o
CO
J-l
C/>
U
m
E-
15
-------
3
T3
C
o
o
CQ
<
E-
16
-------
x:
33
>
5
a
0)
D
C
- -H
j_l
C
o
u
CD
*
1
" ' 8
n
it
5
i
ป3 POTW2.2MGD-
Q
03
O
2.2MGD--7Q1
2
CM
O
. o
o
o
5
i
i
CM
CM
2
XX
u.
^
K
b
a
^
a.
z
O
0
UJ
oc
Acute monitoring
i
o
2
|
c
a
t
tr
2
=
tn
S
o
0
V
3
i
O
o
d at < 100:1 dilution or
o
1
1
Q
ฃ
onlc monltorlnc
6
G
UJ
l-Chronlc(
8
"v
1
S~
2j
d
9
1
i
A
ฃ
rj
S
Q
e
n
specific toxicants) me
5
Umertcal
,c
ซ
o
o
o
=0
o
i
"o
X
O
^
|
-O
5
I
^
a
j
u.
5.
a
S
ICon use bk
^
2
q
ง
j
5
j
1
j-
Q
Monltortng-acute(4
S
c
o
j=
3-acute(7)%),c
i
i
"o
2
i
s
si
o
c
o<
a
V
f
1
o
X
O
M
~
u
^
o
c
2
5
.>
5
a
a
1 year(monthly-acule
5
I
X
^
3
1
.CSO; chro
ซ
1
6
5
S
^
i ,
-S
O
3
i
J
5
1 Acute crlle
c
5
5
j
g
E
=
5
5
a
lonol WET monitoring li
5
ฎ
2
|
o
r>
5
a
c
o
ง
1
|
S
1
Q
5
OJ
N^
I
ฃ
c
1 severe ond
e
1 with WET ปn
S?
U
Acute monltorlng-L
j
[Chronic n
O
UJ
O
z
?
1
IChtonlc rrx
z
c
z
-
c
z
T3
-------
'*
8
o
(U
3
C
C
O
o
in
m
<
fr-
18
-------
a>
s
0>
c:
1
3
a.
V9
.2
"n
5
C5
r
5.
5
^
3
r
L
a
"O
D
D
3
3
i
c
5
a
c
c
o
5
ง
;
5
3
J
5
o
9
1
5
o
=
ง
U
-
5
)
=
~
J
H
|J
j
I
:
VI
c
E
:
cr
. S
. ;
(
I
(
'
1
1
'j
<
(
I
t
r
_ _
''.'
:
. .
i
) . .
<
>
I
)
*
}
I
I
9
ป
J
5
i
D
>
e
D
^
3' '
D
3
O
r*3 <
3 O ]
O
< g
ง UJ
^ ^
5 ^
o|
'
~ *
3 G
<
1
s <
5 ฃ
*
_
*
: |
4_
i
.
.._ . .. .-i-
i
h -.
, ;"
: |
i
i
1
X
o
c
O
^
cn
<1>
.tx
Ul
QJ
^o
DJ
CQ
19
-------
3
x
I
3
C
C
o
u
vO
OJ
J
m
20
-------
C
o
en
-------
x
a
^.
I
5
Q)
3
C
H
4-1
C
o
'U
[^
w
co
22
-------
x
13
5
c-
o
-H
01
-------
TJ
0)
3
C
H
4-1
C
o
o
CO
W
J
CQ
24
-------
CD
a
CD
a
1
1
i/t
7*
D
0
1
CD
to
S
6
ง
(J
CD
Q
1
ง
a
c
0
S
5
=
, <
B
8
LU
5
1
E
o
O
o
LU
to
c-
LU
UJ
a
c-
B
u_
S
Species 1
V)
0
O
8
CO
C*-
a
CD
^5
1
C-
1
c
CD
>
C--
0
O
i
0
o
D
ซ5
J
0
u-
ti
CD
I 'EPA Issu
"
X
O
O
ex
wt
CD
CD
Yes-ofler
Q
o
Ih monlh
5
[screen' wl(h
a!
o
o
o
ฃ
i
|
o
o
0
c
idlan co
e
3 chronic
CD
o
a
3
CO
ฃ
X
c
ฃ
CN
c
c.
o
o
is wimin
VI
1
CM
b
ง
o
2
1
o
[months.
ง
^~
O
|
o
IQ
o
s
^_
CD
O
a
1
o
CD
asabov
CD
1
>
Q
O
S
1
|
I
0
>
E
2
o
1
-------
I
At
I
o
03
a
c
H
iJ
C
o
u
cu
j
m
<
E-
26
-------
5
C
O
-r-l
01
0)
ce
0)
4-1
UJ
4-1
en
UJ
j
CD
<
E-
*st
CD
>
' T3
CD
>
1
.
^
CD
(I)
5
o
u.
T)
5
ci
O
IQIO-ac
CD
<)
or 1 shows a
I
toxlclly.
o
0
U
jp
i
VI
o
u
VI
9
o
Q
O
1
<
S
Not In permit
CM
O
1
o
o
If all 6 chron
in
>
^
O
o
5
o
u.
T)
5
0
o
25%vol
o
(^
o
6
o
o
CO
c
a
o
o
X
O
S
g
SEE NEX1 PAGE
IOREGO
'
o
<
5
z
'
g'
0
WASHIN
.
27
-------
TJ
0)
3
C
c
o
u
m
<
E-
-------
0
O
.CO
15.
o
O
LJJ
o
o
.y co
O)
0
CO
o>
3
D)
29
-------
i-' O
30
-------
Q
CO 05
CD
+
03
CO
CO
ฃ
3
D)
LL
31
-------
o>
32
-------
33
-------
-------
KENTUCKY WHOLE EFFLUENT- TOXICITY SURVEY
Dear Colleague: ...
We have been implementing both acute and chronic WET limits in our
NPDES permits for several years. A number of .municipalities in our
state have filed a petition with EPA Administrator Browner
requesting fundamental changes in the NPDES regulations regarding
chronic WET. .To better respond to that petition and assist us in.
.understanding how our program (particularly for POTWs) compares.
with others in the rest of the country, ,we request your help in
completing the following survey. We have structured the survey so
that it will take at most 1 hour to compile and complete. We will
send a summary of the results to all those that complete .it.
Please submit your responses by Wednesday, August 10, .to:
Charlie Roth
Division of Water
KY Dept. for Environmental Protection
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502)- 564-3410 - phone
(502) 564-4245 - fax ,
Do not .hesitate to call if you have any questions. Thank you. in
advance for your assistance and time.
PERMIT ISSUING AUTHORITY:
The following are the basic permitting situations/assumptions that
the survey is based on:
- -Major Municipal POTW w/ approved- pretreatment program-
- freahwater discharge to a fish & wildlife-classified.
. receiving stream, Tier 1 - no endangered.species; no
outstanding resource waters
- no diffuser
- this facility's expiring NPDES permit contains no WET
monitoring or limits. The permit application contains
historical WET data and the permit writer has concluded that
. reasonable potential to exceed State WQS how exists.
General Question: Please designate what "receiving stream
critical low-flow" in. general means for your
state (i.e. 7Q10, 1Q10, etc) "
PLEASE PROVIDE THE ACTUAL PERMIT LIMIT/MONITORING PAGE(S) AND
REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU WOULD USE IN EACH OF THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS
A-l
-------
t
I
Situation_#l: POTW design flow is 2.2 MGD
Receiving stream critical low-flow to protect
,. aquatic .life, is p MGD. ... ._
1. would the permit contain: -(circle all that apply)
.. ',. '"'an acute-WET limit. . (go to a. below)
a chronic WET limit/. . (go tp a. below) ..-.'>.
, . acute WET monitoring, only (go to c. below) s
chronic WET monitoring only (go to c. below)
no WET. monitoring/limit (please explain)
a. would a compliance -schedule for-the WET limit be given?
YES How long? (go to b. be Low)
'NO (go to b. below)
b. is each WET test failure a permit violation?
YES . (go to 2)
' NO . (go to. 2)
c. if acute or chronic WET monitoring only is required,
when (if ever) would a limit be imposed?
(go to 2)
2. Are multiple dilutions required?
YES/NO
3. What test species are required?, (circle all that apply)
Ceriodaphnia .... ~-
Daphnia magna/pulex
fathead minnow .
Other:
a. Does the permit allow for testing to be conducted on only
the more sensitive test species at some point during the
permit term? .
YES/NO/NA
4. Does the permit require additional WET tests a.fter a WET test
failure?
YES/NO . . .
5. Does the permit require that a TIE/TRE be conducted? (provide
language if not already done above) '
.YES/NO
6. In KY, the sequence is: permit contains chronic WET limit-i:
WET test is failed, that's a violation ฃ> permit requires addition.i :
chronic WET tests-if additional failures occur, permit require
TIE/TRE-formal enforcement action occurs if TIE/TRE doesn''t resol1-
problem. Please describe on the back your sequence & where- form.i .
enforcement action (if any) would occur. '
-------
Situation #2: .POTW.design flow is 2.2 MGD
Receiving stream critical low-flow to protect
. . aquatic life is.8.1 MGD. protect
.- 1. would the permit-contain: (circle all that .apply)
. an acute. WET limit '. (go to a. below) .
. .a chronic WET limit ; , . (go to a. below). .:
. acute WET monitoring only (go to. c. below) .'. 0
chronic WET monitoring only (go to c. below) '-'. ''
no WET monitoring/limit (please explain)
a. would a compliance schedule for the WET limit be given?
YES How long? (go to b. below)
NO
(go to b. below)
.is each WET test failure a permit violation?
YES (go to 2)
N0 ' . (go .to 2)
if acute or chronic WET monitoring only is required,
when (if ever) would a limit be imposed?
b.
c.
Are multiple dilutions required? (
-------
Situation #3 POTW design flow is 2 2 MGD
Receiving stream critical low-flow to
aquatic life is 3000 MGD.
I- would the permit contain: (circle all that apply)
s Sis;}
w - ฃ" below I,-,-
nซ ^ monitoring only . (go to c. below - '' :
no WET monitoring/limit (please explain)
a. would a compliance schedule for 'the WET limit be given?
' YES How long? __ _ (go to b. below)
NO
(go to b. below)
b. is each WET test failure a permit violation?
YES ' .
(go .to 2) -
NO - , '
(go to 2)
c-
2- Are multiple dilutions required? (9ฐ tO 2)
YES/NO "
3.
What test species are required? (circle all that apply).
Ceriodaphnia'
Daphnia -magna/pulex
fathead minnow
Other:
lt allฐW fฐr testi"g to be conducted on only
1^6 "^ S6Ce at ซ. .point during
YES/NO/NA
?anure? ***** ^"^ additional ^ET tests after a WET test
YES/NO . '
YES/NO
WET te^s' a^ 1S: ^^^ contains chronic WET limit-,:
S '
chronic WET testslif addi?ionฐ a0rl-&' Permit ^ui-s addition,.
1 a -a
------- |