CBP/TRS 117/94
CHESAPEAKE BAY BASINWIDE TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
REEVALUATION REPORT
903R94038
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industrial Releases of Chemicals
• 350,000,000
>*
• 300,000.000-
«
'g 250,000,000-
3 200.000,000-
«
| 150.000,000-
ff 100,000,000-
•j 50,000,000-
•o
c o
1987 1988
1990 1991 1992
I
Benzo[a]pyrene Concentrations in Chesapeake Bay
Sources, Transport, Fate, and Effects of the Chemical Contaminants
in Chesapeake Bay
Harve stConsump( inn
Laid based
Point and Nonpoint Sources
i . Atmospheric Deposition
\ \ t.
Chesapeake Bay Program
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
CHESAPEAKE BAY
BASINWIDE TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
REEVALUATION REPORT
Report from the
Chesapeake Bay Program's
Toxics Subcommittee
to the
Implementation Committee,
Principals' Staff Committee,
and the
Chesapeake Executive Council
Annapolis, Maryland
September 1994
CBP/TRS 117/94
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement committed the signatories to "develop, adopt and begin
implementation of a basinwide strategy to achieve a reduction of toxics, consistent with the Clean
Water Act of 1987, which will ensure protection of human health and living resources." The resultant
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, adopted by the Chesapeake Executive Council
in January 1989, initiated a multi-jurisdictional effort to define the nature, extent, and magnitude of
Chesapeake Bay toxics problems more accurately and initiate specific toxics reduction and prevention
actions. The Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories also committed to reevaluate the strategy during
1992. The objectives of this strategy reevaluation were to define:
• what we now know about the nature, extent, and magnitude of Bay toxics problems;
• what steps should be taken to reduce and prevent impacts from chemical contaminants; and
• what information is still needed to determine future actions.
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee investigated and evaluated the complex
nature of the Bay's toxics problems through a two-year schedule of meetings, research workshops,
and information-gathering forums. Key to building a technical consensus on the nature and extent
of the Bay's toxics problems was a series of seven critical issue forums: wildlife contamination,
pesticides, groundwater loadings, atmospheric deposition, sediment contamination, finfish/shellfish
tissue contamination, and water column contamination. Regional and national technical experts were
invited to work with the Toxics Subcommittee in these one-day forums to analyze available data and
information and assess their usefulness in determining the adverse impacts to the Bay from potentially
toxic chemicals.
The strategy reevaluation found no evidence of severe chemical contamination impacts that are
bay wide like other problems, such as excess nutrients which has caused declines in underwater grasses
and low dissolved oxygen levels. The reevaluation did, however, clearly document severe localized
toxicity problems, adverse effects from chemical contamination on aquatic organisms in areas
previously considered unaffected, and widespread low levels of chemical contaminants in all Bay
habitats sampled.
Existing state and federal regulatory and management programs continue to reduce the input of
potentially toxic chemicals to the Chesapeake Bay. Measured concentrations of many of these
chemical contaminants in the Bay's bottom sediments, fish, shellfish, and wildlife have also generally
declined although elevated levels occur in several industrialized areas and some increasing trends have
been observed. Progress in reducing the point sources of these chemical contaminants is offset by
significant nonpoint source inputs of chemical contaminants (e.g., urban stormwater runoff, atmo-
spheric deposition) from increasing development and urbanization of the Bay watershed.
This report not only documents the findings of the two-year information gathering process of the
strategy reevaluation but also recommends an approach for undertaking future toxics reduction and
prevention actions in the Bay watershed. The recommended approach, derived from the 1989
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, targets toxics reduction and prevention actions
in four ways by:
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• recognizing pollution prevention as the preferred means of reducing risks to human health and
living resources due to exposure to potentially toxic chemicals;
• ensuring actions taken are both consistent with and supplement the requirements of the Clean
Water Act and Clean Air Act;
• directing reduction and prevention actions towards regions with known toxic problems as well as
areas where significant potential exists for toxic impacts on the living resources and habitats; and
• ensuring toxics assessments will directly support management decisions for reduction and
prevention actions.
Sources of Chemical Contaminants
Estimated chemical contaminant loadings and releases in the initial Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Loading and Release Inventory are based on limited available data from a variety of sources
covering different time periods. As a result, the estimates provide only for order of magnitude
comparisons between sources. The reported loadings are only for those chemical contaminants
identified as Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern—chemical contaminants either adversely impacting
the Bay system or for which the reasonable potential to do so exists.
Metals
The highest estimated Toxics of Concern metal loadings to the Bay basin come from urban
stormwater runoff, followed by point sources and atmospheric deposition; all these loadings were
within the same order of magnitude (Table I). Point sources are a significant source of metal loadings
only to the tidal reaches of the upper western shore tributaries and in the Susquehanna, Potomac, and
James basins. Atmospheric deposition direct to tidal surface waters is a secondary, yet significant,
source of metal loadings to the entire mainstem Bay and tidal tributaries due to its widespread
distribution. Estimated loadings of metals from shoreline erosion are the same order of magnitude
as atmospheric deposition loadings to tidal waters. Across all inventoried sources (except for fall
line loadings), the Potomac basin has the highest metals loading followed by the Susquehanna, West
Chesapeake, James, mainstem Bay, Patuxent, Eastern Shore, York, and Rappahannock basins.
Estimated fall line loadings of metals for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers are an order
of magnitude higher than the combined metal loadings from above fall line point sources and above
fall line urban stormwater runoff, indicating an underestimation of loadings to surface waters above
the fall line. Fall line loadings are generally measured at the point in the river where the nontidal
watershed meets the tidally influenced watershed.
Groundwater loadings of metals to Bay tidal waters are currently unknown, but are likely to be
more significant close to the original source of contamination. Estimated loadings of metals from
commercial shipping and transport activities and pesticide applications (e.g., copper) were not
significant compared with the above described sources at the basinwide scale. Contributions to total
metal loadings to Bay tidal waters that are currently unknown include: bulkheads, piers, and pilings
built with wood that is pressure treated with chromated copper arsenate, runoff from marina facilities,
and leachates from antifoulant boat bottom paints. Loadings from all these sources may be significant
at the local scale.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table I. Basinwide comparisons of Toxics of Concern/Secondary List metal, organic compound, and
pesticide loadings by source category.
Class of
Toxic
Substances
Metals
Organics
Pesticides
Point
Sources
AFL1 BFL2
o
-
o
•
•
-
Urban
Stormwater Runoff
AFL BFL
•
•
-
•
•
-
Atmos.
Dep.3
O
•
•
Shipping
and
Transport
-
O
-
Fall
Line
•
O
o
Key:
O
High range of loadings/releases:
Medium range of estimated loadings/releases:
Low range of estimated loadings/releases:
No estimated loading/release.
Metals
> 1,000,000
500,000-1,000,000
1-500,000
Organics
>2,000
1,000-2,000
1-1,000
Pesticides
>5,000
1,000-5,000
1-1,000
Notes:
1. Above fall line.
2. Below fall line.
3. Atmospheric deposition to Chesapeake Bay tidal surface waters only.
Organic Chemicals
The highest estimated loadings of Toxics of Concern organic chemical contaminants (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls) to the Bay basin are from atmospheric
deposition, followed by urban Stormwater runoff, and point sources (Table I). All these loadings were
within the same order of magnitude. Shipping is a relatively minor source of these organic chemical
contaminants. Across all inventoried sources (except fall line loadings), the West Chesapeake has
the highest organic chemical compound loadings followed by the mainstem Bay, Susquehanna,
Potomac, James, Eastern Shore, Patuxent, York, and Rappahannock basins.
Estimated fall line loadings from the non-tidal reaches of the Bay's three major basins—the
Susquehanna, Potomac, and James—were a very minor source of organic chemical contaminants to
Bay tidal waters compared to other inventoried sources. These minor loads indicate that inventoried
loads to non-tidal tributaries are diminished by chemical and physical degradation en route to the fall
line.
Pesticides
Estimates of pesticide loadings could be made for only two inventoried sources from the available
data. Loadings direct to tidal waters from atmospheric deposition were an order of magnitude higher
than combined fall line loadings for the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers (Table I). The
atmospheric deposition loadings may be an overestimate and the fall line loading does not account
in
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
for the remaining 20 percent of the freshwater flow into the Bay from other Bay tributaries.
Atmospheric deposition, however, results in the widespread distribution of pesticide loadings across
all tidal waters whereas fall line loadings contribute only to tidal areas immediately downstream of
the fall line.
The highest total pesticide applications were reported for the Potomac basin (which includes 22
percent of the watershed land area), followed by the Eastern Shore (7.5 percent), Susquehanna (42
percent), James (16 percent), West Chesapeake (2 percent), Rappahannock (5 percent), York (4
percent), and Patuxent (1.5 percent) basins. Herbicides accounted for 70 percent of the total usage
of pesticides reported basinwide followed by insecticides (20 percent) and fungicides (10 percent).
In the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James basins, the estimated fall line loadings of pesticides were
less than one tenth of a percent of the estimated total annual pesticides applied in the upland, non-
tidal watershed.
Although pesticides have been detected in shallow aquifers, surface runoff is a larger source of
pesticides to streams and tributaries than groundwater. Any potential for groundwater to be a
significant loading source of pesticides is greatest at the local scale—close to the original source of
contamination.
Chemical Contaminants in Bay Habitats
In their 1987 review of Chesapeake Bay contaminant issues, scientists from the University of
Maryland and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science stated "No matter where we look in the Bay,
we find evidence of some chemical contamination... Many of the contaminants found in highly
impacted areas are also now found in remote areas, but at much lower concentrations. There are
probably no pristine, truly uncontaminated sites left in Chesapeake Bay." The authors conclude that
"In highly impacted areas, such as the Elizabeth River and Baltimore Harbor, evidence of adverse
impacts upon aquatic organisms and reduced biological diversity exists. It is likely that toxic materials
are responsible for these effects. However, pervasive low level contamination occurring in the
mainstem of the Bay has not been equivocally linked to any biological deterioration."
The major findings from more recent efforts to better define the nature, magnitude, and extent
of Chesapeake Bay toxic problems are summarized below. These findings support the conclusions
of the 1987 review article. In the seven years since the article's publication, we have gained a better
understanding of chemical contaminant loadings and releases and have documented evidence for the
adverse effects of chemical contaminants in Bay habitats beyond areas with known toxics problems.
We now have an expanded base of knowledge and understanding on which to target ongoing and future
toxics reduction and prevention programs and can direct future assessments toward determining
whether low levels of potentially toxic chemicals are causing adverse biological effects in Bay habitats.
Water Column Concentrations
Because of the high concentrations observed, the surface microlayer may be an important site for
the transfer of chemical contaminants to both the water column and the Bay's living resources. Only
limited data and evidence exist to determine direct biological effects to organisms coming in contact
with the surface microlayer.
IV
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
No widespread occurrences of measured metal concentrations exceeding EPA water quality
criteria or state water quality standards exist in the mainstem Bay. Most Bay tributary water column
metal concentration data collected over the past two decades were reported as below analytical
detection limits. Measured concentrations of metals were higher in some non-tidal and tidal tributaries
compared to the mainstem Bay, with a very limited number exceeding EPA water quality criteria and/
or state water quality standards. As most of the metals data were reported as total recoverable
concentrations it is difficult to assess potential risks to living resources since EPA criteria and state
standards focus on the dissolved fraction—that amount in the water column considered "bioavailable"
to aquatic organisms.
Pesticides in the water column may pose a risk to living resources during and shortly after storms
in the spring and summer when pesticides are most heavily used. The highest water column
concentrations generally have been measured in non-tidal freshwater streams closest to the application
site, with very few observed concentrations above EPA aquatic life criteria or drinking water standards.
Limited data for tidal and non-tidal waters throughout the Bay indicate that concentrations of
organic chemical contaminants are generally below conventional analytical detection limits (i.e.,
below part per billion concentrations). Most organic chemical contaminants readily attach to sediment
particles and become embedded in the bottom sediments or are incorporated into biota.
Sediment Contamination
A few areas of the Bay which are heavily industrialized and/or urbanized—Baltimore Harbor, Back
River, Anacostia River, and Elizabeth River—have sediment concentrations of many chemical
contaminants high enough to likely affect aquatic organisms adversely (Figure I). The severe sediment
Ranking of Sediment Contamination in Chesapeake Bay
60 -C
Upper Chesapeake Bay
Upper Central Chesapeake Bay
Sassafras River
South River
Northeast River
Middle River
Anacostia River
West Branch Elizabeth River
Patapsco River
Back River
Severn River
Magothy River
Southern Branch Elizabeth River
Eastern Branch
Elizabeth River
0
0
Low
Contamination
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sediment Contaminant Concentration Score High
Contamination
Figure I. Distribution of sediment contaminant scores in Chesapeake Bay basin on the risk to aquatic biota due
to sediment contaminant concentrations.
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
contamination in these areas is due largely to historical sources of chemical contaminants. Estimates
of relative risk to aquatic organisms due to sediment contamination in these areas are much higher
than those for other areas of the Bay. Other localized areas with elevated sediment contaminant
concentrations have been documented around point source discharges, within marinas, or adjacent
to military facilities beyond the four areas described above.
Areas in and near the heavily populated or rapidly growing areas in the northern and western shores
of the Chesapeake Bay have the next highest levels of sediment contamination (Figure I). The lowest
levels of sediment contamination are in the less populated, rural areas of the southern and eastern
portions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. Data from these less populated areas indicate
that sediment contaminant concentrations are not at levels that would cause adverse effects on aquatic
organisms.
In most regions, sediment concentrations of metals appear to pose greater estimated risks to aquatic
organisms than do sediment concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Metal concentra-
tions were higher than thresholds associated with probable or potential effects more often than organic
chemical contaminants. These thresholds only indicate the relative probability of observing effects,
not that effects will be found if the threshold is exceeded. Sediment concentrations of poly chlorinated
biphenyls and pesticides appear to pose an even lesser risk to aquatic organisms outside of the areas
with highly contaminated sediments as most observed concentrations were well below thresholds
associated with probable or potential adverse effects.
Results from past and recent sediment core analyses and comparisons of 1991 sediment contami-
nant concentrations with measurements from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s all point towards
declining sediment concentrations for many metals, pesticides, and organic chemical contaminants
(Figure II). These data reflect decreases in the historical sources of chemical contaminants to Bay
sediments over the past several decades.
Chemical Contaminant Concentrations in Middle Chesapeake Bay Sediment Cores
1875 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985
Yew
20-
B
1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1961 1986
Year
Figure II. Concentrations of copper (A) and benzo[a]pyrene (B) in sediment cores collected from the middle
Chesapeake Bay mainstem. Each figure is displayed showing concentrations with increasing depth into the sediment
presented as the approximate year that sediment was deposited on the bottom of the Bay.
VI
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Effects on Bay Resources
Ambient Effects on Aquatic Organisms
Adverse impacts on aquatic organisms have been observed in a variety of Bay habitats (Table
II). Observation of these adverse ambient effects in Bay habitats such as the Nansemond, Elk,
Sassafras, and Wye rivers, generally considered to be unimpacted by chemical contaminants, raises
concerns about other regions of the Bay generally not regarded as toxic problem areas. The presence
of potentially toxic chemicals in these areas suggests that the combined effects of multiple chemical
contaminants may be a factor in causing the observed effects—death, reduced growth and reproduc-
tion, tumors. Outside of the highly chemically contaminated areas of the Bay, however, it is not known
if these adverse effects are caused by chemical contaminants or by other environmental conditions
not related to chemical contamination.
Table II. Areas in Chesapeake Bay where ambient effects have been observed.
Upper Chesapeake Bay Middle River Choptank River Rappahannock River
Susquehanna River Back River Potomac River York River
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Patapsco River Anacostia River Nansemond River
Elk River Severn River Nanticoke River James River
Sassafras River Wye River Pocomoke River Elizabeth River
Finfish and Shellfish Tissue Concentrations
There have been significant declines in finfish and shellfish tissue contaminant concentrations
throughout the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries since the 1970s for several metals, pesticides,
and organic chemical contaminants. Similar downward trends in tissue concentrations have been
observed in the non-tidal portions of the Bay basin. Concentrations of a few metals, however, show
recent increasing trends in concentrations.
The highest levels of shellfish and finfish contamination occurred at stations in the northern Bay
and the Elizabeth River. Based on comparisons with data from areas across the country with known
finfish tissue contamination problems, it appears that maximum concentrations of some chemical
contaminants in Chesapeake Bay basin finfish are not as high as the maximum concentrations
measured in northeast states or the Great Lakes. A few chemicals in areas with existing fish
consumption restrictions in place — chlordane in Back River and PCBs in the Shenandoah River —
show maximum concentrations comparable to these other areas of the country.
Within the Chesapeake Bay basin, the existing bans or advisories on finfish/shellfish consumption
are focused primarily on bottom-feeding finfish contaminated with chlordane, dioxin, mercury, and/
or PCBs (Figure III). Past fish consumption bans (Kepone in the James River) or restrictions (dioxin
in the North Branch of the Potomac River within Maryland) have been lifted due to tissue contaminant
concentrations falling below health advisory standards. Outside of these areas, the available tissue
vii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Finfish and Shellfish Consumption Bans and Restrictions
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin
Figure III. General location of the finfish and shellfish consumption bans and advisories within the Chesapeake
Bay basin. The numbers refer to specific streams, lakes, and rivers listed in Table 44 of the main report.
viii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
data indicate no cause for human health concerns. A more complete assessment of Bay finfish and
shellfish tissue contamination problems is not possible at this time due to areas with no tissue data,
lack of action levels for a wide range of chemical contaminants, and an uncertain relationship between
tissue concentrations and ecological impacts.
Wildlife Impacts
Although organochlorine pesticides and, perhaps, PCBs affected birds throughout the Chesapeake
Bay basin in the past, there is little evidence that they are still causing significant adverse impacts.
Continued increasing population trends in two bird species—bald eagles and ospreys—historically
impacted by these toxic chemicals indicate that the severe wildlife contamination problems once
present throughout the Bay basin have diminished. Waterfowl, raptor, and wading bird contamination
issues in Chesapeake Bay basin have moved from concerns of severe basin wide impacts due to elevated
concentrations of a number of toxic chemicals to a much more limited set of species, single chemical
contaminant, and region-specific issues. Existing data are too limited to determine whether chemical
contaminants are adversely impacting Chesapeake Bay populations of mammals, reptiles, and
amphibians.
Regulatory and Management Programs
The 1989 Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy was written "to achieve a reduction of toxics
consistent with the Water Quality Act of 1987" and build upon existing regulatory and management
programs. Many of the environmental responses and trends described resulted directly or indirectly
from implementation of these state and federal programs.
Pennsylvania
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources regulates chemical contaminants
through chemical-specific numeric and narrative water quality standards. These standards are the
basis for the water quality-based effluent limitations incorporated into permits and used for other
regulatory actions to protect water uses. Pennsylvania is a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) delegated state, carrying out permitting, compliance, and enforcement programs
in accordance with state and federal regulations. Through the implementation of the federal
stormwater permitting regulations, Pennsylvania has issued stormwater permits for industrial and
construction activities.
Pennsylvania controls pesticide use through programs that require licensing of all pesticide
applicators and actively promotes the use of integrated pest management techniques.
Residual and hazardous waste regulations have been developed as part of Pennsylvania's
hazardous waste management program to focus on source reduction for waste prevention. In addition
to playing an active role in clean up efforts at the 99 sites on the Superfund Program's National Priority
List, Pennsylvania is pursuing remediation at sites not on the national list.
Pennsylvania requires the application of best available technology to control toxic air pollutants
from new sources. As part of its new regulations to implement the Clean Air Act amendments,
Pennsylvania plans to incorporate pollution prevention requirements when possible.
ix
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland
Water quality standards in Maryland are designed to protect all waters both for recreational use
and the propagation and growth of a balanced population offish and wildlife. Maryland uses chemical-
specific limits in conjunction with biological monitoring to control point source discharges of chemical
contaminants. Dischargers with potentially toxic effluents have had requirements incorporated into
their permits for biomonitoring. Those facilities with toxic discharges are required to conduct
confirmatory testing and undergo a toxicity reduction evaluation to identify and remove the sources
of toxicity within the plant or collection system. Approved programs delegating authority to issue
pretreatment permits have been established in 17 jurisdictions statewide.
Maryland's pesticide management program tracks pesticides used in Maryland, ensures their safe
use through applicator certification and training, and promotes the use of integrated pest management
techniques.
Maryland established a Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization program in 1990 to provide
technical assistance and a clearinghouse of information on available reduction processes and tech-
nologies to over 3,000 waste generators. In addition to the national law, Maryland has enacted its
own Superfund law under which it focuses remediation on sites not on the National Priority List.
Maryland toxic air pollutant regulations were promulgated in 1988 to restrict the emissions and
subsequent land and water deposition of chemical contaminants. These regulations require that
emissions be quantified and reported. All new sources are required to employ best available control
technology and evaluate pollution prevention options.
District of Columbia
The District of Columbia's point source control program focuses on the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Presently the EPA issues NPDES permits for the District of Columbia, with review
and comments provided by the district. Under its pretreatment regulations, the District of Columbia
issues discharge permits to control chemical contaminants coming from industrial discharges to the
sewer system.
Through its Stormwater Management Program, established in 1984, the District of Columbia
controls nonpoint source pollution by ensuring that developers control both the quantity and quality
of stormwater runoff from project sites by using best management practices. Under the program, all
construction and grading plans submitted to the District of Columbia government must be reviewed
and approved for compliance with stormwater management regulations.
The main objective of the District of Columbia's Pesticide Management Program is to train and
certify pesticide applicators in the proper labeling, distribution, disposal, storage, transportation, and
safe use and handling of pesticides. The district initiated an Integrated Pest Management program
in 1992 targeted towards organizations and businesses registered to apply pesticides in the District
of Columbia and residential users of pesticides.
The District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste Management Program focuses on regulation
development, permitting, program administration, waste minimization and pollution prevention, and
compliance monitoring and enforcement. Site inspections determine whether generators, transporters,
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
and storage facilities are complying with applicable regulations. A revised waste minimization and
pollution prevention program is being developed to meet the 1993 Capacity Assurance Plan submittal
requirements. This program endorses the national goals of pollution prevention and waste reduction.
The technical assistance portion of this program will identify source reduction and recycling
opportunities, promote additional waste minimization methods through the distribution of fact sheets,
and promote in-house waste reduction audits for specific industries.
Virginia
Virginia's instream water quality standards are both narrative statements and numerical limits for
specific chemical contaminants. Virginia has been delegated responsibility for the NPDES, federal
facility, and pretreatment permitting programs. Through Virginia's Toxics Management Program,
dischargers are required to conduct both biological and chemical monitoring of their effluents. If
an effluent shows acute and/or chronic toxicity, the permittee is required to perform a toxicity reduction
evaluation and treat the discharge to reduce the toxicity to an acceptable level. Eleven municipal sewer
systems in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay drainage area are required to file stormwater permit applications
under the national stormwater regulations.
Virginia's Pesticide Control Board oversees pesticide businesses, certification of pesticide
applicators, and setting of fees. In 1990, Virginia initiated a program to collect and dispose of unwanted
pesticides from agricultural producers. A pilot program to recycle plastic pesticide containers was
implemented in three counties in 1992 and expanded to six localities in 1993.
Virginia has an extensive set of regulatory programs addressing solid waste, hazardous waste, and
hazardous waste sites. These programs encompass solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste, emergency
planning for hazardous waste, and hazardous waste transportation activities to protect human health
and the environment.
The Air Toxics Program in the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality is charged with
the maintenance and improvement of the state's air quality. Emphasis is being directed at a health-
based state air toxics program and the technology-based hazardous air pollution control program
requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Since adoption of the 1989 Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy, activities have included permit application review, inventorying facilities to
identify chemicals emitted, canister sampling for chemicals, and other atmospheric deposition
monitoring.
Progress Towards the Strategy's Goals
The 1989 basinwide strategy committed the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories to two goals:
"The long-term goal of this Strategy is to work towards a toxics free Bay by eliminating the discharge
of toxic substances from all controllable sources," and
"By the year 2000, the input of toxic substances from all controllable sources to the Chesapeake Bay
will be reduced to levels that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative impacts on the living resources
that inhabit the Bay or on human health."
XI
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The strategy reevaluation revealed examples of both programmatic and environmental progress as
well as areas requiring attention in the future.
Definition of Bay Toxics Problems
• The Bay basin states have identified 68 facilities as dischargers of chemical contaminants in
quantities that exceed water quality standards or criteria and have taken actions to reduce chemical
contaminant loadings from these facilities (Figure IV).
• Virginia began implementation of the five-year Elizabeth River Toxics Initiative in 1988 with
investigations of the sources of chemical contaminant loadings and ambient concentrations and
expanded facility inspections.
Reductions in Chemical Contaminant Loadings
• The national Toxics Release Inventory has reported significant decreases in Bay basin industrial
releases of chemicals to air, land, and water since 1987 (Figure V).
• Maryland has documented substantial reductions in chemical contaminants discharged into
Baltimore Harbor and the Patapsco River. The reductions were accompanied by significant
improvements in the number and diversity of bottom-dwelling organisms.
• The significant decline in the lead concentrations of precipitation at an atmospheric deposition
monitoring station at Lewes, Delaware since 1982 is the direct result of banning lead as a gasoline
additive.
• Observations of elevated water column concentrations of pesticides just downstream from a
Virginia pesticide mixing and loading facility triggered operational and structural changes at the
facility, dramatically decreasing pesticide runoff.
Reductions in Ambient Chemical Contaminant Concentrations
• Declines in tributyltin concentrations have been documented since restriction of its use in boat
bottom antifouling paints.
• Mainstem Bay sediment concentrations of most metals and many organic chemical contaminants
have declined over the past several decades.
• Maryland has documented declines in shellfish tissue concentrations of metals and pesticides since
the early 1970s (Figure VI).
• Basinwide decreases in organochlorine pesticide concentrations in Bay water birds have resulted
in increasing populations of bald eagles and ospreys.
Management of the Application of Pesticides
• Thousands of acres of agricultural land in the Bay watershed have been brought under a system
of integrated pest management (Figure VII).
• Collections of unusable and banned pesticide products in Virginia and Pennsylvania have ensured
the proper disposal of thousands of pounds of chemicals which posed a serious hazard to both
farmers and the environment.
xii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin 304(1) Facilities
Figure IV. Locations of the state designated 304(1) facilities (•) within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
XIII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industrial Releases of Chemicals
1? 350,000,000-
o 300,000,000-
(0
"g 250,000,000-
3
3 200,000,000-
g 150,000,000-
,0)
a 100,000,000-
^ 50,000,000-
(/)
3
•o
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure V. Chesapeake Bay basin industrial releases and transfers of chemicals to water (i.e. receiving stream)
(E3)> publicly owned treatment works (O )> off-site for treatment and/or disposal (Q). landfill disposal (ffi), and
air through stack or fugitive emissions ( •).
Minimizing Chemical Contaminant Loadings
• Counties and municipalities in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
collect a wide range of potentially hazardous household products from thousands of residents
through innovative collection programs.
Refinements to the Strategy
The reevaluation has shown that significant steps have been taken to control the input of chemical
contaminants to the Bay system over the past decade. Much remains to be done, however, to address
the known and potential toxic problems identified by the reevaluation.
Based on strategy reevaluation report findings, the Chesapeake Executive Council directed the
Bay Agreement signatories to revise the existing Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy by the next
Executive Council meeting. During its September 1993 meeting, the Executive Council directed that
the revised strategy emphasize four areas: pollution prevention, regulatory program implementation,
regional focus, and directed toxics assessments.
Pollution Prevention
Building upon existing state and federal efforts to encourage adoption of pollution prevention
approaches, findings from the reevaluation of the basinwide strategy should be used to target
prevention opportunities. Geographically targeting Regions of Concern and Areas of Emphasis is
one example of applying new information on the nature, magnitude, and extent of Bay toxic problems.
XIV
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Chemical Contaminant Concentration Trends
4-
i
3-
E
f >
O
1-
Illlllllll •
I
197475 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
3000
o"
c
Kl
2500-
2000-
f 1500-
1000-
500-
0
Illlllllhl II
197475 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
0.03
0.025-
ra 0.02
o>
0.015-
0.01-
0.005-
0
B
MlnlMl
197475 767778798081828384858687888990
0.05
0.04-
3 0.03-
o
c
a
•a
o 0.02-
6
0.01-
hhlllll
1974 75 76 77 78 79
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Figure VI. Concentrations of Cadmium (A), mercury (B), zinc (C), and Chlorane (D) in oyster tissue in the Maryland
portion of the Chesapeake Bay mainstem from 1974-1990. Bars marked with an asterisk (•*•) are concentrations
below detection limits.
The revised strategy needs to take advantage of the existing and often extensive institutional
structures already in place within the industrial manufacturing and commercial sectors, rather than
attempting to create a new, overlapping infrastructure. Many of these existing institutional structures
(e.g., statewide chambers of commerce) have members with a strong commitment to the adoption
of pollution prevention approaches. A strong link between the strategy reevaluation findings and
existing commitments to pollution prevention should be forged within the revised strategy.
Integrated pest management is a decision-making process that uses regular monitoring to deter-
mine if and when pesticide treatments are needed. This type of management employs physical,
mechanical, cultural, biological, and educational methods to keep pest numbers low enough to prevent
intolerable damage or annoyance. Chemical treatments are applied only when monitoring has
indicated that the pest will cause unacceptable economic or aesthetic damage. Least toxic chemical
controls are used only as a last resort.
In both the urban and agricultural settings, the greatest impediment to implementation of integrated
pest management is the availability of experts beyond cooperative extension agents. An alternative
xv
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin Integrated Pest Management Implementation
| 900,000
o>
g> 800,000 -
700,000 -
jjj 600,000 -
Q.
•0 500,000 -
8
2 400,000 1
O)
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure VII. Estimated acres of agricultural lands in Maryland (^), Pennsylvania Q), and Virginia
integrated pest management practices have been implemented.
1993
(•) on which
or supplemental source of expertise exists within commercial agrichemical dealerships and urban pest
control services. In partnership with private interests, a two-pronged approach could be taken.
Agricultural agencies could ensure that a professional crop advisor certification program is available
throughout the region, with the private sector providing trained, certified experts throughout the Bay
basin. In working with the agricultural community and private sector on nutrient management and
soil conservation plans, integrated pest management planning could become a logical and integral
component of whole farm planning efforts.
Regulatory Program Implementation
Building on the progress of regulatory program implementation to date, the revised strategy needs
to be consistent with and supplement existing state, federal, and local legislative and regulatory
mandates. Regulatory programs should be targeted towards Bay toxics problems identified through
the strategy reevaluation and, therefore, place emphasis on Regions of Concern, Toxics of Concern,
and inventoried sources with significant chemical contaminant loadings or releases.
Future revisions of the Toxics of Concern List should include the latest information on point and
nonpoint source loadings, ambient concentrations, aquatic toxicity, and federal and state regulations
and/or restrictions. The process for reviewing and revising the Toxics of Concern List (i.e., adding
or removing chemicals from the list) must be based on an objective risk-based ranking system followed
by professional interpretation of the resultant rankings. Revision of the Toxics of Concern List should
also include identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern for the Chesapeake Bay basin.
XVI
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Increased reliance on the identified Toxics of Concern and Chemicals of Potential Concern would
enable agency managers to anticipate (rather than react to) chemical-specific related issues. Possible
actions range from aggressive implementation of a pollution prevention program targeted at specific
sources of identified chemical contaminants to the implementation of discharge permit limits before
the targeted chemical contaminants become widespread in the Bay basin environment.
Regional Focus
The most severe chemical contamination problems in the Chesapeake Bay are limited to those
areas located near urban centers close to the Bay—the Patapsco, Anacostia, and Elizabeth rivers.
Through the strategy reevaluation process, an in-depth analysis of existing data has identified other
Bay habitats where lower concentrations of chemical contaminants may have a chronic effect (i.e.,
reduced growth or reproduction) rather than an acute impact (i.e., death) or where present activities
may lead to the development of chemical contaminant-related problems if action is not taken now.
Without a geographical focus the revised strategy could cover too many areas and issues to be
effective. The identification of Regions of Concern will narrow the scope to definable areas on which
to focus specific actions. At the same time, the Regions of Concern approach is meant to go beyond
obvious sites of chemical contamination to include less affected where there is evidence of potential
chemical contaminant-related impacts. These areas would be identified as Areas of Emphasis and
targeted for more pollution prevention-oriented actions. The identification of Regions of Concern
and Areas of Emphasis will clarify the geographic extent of Chesapeake Bay toxic problems and
establish a basis for targeting remediation, reduction, and prevention actions and defining future
assessment, monitoring, and research priorities.
Directed Toxics Assessments
The strategy reevaluation revealed that the potential exists for low levels of chemical contaminants
to adversely affect aquatic organisms in many Bay habitats. These levels are concentrations lower
than thresholds generally associated with known toxic effects on living resources (e.g., EPA aquatic
life criteria and state water quality standards) but elevated above natural background levels (e.g.,
enrichment of metal concentrations in sediment above natural earth crustal levels). Future assessments
must continue to focus on evaluating the risks posed to the Bay's living resources due to low level
chemical contaminant exposure, including the potential for additive or synergistic effects from
multiple chemical contaminants using chemical and biological methods with sufficient sensitivity to
detect these effects.
Future assessment must also be directed toward better quantifying sources of these chemical
contaminants. The reported loadings and releases for many of the sources inventoried in the
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Loading and Release Inventory were not collected to calculate
load or release estimates, but to assess compliance (e.g., point sources), use patterns (e.g., pesticide
applications), or for other purposes. To develop a comprehensive baseline of chemical contaminant
loadings and releases to the Bay basin, a number of specific actions must be taken to collect the data
necessary to estimate loadings and releases with increased certainty.
As increasingly stringent controls are applied to point sources of chemical contaminants, the
relative importance of nonpoint sources (e.g., urban stormwater runoff) is increasing. Nonpoint
sources are diffuse and, therefore, much harder to track and control. A mass balance framework
xvii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
quantifying the amount of chemical contaminants entering and leaving the Bay system, could be used
to target further source reduction efforts more precisely.
The mass balance approach should be an integral part of the Regions of Concern component of
the revised strategy. This approach should serve as a framework for identifying the relative importance
of various sources of chemical contaminant impacts so that effective risk-reduction strategies can be
developed. As this approach takes hold in the various Regions of Concern, it may point toward more
comprehensive risk management strategies for the basin as a whole.
Revising the Basinwide Strategy
The process for revising the basinwide strategy will incorporate public involvement in the
strategy's development, review, and implementation. The revised strategy will build upon the findings
from the strategy reevaluation and be structured around the Executive Council's four areas of
emphasis. Following a series of stakeholder roundtables and a public review of the draft strategy
document, the final strategy will be presented to the Chesapeake Executive Council at their 1994
annual meeting for signature and adoption by the Chesapeake Bay Agreement signatories.
XVIII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many scientists, program managers, and technical staff from the various universities, state, federal,
and regional agencies, environmental organizations, and scientific and citizen advisory groups
involved in the Chesapeake Bay Program's restoration and protection activities contributed time,
expertise, text, and data in the production and review of this reevaluation report. In alphabetical order,
these individuals were: Fatina Abdaoui, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ray Alden, Old
Dominion University; Joel Baker, University of Maryland; Carol Ann Barth, Alliance for Chesapeake
Bay; Richard Batiuk, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Dean Baudler, Computer Sciences
Corporation; Bette Bauereis, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company; Dave Bingaman, Pennsylvania
Department of Agriculture; Al Bromberg, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion; Elizabeth Chatfield, West Virginia State Water Resources Board; Tom Church, University of
Delaware; Jeff Cornwell, University of Maryland; Robert Croonenbergs, Virginia Department of
Health; Francisco Cruz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Therese Dougherty, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; Dan Drawbaugh, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources;
Kelly Eisenman, Chesapeake Research Consortium; Richard Eskin, Maryland Department of the
Environment; Elliot Finkelstein, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay; Nina Fisher, Technical Writing
and Graphic Design Services; Fran Flanigan, Alliance for Chesapeake Bay; Bob Foley, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; Greg Foster, George Mason University; Dana Frye, Chesapeake Research Consor-
tium; Mary Jo Garreis, Maryland Department of the Environment; Lenwood Hall, University of
Maryland; Ian Hartwell, Maryland Department of Natural Resources; Mike Hirshfield, Chesapeake
Bay Foundation; Ed Johnson, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Nick Kauffman, District of Columbia
Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; John Kennedy, Virginia Department of Environ-
mental Quality; Anita Key, District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs;
Marvin Lawson, Virginia Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services; Diane Leister, Uni-
versity of Maryland; Catherine Libertz, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Betty Marose,
University of Maryland; Joe Macknis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Eli McCoy, West
Virginia Department of Natural Resources; Israel Milner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Cherie Miller, U.S. Geological Survey; Maggie Moulton, Professional Desktop Solutions; Kent
Mountford, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Deirdre Murphy, Maryland Department of the
Environment; Steve Nelson, Chesapeake Research Consortium; Tom O'Connor, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration; Harriette Phelps, University of the District of Columbia; Scott
Phillips, U.S. Geological Survey; Alan Pollock, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality;
Chuck Prorok, Computer Sciences Corporation; Bill Rickards, Virginia Sea Grant Program; Kathy
Rowland, Maryland Department of the Environment; Jim Sanders, Academy of Natural Sciences;
Jackie Savitz, Chesapeake Bay Foundation; Lydia Schlosser, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Mari
Schwoyer, Computer Sciences Corporation; Joe Scudlark, University of Delaware; Mary Ellen
Setting, Maryland Department of Agriculture; Brad Smith, Delaware Department of Natural Re-
sources and Environmental Control; Gary Speiran, U.S. Geological Survey; Marcia Spink, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; Peter Tinsley, Maryland Department of the Environment; Debra
Trent, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality; Mike Unger, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science; Nathalie Valette-Silver, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Dave Velinsky,
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin; Betsy Weisengoff, Maryland Department of the
Environment; Heather Westra, Chesapeake Research Consortium; William Whitney, Chesapeake Bay
Program Citizens Advisory Committee; and Linda Zynjuk, U.S. Geological Survey.
XIX
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The contributions from the hundreds of participants in the seven critical issues forums were key
in gaining consensus on the nature, extent, and magnitude of Bay toxic problems. The contribution
of the many people involved in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data presented at
these forums and summarized within the reevaluation report are acknowledged. The Toxics
Subcommittee's workgroups, chaired by Joel Baker (Atmospheric Deposition), Dave Bingaman
(Pesticides), Mary Jo Garreis (Criteria and Standards), and Joe Macknis (Toxics Loading Inventory),
have all played a critical role in the reevaluation of the basinwide strategy. The leadership provided
by the former Toxics Subcommittee chairs—Katharine Farrell, Walt Peechatka, and Clay Jones—
is acknowledged. The Chesapeake Bay Program Citizen Advisory Committee's Toxics Task Force
(chaired by Bette Bauereis), Pollution Prevention Task Force (chaired by Lee Brown), and the
Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee's Toxics Reevaluation Workgroup (chaired by Ray
Alden) provided valuable reviews of the draft reevaluation report.
xx
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
TOXICS SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
Alan Pollock, Chair
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
Raymond Alden
Old Dominion University
Richard Batiuk
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Elizabeth Bauereis
Baltimore Gas and Electric
David Bingaman
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture
James Cox
Virginia Department of Conservation and
Recreation
Dan Drawbaugh
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources
Robert Foley
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Bruce Fowler
University of Maryland at Baltimore
Ian Hartwell
Maryland Department of Natural
Resources
Robert Huggett
Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences
John Kennedy
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
Gordon Kerby
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality
Anita Key
District of Columbia Department of
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs
Robin Laird
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jessica Landman
Natural Resources Defense Council
Marvin Lawson
Virginia Department of Agriculture and
Consumer Services
John Lipman
Chesapeake Bay Commission
Evelyn Mac Knight
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Olson
U.S. Department of the Navy
Michael Permenter
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Harriette Phelps
University of District Columbia
Jacqueline Savitz
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Mary Ellen Setting
Maryland Department of Agriculture
Gary Speiran
U.S. Geological Survey
Peter Tinsley
Maryland Department of the Environment
Nathalie Valette-Silver
National Oceanic and Atmos.
Administration
David Velinsky
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
XXI
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
XXII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
Acknowledgments xix
Table of Contents xxiii
List of Tables xxix
List of Figures xxxiii
List of Boxes xxxvii
Basinwide Strategy Reevaluation 1
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy 1
Strategy Reevaluation 1
Reevaluation Objectives 7
Reevaluation Process 1
Report Structure and Content 3
DEFINING BAY TOXICS PROBLEMS 5
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 5
Bay Basin Loadings and Releases 9
Above Fall Line Loadings 9
Point Source Discharges - Above Fall Line 9
Urban Stormwater Runoff - Above Fall Line 12
Atmospheric Deposition to the Watershed 14
Pesticide Mixing and Loading Facilities 14
Household Hazardous Wastes 14
Agricultural Pesticide Wastes 14
Acid Mine Drainage 15
Bay Basin Releases 16
Pesticide Applications 16
Industrial Releases 21
Transport Pathways to the Bay 21
Fall Line Loadings 21
Groundwater 23
Below Fall Line Loadings 27
Point Source Discharges -Below Fall Line 27
Urban Stormwater Runoff-Below Fall Line 27
Atmospheric Deposition to Tidal Waters 27
Shoreline Erosion 31
Household Hazardous Wastes 31
Agricultural Pesticide Wastes 31
Commercial Shipping and Transport 31
Recreational/Commercial Boating 32
Pressure-Treated Wood 36
XXIII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Findings and Conclusions 36
Metals 36
Organic Chemicals 37
Pesticides 38
Transport and Fate of Bay Toxics 47
Air-Water Fluxes 48
Transport and Availability in the Water Column 48
Sediment-Associated Resuspension and Transport 48
Sediment Fluxes and Burial 49
Findings and Conclusions 49
Trophic Transfers 50
Findings and Conclusions 50
Chemical Contaminants in Bay Habitats 50
Microlayer Contaminant Concentrations 51
Water Column Contaminant Concentrations 51
Metals 51
Pesticides 57
Organic Chemicals 58
Findings and Conclusions 63
Sediment Contaminant Concentrations 65
Evaluation of Potential Toxicity 66
Spatial Distribution 66
Temporal Changes 77
Findings and Conclusions 79
Effects on Bay Resources 83
Ambient Effects 83
Water Column Effects 91
Sediment Toxicity Effects 91
Histopathological/Suborganismal Effects 91
Findings and Conclusions 92
Finfish and ShellfishTissue Contamination 92
Finfish Tissue Contamination 92
Shellfish Tissue Contamination 99
Findings and Conclusions 705
Wildlife Contamination 106
Birds 706
Mammals 110
Reptiles 111
Amphibians 111
Findings and Conclusions 111
State Regulatory and Management Programs 115
Pennsylvania 115
Water Quality Standards Program 115
Point Source Programs 116
Permitting Program 116
Stormwater Management Program 116
Biomonitoring Program 116
Pretreatment Program 116
XXIV
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Nonpoint Source Programs 777
Pesticide Management Program 117
Storm Water Management Program 117
Hazardous Waste Management Programs 777
RCRA Program 117
Superfund Program 118
Air Quality Control Program 718
Maryland 118
Water Quality Standards Program 718
Point Source Programs 779
Permitting Program 119
Pretreatment Program 119
Nonpoint Source Programs 779
Pesticide Management Program 119
Stormwater Management Program 120
Hazardous Waste 720
Management Programs 720
RCRA Program 120
Superfund Program 120
Air Quality Control Program 727
District of Columbia 121
Water Quality Standards Program 727
Point Source Programs 727
Permitting Program 121
Pretreatment Program 122
Combined Sewer Overflow Program 122
Nonpoint Source Programs 723
Pesticide Management Program 123
Integrated Pest Management Program 123
Nonpoint Source Management Program 123
Stormwater Management Program 123
Hazardous Waste Programs 724
Hazardous Waste Management Program 124
Waste Minimization and Pollution Prevention Program 724
Underground Storage Tank Program 124
Air Quality Control Program 724
Virginia 124
Water Quality Standards Program 724
Point Source Programs 725
Permitting Program 125
Pretreatment Program 126
Storm Water Management Program 727
Nonpoint Source Programs 728
Pesticide Management Program 728
Hazardous Waste 728
Management Programs 728
Solid Waste Management Program 729
RCRA Program 729
Superfund Program 729
Air Quality Control Program 729
XXV
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Progress Towards The Strategy's Goals 131
Interim and Long-Term Goals 131
Implementation Progress 131
Definition of Bay Toxics Problems 131
Bay Basin States 304(1) Lists 732
Elizabeth River Initiative 732
Achievement of Strategy Commitments 135
Integrated Bay Toxics Research Program 735
Loading and Release Inventory 736
Reductions in Chemical Loadings 136
Baltimore Harbor 736
Bottom Habitat Responses 736
Industrial Progress Story - NORSHIPCO 736
Industrial Progress Story - Waynetex 737
Lead Concentration Declines in Precipitation 737
Virginia Pesticide Mixing and Loading Facilities 737
Elimination of Acutely or Chronically Toxic Discharges 138
Virginia's Toxics Management Program 738
Reduce Ambient Concentrations of Chemicals 139
Declines in Water Column Tributyltin Concentrations 739
Recent Declines in Sediment Contaminant Concentrations 739
Maryland Shellfish Tissue Contaminant Trends 740
Kepone in the James River 740
Basinwide Decreases in Wildlife Contamination 747
Manage the Application of Pesticides 142
Basinwide Increases in Integrated Pest Management Implementation 742
Pennsylvania's One-Plan Program 742
Implementation ofAtrazine Best Management Practices 743
Atrazine Estuarine Criteria Development 744
Virginia Pesticide Disposal Program 744
Minimize Chemical Loadings 145
Bay Basin Household Hazardous Waste Collection Programs 745
Pennsylvania Pollution Prevention Program 745
Maryland Pollution Prevention Program 746
Maryland Industrial and Commercial Pollution Prevention Successes 746
Virginia Pollution Prevention Program 747
Virginia Industrial and Commercial Pollution Prevention Successes 748
Refinements to the Basinwide Strategy 151
Pollution Prevention 151
Targeting Industrial/Commercial Sector Pollution Prevention Actions 151
Public/Private Partnership for IPM Implementation 151
Regulatory Program Implementation 152
Focus on Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 152
Regional Focus 152
Directed Toxics Assessments 153
Ambient Toxicity/Community Assessments 154
Better Estimation of Chemical Loadings and Releases 155
Point Sources 755
xxvi
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Urban Stormwater Runoff 156
Fall Line Loadings 156
Atmospheric Deposition 156
Pesticides 156
Shipping/Transport/Boating/Marinas 156
Targeting Source Reduction/Prevention Through Mass Balancing 757
Towards a Revised Strategy 159
References 163
Appendices
Appendix A. State Regulatory/Management Programs
Expanded Descriptions A-1
Appendix B. Chesapeake Bay Basin States 304(1) Facilities B-1
Appendix C. Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy Commitments Matrix C-1
XXVII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
XXVIII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation schedule: meet-
ing themes, critical issue forums, and workshops 2
Table 2. Chesapeake Bay critical issue forum questions 3
Table 3. Chesapeake Bay critical issue forums 3
Table 4. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List 5
Table 5. Chesapeake Bay Secondary List of Toxic Substances 6
Table 6. Chesapeake Bay basin state water quality standards adopted and EPA
aquatic life criteria published for Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern 7
Table 7. Estimates of above fall line point source loads of Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals by major Chesa-
peake Bay basin 12
Table 8. Estimates of above fall line urban stormwater runoff loads of Chesa-
peake Bay Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals by major
Chesapeake Bay basin 13
Table 9. Predominant sources of chemicals commonly measured in urban
stormwater runoff 15
Table 10. Estimates of annual applications of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Con-
cern and Secondary List pesticides by major Chesapeake Bay basin 17
Table 11. Pesticides with the highest estimated annual applications within the
Chesapeake Bay basin 18
Table 12. Estimates of total herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide applications
by major Chesapeake Bay basin 19
Table 13. Principal crops/use patterns and commonly applied pesticides within
regions of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia 19
Table 14. Releases and transfers of chemicals from Chesapeake Bay basin
Toxic Release Inventory facilities 22
Table 15. Estimates of fall line loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basin 24
XXIX
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
List of Tables, con't.
Page No.
Table 16. Estimates of below fall line point source loads of Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals by major Chesa-
peake Bay basin 28
Table 17. Estimates of below fall line urban stormwater runoff loads of Chesa-
peake Bay Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals by major
Chesapeake Bay basin 29
Table 18. Estimates of atmospheric deposition direct to tidal water loads of
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals
by major Chesapeake Bay basin 32
Table 19. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay and worldwide polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon concentrations in air 33
Table 20. Comparison of Chesapeake Bay and worldwide polychlorinated
biphenyls concentrations in air 34
Table 21. Comparison of Chesapeake Bay and Great Lakes wet and dry atmo-
spheric deposition fluxes of chemicals to surface waters 34
Table 22. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay basin Toxics of Concern/Secondary
List metal loadings by source category 37
Table 23. Basinwide comparisons of Toxics of Concern/Secondary List metal,
organic compound, and pesticide loadings by source category 38
Table 24. Comparisons of Chesapeake B ay basin Toxics of Concern/Secondary
List organic compound loadings by source category 39
Table 25. Comparisons of Chesapeake B ay basin Toxics of Concern/Secondary
List pesticide loadings by source category 40
Table 26. Summary of chemicals detected in Chesapeake Bay surface microlayer
samples 52
Table 27. Ranges of water column concentrations of selected dissolved metals
reported for the mainstem Chesapeake Bay compared with EPA
aquatic life criteria 53
Table 28. Water column concentration ranges of selected metals in Chesapeake
Bay tidal tributaries 54
Table 29.
XXX
Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected dissolved metals 56
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
List of Tables, con't.
Page No.
Table 30. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected total recoverable
metals 57
Table 31. Summary of selected pesticides detected in Chesapeake Bay water
column samples 58
Table 32. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of pesticides: 1979-1992 59
Table 33. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of pesticides: 1992-1993 60
Table 34. Summary of organic concentrations in Chesapeake Bay water column
samples 61
Table 35. Concentrations of tributyltin reported in Chesapeake Bay water
column samples 64
Table 36. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons: 1992-1993 65
Table 37. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
metals in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and the mouths of major
tributaries 68
Table 38. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
metals from regions of Chesapeake Bay with elevated levels of
sediment contamination 70
Table 39. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
metals in Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries 71
Table 40. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
organic compounds in the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and the mouths
of major tributaries 73
Table 41. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
organic compounds from regions of Chesapeake Bay with elevated
levels of sediment contamination 75
Table 42. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
organic compounds in Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries 76
Table 43. Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings 84
XXXI
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
List of Tables, con't.
Page No.
Table 44. Chesapeake Bay basin finfish and shellfish consumption bans and
advisories 94
Table 45. Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings
-birds 107
Table 46. Chesapeake Bay region bald eagle contamination and population
timeline 109
Table 47. Chesapeake Bay region osprey contamination and population
timeline 110
Table 48. Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings
- mammals 112
Table 49. Milestones for measuring progress towards the interim Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy goal 132
Table 50. Chesapeake Executive Council Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevalu-
ation Directive 159
XXXII
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay basin watersheds 8
Figure 2. Priority Chesapeake Bay basin point source discharges 11
Figure 3. Household hazardous wastes: potential sources of chemical
loadings 16
Figure 4. Pesticide applications by major Chesapeake Bay basins 18
Figure 5. Pesticide applications by Chesapeake Bay basin county 20
Figure 6. Chesapeake Bay basin industrial releases of chemicals 22
Figure 7. Chesapeake Bay fall line toxics monitoring stations 25
Figure 8. Chesapeake Bay fall line pesticide loadings 26
Figure 9. Groundwater: potential routes of chemical loadings 26
Figure 10. Urban stormwater runoff chemical loadings by Chesapeake Bay basin
county 30
Figure 11. Comparative loadings of selected metals and organic compounds to
Chesapeake Bay 35
Figure 12. Loadings of selected metals to Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed 41
Figure 13. Loadings of selected organic compounds to Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed 43
Figure 14. Loadings of selected pesticides to Chesapeake Bay and its
watershed 45
Figure 15. Sources, transport, fate, and effects of chemical contaminants in
Chesapeake Bay 47
Figure 16. Chesapeake Bay mainstem dissolved metals concentration
ranges 54
Figure 17. Copper concentrations in Chesapeake Bay sediments 69
Figure 18. Benzo[a]pyrene concentrations in Chesapeake Bay sediments 74
xxxiii
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
List of Figures, con't.
Page No.
Figure 19. Metal concentrations in middle Chesapeake Bay sediment
cores 78
Figure 20. Metal concentrations in Patapsco River sediments 80
Figure 21. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in Chesapeake Bay
sediment cores 81
Figure 22. Ranking of sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay 82
Figure 23. Sediment toxicity in Chesapeake Bay 90
Figure 24. Finfish and shellfish consumption bans and restrictions in the Chesa-
peake Bay basin 95
Figure 25. Concentrations of mercury, chlordane, and PCBs in white perch -
1990 96
Figure 26. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay fish tissue concentrations data with
sites across the country 98
Figure 27. Maryland oyster tissue arsenic concentration trends 100
Figure 28. Maryland oyster tissue cadmium concentration trends 101
Figure 29. Maryland oyster tissue mercury concentration trends 102
Figure 30. Maryland oyster tissue zinc concentration trends 103
Figure 31. Maryland oyster tissue chlordane concentration trends 104
Figure 32. Maryland oyster tissue PCBs concentrations - 1990 105
Figure 33. Air toxics sources regulated in Maryland 122
Figure 34. Chesapeake Bay basin 304(1) facilities 133
Figure 35. Chesapeake Bay toxics research program framework 135
Figure 36. Reductions in point source discharges of selected chemicals to Bal-
timore Harbor 136
Figure 37. Trends in rainfall metal concentrations 137
xxxiv
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
List of Figures, con't.
Page No.
Figure 38. Pesticide concentrations downstream of a Virginia pesticide mixing
and loading facility 138
Figure 39. Trends in tributyltin concentration: Hampton Roads, Virginia 139
Figure 40. Trends in tributyltin concentration: Sarah Creek, Virginia 140
Figure 41. James River Kepone concentrations timeline 141
Figure 42. Maryland Chesapeake Bay bald eagle populations 142
Figure 43. Chesapeake Bay basin integrated pest management implemen-
tation 143
xxxv
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
xxxvi
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
LIST OF BOXES
Page No.
Box 1. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern .... 5
Box 2. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay basin loadings and re-
leases 6
Box 3. Sources of information on the transport, fate, and trophic transfers
of chemical contaminants in Chesapeake Bay 49
Box 4. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay water column contami-
nant concentrations 63
Box 5. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay sediment
contamination 82
Box 6. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity
effects 91
Box 7. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay finfish and shellfish tissue
contamination 105
Box 8. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay wildlife contam-
ination Ill
Box 9. Selected Chesapeake Bay toxics data and literature synthesis books,
reports, and papers 131
Box 10. Chesapeake Bay Program reports directly sponsored by the Toxics
Subcommittee 134
XXXVII
-------
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
BASINWIDE STRATEGY REEVALUATION
Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy
In signing the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agree-
ment, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, the
District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission committed to:
"by December 1988, to develop, adopt and
begin implementation of a basinwide strategy
to achieve a reduction of toxics, consistent
with the Clean Water Act of 1987, which will
ensure protection of human health and living
resources. The strategy will cover both point
andnonpoint sources, monitoring protocols,
enforcement pretreatment regulations and
methods for dealing with in-place toxic sedi-
ments where necessary."
Signed by the Chesapeake Executive Council
in January 1989, the resultant Chesapeake Bay
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy initiated a
multi-jurisdictional effort to define the nature,
extent, and magnitude of Chesapeake Bay toxics
problems more precisely [53]. Building on the
existing state and federal regulatory and manage-
ment programs, the strategy used requirements of
the 1987 Clean Water Act as a foundation for the
actions needed to reduce loadings of potentially
toxic chemicals to the Chesapeake Bay.
Strategy Reevaluation
The basinwide strategy included a commit-
ment to reevaluate the strategy by December
1992. The Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics
Subcommittee initiated the strategy reevaluation
in January 1992 to more clearly define the nature,
extent, and magnitude of Bay toxics problems. In
addition to presenting new information of both
the impact and the potential for impact of poten-
tially toxic chemicals on the Bay ecosystem, this
report also provides examples of progress to-
wards implementation of the basinwide strategy
and achievement of the strategy's interim and
long-term goals. The current understanding of
specific Bay toxics problems is reflected in rec-
ommended refinements to the basinwide strategy.
Reevaluation Objectives
The general objectives of the Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy Reevaluation were to define
what is currently known, the steps that should be
taken to reduce existing and prevent future im-
pacts from chemical contaminants, and those
aspects that should be better understood to imple-
ment further basinwide, regional, and local
reduction and prevention actions. Specifically,
the report's objectives are to:
• Answer, to the extent possible, the question,
"What are the nature, extent, and magnitude
of Chesapeake Bay toxics problems"?
• Assess the relative importance (e.g., risk to
Bay living resources) of defined Bay toxics
problems.
• Clarify the gaps in knowledge and the neces-
sary steps to address these gaps.
• Document findings that redirect the existing
basinwide strategy towards targeted imple-
mentation of reduction and prevention actions.
Reevaluation Process
The Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Sub-
committee set up a 20-month schedule of strategy
reevaluation theme-oriented meetings, research
workshops, and information-gathering forums
which reflected the diverse, and often complex,
nature of Bay toxics issues (Table 1). The objec-
tives of the strategy reevaluation process (as
previously stated) were coupled with directed
efforts to:
• Review the implementation status of all bas-
inwide strategy commitments;
1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• Evaluate findings from past and ongoing tox-
ics-related research, monitoring, assessment,
implementation, and prevention projects spon-
sored by the Chesapeake Bay Program;
• Review existing regional/national regulatory
and management program directions as foun-
dation to recommend refinements to the
basinwide strategy; and
• Identify strategy commitments which require
a change in emphasis and identify areas not
recognized within the existing basinwide strat-
egy which should be emphasized.
The Toxics Subcommittee's sponsorship of
seven critical issue forums—wildlife contamina-
tion, pesticides, groundwater loadings, atmospheric
deposition of toxics, sediment contamination,
finfish/shellfish tissue contamination, and water
column contamination—was key in building a
technical consensus on the findings reported here.
These critical issue forums were structured to
assess the nature, extent, and magnitude of Bay
toxics problems.
Regional and national technical experts were
invited to work with the Toxics Subcommittee in
these one-day forums to analyze what available
data reveal about possible adverse impacts on
Bay living resources and human health due to
exposure to chemical contaminants. Each critical
issue forum was structured around a common set
of questions (Table 2). Proceedings for each
critical issue forums have been published and
widely distributed (Table 3).
Throughout the strategy reevaluation pro-
cess, the Toxics Subcommittee ensured active
involvement of the Chesapeake Bay Program's
scientific and citizens advisory committees and
targeted the general public for participation in all
subcommittee-sponsored meetings, forums, and
Table 1. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy reevaluation schedule: meeting themes, critical issue
forums, and workshops. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee, 1993.
1991
October Chesapeake Bay Wildlife Contamination Critical Issue Forum
1992
January Meeting Theme: Point sources, urban runoff, hazardous wastes
February Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program Workshop
April Chesapeake Bay Pesticide Critical Issue Forum
April Chesapeake Bay Groundwater Toxics Loading Workshop
May Meeting Theme: Water quality standards, living resource habitat needs
June Meeting Theme: Non-traditional sources review
September Meeting Theme: Toxics research findings and directions
October Meeting Theme: Pollution prevention directions, public communication
November Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Critical Issue Forum
December Chesapeake Bay Contaminated Sediments Critical Issue Forum
1993
January Meeting Theme: Reevaluation findings and new strategy directions
March Chesapeake Bay Finfish/shellfish Critical Issue Forum
April Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contaminants Critical Issue Forum
May Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Workshop
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 2. Chesapeake Bay toxics critical issue forum questions.
From the critical review of available data, have we defined/can we define the relative magnitude and extent
of [toxic issue] within Chesapeake Bay?
Does this definition of the magnitude and extent of [toxic issue] within the Bay give us reason to believe this
identified (potential) toxic issue is causing or can cause an impact on the Chesapeake Bay system, on
either a Baywide, regional, or local scale?
How does the magnitude of [toxic issue] within Chesapeake Bay compare with other coastal systems (e.g.,
Puget Sound) or large water bodies (e.g., Great Lakes)?
What direction should the Toxics Subcommittee recommend the Chesapeake Bay Program agencies take
with regards to addressing [toxic issue]?
If there is insufficient data or information to answer the above questions, identify the additional data/
research required to answer the questions.
workshops. As the reevaluation report was being
drafted, the Toxics Subcommittee continued to
solicit feedback on its preliminary findings and
recommendations.
Report Structure and Content
Findings characterizing Bay toxics problems
are presented in a sequence which reflects the
movement of chemical contaminants from their
original sources, through the watershed, and ul-
timately into the Bay's tidal waters, sediments,
and biota. Descriptions of the chemical contami-
nant concentrations in Bay habitats are followed
by documented evidence of adverse effects due
to exposure to these chemical contaminants (Chap-
ter 2). Descriptions of progress by existing
regulatory and management programs through-
out the Bay basin (Chapter 3) are followed by
specific examples of environmental responses
which illustrate the effectiveness of past and
present reduction and prevention actions (Chap-
ter 4). Chapter 5 highlights and describes those
areas requiring emphasis in the re vised basinwide
strategy, building on the increased understanding
of Bay toxics problems and progress. The report
concludes with a summary of the process and
schedule for revising the basinwide strategy
(Chapter 6).
Table 3. Chesapeake Bay toxics critical issue forums.
FORUM PROCEEDINGS
Status and Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Wildlife Contamination
Chesapeake Bay Groundwater Toxics Loading Workshop Proceedings
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics Critical Issue Forum Proceedings
Chesapeake Bay Sediment Contamination Critical Issue Forum Proceedings
Chesapeake Bay Finfish/Shellfish Tissue Contamination Critical Issue Forum Proceedings
Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contaminants Critical Issue Forum Proceedings
FORUM DATE
November 1991
April 1992
November 1992
December 1992
March 1993
April 1993
REFERENCE
CBP(1992b)
CBP(1993c)
CBP(1993a)
CBP(1992d)
CBP(1993b)
CBP(1993e)
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
DEFINING BAY TOXICS PROBLEMS
Since the first multi-jurisdictional investiga-
tions into Bay toxics problems (included in the
1975-1983 Chesapeake Bay Program's research
phase) [292, 293, 294], significant progress has
been made towards answering the question "What
are the nature, extent, and magnitude of Bay
toxics problems?". The following sections syn-
thesize the current knowledge, limits of this
knowledge, and gaps in our understanding of the
Bay's toxics problems. This information sets the
stage for taking additional actions necessary to
minimize the impact from exposure to chemical
contaminants and for preventing future toxics
problems through a revised basinwide strategy.
It also directs Bay basin managers and scientists
towards a more focused set of questions and
issues requiring further study.
From 1,1' oxybisbenzene to zirconium, over
1000 chemical contaminants have been detected
in, released to, or applied to the water, soil,
sediment, tissue, or air within the Chesapeake
Bay basin. A compound's inclusion on this
comprehensive list of chemical contaminants does
not constitute evidence of potential or existing
environmental impact [43]. It merely documents
a measurement of that chemical contaminant in
some environmental media at some time in the
past. This list contains the chemical contami-
nants which will be ranked and identified as part
of the process for making future revisions to the
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List. The
Chesapeake Bay Program's Toxics Data Base
stores both the list and supporting documenta-
tion.
Table 4. Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List.
Atrazine Chrysene
Benzo[a]anthracene Chromium
Benzo[a]pyrene Copper
Cadmium Fluoranthene
Chlordane Lead
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 199la.
Mercury
Naphthalene
PCBs
Tributyltin
Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern
The difficulty in clearly defining Bay toxics
problems is largely due to the overwhelming
number of chemicals used by society. Over 4
million compounds are known to exist; about
75,000 are now in commercial use with nearly
1,000 new compounds developed each year.
The first Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
List, developed by the Chesapeake Bay Program
Toxics and Living Resources Subcommittee's
Criteria and Standards Workgroup, was published
in 1991 (Table 4) [40]. The Criteria and Stan-
dards Workgroup finalized its development
approach with a publicly reviewed workplan in
October 1989. After months of collecting data
and analyzing chemical ranking systems, ambi-
ent chemical contaminant concentrations, and
Box 1. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List [40]
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List Information Sheets [41]
Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxic Substances [43]
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 5. Chesapeake Bay Secondary List of Toxic Substances.
Alachlor Dieldrin
Aldrin Fenvalerate
Arsenic Metolachlor
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1991a.
Permethrin
Toxaphene
Zinc
aquatic toxicity data, the workgroup identified
those chemical contaminants representing a sig-
nificant immediate or potential threat to the
Chesapeake Bay system. The Toxics Subcom-
mittee and the Living Resources Subcommittee
approved this list and supporting information,
with final approval by the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Implementation Committee in Janu-
ary 1991.
Information sheets summarizing relevant in-
formation for each of the 14 chemical contaminants
were published to support management use of the
Toxics of Concern List [41]. A Secondary List
identified those chemical contaminants which
may ultimately be considered for inclusion in a
future Toxics of Concern List based on the col-
lection and interpretation of additional data and
information (Table 5).
The basinwide strategy committed the Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement signatories to review and
revise the Toxics of Concern List every two years
(or as necessary) after development of the initial
list. The Criteria and Standards Workgroup re-
viewed the Toxics of Concern List within one
year (spring 1992) to institutionalize a more
comprehensive ranking and selection process.
This effort did not progress far as only limited
data were available in the Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram Toxics Data Base which was under
development at the time. The Criteria and Stan-
dards Workgroup did, however, review new
information concerning diflubenzeron (dimilin)
and carbofuran. The workgroup recommended
that diflubenzeron be deleted from the list of
candidates for future addition to the Toxics of
Concern List and that carbofuran not be consid-
ered for addition to the Secondary List.
The Chesapeake Bay Program developed the
Toxics of Concern List principally to identify and
provide concise documentation on chemical con-
taminants that adversely impact the Bay or have
a reasonable potential to do so. This list has
provided Chesapeake Bay region resource man-
agers and regulators with a bay wide consensus of
priority chemicals and the information necessary
to target these chemical contaminants for addi-
tional research, monitoring, and assessment or
Box 2. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay basin loadings and releases
Agricultural Pesticide Use in Coastal Areas: A National Summary [228]
Annual Loading Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Basin [224]
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen and Contaminants to Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed [304]
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [45]
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study Reports [11,12,14,70,174,274,341]
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory [50]
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory: Technical Update—Point Sources by Facility [51]
Chesapeake Bay Fall line Toxics Monitoring Program Reports [193,194,195]
Chesapeake Bay Groundwater Toxics Loading Workshop Proceedings [46]
Identification of Sources Contributing to the Contamination of the Great Waters by Toxic Compounds [165]
Local Solutions • A Local Government Guide to Managing Household Hazardous Waste in the Chesapeake Bay Region [39]
Lower Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Contaminant Data Base Assessment Project [317]
Occurrence and Distribution of Pesticides in Chesapeake Bay [163]
Relative Loadings of Toxic Contaminants and Nitrogen to the Great Waters [13]
Report to Congress: Deposition of Toxic Air Pollutants to the "Great Waters" [300]
Sources, Cycling and Fate of Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay [259]
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 6. Chesapeake Bay basin state water quality standards adopted and EPA aquatic life criteria
published for Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern.
Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern
Atrazine
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Chrysene
Copper
Fluoranthene
Lead
Mercury
Naphthalene
PCBs
Tributyltin
NY
5
5
•
5
•
5
•
5
•
4
4
•
5
PA
•
4
•
•
•
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
MD
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DC
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
VA
4
4
•
•
•
4
•
4
•
•
•
•
WV
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DE
4
•
•
•
•
4
•
•
4
U.S. EPA
Criteria1
2
•
•
•
•
3
•
•
3
•
•
• = Water quality standard adopted; aquatic life quality criteria published.
1. U.S. EPA freshwater and marine, acute and chronic aquatic life criteria.
2. Freshwater and marine aquatic life criteria for atrazine current under development by U.S.
EPA; Chesapeake Bay Program has funded development of an estuarine atrazine aquatic
life criteria.
3. Insufficient data to develop criteria; U.S. EPA has published a lowest observed effect level.
4. Water quality standard adopted for protection of human health only.
5. Surface water human health guidance value; used in writing permits.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1991a; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1994a.
strengthened regulatory and prevention actions.
Efforts have focused on the development of water
quality criteria and the promulgation of water
quality standards for the Toxics of Concern. Since
publication of the initial Chesapeake Bay Toxics
of Concern List, all the Bay basin jurisdictions
have adopted several water quality standards for
many of the chemical contaminants on the list
(Table 6).
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin Watersheds
Figure 1. Chesapeake Bay basin watersheds: Susquehanna (1), West Chesapeake (2), Patuxent (3),
Potomac (4), Rappahannock (5), York (6), James (7), and Eastern Shore (8). Bay fall line boundary
indicated by "toothed line" (TTTT).
8
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Bay Basin Loadings
and Releases
Published in March 1994, the Chesapeake
Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory
is the first step in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
signatories commitment to establish a compre-
hensive baseline on point and nonpoint source
loadings of potentially toxic chemicals to the Bay
basin (Figure 1) [50]. The estimated loadings and
releases described in the initial inventory report
(summarized here) are not measures of absolute
loadings or releases from the different sources
and are not the comprehensive baseline of load-
ings and releases envisioned in the original
basinwide strategy commitment. Due to limita-
tions in the available data, the estimated loadings
and releases underestimate or overestimate ac-
tual loadings and releases and are limited to a
small subset of the more than 1,000 potentially
toxic chemicals identified within the Bay water-
shed.
The inventory structure provides relative
comparisons among sources only at the order-of-
magnitude scale due to variation in both the
availability and quality of data for each of the
sources and uncertainties in the loading and re-
lease estimates. Often these estimates were
developed using limited data from a variety of
sources of uncertain quality and confidence lev-
els, covering various time periods, and collected
for purposes other than to calculate loadings and
releases. At this early stage in the development
of a more precise inventory baseline, larger es-
timates of loadings or releases may indicate a
more complete or comprehensive data base rather
than identification of a major source.
Because of the broad scope of the inventory,
multiple data sources, and differing data quality,
numerous limitations exist and must be consid-
ered when using the data. The inventory's estimated
loadings and releases do not account for transfor-
mations or degradations that may occur during
transport from sources discharging to non-tidal
waters. Despite such limitations, direct compari-
sons of loadings within and between source
categories can assist in understanding order-of-
magnitude differences. Releases (estimates of
the amounts of chemicals emitted within or ap-
plied to the land within the Bay's watershed)
should not be directly compared with estimated
loadings. Estimated loadings and releases are
presented only for Toxics of Concern and Sec-
ondary List chemicals. Combined loadings or
releases for all chemicals were not compared
since there was no common set of chemicals with
estimated loadings or releases between sources
and across different basins.
Above Fall Line Loadings
The fall line, usually characterized by water-
falls, demarcates the geologic boundary between
the unconsolidated sediments of the Coastal Plain
and the hard crystalline rock of the Piedmont.
The fall line can also mark the upriver limit of
tidal influence. Many cities, including Balti-
more, Richmond, Fredericksburg, and Washington,
DC, were established near the fall line to take
advantage of the water energy for power genera-
tion and transportation.
Loadings to above fall line waters do not
represent loads directly entering the tidal waters
of the Chesapeake Bay. These loads to non-tidal
tributaries are diminished by chemical and physi-
cal degradation enroute to the fall line, where
they are measured as part of the total point and
nonpoint source load.
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES -
ABOVE FALL LINE
The public generally recognizes point sources
more easily than other sources of pollution be-
cause these wastes are generated within a limited,
defined area and are generally discharged through
a pipe. Point sources may also release pollutants
to the air or may be transferred off-site for treat-
ment or disposal. Within the inventory, point
sources were limited to industrial, municipal, and
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
federal facilities which discharge chemicals di-
rectly to tidal and nontidal surface waters.
Industrial point sources have the potential to
release many of the raw materials, catalysts,
solvents, and other chemicals used in the manu-
facture of finished products and materials to the
water, land, and air. Municipal point sources may
receive and then discharge chemicals originating
from industrial sources or household use. Many
industries transfer their wastes, which may con-
tain metals, organic compounds, and other
chemicals, to municipal wastewater treatment
plants. Some of the chemicals in these wastes are
incompatible with normal wastewater treatment
processes and may interfere with the treatment
process, pass through to surface waters untreated,
or be removed from the waste stream and depos-
ited in the sludge. Chemical contaminants may
also be produced during treatment at the waste-
water treatment plant as by-products of chlorine
disinfection.
Federal facilities are often involved in manu-
facturing and waste-generating activities similar
to those of privately-owned industrial facilities or
publicly-owned municipal wastewater treatment
facilities. In the inventory, federal facilities are
treated the same as municipal or industrial dis-
chargers for point source load estimation.
There are over 6,000 industrial, municipal,
and federal point source dischargers within the
Chesapeake Bay basin [50]. Of these, 320 are
classified as "major" dischargers. The inventory
includes loadings estimates from nearly one third
of these major dischargers (Figure 2).
Pennsylvania point source estimates include
304(l)-designated industrial and municipal dis-
chargers based on 1992 data. Maryland point
source estimates include 304(l)-designated in-
dustrial dischargers based on 1989 data, Baltimore
Harbor industrial dischargers based on 1984 to
1989 data, and municipal dischargers based on
1992 data. The District of Columbia's point
source estimates include only the Blue Plains
Municipal Treatment Plant and are based on 1990
data. Virginia point source estimates include
only 304(l)-designated industrial and municipal
dischargers based on data from 1980-1989. In
addition, point source loading estimates from
304(l)-designated facilities in West Virginia were
included in the above fall line point source load-
ings for the Potomac River basin.
The inventory's point source loading esti-
mates include industrial, municipal, and federal
point source discharges to surface waters of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal and non-tidal tribu-
taries. The focus of these estimates is on process
wastewater, but some of the estimates include
cooling water discharges or industrial stormwa-
ter outfalls.
In response to a Chesapeake Executive Coun-
cil Directive, the inventory was expanded to
include estimates at the facility level [54]. Facil-
ity-level load estimates from 59 Pennsylvania
industrial and municipal sources, 14 Maryland
municipal sources, and 86 additional industry-
reported loadings to surface waters from the
national Toxics Release Inventory data base for
all states in the Bay watershed were added to the
inventory through a technical update [51].
The point source loading estimates are an
underestimation of the total point source loads
due to the limited number of facilities and chemi-
cals inventoried. The estimates presented in the
inventory may be based on only one or two
monitoring sessions taken over several years since
1980 and which were intended to provide daia for
purposes other than load estimation (e.g., com-
pliance) . Nevertheless, they are based on measured
chemical concentrations and volumes of waste-
water discharged.
The largest above fall line point source dis-
charges of Toxics of Concern and Secondary List
chemicals were for metals, particularly zinc,
copper, and chromium (Table 7). The largest
estimated above fall line point source metal load-
ings were for the Potomac basin, followed by the
10
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Priority Chesapeake Bay Basin Point Source Discharges
Figure 2. Locations of the priority Chesapeake Bay basin point source municipal (O) and industrial
(•) discharges as designated through the Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Loading and Release
Inventory. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
11
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Susquehanna and James basins. Estimated load-
ings of Toxics of Concern metals from point
sources from above the fall line in the West
Chesapeake, Patuxent, Rappahannock, and York
basins totaled less than 140 pounds per year.
There were no estimated loadings for the Toxics
of Concern polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
from above fall line point sources reported in the
inventory (Table 7).
URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF -
ABOVE FALL LINE
Urban stormwater runoff is a mixture of chemi-
cal contaminants washed from the urban and
suburban landscape. The major sources of chemi-
cals in urban runoff include incomplete combustion
of fossil fuel, metal alloy corrosion, automobile-
related activities, atmospheric deposition, pesticide
use, naturally occurring crustal elements (e.g.,
metals), and industrial manufacturing activities
(Table 8). Each unit area of urban land contrib-
utes varying amounts of surface runoff and
chemicals.
The quality and quantity of the runoff is a
function of several controlling variables includ-
ing the percentage of impervious surface area,
land use activity, automobile traffic density, degree
of air pollution just prior to rainfall, rainfall
pattern and intensity, and the presence of source
area or outfall controls. The findings summa-
rized here are based on a study to quantify urban
stormwater pollutant loads for 35 chemicals and
were presented in the report Annual Loading
Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesa-
peake Bay Basin [224]. Refinements were made
to the organic compound loadings in the basin-
wide inventory [50].
Table 7. Estimates of above fall line point source loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basin1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
%
Aldrin
Total AFL2
Basinwide
Loading
VJ«K$. '•&&
t '•• t 'Ss't. f
y. f< ^, ' >v />,
1,125
1,770
12,320
37,200
10,350
70
115,200
|KsV «,*^ .
Wiimlffi''^ *• **&'%£'
1
Susq.
|i£>rlS
^;3'r~^S
825
990
8,400
12,000
6,210
52
33,600
'"?%~;V,,
swS^itv" • t
-
West
Chesapeake
^i;>\.. "'-'
_3
-
-
-
-
-
-
., -. "'/ft •*'"" "
.^ .Sy/lf&^SgK
-
Patuxent
;::;!:;;
-
-
-
-
-
6
-
- --- "'•„
'*,"»,,. \j.
-
Potomac
50
250
3,360
22,800
2,300
12
76,800
^ ' * ,*'<,>;"'
-
Rapp.
;/-sf :£
125
-
-
-
-
-
-
* > '%%'•.
'f •••'*•*• ^
-
York
;'/ , ' *',','
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
^ , '
I'* ' yv$¥' *?
-
James
-A .M
125
530
560
2,400
1,840
-
4,800
• ': $ •;$• ~;
--^Mf^S'^i
1
1. Estimated loadings are in pounds/year.
2. Above fall line.
3. "-" indicates no loadings were estimated within the Inventory.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, 1994b.
12
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 8. Predominant sources of chemicals commonly measured in urban stormwater runoff1.
Chemicals Predominant Sources to Urban Stormwater Runoff
FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION
Chrysene Product of the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, especially wood and coal burned in residential
Fluoranthene home heating units.
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Arsenic Products of fossil fuel combustion.
Nickel
GASOLINE CONSUMPTION
Cyanides Products of gasoline combustion.
METAL ALLOY CORROSION
Cadmium Metals released from the corrosion of alloys and plated surfaces and from electroplating wastes.
Chromium
Copper Metal released from the corrosion of copper pipes and fittings, auto brake linings, and electroplating
wastes. Copper is also commonly used in algicides.
Zinc Weathering and abrasion of galvanized iron and steel (such as aging pipes and gutters).
AUTOMOBILE RELATED ACTIVITIES
Cyanides Anti-caking ingredients in road salts.
Cadmium Component of motor oil
Zinc Component of automobile tires and a common ingredient in road salt.
PESTICIDE USE
a-Hexachlorocyclohexane Components commonly used in soil treatment to eliminate nematodes and for other pesticide uses.
y-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Chlordane
a-endosulfan
Pentachlorophenol Primarily used to protect wood products from microbial and fungal decay. Telephone poles are
commonly treated with pentachlorophenol, for example.
4-Nitrophenol Used in the manufacture of ethyl and methyl parathion.
EXTERIOR PAINTS AND STAINS
Chromium Components and pigments found in painting and staining products, however, use of several of
Lead these additives is being reduced or eliminated.
Zinc
Pentachlorophenol
PLASTIC PRODUCTS
Phenol Used as an intermediate in the production of phenolic resins for plasticizers and other products.
Phenol is also used to produce Pharmaceuticals, germicides, fungicides, dyes, and some industrial
acids.
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phalate A widely used plasticizer (component which makes plastic flexible). It finds its way into urban runoff
because, through time, it "leaches" from numerous plastic products (such as garden hoses, floor
tiles, plastic containers, and food packaging).
NATURALLY OCCURRING ELEMENTS
Antimony Elements which occur naturally in rocks and soil.
Beryllium
Selenium
1. Priority pollutants detected in at least ten percent of National Urban Runoff Program urban runoff samples.
Source: Olsenholler 1991, adapted from Cole et al., 1983.
13
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Urban stormwater runoff estimates of chemi-
cal contaminant loadings for the major sub-basins
of the Chesapeake Bay drainage were developed
for major urban land use categories by applying
a load estimation model known as the Simple
Method [271]. The Simple Method mathemati-
cally relates annual rainfall, a runoff coefficient
(a linear function of watershed imperviousness),
watershed area, and the flow-weighted mean
concentration of a given chemical contaminant in
runoff. The presented loading estimates reflect
1985 land use conditions for urban and suburban
areas throughout the Bay watershed. While this
loading estimation method allows urban storm-
water runoff loads to be calculated from large
areas, it does not account for site-specific varia-
tions. This method extrapolates a limited number
of field-scale event data values to large-scale
annual loadings and does not account for possible
loadings from combined sewer overflows.
Large loadings of seven Toxics of Concern/
Secondary List metals from urban stormwater
runoff to above fall line surface waters were
reported from all the major Chesapeake Bay
basin, with estimated loadings of individual metals
varying widely among the basins (Table 9). The
highest estimated loads were reported for the
Susquehanna followed by the Potomac, James,
Patuxent, York, and Rappahannock basins.
Estimates of above fall line urban stormwater
loadings include five polycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons on the Toxics of Concern
List—benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, chry-
sene, fluoranthene, and naphthalene. Basinwide
loading estimates of above fall line loadings for
these compounds ranged from 174
(benzo [a] anthracene) to 893 (naphthalene) pounds
per year, with the highest estimated loads re-
ported for the Susquehanna followed by the
Potomac, James, Patuxent, York, and Rappahan-
nock basins (Table 9).
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
TO THE WATERSHED
Atmospheric deposition, described in more
detail on pages 27-29, is a source of chemicals to
both land (i.e., the entire Bay basin) and water
surfaces (i.e., free-flowing rivers, lakes, and the
Bay's tidal waters). Currently, only estimates of
atmospheric deposition loading directly to Bay
tidal surface waters can be made due to a lack of
sampling stations located throughout the Bay
watershed.
PESTICIDE MIXING AND
LOADING FACILITIES
The routine operation of pesticide mixing and
loading facilities throughout the watershed may
produce significant pesticide loadings to local
and regional environments. The Virginia Depart-
ment of Conservation and Recreation, Division
of Soil and Water Conservation became aware of
this potential loading source through a program
to monitor water quality improvements due to
best management practices [311]. Based on the
information collected at one site (described in
more detail on pages 137-138) and the existence
of over 300 facilities of this type in Virginia
alone, the potential exists for large contributions
of pesticides (and nutrients) to the surrounding
environment during routine facility operation.
Sufficient information does not currently exist,
however, to determine the extent and magnitude
of loadings of pesticides from these facilities.
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
Household hazardous waste does not appear
to be a significant source of chemical contami-
nant loadings to the Chesapeake Bay at the
basinwide scale. With the increasing numbers of
new products and the diverse users of these prod-
ucts, however, household hazardous waste may
well pose a significant risk to local environments
within the Chesapeake Bay basin when disposed
of improperly (Figure 3) [39]. Currently, no
estimates exist of the loadings from improper
disposal of household hazardous waste to above
fall line portions of the Bay basin.
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE WASTES
Recent surveys in Virginia and Pennsylvania
have shown that significant quantities of pesti-
14
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
cides are often stored on farms long-after they
have become unusable, cancelled, or banned for
use [27,173]. These surveys, conducted through
pilot pesticide collection and disposal programs
in both states, listed the more prevalent pesticides
targeted for proper disposal as DDT, endrin, lead
arsenate, carbofuran, and several others. No
loading estimates to the above fall line portion of
the Bay basin from the storage of these pesticides
exist, but spills have been recorded which se-
verely impacted local stream habitats [27].
ACID MINE DRAINAGE
Within the Chesapeake Bay basin, problems
associated with acid mine drainage (e.g., low pH
and elevated water column concentrations of
metals) appear to be localized in tributaries which
are adjacent to and downstream of mine sites
[270]. No estimates are available, however, on
the potentially significant contribution of metals
from mine drainage to the total loadings of metals
at the Bay's tributary fall lines.
Table 9. Estimates of above fall line urban stormwater runoff loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
and Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basin1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
Total AFL2
Basinwide
Loading
Susq.
West
Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rapp.
York
James
fesKS'^^
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
32,490
7,980
46,740
131,100
27,930
1,482
741,000
18,240
4,480
26,240
73,600
15,680
832
416,000
_3
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,140
280
1,640
4,600
980
52
26,000
8,550
2,100
12,300
34,500
7,350
390
195,000
570
140
820
2,300
490
26
13,000
570
140
820
2,300
490
26
13,000
3,420
840
4,920
13,800
2,940
156
78,000
.^^V/'..^&«^S!^/:"
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Chrysene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
174
188
470
705
893
122
132
330
495
627
-
-
-
-
-
11
12
30
45
57
26
28
70
105
133
-
-
-
-
-
4
4
10
15
19
11
12
30
45
57
1. Estimated loadings are in pounds/year.
2. Above fall line.
3. "-" indicates no loadings were estimated within the Inventory.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
15
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Household Hazardous Wastes:
Potential Sources of Chemical Loadings
Landfill Disposal
• u ™ "I*"** ** *- ** ' v ™** /
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Storm & Sanitary Sewers
Figure 3. Routes of loadings of chemicals from household hazardous wastes to the local environment
and Chesapeake Bay. Source: Chesapeake Bay Local Governments Advisory Committee, 1992; adapted
from original figure by K. Mountford.
Bay Basin Releases
PEST/C/DE APPL/CA770MS
The use of pesticides for agricultural and non-
agricultural purposes and the potential for these
chemicals to adversely impact surface and ground-
water quality is a concern of the Chesapeake Bay
basin jurisdictions. Unlike other nonpoint sources
of pollution, pesticides are intentionally applied
for economic or otherwise beneficial purposes,
such as protecting man, plants, and animals from
insects, weeds, and diseases.
State pesticide usage surveys, which provide
information to target areas for integrated pesti-
cide management practices as well as surface and
groundwater monitoring programs, were used to
estimate the quantities of pesticides used through-
out the Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia
portions of the Chesapeake Bay basin. Funded
through various state and federal sources, these
surveys ranged from field use questionnaires
generated from user interviews to estimates based
on national data bases of crop acreage and prod-
uct use [50]. Common parameters that the states
selected in conducting the surveys were: pesti-
cide active ingredient applied; rate of application;
crop to which the application is made; and the
number of acres to which the pesticide was ap-
plied. Modifications were made to these common
elements to accommodate non-crop application
sites and specialty applications.
16
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Atrazine (2,300,000 pounds per year), meto-
lachlor (2,300,000 pounds per year) and alachlor
(1,400,000 pounds per year) were the Toxics of
Concern/Secondary List pesticides with the high-
est basinwide application estimates (Table 10).
These same three herbicides top the list of the ten
pesticides with the highest estimated applications
basinwide (in which a total of seven of the top ten
pesticides were herbicides) (Table 11).
Herbicides accounted for 70 percent of the
total usage of pesticides reported basinwide,
followed by insecticides (20 percent), and fungi-
cides (10 percent) (Table 12). The greater use of
herbicides is clearly evident when comparing
total estimated applications across the major Bay
basins (Figure 4). The highest total pesticide
applications were reported for the Potomac basin
(which includes 22 percent of the total Bay
watershed acreage), followed by the Eastern Shore
(7.5 percent), Susquehanna (42 percent), James
(46 percent), West Chesapeake (2 percent), Rap-
pahannock (5 percent), York (4 percent), and
Patuxent (1.5 percent) basins (Table 12).
The Bay basin counties with the highest es-
timated pesticide applications are concentrated in
the lower Susquehanna basin, middle and upper
Potomac basin (i.e., up into the Shenandoah
Valley), upper Patuxent basin, Rappahannock
basin, and throughout Maryland and Virginia's
Eastern Shore (Figure 5). Table 13 summarizes
the principal crops and commonly applied pesti-
cides for these high pesticide use regions.
In a 1992 report, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration assessed pesticide
usage within the coastal regions throughout the
United States. The Chesapeake Bay ranked as the
ninth highest in pesticides applied annually within
the estuarine drainage area (the below fall line
portion of the watershed) of the 67 estuarine and
coastal systems assessed [228].
Table 10. Estimates of annual applications of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and Secondary List
pesticides by major Chesapeake Bay basin1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
Total
Basinwide
Application
Susq.
West
Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rapp.
York
James
Eastern
Shore
Htiipp$^;;t«r ^- - :*!^-^^-t^r,: / - ->- •$• - - • .- 'c^u''^r'^ "'"ir* },:r^r -^' ^y\^:: •-"'
••xVSfy^'*' "^jijjSPvV "'/tAe,^ ',' '- (• s "^ ' ' v- f 1"V* •• i ' ' '
Copper
10,000
J
-
-
900
1,200
1,100
1,800
4,800
1. Estimated applications are in pounds/year of active ingredient.
2. "-" indicates no loadings were estimated within the Inventory.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
17
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 11. Pesticides with the highest estimated annual applications within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Pesticide
Atrazine
Metolachlor
Alachlor
Carbofuran
Cyanazine
Captan
Simazine
Linuron
Chloropyrifos
2,4-D
Total Basinwide Application1
2,300,000
2,300,000
1,400,000
680,000
570,000
540,000
390,000
380,000
360,000
330,000
Class
Herbicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
Fungicide
Herbicide
Herbicide
Insecticide
Herbicide
1. Estimated applications are in pounds/year of active ingredient.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
Pesticide Applications by Major Chesapeake Bay Basins
•C- 4,000,000
CO
Q>
•£3,500,000-
•o
i 3,000,000-
a.
^2,500,000-
& 2,000,000-
$ 1,500,000-
'-= 1,000,000-
o>
- 500,000-
CO
Susquehanna West Patuxent
River Chesapeake River
Potomac Rappahannock York James Eastern
River River River River Shore
Figure 4. Total pounds of herbicides ( ^ ), insecticides ([||j), and fungicides (| |) applied as active
ingredient per year by major Chesapeake Bay basin. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
18
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 12. Estimates of total herbicide, insecticide, and fungicide applications by major Chesapeake Bay
basins1.
Herbicides
Insecticides
Fungicides
Total Pesticides
Total
Basinwide
Application
9,271,711
2,617,231
1,282,862
13,171,804
Susq.
2,113,319
175,027
175,599
2,463,945
West
Chesapeake
963,375
137,301
28,706
1,129,382
Patuxent
154,948
110,289
21,574
286,811
Potomac
2,186,993
817,986
632,224
3,637,202
Rapp.
474,554
303,202
99,141
876,898
York
442,862
246,273
15,358
704,492
James
522,620
425,713
229,532
1,177,865
Eastern
Shore
2,413,040
401,440
80,728
2,895,208
1. Estimated applications are in pounds/year of active ingredient.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
Table 13. Principal crops/use patterns and commonly applied pesticides within regions of Pennsylvania,
Maryland, and Virginia.
State/Region (s)
Pennsylvania— Southeast
and Central Regions
Pennsylvania— South Central
and Southwest Regions
Maryland-Eastern Shore
Maryland-Central and
Western Regions
Maryland-Southern Region
Virginia-Northern Neck
Virginia-Eastern Shore
Vlrginla-Shenandoah Valley
Virginia-South Central
Region
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and
Virginia-Urban/Suburban
Areas
Principal Crops/Use Patterns
Com, alfalfa
Fruit
Com, soybeans, vegetables
Com, alfalfa, soybeans, fruit,
turf
Tobacco
Small grains, soybeans, corn
Small grains, soybeans,
potatoes
Com, small grains, hay
Tobacco
Lawns, gardens, construction
Commonly Applied
Herbicides
Atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor
cyanazine, benefin, paraquat,
simazine, profluralin, 2,4-D
Simazine, paraquat
Atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor,
Atrazine, alachlor, metolachlor,
cyanazine, simazine, trifluralin,
linuron, dicamba
Pendimethalin
Paraquat, glyphsate,
metolachlor, linuron, alachlor,
2,4-D
2,4-D, paraquat, trifluralin,
metribuzin, senor
2,4-D, paraquat, atrazine
2,4-D, dicamba, MCPP, benefin
Commonly Applied
Insecticides
Furandan, methamidothos,
methoxychlor, parathion
Imidan, lannale,
phosphamidon, parathion,
methyguthion
Carbofuran
Carbofuran, guthion, phosmet
methomyl
Orthene
Carbofuran
Carbofuran, durisban,
ethoprop, carbaryl, orthene
Diazinon, malathion, carbaryl
Commonly Applied
Fungicides
Captan, maneb, sulfur
Mancozeb, zineb, metiram,
captan, benomyl, fenarimol
General Period of
Heaviest Application
First two weeks of May.
Early spring and throughout
the summer.
First week of May.
First week of May; throughout
growing season for fruit crops.
June.
Second week of June.
First week in March;
last week in June.
First week in March;
third week in May.
First week in June.
Throughout the spring and
summer.
Source: Roeser 1988.
19
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Pesticide Applications By Chesapeake Bay Basin County
No data available
HU Less than or equal to 20,000 Ibs/yr
• 20,001 - 50,000 Ibs/yr
B 50,001 - 125,000 Ibs/yr
• Greater than 125,000 Ibs/yr
Figure 5. Ranges of total pesticide applications by county within the Chesapeake Bay basin. Source:
Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
20
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
INDUSTRIAL RELEASES
Toxics Release Inventory data, collected as a
requirement of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (also known as
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 or SARA), is sum-
marized here to provide a baseline of the industrial
emissions of potentially toxic chemicals. Title III
of SARA requires industries with more than ten
employees which use more than 10,000 pounds
of any one of more than 300 specific chemicals
to report annually on the releases, discharges, and
transfers of these chemicals to the land, air, or
water. Title III of SARA also requires annual
reports of shipments of these chemicals to off-site
facilities which treat, store, or dispose of the
wastes.
Releases of chemicals to air and land are not
quantified in terms of the actual amounts reach-
ing the Bay tidal waters. No models currently
available quantify potential loadings to the Bay's
tidal waters based on estimated releases within
the Bay basin. The estimates of releases to
surface waters provided here are not always based
on measured values as are the estimates in the
loadings section; therefore, the two estimates are
not comparable.
Total reported releases and transfers from
Chesapeake Bay basin Toxics Release Inventory
reporting facilities declined 52 percent from 1987
to 1991 even as the number of industrial facilities
reporting releases increased from 3,285 in 1987
to 3,924 by 1991 (Figure 6) [50]. Data from the
Toxics Release Inventory indicate significant
industrial releases of chemicals to media other
than surface waters (e.g., air release, underground
injection, land disposal) (Table 14).
Air releases represent the majority of chemi-
cal releases reported, accounting for 44 percent
of the releases in 1987 and 68 percent in 1991
[50]. Although the percent of air contribution is
increasing, the total amount released to the atmo-
sphere declined 27 percent from 1987 to 1991.
Discharges to surface waters represented the
smallest contribution, accounting for only 1.5
percent of the total reported releases and transfers
for 1991. Off-site transfers to treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities and municipal wastewater
treatment plants accounted for 21 and 7 percent,
respectively, of the reported 1991 total. Releases
and transfers of all reported pollutants for these
two categories are also decreasing.
Transport Pathways to the Bay
FALL LINE LOADINGS
Fall line loading estimates provide a measure
of the amount of chemical contaminants dis-
charged or released from point and nonpoint
sources (i.e., pesticide applications, atmospheric
deposition to land and water surfaces) in the
respective watershed areas above the fall line and
delivered to the upper reaches of the Chesapeake
Bay's tidal tributaries (i.e., Potomac, James) and
the upper Bay mainstem in the case of the Sus-
quehanna River. It is not possible, however, to
subdivide total fall line loadings by specific con-
tributing sources.
The Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Moni-
toring Program was established as a pilot study
in April 1990 to define the magnitude and timing
of chemicals entering the tidal Chesapeake Bay
from point and nonpoint sources above the fall
line of two major tributaries—the Susquehanna
and James rivers [193]. The two fall line moni-
toring stations are located at the Conowingo Dam
in Maryland for the Susquehanna River and
Cartersville, Virginia for the James River. In
1992, the study was further expanded to include
fall line monitoring on the Potomac River at
Chain Bridge in Virginia in addition to the moni-
toring conducted in the Susquehanna and James
rivers (Figure 7) [194, 195]. Base flow samples
were collected biweekly and storm event sam-
pling was conducted throughout the year.
Combined, these three rivers provide approxi-
mately 80 percent of the total freshwater coming
into the Chesapeake Bay. Loading estimates
21
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin Industrial Releases of Chemicals
15* 350,000,000-
0>
300,000,000-
250,000,000-
3 200,000,000-
(0
eg 150,000,000-
100,000,000-
~ 50,000,000-
(0
•o
0
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure 6. Chesapeake Bay basin industrial releases and transfers of chemicals to water (i.e. receiving stream)
(0). publicly owned treatment works (E3), off-site for treatment and/or disposal (f~T)- landfill disposal fl^3).
and air through stack or fugitive emissions fl). Source: Chesapeake Bay Program, 1994a; U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency 1993c.
Table 14. Releases and transfers of chemicals from Chesapeake Bay basin Toxics Release Inventory
facilities.1
Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Direct Releases
to Water
(Receiving streams)
33,630,000
3,640,000
4,170,000
3,320,000
2,140,000
2,330,000
Transfers Off-site
to Publicly Owned
Treatment Works
53,160,000
16,010,000
13,230,000
11,770,000
9,790,000
9,780,000
Transfers off-site
for Disposal and/or
Treatment
69,410,000
40,520,000
50,580,000
50,060,000
30,100,000
28,950,000
Landfill
Disposal
13,420,000
10,950,000
6,020,000
5,570,000
4,580,000
5,640,000
Releases to Air
Through and Not
Through Confined
Air Systems
132,660,000
154,860,000
112,490,000
93,380,000
97,290,000
90,410,000
1. Releases and transfers, given in pounds/year, have been rounded to four significant figure for presentation
purposes.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993c.
22
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
were calculated using either discharge-weighted
concentrations and annual flow or a numerical
model developed by Cohn [58].
Large fall line loadings of the seven Toxics
of Concern/Secondary List metals were estimated
for all three basins, with the highest reported
loads at the Susquehanna, followed by the James
and Potomac (Table 15). Estimated fall line
loadings of zinc were the highest followed by
copper and lead.
The differences in fall line loadings of Toxics
of Concern polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
were minimal among the Susquehanna, James,
and Potomac fall lines, with combined fall line
loadings of benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene,
fluoranthene, and naphthalene ranging from 147
to 442 pounds per year (Table 15).
The Susquehanna had the highest reported
fall line loadings of pesticides, followed by the
Potomac and James (Table 15). Estimated fall
line loadings for atrazine, cyanazine, metolachlor,
and simazine were significantly higher than the
other pesticides monitored—aldrin, alachlor,
chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, fenvalerate, hexaxinone,
malathion, permethrin, and prometon—at both
the Susquehanna and Potomac fall lines [193,
194, 195] (Figure 8).
GROUNDWATER
It was not possible to develop chemical con-
taminant loading estimates for groundwater using
existing data. To address this concern, a critical
issue forum was held to assess the significance
of chemical contaminant loads from groundwater
into the Chesapeake Bay and to develop a strat-
egy for quantifying these loads (Figure 9) [47].
The mean annual freshwater flow entering
the Chesapeake Bay is approximately 18.9 mil-
lion gallons (at a rate of 600,000 gallons per
second) [238]. More than one-half of this fresh
water is delivered by groundwater discharged
through shallow aquifers as base flow to tidal and
nontidal tributaries or upwelled as direct dis-
charge to the Bay. Sinnott and Gushing [281]
estimated that approximately 55 percent of the
streamflow below the fall line and 40 percent of
the streamflow above the fall line is groundwater
discharging as base flow. Other estimates of base
flow represented as a total percentage of streamflow
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed range from 39
to 61 percent [7, 47, 64, 175, 276, 344].
Excluding local contamination data at haz-
ardous waste sites, there are very limited data on
chemical contaminant concentrations in ground-
water within the Bay watershed. The available
data are primarily for pesticides, with atrazine
and alachlor being the two most commonly de-
tected pesticides. On the Delmarva Peninsula,
concentrations of pesticides were generally low;
94 percent of the water samples with detectable
concentrations were less than the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) maximum
contaminant and health advisory levels for drink-
ing water [130]. Similar results were found at the
Nomini Creek watershed within the Potomac
River basin; over 21 pesticides were detected in
the ground water, but only atrazine, disulfoton,
and paraquat occasionally exceeded their respec-
tive drinking water standards [204]. In the
groundwater underlying the Owl Creek water-
shed in Rappahannock River basin, no pesticides
have been detected [204]. Triazine pesticides
were detected, however, in 42 of 50 wells sampled
in the Cumberland Valley of Pennsylvania—
above the fall line in the Susquehanna River basin
[153].
The primary conclusions from the critical
issue forum were that although measurable con-
centrations of pesticides have been detected in
shallow aquifers, surface runoff is a significantly
larger source of pesticides to streams and tribu-
taries than groundwater [47]. Any potential for
groundwater to be a loading source of chemicals
is greatest at the local scale, close to the original
source of contamination.
23
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 15. Estimates of fall line loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and Secondary List chemicals
by major Chesapeake Bay basins1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
' -iS^^Hrfe^^K.'ar
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Alachlor
Aldrin
Atrazine
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Metolachlor
Total
Basinwide
Loading
139,064
71,363
430,550
451,453
341,235
6,653
2,110,961
fe IfeS^ .->
320
370
651
972
406
58
5,940
317
65
3,081
Susq.
63,917
41,888
254,958
247,126
127,398
5,918
1,185,800
X> o" ,?*, ,£, ^,,
168
147
297
660
&£•••'' %*'*%^ v^4*
*#/''•.# £,/'}"', ' •. •.
283
41
3,740
149
23
2,024
West
Chesapeake
»^'^S'w C £? J '''- %% -.
NE2
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
, -,:•, „ »v
"Jilk^U
NE
NE
NE
NE
•j-o , ;
'*" >%*^ -•$£/ /'
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Patuxent
:&/*/- '"ii""il"
\t,dW®$'^
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
. * *
,, j ^;
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Potomac
''CiwStf^V'
WJiP^%?
%?%>?•• * o ^\ ^
63,839
20,587
88,934
114,127
129,962
NE
625,081
••"vX
85
66
46
165
''" -"(•",
76
10
1,716
79
33
858
Rapp.
*£?#
?*»«.« ^
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
M&* "f -
r*': •('•
NE
NE
NE
NE
, -. Vs
"/-"
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
York
^J^
'yjHf*- -(^
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
*'t ,/
^.-tf,
,»'1; ,
NE
NE
NE
NE
' -:-~^-
' J' S' '
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
James
yJRyft
11,308
8,888
86,658
90,200
83,875
735
300,080
* ^ w^ v.*yp-
57
157
308
147
'&£
'• -.1&&- -*.!?!
47
7
484
89
9
199
Eastern
Shore
J*# ' s "•^•^••j
i^^.)*
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
v#tf&f'S'f , ^
/" -"^t^'^' '
^- -M- ;-,
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
1. Estimated mean annual loadings in pounds/year.
2. Fall line loadings were not measured and, therefore, not estimated.
Sources: Maryland Department of the Environment and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 1994a, 1994b.
24
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Stations
Figure 7. Locations of the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers fall line toxics monitoring stations
(0). Sources: Maryland Department of the Environment and Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments 1994a.
25
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
1800
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Pesticide Loadings
Alachlor Atrazine Cyanazine Diazinon Hexazinone Malathion Metolachlor Prometon Simazine
Figure 8. Estimated loadings of selected pesticides at the Susquehanna (|j|), Potomac (|), and James
(^) fall lines over the period March 1992 - February 1993. Mean annual loadings are the sum of the dissolved
and particle fractions. Sources: Maryland Department of the Environment, and Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments 1994a, 19945.
Groundwater: Potential Routes of Chemical Loadings
Recharge
area
Base of the ground water system
Figure 9. Illustration of the potential routes of chemical loadings to groundwater. Water that enters a
groundwater system in recharge areas moves through the aquifers and confining beds comprising the system
to discharge areas (i.e., Bay tributaries). Source: Adapted from Phillips, Personal Communication.
26
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Below Fall Line Loadings
POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES -
BELOW FALL LINE
Estimated loadings presented in this section
come from those point source facilities which
discharge directly to waters below the fall line
(Figure 2). See pages 9-10 for a more complete
discussion of point sources and load estimations.
Most below fall line point source loadings of
Toxics of Concern\ Secondary List metals come
from the West Chesapeake, Potomac, and James
basins (Table 16). Metals loadings of less than
6,300 pounds per year were reported below the
fall line in the Eastern Shore basin with 50 pounds
per year reported for the Patuxent basin; no es-
timated loadings were reported for the
Rappahannock and York basins in the inventory.
The highest individual Toxics of Concern/Sec-
ondary List metals loadings were for zinc, followed
by copper, chromium, and lead (Table 16). Load-
ings of Toxics of Concern polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons were generally 100 pounds per
year or less, with no estimated loadings reported
for the inventoried facilities in the Patuxent,
Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and Eastern Shore
basins (Table 16).
URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF -
BELOW FALL LINE
Large loadings of seven Toxics of Concern/
Secondary List metal loadings from urban storm-
water runoff to below fall line surface waters
were estimated across the major Chesapeake Bay
basins, with individual metals generally varying
several orders of magnitude between individual
basins (Table 17). The highest basinwide metal
loadings were for zinc, followed by copper, chro-
mium, lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury. The
highest metal loads were estimated for the West
Chesapeake followed by the Potomac, James,
Eastern Shore, Patuxent, York, and Rappahan-
nock basins.
Estimated loadings of the five polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons on the Toxics of Concern
List ranged from 200 to 1,000 pounds per year
basinwide (Table 17). The highest estimated
loads of all five compounds combined were es-
timated for the West Chesapeake followed by the
Potomac, James, Eastern Shore, York, Patuxent,
and Rappahannock basins.
Total estimated urban storm water runoff load-
ings of chemical contaminants presented by county
clearly illustrate that the counties with the highest
estimated loadings tend to be concentrated at or
below the fall line and in the lower Susquehanna
basin (Figure 10). This pattern is particularly
noticeable in the region surrounding the upper
tidal Potomac and Maryland's upper western
shore.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
TO TIDAL WATERS
Atmospheric deposition is the gross transport
of chemicals from the atmosphere to both land
and water surfaces. The magnitude of atmo-
spheric deposition is proportional to the
concentration of the chemical in the atmosphere
and is dependent upon both the emission rate into
the atmosphere and a variety of atmospheric
transport and reaction processes.
Atmospheric deposition results both from wet
and dry depositional processes. Wet deposition
includes washout of atmospheric particles (aero-
sols) by precipitation, as well as washout of
gaseous chemicals via dissolution into raindrops.
The magnitude of wet deposition depends di-
rectly upon the intensity and duration of the
precipitation event, the concentrations of aero-
sol-bound and gas phase chemicals in the
atmosphere, and the efficiency with which the
precipitation scavenges these chemicals. Wet
depositional fluxes may be directly determined at
a site by collecting precipitation and analyzing
the chemicals of interest.
27
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 16. Estimates of below fall line point source loads for Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern and
Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basin1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
Total BFL2
Basinwide
Loading
Arsenic
1,375
West
Ches.
Patuxent
Potomac
Rapp.
York
James
Eastern
Shore
25
Cadmium
1,330
1,116
155
31
31
Chromium
43,680
35,840
2,800
4,480
Copper
82,800
39,600
27,600
14,400
1,200
Lead
12,650
7,130
3,220
2,300
230
Mercury
510
412
75
23
Zinc
Benzo[a]pyrene
364,800
100
206,400
22
100,800
48,000
78
4,800
Chrysene
20
20
Fluoranthene
50
50
Naphthalene
1,400
1,400
1. Estimated loadings are in pounds/year.
2. Below fall line.
3. "-" indicates no loadings were estimated within the Inventory.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, 1994b.
Dry deposition results from the transport of
aerosols to the land or water surface and the
absorption of gaseous chemicals into vegetation,
soils, and surface waters. While it is generally
accepted that dry aerosol depositional fluxes are
proportional to the concentrations of aerosol-
bound chemicals in the atmosphere, direct field
measurements of dry deposition provide only
order-of-magnitude ranges of flux estimates at
best.
Atmospheric loading estimates for metals,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs) are based on results
from the Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Study conducted in 1990 and 1991 [11, 45,
70]. Atmospheric loading estimates for pesti-
cides are based solely on bulk precipitation samples
collected between 1977 and 1984 and reported in
the literature [92, 335, 340]. In these pesticide
studies, open collectors were deployed for ex-
tended periods adjacent to agricultural fields.
While these studies provide some important first
measurements of pesticide atmospheric deposi-
tion rates, the close proximity of the samples to
agricultural areas likely resulted in overestimates
of the true regional depositional fluxes [11].
28
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 17. Estimates of below fall line urban stormwater runoff loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern
and Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basins1.
Chemical Category/
Toxic Substance
Arsenic
Total BFL2
Basinwide
Loading
West
Ches.
Patuxent
Potomac
Rapp.
York
James
25,080
9,120
1,710
5,700
570
1,710
3,990
Eastern
Shore
2,280
Cadmium
6,160
2,240
420
1,400
140
420
980
560
Chromium
36,080
13,120
2,460
8,200
820
2,460
5,740
3,280
Copper
101,200
36,800
6,900
23,000
2,300
6,900
16,100
9,200
Lead
21,560
7,840
1,470
4,900
490
1,470
3,430
1,960
Mercury
1,144
416
78
260
26
78
182
104
Zinc
572,000
208,000
39,000
130,000
13,000
39,000
91,000
52,000
Benzo[a]pyrene
208
108
48
12
20
12
Benzo[a]anthracene
192
100
44
11
19
11
Chrysene
520
270
20
120
30
50
30
Fluoranthene
780
405
30
180
45
75
45
Naphthalene
988
513
38
228
57
95
57
1. Estimated loads are in pounds/year.
2. Below fall line.
3. "-" indicates no loadings were estimated within the Inventory.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
These atmospheric deposition loadings in-
clude only wet and dry atmospheric deposition to
surface waters of the Bay's mainstem and tidal
tributaries and do not include atmospheric depo-
sition to non-tidal surface waters above the fall
line or land areas above or below the fall line. The
loading estimates were allocated to the individual
basins based on tidal surface water area.
Zinc (91,000 pounds per year) had the highest
estimated atmospheric deposition loadings direct
to tidal waters of all the Toxics of Concern/
Secondary List metals, followed by lead (32,000
pounds per year) and copper (24,000 pounds per
year) (Table 18). Based on total tidal surface
water area, the mainstem Bay had the highest
atmospheric deposition metal loadings followed
by the Potomac, James, Eastern Shore, West
Chesapeake, Rappahannock, Patuxent, and York
basins. Total estimated atmospheric deposition
loadings of the Toxics of Concern polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons ranged from 280 pounds
per year for benzo[a]pyrene to 1,400 pounds per
year for fluoranthene with total annual loading of
total PCBs of 130 pounds per year (Table 18).
The pesticides with the largest total estimated
atmospheric loadings are alachlor (5,600 pounds
29
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Urban Storm Water Runoff Chemical Loadings
by Chesapeake Bay Basin County
No data available
Less than 64,000 Ibs
64,000 -160,000 Ibs
160,000 - 640,000 Ibs
Over 640,000 Ibs
Figure 10. Ranges of total urban runoff loadings of chemicals by county within the Chesapeake Bay
basin. Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
30
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
per year), malathion (3,500 pounds per year),
metolachlor (2,700 pounds per year), toxaphene
(1,800 pounds per year), and atrazine (1,700
pounds per year) (Table 18). An estimated 17,600
pounds per year of 13 pesticides are deposited
directly to Bay tidal surface waters from the
atmosphere [50].
The sample collection stations are located in
rural areas—a limitation of these atmospheric
deposition loading estimates which may result in
under-estimating the total loadings. No urban
stations were part of the network when these
estimates were made. A study in the early 1980s
in the southern Chesapeake Bay indicated that
substantially higher total hydrocarbon fluxes
occurred at an urban station (Norfolk, Virginia)
compared to more rural stations [309,315]. Work
is underway to establish atmospheric deposition
stations around the Baltimore region to address
this need [8].
Concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hy-
drocarbons in the air over Chesapeake Bay are
within the same order-of-magnitude as those
measured over the Great Lakes, Sweden's coast,
and the Baltic Sea (Table 19). Concentrations of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons measured
around urbanized areas (including Baltimore,
Maryland) are an order-of-magnitude higher than
average baywide polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bon concentrations. Total PCB concentrations in
the atmosphere over Chesapeake Bay were very
similar to those measured for Lake Ontario and
at remote locations, but almost four times lower
than those reported for Lake Superior (Table 20)
[11]. Estimates of total wet and dry atmospheric
deposition fluxes to Chesapeake Bay of selected
metals tend to be slightly lower (although higher
in the case of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons)
than those measured over the Great Lakes (Table
21).
SHORELINE EROSION
In many areas of the Bay, shoreline erosion
provides a significant quantity of sediment to the
tidal waters [26, 272]. This erosion can be an
important source of trace metals and other sedi-
ment-associated chemical contaminants to the
Bay. Velinsky [306] has made estimates of ero-
sion-based loadings of metals and organic
compounds (Figure 11). Based on data reported
by Helz et al. [148], average mass erosion rates
and metal concentrations for various sections of
the Maryland Bay were used to derive metal
loadings due to sediment erosion. Estimates of
metal loads from the Virginia portion of the Bay
were based on sediment erosion data reported by
Byrne and Anderson [36].
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES
Currently, no estimates exist for chemical
contaminant loadings from improper disposal of
household hazardous wastes to portions of the
Bay watershed below the fall line.
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE WASTES
There are no estimates of the loading of pes-
ticides to the below fall line portion of the Bay
basin from the storage of unusable, cancelled, or
banned pesticides.
COMMERCIAL SHIPPING AND
TRANSPORT
The Chesapeake Bay is a major center for
shipping commerce, commercial and recreational
fishing, and general boating activities. The chemi-
cals from these activities which have the highest
potential for release to surface waters are oils and
other petroleum products, chemicals to treat human
waste, cleaning fluids, antifreeze, and antifouling
paints [50].
31
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 18. Estimates of atmospheric deposition direct to tidal surface waters loads of Chesapeake Bay Toxic
of Concerns and Secondary List chemicals by major Chesapeake Bay basin1.
Chemical Category/
Chemical
1. Estimated loadings are in pounds/year.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a.
Oil and other petroleum products have the
potential for causing pollution in the Bay because
virtually every vessel carries them on board as
fuel; tankers and barges also transport large vol-
umes as cargo. For example, of the 37,500,000
tons of total cargo handled in Baltimore during
1987, approximately 4,700,000 tons were petro-
leum products. Because of the volume of petroleum
products transported through shipping, the initial
Basinwide Toxics Loading and Release Inven-
tory focused on oil and other petroleum products
in estimating chemical contaminant loads from
shipping. From 1980 to 1989, 3,200 spills re-
leased approximately 2,700,000 gallons of
petroleum products within the Chesapeake Bay
coastal zone [50]. Very limited spill data, how-
ever, were reported for Toxics of Concern/
Secondary List chemicals.
RECREA TIONAL/COMMERCIAL
BOATING
Non-transport activities, such as commercial
and recreational fishing and boating, can also
result in chemical loadings to the Bay. More than
180,000 recreational and commercial fishing boats
are registered in the Maryland portion of the
Chesapeake Bay alone. The daily operation and
32
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 19. Comparison of Chesapeake Bay and worldwide polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations in
air1.
Polycyclic
Aromatic
Hydrocarbon
Anthracene
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Benzo[fcjfluoranthene
Benzo[ejpyrene
Benzo[g/)i]perylene
Benzopuoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz[a/)]antracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno[1,2,3^pyrene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Chesapeake
Bay2
50
40
34
101
65
64
58
97
9
405
570
58
1,780
480
Lake
Superior3
-
130
5
23
6.3
13
20
6.310
-
180
450
18
2,600
340
Denver
Colorado4
3,200
-
1,700
-
-
4,200
830
-
4,200
12,600
-
3,600
38,000
21,200
Niagra
River5
1,000
2,800"
230"
-
420"
530"
1,100
3,900"
-
5,100
-
-
13,800
4,200
Portland
Oregon8
2,800
1,500
1,200"
3,500
1,200
2,000"
-
1,800
-
8,300
6,100
-
27,000"
7,500
Baltimore
Maryland7
2,900
7,600
5,800
10,600
5,000
8,000
10,600
12,000'°
-
20,000
-
4,600
1,800
27,000
Stockholm
Sweden1
120
160
160
-
420
640
480
780'°
-
1,700
-
410
2,560
1,370
Baltic
Sea1
20
30
140
-
70
70
110
no10
-
340
-
110
740
180
Mediterranean
Sea9
3.7
4.8
6.2
-
22
9.1
-
35'°
-
30
-
6
26
24
1. Sum of particulate and aerosol phases; concentrations pg/m3.
2. Baker et al. 1992, 1994a; Dickhut et al. 1992; Leister and Baker 1993; Scudlark et al. 1993.
3. Baker and Eisenreich 1990.
4. Foreman and Bidleman 1990.
5. Hoff and Chan 1987.
6. Ligocki et al. 1985a, 1985b.
7. Benner et al. 1989.
8. Broman et al. 1991.
9. Simon et al. 1991.
10. Chrysene and triphenylene.
11. Aerosol phase only.
Source: Baker et al. 1994a.
33
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Estimated fall line loadings from the non-
tidal reaches of the Bay' s three major basins—the
Susquehanna, Potomac, and James—were a very
minor "source" of organic chemical contami-
nants to Bay tidal waters compared to other
inventoried sources. These loadings are evidence
of loads to non-tidal tributaries being diminished
by chemical and physical degradation enroute to
the fall line.
PESTICIDES
Estimates of pesticide loadings could be made
for only two inventoried sources from the avail-
able data. Loadings direct to tidal waters from
atmospheric deposition were an order of magni-
tude higher than fall line loadings combined for
the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers (Table
25). The atmospheric deposition loading may be
an overestimate and the fall line loading does not
account for the remaining 20 percent of the fresh-
water flow into the Bay. Atmospheric deposition,
however, results in widespread distribution of
pesticide loadings whereas the fall line source
contributes loadings only to tidal areas immedi-
ately downstream of the fall line (Figure 14).
The highest total pesticide applications were
reported for the Potomac basin, followed by the
Eastern Shore, Susquehanna, James, West Chesa-
peake, Rappahannock, York, and Patuxent basins.
Herbicides accounted for 70 percent of the total
usage of pesticides reported basinwide followed
by insecticides (20 percent) and fungicides (10
percent). In the Susquehanna, Potomac, and
James basins, the estimated fall line loadings of
pesticides were less than one tenth of a percent
of the estimated total annual pesticides applied in
the upland, non-tidal watershed.
Table 23. Basinwide comparisons of Toxics of Concern/Secondary List metal, organic compound, and
pesticide loadings by source category.
Class of
Toxic
Substances
Metals
Organics
Pesticides
Point
Sources
AFL1 BFL2
o
-
o
0
•
-
Urban
Stormwater Runoff
AFL BFL
II
•
-
•
•
-
Atmos.
Dep.3
O
•
•
Shipping
and
Transport
-
O
-
Fall
Line
•
€>
•
Key:
O
High range of loadings/releases:
Medium range of estimated loadings/releases:
Low range of estimated loadings/releases:
No estimated loading/release.
Metals
>1,000,000
500,000-1,000,000
1-500,000
>2,000
1,000-2,000
1-1,000
Pesticides
>5,000
1,000-5,000
1-1,000
Notes:
1. Above fall line.
2. Below fall line.
3. Atmospheric deposition to Chesapeake Bay tidal surface waters only.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, 1994b.
38
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 24. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay basin Toxics of Concern/Secondary List organic compound
loadings by source category.
BASIN
Susquehanna
W. Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Eastern Shore
Mainstem
Point
Sources
AFL1 BFL2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
NA
-
•
0
0
-
-
0
-
NA
Urban
Stormwater Runoff
AFL BFL
•
-
0
©
-
0
0
NA
NA
-
t
0
•
-
0
0
0
NA
Atmos.
Dep.3
NA
0
0
•
r^
^
o,
'w'
0
0
•
Shipping
and
Transport
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
«
Fall
Line
t
-
-
n
v_y
-
-
®
-
NA
Key:
f = High range of estimated loadings: >500 pounds/year.
IP = Medium range of estimated loadings: 250 - 500 pounds/year.
Q = Low range of estimated loadings: 1 - <250 pounds/year.
= No estimated loading.
NA = Not applicable.
Notes:
1. Above fall line.
2. Below fall line.
3. Atmospheric deposition to Chesapeake Bay tidal surface waters only.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, 1994b.
Although concentrations of pesticides have
been detected in shallow aquifers, surface runoff
is a larger source of pesticides to streams and
tributaries than groundwater. Any potential for
groundwater to be a loading source of pesticides
is greatest at the local scale, close to the original
source of contamination.
39
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 25. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay basin Toxics of Concern/Secondary List pesticide loadings by
source category.
BASIN
Susquehanna
W. Chesapeake
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
York
James
Eastern Shore
Mainstem
Point
Sources
AFL1 BFL2
-
-
-
-
-
-
o
NA
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Urban
Stormwater Runoff
AFL BFL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
NA
Atmos.
Dep.3
NA
O
o
•
o
o
0
©
•
Shipping
and
Transport
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fall
Line
•
-
-
•
-
-
o
-
NA
Key:
0 = High range of estimated loadings: > 1,000 pounds/year.
H = Medium range of estimated loadings: 500 - 1,000 pounds/year.
O = Low range of estimated loadings: 1 - <500 pounds/year.
- = No estimated loading.
NA = Not applicable.
Notes:
1. Above fall line.
2. Below fall line.
3. Atmospheric deposition to Chesapeake Bay tidal surface waters only.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1994a, 1994b.
40
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Transport and Fate
of Bay Toxics
Since 1991, the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration's Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Effects Committee and the Chesa-
peake Bay Program's Toxics Subcommittee have
jointly funded a competitively-based research
program to investigate the effects of potentially
toxic chemicals in Chesapeake Bay [162, 184,
185, 186, 187, 223]. This ecosystem-based pro-
gram promotes the understanding of how Bay
ecosystem processes influence the transport and
fate of chemical contaminants, and conversely,
the effect that representative classes of chemical
contaminants have upon the ecological processes
of the Bay (Figure 15). To date, this program has
funded studies related to the particle-reactive
behavior of chemical contaminants, sediment
Sources, Transport, Fate, and Effects
of the Chemical Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay
Land-based
Point and Nonpoint Sources
Harvest/Consumption
Atmospheric Deposition
Groundwater
Biotic Uptake Phytop|ankton
Dissolved —»> | . v
Biotic Transformation
(Benthos)
Suspended
Particles
Sedimentation
Predators
(Fish and
Shellfish)
Transport
Resuspension
| Sediment Flux Sedjmentation
Permanent Burial
Figure 15. Conceptual model of the sources, transport, fate, and effects of chemical contaminants on
Chesapeake Bay trophic dynamics and ecosystem processes. Sources: Adapted from Olmi and Hens,
1992 and Sanders and Riedel, 1992.
47
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
transport, sediment diagenesis, and the role of
pelagic and benthic communities in the fate and
transport of chemical contaminants. The re-
search program is shifting towards examining the
effects of low-level concentrations of chemical
contaminants on the Bay's living resources.
Air-Water Fluxes
Chemical transfer across the air/water inter-
face is a dominant process controlling
concentrations and residence times of organic
chemical contaminants to the Chesapeake Bay.
To evaluate the importance of the atmosphere as
a source of chemicals to the Bay, it is first nec-
essary to know the quantities, types, and forms
of chemicals present in the atmosphere, and sec-
ond, to understand the processes which control
compound partitioning at the air/water interface.
Depositional studies of trace elements and hydro-
phobic organic chemicals have been conducted
[11, 14, 70]. Through the toxics research pro-
gram, Dickhut and colleagues [71] have been
examining partitioning processes with measure-
ment of the processes that control the transfer of
selected organic chemicals from air to water
under a variety of environmental conditions. Such
work has yielded a mechanism to accurately
predict air/water partitioning and mass transfer
properties and the availability of these organic
compounds [97].
Transport and Availability
in the Water Column
Biological processes can play an important
but variable role in the transport of chemical
contaminants to sediments. Sanders and Sellner
[261 ] have examined the potential for algal blooms
to transport significant quantities of chemical
contaminants to sediments and have found that
the quantity of chemical contaminants settling
through the water column varies among different
systems and with different algal species. Baker
and colleagues [15] have determined that hydro-
phobic organic chemicals associated with par-
ticles in the Bay vary both seasonally and with
particle size, with generally higher hydrophobic
organic concentrations in zooplankton-sized par-
ticles. These processes have a major impact on
the fate and movement of chemical contaminants
to the sediments from the water column.
Within the water column, the availability of
many chemical contaminants is affected not only
by partitioning between the dissolved and par-
ticulate phases but also by complexation of
dissolved forms. Donat (1994) has been studying
the complexation of dissolved copper and cad-
mium within the Bay and has determined that a
major fraction of both elements (>90 percent for
copper and approximately 50 percent for cad-
mium) occurs as organic complexes. The
importance of these findings is that the availabil-
ity and toxicity are both reduced dramatically
through organic complexation.
Sediment-Associated
Resuspension and Transport
Although chemicals that readily absorb to
particles (i.e., particle-reactive) appear to be re-
moved from the system, research by Sanford and
colleagues [264,265,266,267] suggests that the
frequent and substantial resuspension of fine-
grained material can significantly increase the
residence time of these chemicals in the water
column. Tidal and storm-generated resuspension
operate on different temporal and spatial scales
and can be moderated by the degree of tempera-
ture/salinity stratification of the water column.
Newly settled material takes from days to weeks
before it is actually buried below the sediment
surface layer and incorporated into the sediment
bed. Little of the original particulate-bound
chemical contaminants remains by the time of
burial due both to decay of the fresh organic
carbon and recycling of the associated chemical
contaminants back into the water column during
resuspension.
48
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Sediment Fluxes and Burial
Preliminary results from the toxics research
program indicate that bottom sediments and par-
ticle-reactive chemicals are affected by both
physical and biogeochemical processes. Riedel
and colleagues [223] measured copper and arsenic
fluxes and distributions in sediment microcosms
with varying densities, types of benthic organ-
isms, and oxygen levels. Levels of oxygen in the
overlying water column (anoxic, sub-oxic, or oxic)
played a considerable role in the flux of copper and
arsenic. Under oxic conditions, significant fluxes
of copper occur from the sediments; arsenic fluxes
are significant only when benthic densities of
active burrowers, such as the polychaete worm
Nereis succinea, are high. Arsenic fluxes out of
the sediment were highest under anoxic condi-
tions, while copper fluxes were actually into the
sediments. The benthic flux of arsenic represents
a potentially significant source to the water in
areas of the Bay that undergo seasonal anoxia.
Corn well and colleagues [161] are examining the
distributions of several toxic trace metals in sedi-
ments. They are also measuring the benthic flux of
these metals directly across the sediment-water
interface in various areas of the Bay to assess the
importance of this source.
Schaffner and Dickhut [269] have investi-
gated how benthic biogeochemical processes affect
the cycling of organic chemical contaminants (i.e.,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PCBs).
Preliminary results indicate that macrofauna en-
hance the loss of organic chemical contaminants
from the sediment. Moreover, resuspension by the
polychaete worm Loimia medusa is of the same
order-of-magnitude as the flux reported for sedi-
ment trap studies. This biosuspension can be an
important mechanism for the movement of par-
ticle-bound materials during low tides or storms
and would increase the time particle-reactive
chemicals remain in the water column before
burial.
Once organic chemical contaminants are
deposited to sediments, the potential for degra-
dation by the microbial community also exists.
Capone and colleagues [38] have found that
degradation rates vary considerably, depending
upon the organic chemical contaminant and the
redox state of the sediments. Some organic
chemical contaminants are readily degraded, even
when the microbial community has no prior his-
tory with the organic compound. Other chemical
contaminants, such as PCBs, are not significantly
degraded under any conditions.
Findings and Conclusions
While scientists generally thought that chemi-
cals incorporated into the sediments were
eventually removed from the system, current
research indicates that biogeochemical cycling
within the sediments may increase the length of
time a particulate-bound chemical is mobile and
potentially bioactive. Of particular importance
within the Chesapeake Bay are both the varying
redox regime driven by seasonal anoxia and the
presence and type of benthic organisms. Disso-
lution and reintroduction of particle-bound
chemicals appear to be important processes for
many chemicals.
Box 3. Sources of information on transport, fate, and trophic transfers of chemicals in Chesapeake Bay
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies Toxics Research Workshop Reports [162,223]
Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources [182]
Environmental Effects Research on Chesapeake Bay-Toxics Research Program Descriptions [184-187]
Sources, Cycling, and Fate of Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay [259]
49
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Trophic Transfers
Inorganic and organic chemicals are readily
taken up by phytoplankton, as demonstrated by
the work of Sanders and Sellner [261] along with
Baker and colleagues [15, 223]. Because phy-
toplankton form the base of the food chain,
contaminants are available for incorporation into
higher trophic levels through feeding. Riedel and
colleagues [252] are following metals released
from sediments through the planktonic food chain,
both in the phytoplankton community and in
higher trophic levels. In Baker and Roman's
research, hydrophobic organic chemical contami-
nants, associated with larger particles are also
associated with the lipid content of the organisms
and may be linked in transfer through the food
web [15, 223]. In addition, fecal pellet produc-
tion by zooplankton, although seasonally variable,
may be an important mechanism for the transport
of organic chemical contaminants to the sediment
of the Bay.
Higher trophic levels are also exposed to
chemicals dissolved in the water. Thus, two
major pathways exist for uptake. The importance
of each pathway varies between chemical con-
taminants. Newell and colleagues [214] are
examining the relative importance of these two
pathways for the accumulation of PCBs by the
American oyster Crassostrea virginica.
Findings and Conclusions
The key linkage in the transport of chemical
contaminants through the pelagic food chain
appears to be uptake and incorporation of these
chemicals into phytoplankton. The potential also
exists for dissolved uptake by higher trophic
levels. The relative importance of the two path-
ways deserves attention. Because phytoplankton
can act similarly to other particles in the Bay, the
shallow depth of the water and the dynamic
behavior of sediments underscore the importance
of understanding those physical and chemical
parameters which govern particle settling and
resuspension.
Chemical Contaminants
in Bay Habitats
In their 1987 review of Chesapeake Bay
contaminant issues from a regional perspective,
Helz and Huggett [150] stated "No matter where
we look in the Bay, we find evidence of some
chemical contamination... Many of the contami-
nants found in highly impacted areas are also now
found in remote areas, but at much lower concen-
trations. There are probably no pristine, truly
uncontaminated sites left in Chesapeake Bay."
The authors conclude that "In highly impacted
areas, such as the Elizabeth River and Baltimore
Harbor, evidence of adverse impacts upon aquatic
organisms and reduced biological diversity ex-
ists. It is likely that toxic materials are responsible
for these effects. However, pervasive low level
contamination occurring in the mainstem of the
Bay has not been equivocally linked to any bio-
logical deterioration."
The major findings resulting from efforts to
better define the nature, magnitude, and extent of
Chesapeake Bay toxic problems are summarized
below. The findings support the conclusions of
the 1987 review article. In the seven years since
the article's publication, we have gained a better
understanding of chemical contaminant loadings
and releases and have documented evidence for
adverse effects in Bay habitats beyond areas with
known toxics problems. Causal linkages be-
tween low levels of chemical contaminants and
biological effects are still unclear, yet we have an
expanded base of knowledge and understanding
on which to target ongoing and future toxics
reduction and prevention programs.
Once a chemical enters the Chesapeake Bay' s
tidal waters through one of the many pathways
described above, its transport, transformation,
uptake, and ultimate fate are controlled by a
series of geochemical, physical, and biological
processes (Figure 15) [259]. Beyond understand-
ing the sources of chemical contaminants, we
must also understand how and at what concentra-
50
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
tions the Bay's living resources are exposed to
these chemicals. Elevated concentrations of a
chemical do not necessarily equal toxicity; the
toxicity of that chemical to a particular organism
is determined by the concentration, frequency,
and duration of exposure of the organism to the
available form of that chemical.
Our understanding of these processes is too
limited to enable us to accurately predict the fate
and potential impact of chemicals on the Bay's
living resources. We can not yet equate loadings
with exposure levels in Bay habitats. To define
the nature, magnitude, and extent that chemicals
are impacting or have the potential to impact the
Bay's living resources, concentrations of these
chemicals measured in Bay water and sediment
habitats must be compared to thresholds above
which toxic effects have been observed in either
laboratory or field experimentation.
Microlayer Contaminant
Concentrations
The boundary between the atmosphere and
the Bay' s surface waters is often referred to as the
surface microlayer. The eggs and larva of some
finfish and shellfish float or come into contact
with the surface microlayer. The surface
microlayer, approximately 50 micrometers to one
millimeter in thickness, also serves as a concen-
tration zone for chemicals. Recent studies have
found concentrations of metals, pesticides, and
other organic chemical contaminants in the sur-
face microlayer at concentrations often higher
than the underlying water column (Table 26) [17,
19, 95, 96, 104, 117, 119, 125, 132, 197, 339,
340]. Because of the high concentrations ob-
served and the potential for direct uptake by
biota, this layer may represent an important site
for the transfer of chemicals both into the water
column and the Bay's living resources [258].
Hardy and colleagues [17] concluded there
was the potential for significant reductions in the
survival of surface-dwelling organisms (neus-
ton) and floating fish eggs based upon a surface
microlayer toxicity model using microlayer con-
centrations of chemicals measured in Chesapeake
Bay. Hall and colleagues [117] concluded that
although elevated concentrations of chemicals at
potentially toxic concentrations were measured
in the surface microlayer during striped bass
spawning, no data were available to demonstrate
if these concentrations would significantly re-
duce the survival of these fish during early life
stages.
Water Column Contaminant
Concentrations
A Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contami-
nants Critical Issue Forum was held in March
1993 to seek a technical consensus on the relative
magnitude and extent of water column contami-
nant concentrations within Chesapeake Bay.
Evidence for whether elevated concentrations of
water column chemical contaminants are causing
or can cause an adverse impact on a baywide,
regional or local scale was presented and dis-
cussed. Findings from the forum [49] and a
recent synthesis and critical review of evidence
for the impacts of pesticides on the Bay system
[163] are summarized here.
METALS
The data synthesized for review at the Chesa-
peake Bay Water Column Contamination Critical
Issue Forum suggest that there are not serious,
widespread concentrations of metals exceeding
EPA water quality criteria or state water quality
standards in the mainstem Bay (Table 27; Figure
16) [49,292]. The data show clearly that concen-
trations of some metals are elevated in some
tributaries compared with mainstem concentra-
tions, but only a very limited number of
concentrations exceed water quality criteria and
standards (Table 28) [49].
The critical issue forum participants recog-
nized that much of the historical data on metals
were values of total recoverable (rather than dis-
solved) concentrations. The U.S. Geological
Survey and the U.S. Environmental Protection
51
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 26. Summary of chemicals detected in Chesapeake Bay surface microlayer samples.
Location(s) Results Source
Eight sampling stations in Mean tributyltin concentrations ranged from 54-310 ng/l in the four marinas Hall et al. 1987d
Maryland including four marinas, after monthly sampling over a 12-month period; highest concentrations Hall et al. 1986a
Baltimore Harbor, Chesapeake ranged from 1,049-1,171 ng/l. Tributyltin concentrations ranging from 29-41 Hall 1988
and Delaware Canal, Choptank ng/l were detected in the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal during May and
and Potomac rivers. June, 1986.
Baltimore Harbor and marina in Tributyltin concentrations ranging up to 4,568 ng/l were reported in Balti- Matthais et al. 1986
Annapolis, Maryland. more Harbor. Hall 1988
Seven stations in Back Creek and Tributyltin concentrations ranging up to 4,130 ng/l were reported in a Back Matthais et al. 1988
the Severn River near Annapolis, Creek marina. Mean tributyltin concentration of 971 ng/l for the six Back Hall 1988
Maryland. Creek stations. Tributyltin concentration of 60 ng/l reported at the Severn
River Station.
Two stations in Maryland: Concentrations of chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc Hardy et al. 1987
Susquehanna River, Chesapeake were higher in microlayer samples than bulk water samples. Microlayer
and Delaware Canal, Patapsco, samples had a mean total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons concentration
Patuxent, Potomac, Choptank, of 1.64 ug/l compared to a mean bulk water concentration of 0.34 ng/l.
Nanticoke rivers, and Bay Microlayer samples had a mean participate alkanes concentration of 102
mainstem ng/l compared to a mean bulk water concentration of 2.5 ng/l.
Total of ten stations located in the Detected microlayer concentrations of tributyltin (0.005-0.28 ng/l) and Hall et al. 1988a
Susquehanna, Potomac, Elk, dibutyltin (0.007-0.071 ng/l); bulk water tributyltin concentrations were all
Sassafras, Choptank rivers, and <0.002 ng/l. Microlayer concentrations of aluminum, arsenic cadmium,
Bay mainstem chromium, copper, lead, nickel, tin, and zinc were generally higher than
bulkwater concentrations.
Six stations in Maryland: Microlayer tributyltin concentrations ranged up to 130 ng/l. Total polycyclic Battelle 1988
Susquehanna River, Baltimore aromatic hydrocarbon microlayer concentrations ranged from <0.05 to 20
Harbor, Potomac River, Choptank \xjl\. Pesticide and chlorinated organic compounds were largely undetected
River, and Bay mainstem. in microlayer samples with the exception of dieldrin (1-18 ng/I).
Four stations in Maryland: Of the 300 organic compounds analyzed for, only four compounds were Gucinski et al. 1991
Susquehanna, Potomac, observed above detection limits in microlayer samples-methylene chloride,
Choptank rivers, and Bay bromoform, di-N-butylphthalate, and trans-1,2 - dichlorethene. Sixteen
mainstem. pesticides of the 75 pesticides analyzed in microlayer samples were
detected at trace concentrations: alpha/beta/delta/gamma BHC, capten, 4,
4'-DDE, dichlone, dieldrin, endosulfan I, endrin, heptachlor, heptachlor
epoxide, isodrin, methoxychlor, nitrofen, and PCNB.
52
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 27. Ranges of water column concentrations of selected dissolved metals reported for the mainstem
Chesapeake Bay compared with EPA aquatic life criteria.
Metal
Arsenic
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Selenium
Tin
Zinc
Dissolved
Concentration
Range ftig/l)
0.1 -2
0.007 - 0.09
0.002 - 0.2
0.02-1.5
0.08 - 2
0.09-100
0.01 -1.5
0.00005 - 0.0005
0.4 - 400
0.6-7
0.8-3
0.02 - 0.1
0.01 -1.5
0.1 -10
Freshwater
Water Quality Criteria
Acute Chronic
360 190
3.92 1.12
-
164 114
17002'5 21 02'5
18" 122
1000
83 3.2
2.4 0.012
-
-
1.4002 1602
-
.
1202 1102
Marine
Water Quality Criteria
Acute Chronic
69 36
43 9.3
-
1100' 50"
10,300"
2.9
-
220 8.5
2.1 0.025
-
-
75 8.3
-
_
95 86
Data
Source(s)
McGlone 1991; Riedel and Sand-
ers, unpublished data
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
et al., 1982; Riedel and Sanders,
unpublished data
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
etal., 1982
Kingston et al., 1982; Riedel and
Sanders, unpublished data
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
et al., 1982; Riedel and Sanders,
unpublished data
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
etal., 1982; McGlone 1991
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
etal., 1982
Gilmour, unpublished data
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
etal., 1982; McGlone 1991; Riedel
and Sanders, unpublished data
Kingston etal., 1982
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
et al., 1982; Riedel and Sanders,
unpublished data
McGlone 1991; Riedel and Sand-
ers, unpublished data; Takayanagia
and Wang, 1 980; Velinsky and Cut-
ter, unpublished data
Kingston etal., 1982
Church, unpublished data; Kingston
etal., 1982
CaCo3 used
Notes:
1. Criteria are pH dependent
2. Hardness dependent criteria; 100 |0g/l
3. Insufficient data to develop a criteria; value presented is lowest observed effect level
4. Chromium VI
5. Chromium III
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993e.
53
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Mainstem Dissolved Metal Concentration Ranges
1000
^ 100
3*-* 10-
11 1-
_•• m O»1~
O.O1
O.OO1
O.OOO1-
O.OOOO1
o c o
(0 0) _J
(0 O ^
-#-
X
X X
a
t
As Cd Co Cr Cu Fe Hg Mn Mo Ni Pb Se Sn Zn
Figure 16. Ranges of water column concentrations of selected dissolved metals reported for the mainstem
Chesapeake Bay from 1979-1992. The range of metal concentrations (|) are compared with the EPA chronic
freshwater (*) and marine (X) water quality criteria. The listed metals are arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd),
cobalt (Co), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), mercury (Hg), manganese (Mn), molybdenum (Mo), nickel
(Ni), lead (Pb), selenium (Se), tin (Su), and zinc (Zn). Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993e, Church,
unpublished data; Gilmow, unpublished data; Kingston et al. 1982; McGlone 1991; Riedel and Sanders,
unpublished data; Takayanagia and Lang 1980; and Velinsky and Cutter, unpublished data.
Table 28. Water column concentration ranges of selected metals in Chesapeake Bay tidal tributaries.
Tributary
Susquehanna: Range
(tidal) Mean
Potomac River: Range
(D.C.) Mean
Anacostia River: Range
Mean
Potomac: Range
(middle) Mean
C&O Canal: Range*
Mean
Sassafras River: Range
Mean
Elk River: Range
Mean
Choptank River: Range*
Mean
Nanticoke River: Range
Mean
Aluminum
(ug/i)
<60-120
78.3
—~
14-740
166.7
120-190
70
<60-70
68
60-90
70
156
—
Arsenic
(ug/l)
<3-8
3.8
<5
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Agency have raised serious concerns regarding
the quality (e.g., contamination leading to the
reporting of concentrations higher than were
actually present) of most historical metals data.
In cases in which total recoverable metal concen-
trations are compared with water quality criteria
or standards representing dissolved metal con-
centrations, an overestimation of the concern for
water column metal contamination within Chesa-
peake Bay may result as the dissolved fraction is
a subset of the total recoverable fraction. Con-
cerns were also raised as to whether the standard
analytical methods commonly used for analysis
of point source effluents were sensitive enough
to measure ambient concentrations in the Bay
watershed. The findings summarized here should
be interpreted with caution given these concerns.
Pennsylvania
Water column data collected through
Pennsylvania's Water Quality Network indicate
that the metals observed are primarily associated
with acid mine drainage in the upper Susque-
hanna River basin—aluminum, cadmium, lead,
and zinc. Exceedences of Pennsylvania water
quality standards were generally 2 percent or less
at stations sampled since 1988 in the Potomac and
Susquehanna basins [42]. Exceedences with
greater than 10 percent of the observations above
the state water quality standards were documented
at all nine stations for aluminum, at two stations
for copper, and at one station for lead. Sampling
for cadmium and chromium was discontinued at
most stations because concentrations of these
metals were not detected.
Maryland
Fifty-seven stations throughout Maryland were
sampled during 1989 to 1990 to provide data for
the development of Maryland's 304(1) list. Sample
station sites were selected based on previously
collected data which showed where elevated
chemical contaminant concentrations had occurred.
All metal analyses were for total recoverable
concentrations. Those metals closely associated
with soils—aluminum, iron, and zinc—were de-
tected in most samples. The majority of the
metals sampled (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, sele-
nium, and silver) were detected in less than 20
percent of all samples collected [49]. Detectable
concentrations were observed in less than 1 per-
cent of the collected samples for antimony,
hexavalent chromium, and thallium. Of the total
recoverable metals concentrations measured, some
(principally copper and cadmium) exceeded EPA
water quality criteria.
District of Columbia
A review of 1989 to 1990 metals data col-
lected from the District of Columbia's portions
of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers showed that
chromium, iron, and zinc concentrations exceeded
the district's water quality standards [49].
Virginia
A review and synthesis of data from the past
20 years from Virginia's Ambient Water Quality
Monitoring Network focused on the analysis and
interpretation of statewide data for six metals
[289]. Most total recoverable concentration data
for arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and mer-
cury were below detection limits [49]. In the case
of copper, 35 percent of the data were above the
detection limit.
Tidal Tributaries
Beyond the state water quality monitoring
networks, a majority of the available metals
concentration data for the Bay's tidal tributaries
comes from field studies conducted during the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service sponsored 1984
to 1990 striped bass contaminant studies and
during more recent ambient toxicity assessments
of Bay habitats. Findings from these studies are
summarized below and in Table 28.
In the Nanticoke River, dissolved concentra-
tions of cadmium, copper, and lead were observed
at levels above EPA water quality criteria in
striped bass spawning habitats in 1984 [102,
105]. Exceedences of water quality criteria for
cadmium and copper were observed during sam-
55
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
pling of the Choptank River's spawning habitat
in 1987 [123, 124]. In the Potomac River, mul-
tiple observations of cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, nickel, and zinc concentrations exceeded
water quality criteria in spawning habitats during
the 1986 and 1988 to 1990 sampling surveys
[111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 126, 127]. Con-
centrations of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
and nickel were observed at concentrations ex-
ceeding water quality criteria in spawning habitats
sampled in 1985, 1987, and 1988 to 1990 in the
upper Bay region—Susquehanna Flats, upper
mainstem Bay, and Chesapeake and Delaware
Canal [103, 105, 106, 111, 112, 115, 116, 117,
118, 123, 124].
During the three years of the Chesapeake Bay
ambient toxicity assessment program, some metals
exceeded water quality criteria concentrations in
the Elizabeth (copper, mercury), Patapsco (cop-
per, nickel), Wye (copper, nickel), Potomac
(cadmium, copper, mercury, nickel), and Middle
(copper, lead, nickel, zinc) rivers [110,113,114].
Fall Line
Concentrations measured at the fall line cap-
ture the cumulative input of all point and nonpoint
sources from the watershed above the fall line,
providing an ideal place to measure riverine trans-
port of chemical contaminants to the Bay's tidal
waters. Table 29 presents range and mean con-
centrations of 11 metals at the Bay's nine major
fall line sites for dissolved metals; Table 30
shows these concentrations for total recoverable
metals. These data, collected through the U.S.
Geological Survey National Stream Quality Ac-
counting Network and the Chesapeake Bay Fall
Line Toxics Monitoring Program, cover the pe-
riod from 1979 to 1992.
Exceedences of both the acute and chronic
EPA water quality criteria occurred for cadmium,
Table 29. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected dissolved metals1.
Fall Una
Sutquehanna
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
Pwnunkty
Mattiponi
Appomattox
James
Choptank
Aluminum
<10-600
60.2*
<10-380
46.0*
<10-700
74.6*
<10-250
49.7*
<10-120
34.0*
dCMOO
48.3'
<10-400
61.2*
<10-600
91.1*
<1(M40
90.7*
Anante
<0.6-2
0.78*
<1-2
0.82*
<1-3
0.83*
<1.3
0.74*
<1-1
1*
<1-3
0.84*
<1-2
0.77*
<1-2
0.85*
<1-7
0.93*
Cadmium
<0.1-4
0.52*
<1-4
0.58*
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
chromium, copper, and zinc, and of the chronic
water quality criteria for aluminum, lead, mer-
cury, and silver (Table 30). No exceedences of
acute or chronic water quality criteria for arsenic,
nickel, or selenium occurred at any of the nine fall
line stations. Since most fall line dissolved metals
concentrations were not significantly above the
criteria concentrations, widespread exceedences
of acute and chronic EPA water quality criteria
are not expected in waters just below the fall line.
PESTICIDES
Johnson and colleagues [163] assembled a
data base of ambient pesticide concentration data
for the Chesapeake Bay basin containing 48 sepa-
rate studies conducted since the late 1970s. Of
12 targeted pesticides, atrazine followed by
alachlor, carbofuran, chlordane, metolachlor,
simazine, and toxaphene were surveyed in at least
three Eastern Shore and three western shore tribu-
taries, suggesting good spatial assessment of
contaminant levels. The remaining five target
pesticides—linuron, diflubenzuron, chlorpyrifos,
chlorothalonil, and permethrin—received lim-
ited spatial assessment. Only six of the target
pesticides have EPA aquatic life criteria or drink-
ing water Maximum Contaminant Level standards.
Of these six pesticides, only alachlor, atrazine,
and simazine were observed in concentrations
exceeding the drinking water Maximum Con-
taminant Level (Table 31). The Maximum
Contaminant Level was exceeded for atrazine in
four sections of the tidal Bay as well as at sites
sampled in the Conestoga and Little Conestoga
rivers in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. It was also
exceeded for alachlor in one section of the tidal
Bay and in the Conestoga and Little Conestoga
rivers, and for simazine in one section of the tidal
Bay.
Detection of pesticides occurs most frequently
in the spring and summer months, corresponding
to the highest rates of pesticide application. The
Table 30. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected total recoverable metals1.
Fall line
Sutquehanna
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
Pamunkey
Mattaponi
Appomattox
James
ChopUnk
Aluminum
80 • 12,000
1,099
-
-
80-15,000
2,205
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100-5,700
1,635
-
-
Arvmlc
<1-6
0.81'
<1-2
1.07
<1-3
1.11'
<1-2
1.11*
<1-2
1.03'
<1-5
1.57'
<1-2
1.14'
<1-3
0.32'
<1-5
1.57
Cadmium
<1-20
0.47"
<1-3
-
<1-3
0.83'
<1-1
r
<1-5
1.56*
<1-7
1.74'
<1-2
0.92'
<1-4
0.57'
<1-3
0.85'
Chromium
<1-30
5.58'
<10-20
14.7'
<10 - 40
I2.r
<10-40
17.9'
10-30
15.8
<10-20
12.6'
<10-30
12.6'
<1-32
5.52'
<10-30
14.7'
Copper
<1-23
4.27
3-9
6.57
1-34
7
1-16
6.17
2-12
6.08
1-7
3.36
1-7
4.25
1-84
6.51
1-46
9.5
Lead
<1 - 1800
18.7
<1 - 190
21.2
<1- 1,300
47.3
<1-10
3.83
<1-15
4.25
<1-13
5.64
<1-6
2.15'
<1-260
io.r
<1-13
4.42'
Mercury
<1 • 1.4
0.13'
<0.1 - 0.5
0.12'
<0.1-0.5
0.12'
<0.1 - 0.7
0.15'
<0.1 - 1
0.16'
<0.1 - 0.2
-
<0.1 • 1.4
0.24'
<0.1-0.6
0.05'
<0.1 - 0.5
0.12'
Nickel
<1 -11
3.43
<2-16
6.56'
<1-120
10.9
<1-35
5.83
<1-9
2.83"
<1-6
3.1
<1-12
3.80'
<1-18
4.46'
<2-27
6.16'
Selenium
<1 -1
-
<1-<1
-
<1-<1
-
<1-<1
-
<1-<1
-
<1 -<1
-
<1 -<1
-
<1-6
-
<1-1
-
Silver
<1-7
-
<1-1
-
<1-3
-
<1-<1
-
<1-<1
-
<1 -<1
-
<1 -2
-
<1-1
-
<1-<1
-
Zinc
<10-170
25.8'
<20-100
37.9'
<10-150
31.6'
10-200
48.3
10-460
74.2
10-790
104
1050
24.2
<10-110
27.4'
<10-160
30.4'
1. Range and mean concentrations (|ig/l) from samples collected at U.S. Geological Survey NASQAN stations during the period 1979-1992.
* Mean value is estimated by using a log probability regression to predict the values of data below the detection limit.
Sources: Phillips, Personal Communication; Chesapeake Bay Program, 1993e.
57
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
highest reported concentrations of pesticides in
surface water were often associated with storms.
Few data in the Bay watershed, however, have
been collected at the spatial and temporal fre-
quency necessary to fully characterize the
variability inherent in environmental concentra-
tions of pesticides [163].
Fall Line
Pesticides detected through the Chesapeake
Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Program at the
Susquehanna, Potomac, and James rivers from
1990 to 1993 included 2,4-D, alachlor, aldrin,
alpha-chlordane, atrazine, cyanazine, DDT, di-
azinon, dicamba, dieldrin, fenvalerate,
gamma-chlordane, hexazinone, malathion, me-
tolachlor, oxychlordane, picloram, prometone,
simazine, and terbacil [193, 194, 195]. The
frequency of detection and measured concentra-
tions of these pesticides, however, were generally
very low. No detectable concentrations were
found of permethrin or more than the 60 other
pesticides analyzed at the three major fall line
stations [193]. Quarterly baseflow sampling
through the U.S. Geological Survey National
Stream Quality Accounting Network yielded no
detectable concentrations of pesticides at the other
six major Bay fall line stations with the exception
of one measurable concentration of diazinon at
the Choptank River fall line (Table 32). Table 33
summarizes the range and mean concentration of
pesticides monitored at the Susquehanna, Poto-
mac, and James river fall line stations from 1992
to 1993.
ORGANIC CHEMICALS
With a few notable exceptions, the water
column organic contaminant data—polycyclic
Table 31. Summary of selected pesticides detected in Chesapeake Bay water column samples.
Pesticide
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorohalonil
Diflubenzuron
Linuron
Metolachlor
Permethrin
Simazine
Toxaphene
Number
of
Studies
14
24
4
10
3
0
1
2
11
5
11
8
Number of
years for which
Data Exists
8
14
3
5
2
—
1
2
6
2
8
5
Number of
Bay segments
with Data1
21
28
13
20
11
—
4
5
19
7
20
17
Total
Number of
Samples
Analyzed
428
1,061
208
325
204
0
133
32
321
170
553
199
Percent of
Sample with
Detectable
Concentrations
21%
67%
1%
11%
9%
—
0%
72%
47%
0%
62%
0%
Number of Bay
Segments
Exceeding the
MCL or WQC*
1 (MCL)
4 (MCL)
0 (MCL)
0 (MCL, WQC)
0 (WQC)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 (MCL)
NA
1. Number of different segments from the Chesapeake Bay Segmentation Scheme from which the analyzed
samples had been collected.
2. Number of Chesapeake Bay segments where pesticide concentrations exceeded the EPA drinking water
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) or the EPA Water Quality Criteria (WQC). NA indicates pesticides
for which there is no MCL or WQC.
Source: Johnson et al., In Review.
58
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 32. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of pesticides: 1979-1992'.
Fall Line
Susquehanna
Patuxent
Potomac
Rappahannock
Mattaponi
Pamunkey
Appomatox
James
Choptank
Pesticides
Above Detection Limits
11/50*
No pesticides detected.
9/363
No pesticides detected.
No pesticides detected.
Q/224
No pesticides detected.
13/50*
1/24'
Pesticide
2,4-DP
2,4-D
2,4,5 -D
Alachlar
Atrazine
Cyanazine
Malathion
Metolachlor
Prometone
Prometryne
Simazine
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
Atrazine
ODD
DDE
Dieldrin
Prometone
Prometryne
Simazine
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
Alachlor
Aldrin
Atrazine
Atratone
DDT
Diazinon
Malathion
Metolachlor
Prometone
Silvex
Simazine
Diazinon
Range
<0.01-0.01
<0.01-0.3
<0.01-0.3
<0.1-0.1
<0.1-1.2
<0.1-0.7
<0.01-0.01
<0.1-0.5
<0.1-0.3
<0. 1-0.7
<0. 1-0.2
<0.01-0.14
<0.01-0.04
<0.1-0.5
<0.01-0.01
<0.01-0.01
<0.01-0.01
<0. 1-0.2
<0. 1-0.2
<0. 1-0.39
<0.01-0.08
<0.01-0.04
<0.1-1.0
<0.01-0.01
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 33. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of pesticides: 1992-19931.
Pesticide
Alachlor
Aldrin
Atrazine
alpha-Chlordane
gamma-Chlordane
Cyanazine
4, 4' - DDT
Diazinon
Dieldrin
Fenvalerate
Hexazinone
Malathion
Metolachlor
Oxychlordane
Permethrin2
Prometon
Simazine
Susquehanna River
Range Mean
<2.5-23.1 4.4
<0.2-1.6 0.2
<1.3- 2,937 50.4
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 34. Summary of organic compound concentrations in Chesapeake Bay water column samples.
Region/Tributary Year(s)
Susquehanna River 1988
Upper Chesapeake Bay 1989
Compounds/Concentrations Observed Sources
Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal
Middle River
Patapsco River
Patuxent River
Potomac River
Rappahannock River
1990
1985,1987
1986,1987,
1988,1989
1992,1993
1990
1991
1985
1986,1987
1988,1989
1985
1986
1988
1987,1989
1990
1991
1985
1986,1987,
1988,1989
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
Detectable concentrations of heptachlor epoxide
(0.008 ng/l), endosulfan (0.006 ug/l), dieldrin
(0.005 ug/l), and 4,4-DDT (0.014 ug/l) of the total of
14 organics compounds analyzed1.
Detectable concentrations of pyrene (0.42 ug/l)
of the 14 organic compounds analyzed1.
One detectable concentration (benzene - 3 ug/l
(1985)) of the total of 116 organic compounds analyzed2.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 19 organic
compounds analyzed5.
No detectable concentrations of the 19 organic
compounds analyzed3.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed3.
No detectable concentrations of the 111 organic
compounds analyzed4.
Only two detectable concentrations (Chlordane -
0.152 ug/l; ODD - 0.097 ug/l) of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
No detectable concentrations of the 19 organic
compounds analyzed5.
No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed2.
No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
Halletal. 1988a
Hall etal. 1989
Halletal. 1991b
Halletal. 1992b
Halletal. 1992a
Halletal. 1992b
Hall 1985, Halletal. 1987a
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1988b
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e, Hall etal. 1988a
Halletal. 1988b, Halletal. 1989
Halletal. 1991 b, Hall etal. 1992b
Halletal. 1994
Halletal. 1991 a
Halletal. 1992c
Hall 1985, Halletal. 1987a
Hall et al. 1987c, Hall et al. 1986b
Hall et al. 1987e, Hall et al. 1988a
Hall et al. 1988b, Hall et al. 1989
Halletal. 1991 b, Hall et al. 1992b
Hall 1985
Halletal. 1987a
Hall et al. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e
Halletal. 1988a
Halletal. 1989
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1988b
Halletal. 1991 b, Hall etal. 1991 a
Hall et al. 1992b, Hall et al. 1992a
Halletal. 1992b
Virginia State Water Control
Board 1991
Hall 1985, Hall etal. 1987a
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e, Hall etal. 1988a
Halletal. 19885, Halletal. 1989
Hall et al. 1991b, Hall et al. 1992b
61
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 34 (con't.).
Summary of organic compound concentrations
column samples.
in Chesapeake Bay water
Region/Tributary
Pamunkey River
James River
Elizabeth River
Elk River
Sassafras River
Wye River
Choptank River
Nanticoke River
Maryland
(41 Subbasins)
Virginia
(Statewide)
Year(s) Compounds/Concentrations Observed
1985 No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed3.
1986,1987, One detectable concentration (Chlordane - 0.05 jjg/l
1988,1989 (1988) of the 14 organic compounds analyzed1.
1985 No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed3.
1986,1987, Two detectable concentrations (PCB Arochlor 1248
1988,1989 0.04 ug/l (1986); Chlordane - 0.03 ug/l (1988)) of
the 14 organic compounds analyzed1.
1989,1990 No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
1988 No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
1988 No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
compounds analyzed1.
1990,1992 No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
1993 compounds analyzed'.
1991 No detectable concentrations of the 19 organic
compounds analyzed5.
1985 No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed3.
1986,1987, No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
1988,1989 compounds analyzed1.
Hall eta!. 1991 b, Hall etal. 1992b
1984 No detectable concentrations of the 62 organic
analyzed6.
1985 No detectable concentrations of the 21 organic
compounds analyzed3.
1986,1987, No detectable concentrations of the 14 organic
1988,1989, compounds analyzed1.
1992,1993
1989,1990 No detectable concentrations of any of the 94
organic priority pollutants analyzed7.
1970-1990 Majority of the available PCBs data (95%)
were below detection limit.
Sources
Hall 1985, Hall etal. 1987a
Hall etal. 1987c, Hall etal. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e, Hall etal. 1988a
Halletal. 1988b, Hall etal. 1989
Hall eta!. 1991 b, Hall etal. 1992b
Hall 1985, Halletal. 1987a
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e, Halletal. 1988a
Hall et al. 1988b, Hall et al. 1989
Halletal. 1991b, Hall et at. 1992b
VA Water Control Board 1991
Halletal. 1991 a
Halletal. 1988a
Hall etal. 1989
Halletal. 1988a
Halletal. 1989
Halletal. 1991a
Halletal. 1994
Hall et al. 1992c
Hall 1985
Halletal. 1987c
Hall et al. 1987c, Hall et al. 1986b,
Hall et al. 1987e, Hall et al. 1988a
Halletal. 1988b, Halletal. 1989,
Hall 1984, Hall etal. 1985
Hall 1985
Hall et al. 1987a
Halletal. 1987c, Halletal. 1986b
Halletal. 1987e, Hall etal. 1988a
Halletal. 19885, Hall etal. 1989
Halletal. 1991b, Hall etal. 1992b
Hall etal 1994
MD Dept. of the Environment
unpublished data (a),
Chesapeake Bay Program 1993e
Tingleretal. 1990
62
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 34 (con't.). Summary of organic compound concentrations in Chesapeake Bay water
column samples.
Notes:
1. Anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, chlordane, chrysene, DDE, fluoranthene, fluorene, PCB Arochlor
1248, PCB Arochlor 1254, PCB Arochlor 1260, perylene, phenathrene, pyrene, toxaphene.
2. Total of 19 pesticides, 7 PCB arochlors, 11 phenolic compounds, 45 base-neutral organic compounds,
and 34 volatile organic compounds.
3. Acenaphthene, acenaphtylene, anthracene, benzo[a]anthracene, benzo[a]pyrene, benzo[6]fluoranthene
+ benzo[/c]fluoranthene, benzo[g,/y]perylene, chlordane, chrysene, DDE, dibenzo[a,/i]anthracene,
fluorene, fluoranthene, indeno[7,2,3-c,d]pyrene, naphthalene, PCB Arochlor 1248, PCB Arochlor
1254, PCB Arochlor 1260, phenanthrene, pyrene, toxaphene.
4. Total of 19 pesticides, 7 PCB arochlors, 11 phenolic compounds, 39 base-neutral organic compounds,
and 35 volatile organic compounds.
5. Alachlor, anthracene, atrazine, benzo[a]anthracene, chlordane, cyanazine, DDE, fluoranthene, fluo-
rene, metolachlor, PCB Arochlor 1248, PCB Arochlor 1254, PCB Arochlor 1260, perylene, phenath-
rene, pyrene, simazine, toxaphene.
6. Total of 3 pesticides, 11 phenolic compounds, 3 PCB Arochlors, and 45 base-neutral organic
compounds.
7. Total of 94 organic priority pollutants: 30 volatiles, 57 semi-volatiles, and 7 PCB arochlors.
aromatic hydrocarbons and polychlorinated bi-
phenyls—for Chesapeake Bay and its surrounding
watershed are very limited largely due to the
expense of chemical analysis which prohibits
routine monitoring. Detection of measurable
organic chemical concentrations is extremely rare
in Bay basin waters (Table 34). Elevated concen-
trations of tributyltin have been measured and
detected in many Bay habitats (Table 35). Those
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons listed as Chesa-
peake Bay Toxics of Concern were detected at
very low concentrations at the Susquehanna,
Potomac, and James river fall lines in 1992 and
1993 (Table 36).
Widespread non-detection of these organic
chemicals is due to several factors: 1) most
organic chemical contaminants exist at levels
below conventional analytical detection limits
(i.e., below part per billion concentrations); 2)
sampling and analytical problems are associated
with making water column measurements of
organic chemical contaminants; and 3) most of
these hydrophobic compounds readily partition
to sediments and biota [49].
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Microlayer
The surface microlayer may be an important
site for the transfer of chemicals into the water
column and to Bay's living resources because of
the high concentrations observed. There are
limited data and evidence, however, about the
direct biological effects to organisms coming into
contact with the surface microlayer.
Metals
No widespread occurrences of measured metal
concentrations exceeding EPA water quality cri-
teria or state water quality standards exist in the
Box 4. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay water column contaminant concentrations
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program Reports [110,113,114]
Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Contaminant Studies [77,78,102,103,105,106,107,111,112,115,117,118,123,124,126,127]
Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contaminant Concentrations Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [49]
Comprehensive Review of Selected Toxic Substances - Environmental Samples in Virginia [289]
The Characterization of the Chesapeake Bay: A Systematic Analysis of Trace Elements [166]
63
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 35. Concentrations of tributyltin reported in Chesapeake Bay water column samples.
Location
Results
Source
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal,
Potomac River, Choptank River, four
marinas.
Seven stations in the Back Creek/Severn
River area of Maryland
Marina in Annapolis, Maryland
Seven stations in the Back Creek/Severn
River area of Maryland
Spa Creek, Annapolis, MD
Solomons on Back Creek and Patuxent
River, MD
Oxford adjacent to Trend Avon River, MD
Plain Dealing Creek, near Oxford, MD
Sarah Creek and Elizabeth River area of
Virginia
Sarah Creek and Hampton Roads-James
River-Elizabeth River system, Virginia
Patapsco River, Annapolis marina
mainstem Bay in Maryland; Hampton
Roads-Elizabeth River areas of Virginia
Mean water column concentrations (monthly sampling over twelve
months) ranged 51 -408 ng/L in four marinas. Peak concentrations
were reported in May and June in the marinas. A maximum value
of 998 ng/L was reported. Concentrations of 20-24 ng/L were
reported in the Potomac River.
Maximum water column concentrations of 1171 and 1801 ng/L
were reported in two marinas. Mean concentrations of 435 and 291
ng/L were reported in the two marinas after bi-weekly sampling for
four months. Peak concentrations occurred in early spring followed
by significant reductions during the summer and early fall. The
highest concentration reported in the receiving system (Severn
River) was 48 ng/L. Mean concentrations in the Severn River were
22 ng/L
Water column concentrations of 71 ng/L reported.
Water column concentrations ranging 142-367 ng/L were reported
in Back Creek. Concentrations of 34 ng/L were reported in the
Severn River.
Water column twenty week average concentrations were 99,121,
47, and 22 ng/L at four stations located equidistantly away from a
marina area. A maximum concentration of 530 ng/L was reported.
Water column twenty week average concentrations were 52,47,
21, and 19 ng/L at four stations located equidistantly away from a
marina area. A maximum concentration of 170 ng/L was reported.
Water column twenty week average concentrations were 34,30,
23, and 24 ng/L at four stations located equidistantly away from a
marina area. A maximum concentration of 60 ng/L was reported.
Water column twenty week average concentrations were 18,29,
28, and 16 ng/L at four stations located in the Trend Avon River
(non marinas). A maximum TBT concentration of 91 ng/L was
reported.
Water column concentrations ranged <1-98 ng/L in Sarah Creek
which contained several recreational marinas. Concentrations
ranging from 10-100 ng/L were reported in various marinas.
Concentratons of approximately 52 and 67 ng/L were reported in
the Elizabeth River.
Water column concentrations ranging from non-detectable to 76 ng/
L were reported in Sarah Creek during June-Sept. Concentrations
ranged 4-670 ng/L in the Hampton River. Concentrations during
June-Sept ranged from non-detectable to 920 ng/L in the Hampton
Roads-James River-Elizabeth River system.
Water column concentrations of 2.5-6.3 ng/L were reported in the
Patapsco River. A concentration of 61 ng/L was reported in an
Annapolis marina. Concentrations in the Hampton Roads-Elizabeth
River area of Virginia ranged from 16-66 ng/L. Concentrations in
the mainstem Bay ranged 2.3-9.1 ng/L.
Hallatal., 1987b
Halletal., 1987d
Matthias etal. 1986
Matthias etal. 1988
Batiuk, 1987
Batiuk, 1987
Batiuk, 1987
Batiuk, 1987
Huggett etal., 1986
Westbrook etal., 1986
Olson and Brinkman, 1986
Source: Adapted from Hall 1988.
64
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 36. Chesapeake Bay fall line concentrations of selected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: 1992-19931.
Organic Compound
Benzo[a]anthracene
Benzo[a]pyrene
Fluoranthene
Naphthalene
Susquehanna River
Range Mean
<1.1-21.9 2.3
<2.0 - 55.1 2.7
<0.3 - 18.9 3.5
<0.2 - 39.5 2.8
Potomac River
Range Mean
<1 .1-12.4 1.3
<2.0-11.4 <2.0
<0.3-10.5 1.6
<0.2 - 19.8 4.0
James River
Range Mean
<1.1 -27.2 4.6
<2.0 - 137.2 8.2
<0.3 - 196.8 12.4
<0.2 - 34.8 3.3
1. Combined participate and dissolved water concentrations (ng/L) from samples collected through the
Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Program from March 1992 - February 1993; below detection
limit values set to detection limit in the calculation of the mean.
Sources: Maryland Department of the Environment and Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments 1994a, 1994b.
mainstem Bay. The majority of Bay tributary
water column metals data collected over the past
two decades show that metal concentrations are
usually below analytical detection limits. Mea-
sured concentrations of metals were higher in
some non-tidal and tidal tributaries compared to
the mainstem Bay, with a very limited number
exceeding EPA water quality criteria and/or state
water quality standards (generally cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc). As
most of the metals data were reported as total
recoverable concentrations, it is difficult to as-
sess the potential risks to living resources when
EPA criteria and state standards have focused on
the dissolved fraction—the portion that is avail-
able to aquatic resources.
Pesticides
Pesticides in the water may pose a risk to
living resources during and shortly after storms
in the spring and summer when they are most
heavily used. The highest water column concen-
trations have been generally measured in non-tidal
freshwater streams close to the site of application,
with very few observed concentrations above
existing aquatic life criteria or drinking water
standards.
Organic Chemicals
Limited data for tidal and non-tidal waters
indicate that, throughout the Bay, concentrations
of organic chemical contaminants are generally
below conventional analytical detection limits
(i.e., below part per billion concentrations) and
most organic chemical contaminants readily at-
tach to sediment particles and become imbedded
in the bottom sediments or are incorporated into
biota.
Sediment Contaminant
Concentrations
Sediment contamination problems have been
documented for an increasing number of areas in
this country including the Chesapeake Bay.
Sediments are a major reservoir for metals and
organic chemical contaminants because these
chemicals adsorb to particles. Sediment concen-
trations of these chemical contaminants are,
therefore, typically higher than they are in the
water column. Changes in physical or chemical
characteristics of the sediment environment or
the overlying water column can cause these sedi-
ment-bound chemicals to be released back into
the water column.
65
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Urban stormwater runoff, atmospheric depo-
sition, industrial and municipal point source
discharges, and shoreline erosion contribute metals,
pesticides, and other organic chemical contami-
nants to riverine and Bay sediments. Chemical
weathering and erosion are natural sources of
metals, but increased concentrations result from
human activities. Most sediment contamination
by organic chemicals directly results from human
activities.
A Chesapeake Bay Contaminated Sediment
Critical Issue Forum was held to seek a technical
consensus on the relative magnitude and extent
of contaminated sediments within Chesapeake
Bay. The forum participants also addressed the
question of whether contaminated sediments are
causing or can cause an impact (e.g., bioaccumu-
lation, toxicity) on the Chesapeake Bay on a
baywide, regional, or local scale. Findings de-
scribed below are summarized from the forum
proceedings [48] and a recent review of Chesa-
peake Bay contaminated sediments data [76].
EVALUATION OF
POTENTIAL TOXICITY
A variety of approaches have been used to
determine sediment concentrations of chemical
contaminants which pose risks to aquatic organ-
isms [295]. One approach, developed originally
by Long and Morgan [178] for use in the NOAA
National Status of Trends Program and refined by
MacDonald [181], estimates the probability of
adverse biological effects over a range of sedi-
ment contaminant concentrations based on matched
sediment toxicity/sediment chemistry data. For
each chemical, two concentrations, the No Ob-
served Effect Level (NOEL) and the Probable
Effects Level (PEL), were estimated [181].
Concentrations above the PEL are considered to
pose a considerable risk of adverse effects to
aquatic life, but such effects are not certain to
occur. At intermediate concentrations between
the NOEL and PEL concentrations, adverse ef-
fects are considered possible, but not probable;
adverse effect are considered unlikely below the
NOEL concentration.
The NOEL and PEL values were derived
from a wide variety of field and laboratory studies
utilizing sediments and aquatic organisms from
many different areas contaminated with a wide
variety of chemicals. These NOEL and PEL
values can help determine the potential for sedi-
ment contaminants to induce toxic effects, but
they cannot be used by themselves to identify
sediments causing toxic effects in aquatic biota.
While these values have limitations, they are
probably the best benchmark available to gener-
ally evaluate the relative risk to aquatic life posed
by sediment contaminants [76].
Defining the spatial resolution is key in as-
sessing the degree of sediment contamination in
the Bay and its tidal tributaries from a manage-
ment perspective. Elevated concentrations of
sediment contaminants may occur in localized
areas (e.g., marinas) of a river that represent only
a tiny fraction of the total surface area of the Bay.
These small contaminated areas may be of local
or regional concern but do not provide an overall
picture of the degree of contamination in the Bay.
SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION
Recent data from four sources were evaluated
to determine the magnitude and extent of sedi-
ment contamination in the Chesapeake Bay and
its tributaries. The Maryland Department of the
Environment and the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality through the Chesapeake
Bay Sediment Contaminant Monitoring Program
collected sediment contaminant data from 1984
to 1991 which were combined and evaluated.
These studies were augmented with data col-
lected at the 17 NOAA National Status and Trends
Program sites (1984 to 1987) and the 62 EPA
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Pro-
gram sites (1990 only). Both national monitoring
programs used similar chemical analysis meth-
ods; the state programs used different methods.
66
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Metals
In the upper Bay mainstem, sediment metal
concentrations are distributed in a pattern similar
to that of fine-grained sediments (i.e., with high
silt and clay content), a common finding in many
studies. Mainstem sediment metals concentra-
tions are low at the mouth of the Susquehanna
River, increasing markedly to the highest con-
centrations in the region from Pooles Island to the
Potomac River mouth which is the area with the
highest silt/clay content (Table 37) (Figure 17)
[76]. Markedly lower concentrations occur in the
mainstem region south of the Potomac River to
the Bay mouth. Both the highest sediment con-
centration gradient and the greatest variability
occur in the area from Pooles Island to the Bay
Bridge.
More recent sediment contaminants data for
the upper mainstem Bay confirm earlier observa-
tions that the concentrations of most metals are
higher in the northern portion of the mainstem
Bay (i.e., above the Potomac River) [278]. Within
the middle mainstem Bay, concentrations of metals
are higher on the western shore than in the central
trough or along the Eastern Shore [76].
When the mainstem sediment metals data are
normalized to percentage silt and clay particles
in the sediment, the highest average concentra-
tions of most metals occurred in the upper mainstem
Bay near the mouth of the Susquehanna River,
suggesting that the river is an important source
of metal loadings to the sediments in the northern
mainstem Bay [76]. Enrichment of metals along
the western side of the northern mainstem Bay
may be due to metal-enriched sediment carried by
the Susquehanna River and transported by the
currents moving toward the western shore [151,
292]. Sediments along the Bay's Eastern Shore
are carried north from the ocean and often consist
of coarser-grained materials [151].
Investigations into the sources of sediment-
associated metals to the upper mainstem Bay
indicate that both the Susquehanna River and
shoreline erosion are dominant inputs of trace
metals to the sediments [148]. Sinex and Helz
[279] and Sinex and Wright [280] reported that
Baltimore Harbor acts as a sediment trap retain-
ing most of the trace metals originating from the
Patapsco River estuary. Both sets of investiga-
tors also indicated that there is only minimal
down Bay transport of metals from upper main-
stem Bay sediments. Sinex and Helz [278] stated
that shoreline erosion is the dominant source of
sediment to the middle mainstem Bay, however,
the relative importance of river transport of sedi-
ment from the Potomac, Rappahannock, York,
and James rivers compared to shoreline erosion
or continental shelf sources is unknown.
The sediment metal concentrations in the
Back River and the Patapsco River were substan-
tially higher than those observed elsewhere in the
Bay mainstem and tidal tributaries with the ex-
ception of some sections of the Elizabeth River
(Table 38) [76]. Sediment contaminant concen-
trations in the Back River were comparable to or
higher than sediment concentrations at stations in
Baltimore Harbor, except for chromium. Four of
the eight metals—arsenic, chromium, lead, and
zinc—measured at the Back River station were
above their respective PEL values; average con-
centrations of chromium, lead, and zinc exceeded
their respective PEL values at some or all of the
Baltimore Harbor stations. Sediment concentra-
tions of zinc and/or lead exceeded their respective
PEL values in the eastern, southern and western
branches of the Elizabeth River. Sediment con-
centrations of metals were higher in the Anacostia
River than the adjacent upper Potomac and com-
parable to those in the Back, Patapsco, and Elizabeth
rivers. Concentrations of lead and zinc at some
of the Anacostia River stations exceeded their
respective PEL values.
Outside of the Anacostia, Back, Elizabeth,
and Patapsco rivers, the highest sediment metal
concentrations tended to be located in the tribu-
taries flowing into the upper mainstem Bay on the
upper western, northwestern, and northeastern
shores of the mainstem B ay from the Rhode River
67
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 37. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern metals in the Chesapeake Bay
mainstem and the mouths of major tributaries1.
Mainstem Bay/
Tributary Mouth
—
National Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Susquehanna to
Sassafras
Sassafras to
Gunpowder
Gunpowder to
Bay Bridge
Bay Bridge to
Patuxent
Patuxent to
Rappahannock
Rappahannockto
James
James to
Bay Mouth
Mouth of
Potomac
Mouth of
Rappahannock
Mobjack
Bay
Mouth of
York
Mouth of
James
Data
Source2
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
NOAAM9)
EMAP (60)
MDE (89)
MDE (3)
MDE (6)
MDE (15)
MDE (29)
MDE,
VADEQ (10)
VADEQ (4)
VADEQ(2)
MDE (3)
VADEQ (2)
VADEQ (2)
VADEQ (2)
VADEQ (2)
Cadmium
7.5
0.22
0.44
0.32
0.60
0.14-0.2
0.2
0.13-1.2
0.7
0.01-2.9
0.5
0.01-2.9
0.5
0.01-1.3
0.6
0.09-0.2
0.2
0.2-0.2
0.2
0.01-2.4
2.0
0.3-0.4
0.4
0.15-0.3
0.2
0.29-0.3
0.3
0.3-0.3
0.3
Chromium
240
80
68
48
47
3.5-23.2
23
20.6-36.1
27
8.9-62.8
38.4
9.5-62
36
16-49
35.5
12-39
19.3
5.3-23
14.2
29.9-39
35.2
35.2-46
40.6
37.3-43
40.2
32.9-56
44.5
1.6-43
22.3
Copper
270
16
34
20
30
3.7-20.5
4.6
30.9-41
35.2
4.6-56
33.6
2.5-48
29.0
6-30
21.1
3.4-9
8
2.1-7.2
4.7
21.6-29
25.5
19-21.3
20.2
15.9-17
14.8
20-23.1
21.6
2.2-16
9.1
Lead
116
20
39
21
38
12.7-42.1
15.0
32-66
48.3
15-86
51.2
11.5-76
35
6.2-46
28
6.9-25
11.8
5.3-25
15.2
26.8-35.8
35
22-25
23.5
17.3-35
26.2
18-35
26.5
1.6-40
20.8
Mercury
1.4
0.07
0.093
0.12
0.099
0.006-0.1
0.05
0.05-0.6
0.14
0.02-0.8
0.10
0.007-0.6
0.08
0.04-0.4
0.05
0.025-0.1
0.07
0.086-0.1
0.09
0.04-0.4
0.05
0.1-0.1
0.1
0.072-0.1
0.09
0.08-0.1
0.09
0.046-0.1
0.07
1. Metal concentrations are in (4,g/g (i.e., ppm) on a dry weight basis; concentration ranges and medians
are shown.
2. Total number of samples is in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE - Eskin et al. 1994;
VADEQ - Eskin et al. 1994.
68
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Copper Concentrations in Chesapeake Bay Sediments
Figure 17. Mean concentrations of copper (ug/g) in Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tributary
sediments: 1984-1991. Source: Eskin et al. 1994.
69
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 38. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern metals from regions of Chesa-
peake Bay with elevated levels of sediment contamination1.
Region
—
National Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baltimore
Harbor
Back River
Anacostia
River
Elizabeth
River
Data
Source2
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
NOAA(19)
EMAP(60)
MDE(89)
NOAA(3)
EMAP(3)
MDE (9)
NOAA
EMAP (2)
MDE(1)
NOAA
EMAP(1)
ICPRB(8)
NOAA (3)
EMAP (2)
VADEQ (7)
Cadmium
7.5
0.22
0.44
0.32
0.60
1.8-3.9
0.9-1.1
0.01-2.6/1
ND4
4.9-6
3.2-4.6/4.1
ND
1.8
0.92-3.2/1.9
0.66-1.4
0.81
0.6-6.3/2.6
Chromium
240
80
68
48
47
470-540
340-1200
123-638/300
ND
350-370
238-335/265
ND
120
90-155/116
43-98
48-72
28-76/51
Copper
270
16
34
20
30
200-270
210-220
57-191/112
ND
220-230
167-224/191
ND
64-126/92
46-170
20-220
23-229/96
Lead
116
20
39
21
38
130-220
110-210
47-190/115
ND
170-190
176-223/191
ND
150
83-410/178
60-180
30-190
38-300/137
Mercury
1.4
0.07
0.093
0.12
0.099
0.66-0.80
0.18-0.26
0.11-0.69/0.39
ND
1.1-1.2
0.1-0.7/0.5
ND
0.27
0.29-1/0.49
0.26-0.83
0.23-0.47
0.08-1.25/0.5
1. Metal concentrations are in ug/g (i.e., ppm) on a dry weight basis; concentration ranges (and medians
where available) are shown.
2. Total number of samples in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
4. ND = no data available.
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE - Eskin et al. 1994;
ICPRB - Velinsky et al., 1992, VADEQ - Eskin et al. 1994.
to the Sassafras River (Table 39) [76]. Interme-
diate concentrations were found in the Patuxent,
Potomac, Choptank, and Chester rivers and the
embayments along the middle reach of the East-
ern Shore. The lowest sediment metals
concentrations were observed in tributaries and
embayments of the lower Eastern Shore's tribu-
taries and in the Rappahannock, York, and James
rivers.
Zinc concentrations tend to be high through-
out most of the Chesapeake Bay with the zinc
PEL value exceeded in the South, Severn, Mag-
othy, Middle, Northeast, and James rivers in
addition to the upper and middle mainstem Bay
[76]. Sinex and Wright [280] reported that zinc
concentrations at deeper depths in sediment cores
were not enriched above crustal composition,
suggesting anthropogenic sources of the more
recent high zinc sediment concentrations. Sedi-
ments in the Patuxent, Northeast, and Sassafras
rivers had metals concentrations exceeding the
arsenic PEL value [76].
Throughout all areas of the mainstem Bay and
tidal tributaries, sediment concentrations of sev-
eral metals were found in the range at which
adverse effects were possible but not likely—
70
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 39. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern metals in Chesapeake Bay tidal
tributaries1.
Region
—
National Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Northwest
Rivers5
Western
Rivers6
Patuxent
River
Potomac
River
Rappahannock
River
York
River
James
River
Northeast
Rivers7
Chester and
Choptank Rivers
East Bays8
Southeastern
Rivers and Bays'
Data
Source2
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
MOM (19)
EMAP (60)
MDE (89)
MDE(13)
MDE (27)
MDE (15)
MDE (19)
-
-
VADEQ (29)
MDE (20)
MDE (19)
MDE (16)
MDE (52)
Cadlmum
7.5
0.22
0.44
0.32
0.60
0.01-1.4
0.5
0.01-2.1
0.8
0.01-3.5
1.5
0.18-2
0.7
ND*
ND
0.2-6
0.69
0.01-1
0.5
0.01-1.6
0.4
0.1-1.2
0.5
0.1-2.9
0.5
Chromium
240
80
68
48
47
46-86
69
60-172
103
51-120
68
36-62
45
ND
ND
5-136
26
30-158
64
15-76
40
23-56
36
6-79
29
Copper
270
16
34
20
30
34-95
69
35-112
51
12-34
23
28-43
36
ND
ND
3-263
38
14-61
42
3-31
15
12-32
17
3-22
11
Lead
116
20
39
21
38
33.9-129
54
17.1-101
58
8-52
29
14.9-73
33
ND
ND
6-343
43
20-72
44
2-55
29
0.7-43
21
0.1-42
15
Mercury
1.4
0.07
0.093
0.12
0.099
0.099-0.36
0.23
0.038-0.31
0.16
0.038-0.11
0.06
0.05-0.31
0.15
ND
ND
0.08-4.66
0.38
0.05-0.36
0.17
0.034-0.15
0.07
0.047-0.11
0.05
0.009-0.18
0.05
1. Metal concentrations are in ug/g (i.e., ppm) on a dry weight basis.
2. Total number of samples in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
4. ND = no data available.
5. Bush, Gunpowder, and Middle rivers.
6. Magothy, Severn, South, Rhode, and West rivers.
7. Northeast, Bohemia, Elk, and Sassafras rivers.
8. Eastern Bay, Choptank Embayment, and Little Choptank River.
9. Fishing Bay, Tangier Sound, Pocomoke Sound, Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex, and Pocomoke rivers.
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE - Eskin et al. 1994;
VADEQ - Eskin et al. 1994.
71
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
between the NOEL and PEL values [76]. As
metals are a natural component of sediment, one
method for separating natural concentrations from
anthropogenic-influenced concentrations is to
"normalize" to a conservative element such as
aluminum or iron. By normalizing concentra-
tions, estimates of anthropogenic enrichment of
sediment metal concentrations can be made.
Sinex and Helz [278], Sinex and Wright [280],
and Eskin et al. [76] all found evidence for wide-
spread sediment enrichment of zinc. Sinex and
Helz [278] and Sinex and Wright [280] also
found evidence of widespread lead enrichment.
More recently, however, Eskin et al. [76] found
no evidence of widespread lead enrichment. All
three studies documented that Baltimore Harbor
was enriched with chromium, with Sinex and
Helz [278] presenting evidence for Baltimore
Harbor enrichment with cadmium and zinc as
well. Sinex and Wright [280] found enrichment
of upper mainstem Bay sediments with copper
and enrichment with zinc in the lower mainstem
Bay sediments.
Eskin et al. [76] presented evidence for en-
richment of arsenic (Sassafras River), cadmium
(Back River, upper Patuxent River, and main-
stem Bay), chromium (Baltimore Harbor and
Sassafras River), copper (Baltimore Harbor, Back,
Middle, Magothy, and Sassafras rivers), lead
(Baltimore Harbor, Back River, Middle River,
and upper mainstem Bay), mercury (Baltimore
Harbor, Back River, and Sassafras River), nickel
(Back, Northeast, and Sassafras rivers, and upper
mainstem Bay), and zinc (Back and Magothy
rivers). Velinskyetal. [307] reported enrichment
of cadmium, lead, and zinc in the Anacostia and
upper tidal Potomac rivers. Widespread sedi-
ment enrichment, as observed by Eskin at el. [76]
for arsenic, cadmium, and zinc, could indicate
atmospheric sources as suggested by Sinex and
Wright [280]. Helz et al. [147, 148] attributed
enrichment of copper, lead, and zinc in surficial
sediments to atmospheric deposition.
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
Sediment polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
concentrations peak in the mainstem Bay from
just south of the Susquehanna Flats to the Chesa-
peake Bay Bridge (Table 40; Figure 18) [24,76,
292]. Within the tidal tributaries, the Elizabeth,
Anacostia, Patapsco and Sassafras rivers are dis-
tinguished by much higher concentrations of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons than the other
tributaries (Table 41). Some of the other upper
western (Middle, Back, Magothy, and Severn
rivers) and upper Eastern Shore (Northeast River)
tributaries show relatively high concentrations of
some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (Table
42). Concentrations of some polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons were also relatively high in the
tidal fresh Potomac River [76]. Bieri et al. [24]
observed that summed chemical contaminant
concentrations in the mouths of the Patuxent,
Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James rivers
tended to be higher than concentrations in most
of the mainstem and Eastern Shore sediments.
Sediment concentrations of most polycyclic aro-
matic hydrocarbons were much lower in the
embayments and rivers on the lower eastern shore
than in any other regions.
All mainstem Bay stations had average poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbon concentrations that
were not sufficiently high to be associated with
probable adverse effect—all concentrations were
less than their respective PEL values [76]. Sedi-
ment concentrations of some polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in the mainstem region from Tur-
key Point to the Patapsco River were within the
range of concentrations where adverse effects are
possible but not likely (i.e., between the NOEL
and PEL values).
Sediment concentrations of a number of poly-
cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons exceeded their
respective PEL values in the Anacostia, upper
Potomac, and Elizabeth rivers and Baltimore
Harbor. Average polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bon concentrations at all remaining tributary
stations were below the respective PEL values,
72
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 40. Sediment concentrations of Bay Toxics of Concern organic compounds in the Chesapeake Bay
mainstem and the mouths of major tributaries1.
Region
-
National Median
BaywkJe Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Susquehannato
Sassafras
Sassafras to
Gunpowder
Gunpowder to
Bay Bridge
Bay Bridge to
Patuxent
Patuxentto
Rappahannock
Rappahannock to
James
James to
Bay Mouth
Mouth of
Potomac
Mouth of
Rappahannock
Mobjack
Bay
Mouth of
York
Mouth of
James
Data
Source1
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
NOAA(19)
EMAP (60)
MDE(89)
MDE(3)
MDE(6)
MDE (IS)
MDE(29)
MDE,
VADEQ(10)
VADEQ(4)
VADEQ(2)
MDE (3)
VADEQ(2)
VADEQ (2)
VADEQ(2)
VADEQ (2)
Total
PCBs4
260
19
25
ND'
8«
8.1
7.0-12.8
9.9
10.3-15.5
11.2
0.8
0.1
<0.02
0.5
8.3
0.5
<0.02
2.2
<0.02
Total
Chlordane1
-
0.51
0.93
ND
<0.01
<0.01
0.88
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
Total
DDT1
270
2.8
3.6
ND
2.5-2.5
2.5
3.1-5.1
4.1
3.4-4.8
4.35
0.17-0.30
0.24
0.16-0.17
0.17
0.17-0.17
0.17
0.17-0.17
0.17
2.60-2.60
2.60
0.17-0.17
0.17
0.74-0.74
0.74
1.20-1.20
1.20
0.17-0.17
0.17
Benzo[a]
anthracene
1300
2.3
38
15
32
4-30
12
107-310
208
80-180
113
1-60
50
2-30
12
0.4-10
2
2-10
3
25-30
28
16-30
21
16-30
21
17-30
22
2-140
20
Benzo[a]
pyrene
1700
19
42
37
35
2-30
9
270-270
270
71-170
130
3-70
32
5-60
21
1-10
3
2-10
3
35-40
37
19-30
30
21-40
32
19-40
30
3-130
21
Chrysene
1700
30
56
20
47
10-70
19
197-360
279
112-300
182
13-100
93
3-50
26
1-20
4
4-10
6
48-51
51
29-40
33
30-40
34
34-40
36
4-170
33
Fluoranthene
3200
49
99
20
70
26-80
43
280-460
371
211-470
337
12-190
90
6-70
31
2-20
4
5-20
9
74-90
88
51-60
54
44-60
51
54-60
58
10-420
53
Napthalene
1100
7
16
13
7
6.7-20
15
105-130
120
7-240
74
3-40
15
0.2-20
5
0.4-4
1
2-3
2
11-30
13
5-10
7
2-4
3
1-10
4
1-10
4
1. Organic concentrations are in ng/g (i.e., ppb) on a dry weight basis.
2. Total number of samples in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
4. Total PCBs are the sum of PCBs at each level of chlorination.
5. Total chlordane is the sum of the alpha + gamma + cis-chlordane, transchlordane, heptachlordane, and heptachlorepoxide for NOAA and
EMAP data, but only the sum of alpha + gamma-chlordane for MDE and VADEQ data.
6. Total DDT is the sum of DDE, ODD, and DDT (both o + p forms). Reported VADEQ total DDT concentrations may be over estimates
due to co-elution of some chlordane and PCB isomers with p-DDT.
7. ND = no data available.
8. Baywide median value for total PCBs is based on mainstem Bay data only.
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE Eskin et al. 1994; VADEQ -
Eskin et al. 1994.
73
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Benzo[a]pyrene Concentrations in Chesapeake Bay Sediments
Figure 18. Mean concentrations of benzo[a]pyrene (ng/g) in Chesapeake Bay mainstem and tributary
sediments: 1984-1991. Source: Eskin et al. 1994.
74
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 41. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern organic compounds from regions
of Chesapeake Bay with elevated levels of sediment contamination1.
Region
—
National Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baltimore
Harbor
Back River
Anacostia
River
Elizabeth
River
Data
Source2
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
NOAA(19)
EMAP(60)
MDE(89)
NOAA(3)
EMAP(3)
MDE(9)
NOAA
EMAP(2)
MDE(1)
NOAA
EMAP(1)
ICPRB(8)
NOAA (3)
EMAP(2)
VADEQ(7)
Total
PCBs4
260
19
25
ND7
8
470-820
9-82
<5.7
ND
42460
NO
ND
40
210-2200
90-240
<-110
19-2400/354
Total
Chlordane1
-
0.51
0.93
ND
ND
6.1-11
0.31-1.5
<1. 33-7.5
ND
<-2.4"
22.4
ND
9.6
29-120
3-3.4
<-4.1
ND
Total
DDT1
270
2.8
3.6
ND
22
28-31
1.9-6.4
<5.7-22.3
ND
8.8-47
<5.7
ND
6.2
28-140
6.6-23
<-11
ND
Benzo[a]
anthracene
1300
2.3
38
15
32
500-650
15-180
90-2100/504
ND
380
178-281/230
ND
160
169-607/397
130-1500
38-450
36-2030/624
Benzo[a]
pyrene
1700
19
42
37
35
630-670
58-230
120-3000/685
ND
260
152-153/152
ND
89
212-586/431
130-2800
7-540
34-2520/759
Chrysene
1700
30
56
20
47
800-1700
510-210
510-290/223
ND
520
374
ND
260
253-817/595
300-2800
410-660
54-3770/989
Fluoranthene
3200
49
99
20
70
1100-1900
86450
1404100/993
ND
690
431498/465
ND
340
482-1867/1265
280-2800
67-980
92-6029/1876
Napthalene
1100
7
16
13
7
480-1100
220410
130-350/224
ND
270
175
ND
14
30-130/58
130-600
27-180
3490/163
1. Organic concentrations are in ng/g (i.e., ppb) on a dry weight basis.
2. Total number of samples is in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
4. Total PCBs is the sum of PCBs at each level of chlorination.
5. Total chlordane is the sum of alpha + gamma + cis - chlordane, trans-nonachlor, heptachlor, and
heptachlorepoxide for NOAA, EMAP and ICPRB data, but only the sum of alpha + gamma - chlordane
for MDE data.
6. Total DDT is the sum of DDE, ODD, and DDT both o+p forms. Reported total DDT concentrations
maybe overestimated due to co-elution of some chlordane and PCB isomers with the p-DDT.
7. ND = no data available.
8. < = less than detected limit.
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE - Eskin et al.
1994; ICPRB - Velinsky et al. 1992, VADEQ - Eskin et al. 1994.
75
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 42. Sediment concentrations of Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern organic compounds in Chesa-
peake Bay tidal tributaries1.
Region
-
National Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Baywide Median
Northwest
Rivers'
Western
Rivers"
Patuxenl
River
Potomac
River
Rappahannock
River
York
River
James
River
Northeastern
Rivers11
Chester and
Choptank Rivers
East Bays12
Southeastern
Rivers and Bays13
Data
Source1
PEL Value3
NOAA(330)
NOAA(19)
EMAP(60)
MDE(89)
MDE(13)
MDE (27)
MDE (15)
MDE (19)
VADEQ(14)
VADEQ(19)
VADEQ(15)
MDE (20)
MDE (19)
MDE (16)
MDE (52)
Total
PCBs4
260
19
25
ND«
8'
<5.7
6.6-26.5
<5.7-12.2
<5.7-13
0.6
<
21.3
<
<-11
<-0.43
<
Total
Chlordane1
-
0.51
0.93
ND
<1.33
<1.33-6
<1. 33-3.3
<1.33
<
<
<
<1.33
<1.33-1.5
<1. 33-2.3
<1.33
Total
DDT1
270
2.8
3.6
ND
<
<-26.5
< -12.2
<-8.9
0.3
11.2
0.7
<
<
<
<-21.2
Benzo[a]
anthracene
1,300
2.3
38
15
32
23-200
133
21-360
97
20-50
28
14-230
75
3-180
24
4-210
35
<-150
47
30-144
120
22-130
47
1-20
13
5-130
11
Benzo[a]
pyrene
1,700
19
42
37
35
91-170
135
17-300
91
23-80
34
11-190
70
3-170
33
4-50
28
5-170
69
40-660
137
15-120
75
2-40
15
2-110
12
Chrysene
1,700
30
56
20
47
368
41-590
154
47-60
55
23-300
109
7-180
40
9-120
54
1-260
76
104-1,530
169
33-240
98
15-30
24
7-230
18
Fluoranthene
3,200
49
99
20
70
24-600
290
57-780
348
34-110
64
32-360
105
8-200
63
13-170
79
1-330
100
80-1,130
241
61-220
83
7-60
38
4-320
20
Napthalene
1,100
7
16
13
7
528
40-370
134
11-30
11
14-50
18
<-10
2
<-600
5
<-30
7
98-370
149
21-150
44
13-50
28
2-10
5
1. Organic concentrations are in ng/g (i.e., ppb) on a dry weight basis.
2. Total number of samples in parentheses.
3. Probable Effects Level (MacDonald 1993).
4. Total PCBs are the sum of PCBs at each level of chlorination.
5. Total chlordane is the sum of the alpha + gamma + cis-chlordane, trans-nonachlor, heptachlor, and heptachlorepoxide for NOAA and EMAP
data, but only the sum of alpha + gamma-chlordane for MDE and VADEQ data.
6. Total DDT is the sum of DDE, ODD, and DDT (both o + p forms). Reported VADEQ total DDT concentrations may be overestimates due
to co-elution of some chlordane and PCB isomers with p-DDT.
7. ND = no data available.
8. Baywide median value for total PCBs is based on mainstem Bay data only.
9. Bush, Gunpowder, and Middle rivers.
10. Magothy, Severn, South, Rhode, and West rivers.
11. Northeast, Bohemia, Elk, and Sassafras rivers.
12. Eastern Bay, Choptank Embayment, and Little Choptank River.
13. Fishing Bay, Tangier Sound, Pocomoke Sound, Nanticoke, Wicomico, Manokin, Big Annemessex, and Pocomoke rivers.
Sources: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1991; EMAP - Weisberg et al. 1992; MDE Eskin et al. 1994; VADEQ -
Eskin et al. 1994.
76
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
therefore, adverse effects are not probable.
Maximum concentrations of a number of polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons were observed,
however, between the NOEL and PEL values in
the upper western shore tributaries (from the
West River to the Middle River), and the Sassa-
fras, Potomac, Rappahannock, York, and James
rivers [76],
Polycyclic Biphenyls
One or more PCB congeners were detected in
sediments throughout much of the mainstem Bay
and tidal tributaries, generally at very low con-
centrations. The maximum measured
concentrations were all below the NOEL value
with the exception of one sample in the James
River (Tables 40 and 42). Sediment concentra-
tions of PCB s were higher in the upper mainstem
Bay compared to the rest of the mainstem Bay
[76]. In the eastern and southern branches of the
Elizabeth River and in the Anacostia River, sedi-
ment concentrations of total PCB s were above the
PEL value and, therefore, are likely to be asso-
ciated with adverse effects on aquatic organisms
(Table 41).
Pesticides
DDT was the most commonly detected pes-
ticide in mainstem Bay sediment—some form of
DDT was detected at 14 of the 16 stations
sampled—with concentrations of all forms of
DDT below the NOEL value (Table 40) [76].
Several other pesticides (aldrin, chlordane, dicofol,
and nonachlor) were detected at fewer than four
mainstem Bay stations at concentrations above
which adverse effects are probable [76]. Sedi-
ment concentrations of chlordane above values
associated with probable adverse effects were
observed in the Anacostia River (Table 41).
Detectable concentrations of alachlor, carbofu-
ran, various forms of chlordane, chlorpyrifos,
cyanazine, DDT, lindane, metolachlor, permethrin,
and simazine were observed in the tributary sedi-
ments. No pesticide was found at concentrations
above which adverse effects are considered prob-
able, although some compounds were found above
concentrations at which adverse effects are thought
to be possible [76].
TEMPORAL CHANGES
Analysis of sediment cores is useful in evalu-
ating temporal trends of sediment contamination.
Scientists use sediment cores to establish long-
term trends by finding background or baseline
concentrations in the deeper sections of the cores
and constructing a chronology of sediment con-
tamination by analyzing the shallower and more
recently deposited sediment. With sufficient
resolution, the changes in chemical contaminant
concentrations can help determine the effective-
ness of management control strategies in reducing
chemical inputs to the Bay.
Metals
Increased erosion within the Bay watershed
due both to deforestation and the introduction of
European agricultural techniques with the arrival
of the early settlers translated into large increases
in sedimentation rates throughout the Bay [31,
32,33]. Cores collected in the northern mainstem
Bay near the Susquehanna River show high con-
centrations of metals with little variation over
time [93]. This uniformity results from the high
sedimentation rates, ranging from one to eight
centimeters per year, with bioturbation reaching
30 centimeters in some areas. Due to the rapid
accumulation rate, these cores were too short to
reach sediments untouched by anthropogenic
influence.
In contrast, sediment cores obtained further
south revealed an increase in metals with time,
although the level of overall contamination was
lower than those collected in the northern main-
stem Bay (see Spatial Changes section). In
particular, lead, zinc, and copper increase with
time in the sediment cores taken near the Chop-
tank River, and lead, zinc, and nickel increase
with time in the cores obtained near the Rappa-
hannock River [93]. In cores from the James
River taken in 1979, average concentrations of
copper, lead, and zinc in surface sediments were
77
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Metals Concentrations in Middle Chesapeake Bay Sediment Cores
1875 1889 1902 1916 1929 1942 1955 1968 1981 1990
Year
1875 1889 1902 1916 1929 1942 1955 1968 1981 1990
Year
300
1875 1889 1902 1916 1929 1942 1955 1968 1981 1990
Year
Figure 19. Concentrations of copper (A), lead (B), and zinc (C) in sediment cores collected from the
middle Chesapeake Bay mainstem. Each figure is displayed showing metal concentrations with
increasing depth into the sediment presented as the approximate year that sediment was deposited
on the bottom of the Bay. Source: Owens and Cornwell, in review.
78
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
twice as high as surface sediments in 1954, re-
flecting increased inputs over 25 years [336].
Surface sediment enrichments of trace metals
were also observed from a series of cores taken
in the mainstem Potomac estuary [183].
The available data illustrate the increased
input of metals to the Bay sediments in the past
30 to 50 years due to human activity. Also, the
various metals appear to have different origins;
manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, and zinc gener-
ally come from river discharge, shoreline erosion,
atmospheric deposition (zinc), and saltwater
advection from the ocean, and human activities.
Chromium and copper originate from domestic
wastes as well as direct industrial discharge,
cadmium comes from waste waters, and lead
primarily comes from atmospheric dust and rain
[146, 149].
Recent work by Owens and Cornwell [227]
reveals clear declines over the past several de-
cades in the concentrations of metals in a core
taken from the middle mainstem Bay. Concen-
trations of copper, lead, and zinc increased from
the early 1900s to a broad maximum centered
around 1960 to 1970, after which concentrations
sharply decreased until the present (Figure 19).
Present surface-to-bottom concentration ratios
are generally two for these metals, down from
ratios of approximately three at the concentration
maximum in the mid-1970s.
A comparison of surface sediment data from
surveys conducted in 1973 and 1991 in the Patap-
sco River reveal recent declines in sediment metal
concentrations [76]. For the majority of metals
analyzed in both surveys, the 1991 average sedi-
ment concentrations were approximately 50 percent
of the 1973 average concentration (Figure 20).
Nickel was the exception to this trend, as its
concentration was not dramatically different in
the two studies.
Mean sediment concentrations of metals
measured in 1991 were generally lower than
concentrations measured in 1984 and 1985 in the
mainstem Bay [76]. Arsenic was the only metal
to show consistently higher mean sediment con-
centrations in the mainstem Bay in 1991 compared
to the 1984 and 1985 data. Comparisons of
mainstem Bay sediment metal concentrations from
1991 with data collected from nearby stations in
the late 1970s and early 1980s also shows that
concentrations of most metals were lower in
1991. Sediment cadmium concentrations de-
creased dramatically, while other metals show
more modest declines.
Organic Chemicals
A few studies have been published regarding
the historical distribution of organic chemical
contaminants in sediment cores collected in
Chesapeake Bay [24, 161, 231]. From these
studies, the concentrations of organic chemical
contaminants such as DDT and its metabolites,
other chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, and polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons appear to have
increased over the years—particularly after 1920
to 1930. The maximum concentrations were
reached in the late 1970s.
Total polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon sedi-
ment concentrations measured in a sediment core
collected from the middle mainstem Bay also
illustrate recent declines [9]. The highest sedi-
ment concentrations occurred between the 1940s
and 1950s. From the late 1950s to the early
1980s, sediment concentrations decreased to
approximately one-third of the historical maxi-
mum (Figure 21). The near constant values after
1980 may be due to steady inputs of hydrocar-
bons to the Bay or, alternatively, biological and
physical mixing of the upper ten centimeters of
the sediment. Trace metal profiles, however, do
not reflect such mixing in the near surface sedi-
ment of this core.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Eskin at el. [76] synthesized multiple years of
Bay sediment contaminant data and provided an
estimate of probable biological significance of
observed sediment contaminant concentrations
79
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Metals Concentrations in Patapsco River Sediments
450
OS OC
1S 1C 1N
Stations
2S 2C
2N
OC ON
1S 1C 1N
Stations
2S 2C
1.4'
•ai.2-
§ H
i 0.8-
o
o
!0.6-
£•0.4-
fe 0.2-
OS OC ON
1S 1C 1N
Stations
2S 2C
2N
60-
"5>
•&50-
3
§ 40-
c
8 2°
O 10
OS OC ON
1S 1C 1N
Stations
2S 2C
2N
OS OC ON
1S 1C 1N
Stations
2S 2C
2N
2N
Figure 20. Patapsco River sediment metals concentrations for chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, and
zinc at stations sampled in 1973 (|) and 1991 (H ). Sources: Villa and Johnson 1974; Eskin et
al. 1994.
80
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Concentrations in
Middle Chesapeake Bay Sediment Cores
o
1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986
Year
140
1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986
Year
400
1931 1936 1941 1946 1951 1956 1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986
Year
Figure 21. Concentrations of three Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons - benzo[a]anthracene (A), benzo[a]pyrene (B), and fluoranthene (C) - in sediment cores collected
from the middle Chesapeake Bay mainstem. Each figure is displayed showing polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons concentrations with increasing depth into the sediment presented as the approximate year
that sediment was deposited on the bottom of the Bay. Sediments dated back to 1878 had concentrations
of benzo[a]anthracene (A), benzo[a]pyrene (B), and fluoranthene (C) of 1.6, 1.9, and 2.7 ng/g, respec-
tively. Source: Baker, unpublished data.
81
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Ranking of Sediment Contamination in Chesapeake Bay
Upper Chesapeake Bay
Upper Central Chesapeake Bay
Sassafras River
South River
Northeast River
Anacostia River
West Branch River
East Branch Elizabeth River
Patapsco River
Back River
Severn River
Magothy River
South Branch Elizabeth River
0
0 1
Low
Contamination
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sediment Contaminant Concentration Score High
Contamination
Figure 22. Distribution of sediment contaminant scores in Chesapeake Bay basin on the risk to aquatic
biota due to sediment contaminant concentrations. Source: Eskin et al. 1994.
using a ranking procedure. Stations or regions
were ranked according to the likelihood that the
average concentrations of sediment contaminants
at these locations would be associated with ad-
verse effects on aquatic organisms (Figure 22).
Based on this ranking and the data summarized
above, Eskin et al. [76] concluded:
• A few restricted areas of the Bay which are
heavily industrialized and/or urbanized—Bal-
timore Harbor, Back River, Anacostia River
and Elizabeth River—have sediment concen-
trations of many chemical contaminants con-
sidered high enough to likely result in adverse
effects on aquatic organisms. Estimates of
relative risk to aquatic organisms due to sedi-
ment contamination in these areas are much
higher than those for other areas of the Bay.
Areas in and near the heavily or rapidly grow-
ing areas in the northern and western shores
of the Chesapeake Bay have the next highest
estimated risk to aquatic organisms from sedi-
ment contamination.
Box 5. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay sediment contamination
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program Reports [110,113,114]
Chesapeake Bay Contaminated Sediment Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [48]
Chesapeake Bay Sediment Trace Elements [149]
Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay Sediments: 1984-1991 [76]
Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal and Estuarine Sediments [66]
NOAA National Status and Trends Reports [210,212,213,215,275]
State of the Chesapeake Bay - Second Annual Monitoring Report Compendium [180]
82
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• The lowest levels of risk to aquatic organisms
due to sediment contamination are found in
less populated, rural areas in the southern and
eastern portions of the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries, where data indicate sedi-
ment contaminant concentrations should not
result in adverse effects on aquatic organ-
isms.
• In most regions, sediment concentrations of
metals appear to pose greater risks to aquatic
organisms than do sediment concentrations
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Sedi-
ment concentrations of PCBs and pesticides
appear to pose an even lesser risk to aquatic
organisms outside of the areas with highly
contaminated sediments.
Other investigators have documented very local-
ized areas with elevated sediment contaminant
concentrations around point source discharges,
within marinas, or adjacent to military facility
beyond the four areas described above [67,101].
Results from past and recent sediment core
analyses and comparisons of 1991 sediment con-
taminant concentrations with measurements taken
in the late 1970s through the mid-1980s all point
towards declining sediment concentrations for
most metals, pesticides, and other organic chemi-
cal contaminants. These data reflect decreases in
the historical sources of chemical contaminants
to Bay sediments.
Effects on Bay
Resources
Ambient Effects
Although numerous types of toxicological
data exist, it is difficult to evaluate the extent of
chemical contaminant-related effects on the Bay' s
biota. Highly contaminated areas show these
most readily. Outside of urbanized and industri-
alized areas having severely contaminated
sediments, it is much more difficult to detect the
adverse effects that low levels of chemical con-
taminants may cause.
The difficulty associated with evaluating toxic
effects on biota is partly due to the problem of
determining what constitutes an adverse effect on
cells, individual organisms, or biological com-
munities. Additionally, establishing cause and
effect relationships is exceedingly difficult in
most cases. Whether chemicals are available to
organisms depends on the properties of the chemi-
cals themselves as well as the prevailing natural
and manmade conditions. These properties and
conditions include factors such as salinity, pH,
and temperature as well as the presence or ab-
sence of multiple chemical contaminants, disease
organisms, or such direct anthropogenic impacts
as fishing mortality and habitat loss. Ecological
processes such as predation and competition also
influence the magnitude of effects.
Changes in the population and community,
such as population declines and shifts in species
dominance, may result from exposure to chemi-
cal contaminants [260, 262, 263]. Assessing
these types of changes is fundamentally difficult
as linkages between exposure and population
effects may be difficult, if not impossible, to
document clearly.
Nonetheless, using several approaches, sci-
entists have shown that chemical contaminants in
Chesapeake Bay waters and bottom sediments
cause adverse effects on organisms in some lo-
cations. The majority of this work has focused
on a few areas in which large concentrations of
human and industrial activity have caused high
chemicals loadings and accumulations. Separate
studies have documented toxicity outside of these
few severely contaminated areas. Findings re-
ported below and summarized in Table 43 are
from a comprehensive review article by Wright
and colleagues [338] and from the first three
years of the Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity
Assessment Program [110, 113, 114].
83
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43. Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Upper 1985
Chesapeake Bay
Upper 1989
Chesapeake Bay
Middle River 1992-1993
Patapsco River 1990
Patapsco River 1991
Patapsco River 1992
Potomac River, 1986-87
Anacostia River
Striped bass yolk sac larvae and yearlings survival was Hall 1985,
evaluated at three natural spawning habitats using in-situ test Hall et al. 1987a
chambers. Three Chesapeake and Delaware Canal sites were
evaluated. After 96 hours of exposure to Chesapeake and Dela-
ware Canal habitat water (two experiments) the cumulative percent
survival for larvae ranged from 42-59.5%. Although all yearlings
survived 10 days of exposure, some sublethal effects were seen:
gills showed telangiec tases and reduced vacuolization of hepato-
cytes.
In-situ studies were conducted at sites in the upper Hall et al. 1991 b,
Chesapeake Bay on prolarval (one 96 hour test) and yearling (one Hall et al. 1992b
14 day test and one 27 day test) striped bass. Upper Chesapeake
Bay prolarval survival ranged from 6-52%; control survival was
>77%. Yearling survival ranged from 10-35%; control survival was
100%. Potentially toxic concentrations of some metals (cadmium,
chromium, and copper) were observed in the upper Chesapeake
Bay.
Significantly reduced shell development for the coot clam (Mulinia Hall et al. 1994
lateralis) reported upon exposure to ambient waters.
Significant reductions in survival of grass shrimp (Palaemonetes Hall et al. 1991
pugio) reported upon exposure to ambient water. Survival of am-
phipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus) and polychaete worms
(Streblospio benedict!) were significantly reduced upon exposure
to ambient sediments. The amphipods also showed significant
reductions in the ability to rebury after a 20 day exposure to the
ambient sediments.
Significant reductions in survival and growth of two species of am- Hall et al. 1992
phipods (Hyallela azteca, Lepidactylus dytiscus) reported upon
exposure to ambient sediments. Decreased rates of reburial and
high numbers of organisms emerging from the sediment or swim-
ming in the overlying waters, indicating an avoidance response,
were observed in the ambient sediment toxicity test chambers.
The amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus was used to test the spa- Pinkney and
tial extent and variability of sediment toxicity at sites within the Rzemien 1993
Patapsco River; sediment from the Choptank River served as a
control. Sediments from the Bear Creek area were found to be
toxic (100% mortality observed on several occasions). Other test
sites and control sites had at least 80% survival.
During 1986 and 1987 studies of chlordane and PCB Block 1990
levels in fish tissue with the District of Columbia, fish collected from
some sites (lower Anacostia and Potomac rivers) had high inci-
dences of gross lesions.
84
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Potomac River 1986
Potomac River 1989
Potomac River 1990
Potomac River 1991
Anacostia River 1986
The survival of striped bass prolarvae and yearlings was evaluated Hall et al. 1986b,
for 96 hours and 7 days, respectively, in-situ at three Potomac Hall et al. 1987e
River locations; water quality analyses were conducted concur-
rently. Survival of prolarvae and yearlings was significantly
reduced: 4.5-22.5% for prolarvae (control survival was >81%) and
0-77% for yearlings (control survival was 100%). Histological
evaluations of yearlings showed adverse changes in kidneys. Fac-
tors contributing to prolarvae mortality were inorganic
contaminants (monomeric aluminum, cadmium, and copper) and
sudden low temperature. High pH from a point source and possibly
inorganic contaminants were responsible for yearling mortality.
During the 1989 striped bass spawning season, in-situ prolarval Hall et al. 1991 b,
(three 96 hour tests) and yearling (one 27 day test) studies were Hall et al. 1992b
conducted at three stations in the Potomac River. Prolarval sur-
vival in the Potomac ranged from 3-33%, control was >83%,
possible die to low water temperatures. Yearling survival in the
Potomac ranged from 5% (Maryland site), 80% (middle river site),
30% (Virginia site); control survival was 100%. Low survival was
possibly due to elevated levels of chromium (29 ug/l) and arsenic
(12 ug/l). Histological and hematological examinations revealed
that the Potomac River yearlings had pathology possibly associ-
ated with water-borne contaminants.
Significant reductions in survival of Ceriodaphnia dubia and sheep- Hall et al. 1991
shead minnow larvae (Cyprinodon variegatus) reported upon
exposure to ambient waters. Significant reductions in the survival
of amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus) and growth of grass shrimp
(Palaemonetes pugio) reported upon exposure to ambient sedi-
ments.
Significant reductions in survival of larval sheepshead minnow Hall et al. 1992
(Cyprinodon variegatus) reported upon exposure to ambient wa-
ters. Significant reductions in the survival of amphipods (Hyalella
azteca) and polychaete worms (Streblospio benedict!) and survival
and growth of amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus) upon exposure to
ambient sediments.
Corbicula collected from the Potomac River (at Rosier Bluff) and Phelps 1987
placed in trays of sediment collected at either the Anacostia River
(Navy Yard) or the Potomac River (Rosier Bluff). One of each tray
(Anacostia and Potomac) of sediment and clams was placed in the
Anacostia and Potomac rivers for approximately four months. Go-
nadal tissue and egg measurements were conducted; eggs from
all sediment trays developed normally. However, clams on Ana-
costia sediment had 1/3 the total egg mass. Clams 4-8 mm in
length were absent in the trays placed in the Anacostia River, sug-
gesting clam larvae mortality possibly due to toxics in water or
sediment.
85
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Anacostia River 1987
Anacostia River 1989
Anacostia River 1991
Elizabeth River 1982
Elizabeth River 1983
Elizabeth River 1983
Sediment samples from the Anacostia River's Kenilworth Marsh
were collected and examined for possible toxicity to the growth
and reproduction of Corbicula. Clams were placed in trays filled
with Kenilworth Marsh sediment and then placed in the Potomac
River for 4.5 months. Positive control trays (Potomac River sedi-
ment) and negative control trays (Navy yard sediment —
Anacostia River) were also placed in the Potomac River.
Kenilworth Marsh sediment showed no toxicity; Potomac River
sediment was unexpectedly toxic to clam reproduction. In four day
sediment bioassay testing, clam larvae in Kenilworth Marsh sedi-
ment, Potomac River (at Wilson Bridge) sediment, and Anacostia
River (Navy Yard) sediment had 14%, 17%, and 70% mortality
respectively.
Sediment samples were collected from ten Anacostia River sites to
determine toxicity to Corbicula larvae. After 96 hours, significant
mortalities were observed for individuals exposed to sediment from
Fredrick Douglas Bridge (west) and May Yard (west) areas. Inter-
mediate toxicity was observed on individuals exposed to sediment
from Pennsylvania Avenue bridge and Benning Road (west).
Sediment samples from the Anacostia River (Navy Yard pier) and
control sediment samples from the Potomac River (Fort Foote)
were collected to determine if Anacostia River sediment toxicity
was correlated with ammonia or sediment contamination. Twenty
to thirty Corbicula larvae (from clams collected from the Potomac
River) were placed on the sediment for 96 hours. In order to re-
lease ammonia, the pH was raised to 9, resulting in high Corbicula
mortality (98%) in Navy Yard sediment. It is unknown whether high
mortality was due to increased ammonia levels or the pH increase.
Ware River spot were placed in experimental flowthrough tanks; a)
one contained sediments from the Elizabeth River contaminated
with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and b) the other
contained uncontaminated control sediment from the York River.
Within 8 days, spot in the experimental tank (Elizabeth River sedi-
ments) developed integumental lesions, fin and gill erosion, and
reduced hematocrits with some individuals developing pancreatic
and liver alterations; control fish exhibited no effects.
Macrophage phagocytosis was found to be reduced in spot and
hogchoker collected from regions of the Elizabeth River contami-
nated with PAHs.
Oysters from the Rappahannock River were transplanted to five
sites on the Elizabeth River (26 oysters per site). Twelve oysters
were periodically removed from each site for PAHs analysis; PAHs
uptake was rapid, indicating bioavailability. Sediment and fish
samples were also collected; fish showed gross abnormalities co-
incident with PAHs in sediment.
Phelps and Clark
1988
Phelps 1993
Phelps 1991
Hargisetal. 1984
Weeks etal. 1986
Huggetetal. 1987
86
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Elizabeth River 1983
Elizabeth River 1983-84
Elizabeth River 1983-84
Elizabeth River 1984
Elizabeth River 1985
Elizabeth River 1988
Hogchokers and toadfishes collected from areas of the Eliza-
beth River contaminated with PAHs were found to have fin
erosion; cataracts were observed in spot, croaker, and weak-
fish collected from the same area. Frequency of effects was
coincident with contamination. Oysters collected from a clean
system were transplanted to the Elizabeth River to evaluate
the effects of PAH-contaminated sediment. After nine weeks,
tissue residues as high as 60 ug/g were observed in oysters
transplanted to the most contaminated sites.
When experimentally exposed to effluents from sediments
contaminated with PAHs, spot developed lens cataracts, fin
rot, and skin ulcerations. Fish (spot, weakfish, Atlantic
croaker) collected from contaminated sites had cataracts,
some had fin rot. The highest evidence was coincident with
heavy PAH contamination.
Mummichog collected from an area of the Elizabeth River
contaminated with PAHs were found to have a high incidence
of idiopathic hepatic lesions. In 93% of the collected fish
grossly visible hepatic lesions were present; 33% had hepato-
cellular carcinomas. Fish collected from two reference sites
did not have hepatic lesions.
Spot and hogchoker collected from regions of the Elizabeth
River heavily contaminated with PAHs were found to have
reduced macrophage phagocytosis. When the fish were held
in clean water, macrophage phagocytic activity returned to
normal.
Young of the year spot collected from an areas of the Eliza-
beth River contaminated with PAHs were found to have
higher levels of the substrate-inducible enzymes aryl hydro-
carbon hydroxylase (AHH) and superoxide dismutase (SOD)
when compared to fish from reference sites. Increases in
SOD are the result of increases in toxic oxidation products,
like those involved in the metabolism of PAHs by AHH.
Preliminary findings of a study suggest that spot and
hogchoker responses to exposure to PAH contaminated sedi-
ment (either invivo or invitro) resulted in distinct suppression
of luminol-dependent chemiiuminescence (used to measure
macrophage response) suggesting that macrophages were
reduced.
Bender etal. 1988
Hargis and Zwerne
1988a,b
Vogelbein et al. 1990
Weeks and Warriner 1984
Roberts etal. 1987
Warriner etal. 1988
87
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Elizabeth River 1989
Elizabeth River 1989
Elizabeth River 1990
Elizabeth River 1990
Wye River
Wye River
Wye River
1990
1991
1992-1993
Fish exposed to 100 percent Elizabeth River sediment (con-
taminated with PAHs) were dead in two hours. LT^, (lethal
time) was determined to be 57 minutes. A series of 24 hour
LCg values were determined for various percentages of con-
taminated Elizabeth River (ER) sediments mixed with
uncontaminated "clear" sediments: 56% ER sediment, 24
hours; 51% ER sediment, 7 days; 16% ER sediment, 12
days; 2.9% ER sediment, 21 days; and 2.5% ER sediment,
28 days.
Intestines and liver microsomes of spot collected from the
Elizabeth River sites contaminated with PAHs were found to
have elevated levels of the enzymes cytochrome P-450 and
ethoxyresorfin o-deethylase (EROD) when compared to refer-
ence sites. The fate and effects of PAHs in aquatic
organisms are controlled by various xenobiotic metabolizing
enzymes, including cytochrome P-450.
Mummichog collected from an area of the Elizabeth River
contaminated with PAHs were found to have a high incidence
of idiopathic hepatic lesions.
Significant reductions in survival reported for the copepod
Etytemora affinis and grass shrimp upon exposure to ambient
water. All test of ambient sediment toxicity exhibited 100 per-
cent mortality within the first 10 days of exposure for all test
species - grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) potychaete
worm (Streblospio benedict!) and amphipod (Lepidactylus
dytiscus).
Significant reductions in both survival and growth and survival
reported for amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus) and polycha-
ete worms (Streblospio benedict!), respectively, upon
exposure to ambient sediments.
Significant reductions in survival for the copepod Erytemora
affinis reported upon exposure to ambient waters. Significant
reductions in survival of polychaete worms (Streblospio
benedict!} upon exposure to ambient sediments.
Significant reductions in survival of the copepod Erytemora
affinis reported upon exposure to ambient waters. Exposure
to ambient sediments produced reduced survival in the am-
phipod Lepidactylus dytiscus and reduced growth in the
amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus.
Roberts etal. 1989
Van Veld etal. 1990
Gassner etal. 1990
Hall et at. 1991
Hall etal. 1991 a
Hall etal. 1992c
Hall etal. 1994b
88
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 43 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay ambient effects findings.
REGION
YEARS OBSERVED EFFECTS
SOURCES
Nanticoke River 1984
Nanticoke River 1992
Chesapeake Bay 1982-84
Tributaries
Striped bass larvae (one day old) placed in environmental test Hall 1984,
chambers were exposed to the Nanticoke River for 96 hours Hall et al. 1985
in in-situ experiments to determine whether contaminants in
the river inhibited early life stage survival; three locations,
representing 8.8 kilometers of spawning habitat were tested.
Water quality measurements were made at each site. After 96
hours of exposure to the Nanticoke River, striped bass larvae
survival was less than 10%; control was >75%. Dissolved
aluminum levels were elevated (mean concentration was 0.12
mg/L in filtered samples with a concentration range of 0.039-
0.181 mg/l). At low pH (6.0-6.8), elevated aluminum
concentration and salinity were factors influencing mortality.
A pattern of reduced survival upon exposure to ambient sedi- Hall et al. 1994b
ments reported in the amphipods (Lepidactylus dytiscus and
Leptocheirus plumulosus) and polychaete worms (Streblospio
benedict!) tested.
White perch adults were collected from fifteen Chesapeake May et al. 1987
Bay estuarine tributaries to determine incidence of liver
neoplasion. Neoplasms were found in the livers, exhibiting a
variety of inflammatory, hyperplastic and putative
preneoplastic lesions of bile ductular and hepatocellular ori-
gin. Chronic pericholangitus was the most prevalent
inflammatory lesion noted.
89
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Sediment Toxicity in Chesapeake Bay
Figure 23. Sites in Chesapeake Bay where ambient sediment toxicity has been observed (•) to be
statistically different from control sediment toxicity tests. Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993d;
Hall et al. 1991 a, 1992c; Velinsky et al. 1992; Weisberg et al. 1992.
90
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
These findings are based on studies often
conducted at individual sites or groups of sites
within much larger tidal tributaries and regions
of the mainstem Bay. The adverse effects attrib-
uted to the presence of chemical contaminants
may also be the result of other adverse environ-
mental conditions present during the study—low
pH, rapid temperature shifts, low dissolved oxy-
gen, orelevated sediment ammonia concentrations.
WATER COLUMN EFFECTS
Ambient water column conditions toxic to
vertebrates (e.g., finfish larvae) and invertebrates
(e.g., clams, copepods, grass shrimp, and daphnids)
have been documented in the Elizabeth, Patap-
sco, Wye, and Potomac rivers [110, 113, 114,
139, 284]. During in situ ambient toxicity tests,
striped bass larvae and juveniles exposed to
Potomac river water and larvae exposed to Chop-
tank and Nanticoke river water suffered extremely
high mortality. In some rivers such as the Nan-
ticoke and Choptank, this mortality has been
attributed to a combination of low pH and high
metal concentrations [77,78,102,103,123,124,
200,201,242] (Table 43). In the Potomac River—
a more buffered system—the mortality of young
larvae is more likely attributable to metals and
sudden decreases in temperature [126,127,200].
Rivers whose watersheds are predominantly within
the Coastal Plain tend to be especially susceptible
to acid conditions.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY EFFECTS
Data on sediment toxicity in Chesapeake Bay
are very limited with most of the recent data
generated by the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program, Mary-
land Department of the Environment field studies,
and the EPA Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program. Other limited sediment
toxicity data are available for specific studies or
sites.
Sediment toxicity has been well documented
in various locations in the Elizabeth [2,3,23,114,
160, 192, 254], Patapsco [113, 114, 192, 242,
290], and Anacostia [232, 233, 237, 307] rivers
(Table 43; Figure 23). Sediment toxicity also has
been documented in the Potomac [113,114,192],
Pocomoke [324], Nanticoke [110], and Wye [110,
113, 114] rivers. Sediment toxicity in these
systems, which were generally considered
unimpacted by chemical contaminants, raises
concerns about other regions of the Bay generally
not considered to be areas with toxics problems.
Since much of the sediment toxicity data
reported for the Bay is based on mortality as an
endpoint, very little is known about the potential
chronic effects (on growth and reproduction) of
sediment contamination in Chesapeake Bay. Short-
term laboratory toxicity testing provides limited
information on the long-term effects of exposure
to lower levels of sediment contamination.
HISTOPA THOLOGICAL/
SUBORGANISMAL EFFECTS
Numerous studies have shown evidence of
adverse effects in organisms inhabiting the Eliza-
beth, Patapsco, and Anacostia rivers (Table 43).
Effects include compromised immune systems
[318,319, 320], induced enzyme systems related
to chemical exposure [114, 305], histological
abnormalities such as liver tumors, gill pathol-
ogy, cataracts, and lesions on the kidney and the
skin, reduced respiratory and osmoregulatory
ability, and mortality [2,3,23,46,117,118,123,
124,126,127,133,134,136,160,237,254,288,
314].
Box 6. Sources of further information on Chesapeake Bay ambient toxicity effects
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Program Reports [110,113,114]
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessments Workshop [170]
Chesapeake Bay Striped Bass Contaminant Studies [77,78,102,103,105,106,107,111,112,115,117,118,123,124,126,127]
Low-Level Effects of Toxic Chemicals on Chesapeake Bay Organisms [338]
91
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Still other studies have documented similar
effects in areas not necessarily having elevated
concentrations of chemical contaminants and in
some areas previously thought uncontaminated
(Table 43). For example, one study has shown
that water from the Rappahannock River had
genotoxic effects on the American oyster [208].
Menhaden with severe skin ulcers have been
sampled in the Rappahannock, as well as the
York, and James rivers and the mainstem Bay
[135]. Other areas where liver pathology indi-
cates adverse effects in fish include the Choptank,
Potomac, Susquehanna, Back, and Severn rivers
and the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal [35,
117, 118, 123, 124, 126, 127, 198]. Similarly,
adverse effects on fish gills have been docu-
mented in striped bass yearlings from the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal and the Nanse-
mond, Choptank, Potomac, Susquehanna, Elk,
and Sassafras rivers [126, 127, 133, 134, 138].
Kidney lesions developed in striped bass exposed
to Potomac River water [126, 127].
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Adverse impacts on aquatic organisms have
been observed in a variety of Bay habitats.
Observation of these adverse ambient effects in
Bay habitats such as the Nansemond, Elk, Sas-
safras, and Wye rivers, generally considered to be
unimpacted by chemical contaminants, raises
concerns about other regions of the Bay generally
not regarded as toxic problem areas. The pres-
ence of potentially toxic chemicals in these areas
suggests that the combined effects of multiple
chemical contaminants may be a factor in causing
the observed effects—death, reduced growth and
reproduction, tumors. Outside of the highly
chemically contaminated areas of the Bay, how-
ever, it is not known if these adverse effects are
caused by chemical contaminants or by other
environmental conditions not related to chemical
contamination.
Finfish and Shellfish
Tissue Contamination
A Chesapeake Bay Contaminated Finfish and
Shellfish Critical Issue Forum sponsored by the
Toxics Subcommittee was held in March 1993 as
part the reevaluation of the basinwide strategy
[46]. The critical issue forum was structured to
reach a technical consensus on: 1) the relative
magnitude (concentration) and extent (geographi-
cal distribution) of finfish and shellfish tissue
contamination within Chesapeake B ay and within
the Chesapeake Bay basin; 2) determination of
impacts (i.e., bioaccumulation, toxicity) on the
Chesapeake Bay system on either a basinwide,
bay wide, regional, or local scale; and 3) compari-
son of the magnitude and extent of Bay finfish
and shellfish tissue contamination with other sys-
tems. The findings from the critical issue forum
are summarized here.
The majority of available fish tissue data are
based on analysis of the edible portion of the fish;
these data were generally collected to ensure that
tissue concentrations are safe for human con-
sumption. Whole fish data and NOAA National
Status and Trends Program fish liver concentra-
tion data, however, also give a general indication
of concentrations in other fish tissues. The rela-
tionship between whole fish tissue concentrations
or liver concentrations and the health of the fish
is not known. All three types of tissue data—
edible portion, whole fish, and liver—are valuable
in determining trends of chemical concentrations
if the data are collected routinely over a sufficient
time period.
FINFISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
From 1984 to 1987, croaker and spot liver
concentrations of chlordane, PCBs, dieldrin, and
92
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
total DDT concentrations in the Chesapeake Bay
were elevated above the national average and the
national median for these species at NOAA
National Status and Trends Program stations [46].
During the same period, trace metal results showed
that chromium, arsenic, lead, and mercury were
generally high in croaker livers and that chro-
mium, silver, lead, nickel, copper, and tin were
occasionally high in some of the spot livers com-
pared to the national average.
New York
There are no finfish consumption advisories
in the New York portion of the Chesapeake Bay
basin (Table 44; Figure 23).
Pennsylvania
Available data indicate elevated contaminant
concentrations in finfish tissue are limited to
three stream and river reaches within the Susque-
hanna River basin. Finfish consumption bans and
advisories are in effect due to PCBs, mirex, or
dioxin (Table 44; Figure 24). Smallmouth bass
fillet data presented for the Susquehanna River
mainstem from 1984 to 1988 showed data values
were <0.20 ppm for PCBs, <0.05 ppm for chlo-
rdane, and <0.05 ppm for DDT. Data for the
Potomac River basin in Pennsylvania (4 species
at 4 stations) for 1989 and 1991 showed all
collected fish samples had tissue concentrations
<0.25 ppm for PCBs, <0.005 ppm - <0.02 ppm
for chlordane, and <0.01 - 0.22 ppm for DDT
[46]. All these measured concentrations fall well
below levels established for protection of human
health.
Maryland
Several finfish consumption advisories are
presently in effect in Maryland within the Chesa-
peake Bay basin (Table 44; Figure 24). These
advisories focus on the consumption of eels, carp,
catfish, and black crappie due to chlordane con-
tamination.
During the 1990 sampling and analysis of
finfish tissue at Maryland's Chesapeake Bay tidal
stations, measurable concentrations of mercury,
PCBs, chlordane, cadmium, and nickel were
observed [46]. Dieldrin was detected in only
three samples (whole body).
Mercury concentrations were low with little
variation in samples from all sub-basins sampled
for finfish tissue in 1990: the Potomac, Patuxent,
West Chesapeake, Patapsco, Gunpowder, Bush,
Sassafras, Chester, Choptank, Nanticoke, and
Pocomoke rivers (Figure 25). Among the areas
sampled, the Patapsco River station had the high-
est concentrations of PCBs and chlordane.
Although lower than the Patapsco concentra-
tions, PCBs were present in white perch from
urban watersheds (Bush, Gunpowder, West Chesa-
peake, and Potomac) at concentrations greater
than the more rural watersheds (Patuxent, Nan-
ticoke, Choptank, and Chester). One exception
to this trend was exhibited by the channel catfish
data which included elevated concentrations at
the Sassafras River station. Chlordane concen-
trations in white perch from the Choptank, Chester,
Gunpowder, Patuxent, and Potomac rivers were
less than one third of those in the Patapsco River
and were non-detectable in white perch collected
from the Nanticoke, Bush, and West Chesapeake
sub-basins (Figure 25).
Among the stations sampled, cadmium con-
centrations were highest in the channel catfish
collected from the Sassafras River station. Cad-
mium was not detected in finfish tissue samples
from the Patapsco and Pocomoke rivers. Con-
centrations in finfish tissue samples from the
other sub-basins—the Potomac, Patuxent, West
Chesapeake, Gunpowder, Bush, Chester, Chop-
tank, and Nanticoke—were detectable, but fell
below those at the Sassafras River station. Nickel
concentrations varied among the areas sampled,
with below detection limit concentrations ob-
served in the Patapsco, West Chesapeake, and
Pocomoke sub-basins and the highest concentra-
tions at the Chester, Bush, and Patuxent river
93
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 44. Chesapeake Bay basin finfish and shellfish consumption bans and advisories.
New York
No consumption bans or advisories in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Pennsylvania
1. Susquehanna River (mouth of Lackawannna River at Pittstown to the Village of Humlock Creek) — PCBs advisory
on consumption of suckers and carp.
2. Spring Creek — ban on fishing because of mirex contamination.
3. Codurous Creek and Little Codurous Creek — dioxin advisory on consumption of green sunfish.
Maryland
4. Back River — chlordane advisory on consumption of eels, carp, and catfish.
5. Baltimore Harbor — chlordane advisory on consumption of eels, carp, and catfish.
6. Lake Roland — chlordane advisory on consumption of black crappie and carp.
District of Columbia
7. Anacostia River — chlordane and PCBs advisory on consumption of catfish, carp, and eels.
8. Potomac River — chlordane and PCBs advisory on consumption of catfish, carp, and eels.
Delaware
No consumption bans or advisories in the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Virginia
9. Elizabeth River — shellfish taking prohibited.
10. Layfayette River — shellfish taking prohibited.
11. Little Creek — shellfish consumption restrictions.
12. James River (tidal river and its tributaries) — kepone advisory.
13. Jackson River and upper James River — dioxin advisory on consumption of fish.
14. South Fork Shenandoah River and South River — mercury advisory on consumption of fish.
15. South Fork Shenandoah River, North Fork Shenandoah River, and Shenandoah River — PCBs advisory on
consumption of fish.
West Virginia
16. Shenandoah River — PCB advisory on consumption of carp, channel catfish, and suckers.
Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993b; U.S. EPA 1994c.
94
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Finfish and Shellfish Consumption Bans and Restrictions
in the Chesapeake Bay Basin
Figure 24. General location of the finfish and shellfish consumption bans and advisories within the
Chesapeake Bay basin. The numbers refer to specific streams, lakes, and rivers listed in Table 44.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993b.
95
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Concentrations of Mercury, Chlordane, and PCBs
in White Perch - 1990
Bush Gunpowder Patapsco West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nanticoke
River River River Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 25. Concentrations of mercury (I), chlordane (^), and PCBs (^) in white perch fillet tissue
collected in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay in 1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy,
Severn, South, West, Rhode rivers and mainstem Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Source: Maryland
Department of the Environment, unpublished data (d).
stations. Concentration of aldrin, alpha-BHC,
chromium, dacthal, DDD, DDE, DDT, endosul-
fan, endrin, gamma-BHC, heptachlor, heptachlor
epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, methoxychlor, and
mirex were not detected in any of the 1990 samples.
Tissue contaminant concentrations for three
size classes of striped bass (<18 inches, 18-24
inches, and 24-33 inches) collected from the
Potomac River in 1986, 1988, and 1991 showed
declines overtime [46]. Tissue concentrations of
mercury showed a statistically significant decline
in the largest size class (24-33 inches) from 1986
to 1991. Arsenic, cadmium, and lead also exhib-
ited decreasing concentrations for that time period
in some of the three size classes. Tissue concen-
trations of chlordane have decreased in all three
size classes with the most notable decline in the
largest size class. A decrease in PCB concentra-
tions occurred 1988 to 1991 (the only two years
for which PCB data were available). Concentra-
tions of zinc and copper, for which the sources
may be natural as well as anthropogenic, appear
to have increased slightly from 1986 to 1991. All
of these measured concentrations are not of con-
cern as they fall well below levels established for
the protection of human health.
District of Columbia
Based on findings from the District of
Columbia's Finfish Tissue Contaminant Moni-
toring Program and other surveys within the
district's waters, the major finfish tissue contami-
nants are PCBs and chlordane [46]. Concentrations
of PCBs are generally near U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) action levels if whole fish
are analyzed; the fillets contain PCB concentra-
tions that are usually below FDA action levels.
Finfish consumption advisories are presently in
effect for the District of Columbia's portions of
96
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
the Potomac and Anacostia rivers (Table 44;
Figure 24).
Chlordane concentrations were high in sun-
fish in the upper and lower Anacostia River in
1986. Chlordane levels appeared to be lower in
1988 but comparisons are difficult because of the
inconsistent laboratory methods used for finfish
tissue analyses. In catfish, concentrations were
high in 1986 for all three sites; the upper and
lower Anacostia River concentrations approached
2.0 ppm. Data for the lower (1987) and upper
(1988) Anacostia River showed elevated concen-
trations of chlordane in catfish.
ForPCBs in sunfish, 1986 whole fish concen-
trations were all above the FDA action level of
2.0 ppm. The lower Anacostia River had PCB
tissue concentrations approaching 6 ppm. High
concentrations of PCBs also occurred in 1987 and
1988 although the upper Anacostia River tissue
concentrations were lower.
Dieldrin concentrations for channel catfish
tissue were above 0.05 ppm in the lower Anacos-
tia River but below the FDA action level of 0.3
ppm. Tissue concentrations of DDT were also
high at sampling sites in the Potomac and lower
Anacostia rivers, reaching 0.5 ppm in channel
catfish.
Delaware
In whole body samples of Nanticoke River
and Broad Creek finfish, traces of cadmium,
chromium, copper, DDT metabolites, dieldrin,
mercury, and zinc have been detected but at levels
well below those established for the protection of
human health [46]. Concentrations of aldrin,
alpha-BHC, aluminum, arsenic, beta-BHC, chlo-
rdane, ODD, DDE, DDT, delta-BHC, diazinon,
dieldrin, endosulfan I and II, endosulfan sulfate,
endrin, endrin aldehyde, gamma-BHC, heptachlor,
heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene, lead,
methoxychlor, methyl parathion, nickel, PCBs
(aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,
1260), selenium, silver, and toxaphene were not
detected. In the edible portion of the fish, DDE
was detected in all three samples from Broad
Creek, whereas concentrations of ODD, DDT,
dieldrin, and PCBs were not detected. There are
no finfish consumption advisories in the Dela-
ware portion of the Chesapeake Bay basin (Table
44; Figure 24)
Virginia
Several fish consumption bans and advisories
are currently in effect in Virginia within the Bay
basin (Table 44; Figure 24). Beyond these areas,
recent sampling by the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality has indicated elevated
concentrations of arsenic (Rappahannock, York,
and James rivers), copper (Potomac River), and
lead (York and James rivers) in finfish tissue
[46].
West Virginia
Within West Virginia's portion of the Bay
basin, there is a finfish consumption advisory for
PCB contamination in the Shenandoah River.
The advisory recommends restricting the con-
sumption of channel catfish, suckers, and carp
(Table 44; Figure 24).
Comparison of Bay Finfish Tissue Concen-
trations with Nationwide Data
Figure 26 compares concentrations of chlo-
rdane, mercury, PCBs, and toxaphene in finfish
tissue from problematic areas of the Chesapeake
Bay basin with concentrations in finfish tissue
from areas across the country considered con-
taminated. The comparison of Chesapeake Bay
finfish tissue concentrations of chlordane indi-
cates that the Back and Anacostia rivers (where
consumption advisories are in place) have con-
centrations substantially elevated over
Susquehanna River concentrations (Figure 26).
Chlordane tissue concentrations, however, are
higher in known contaminant problem areas else-
where in the country—Camden, New Jersey where
eels had chlordane tissue concentrations in ex-
cess of 0.6 ppm and Missouri where chlordane
tissue concentrations in catfish exceeded 0.4 ppm.
97
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
With the exception of a reach of the Shenan-
doah River where an advisory is in place, mercury
tissue concentrations throughout the Chesapeake
Bay basin (generally <0.1 ppm) are well below
those at national areas with known contamination
problems such as lakes in Florida where large-
mouth bass had mercury tissue concentrations
exceeding 0.8 ppm and Michigan lakes where
mercury tissue concentrations in largemouth bass
were near 1 ppm (Figure 26).
For PCBs in finfish fillets, comparisons were
made among carp from Lake Michigan, striped
bass from New York Harbor, eel from Camden,
New Jersey, lobster from Boston, striped bass
from the lower Potomac River, sunfish from the
Shenandoah River, and catfish from the District
of Columbia portion of the Potomac River (Fig-
ure 26). Lake Michigan carp had the highest
concentrations (4-5 ppm) followed by eel from
Camden, New Jersey (2 ppm). Striped bass from
Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay Fish Tissue Concentrations
with Sites Across the Country
Chlordane
0.7
0.6-
f-
I M1
§ 0.3-
g 0.2-
p
0.1-
0
Camden, Missouri Susquehanna Back
New Jersey River River
PCBs
District of
Columbia
Carp
Striped
Bass
Carp
Striped
Bass
ED
Lake New York Camden, Boston, Potomac Shenandoah Potomac
Michigan Harbor New Jersey Mass. River River River, D.C.
f
2.4
2.2-
2-
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
1-
0.8-
0.6-
0.4-
0.2-
0
!
1.6
1.4
1.2-
1-
g 0-8'
O 0.6-
| 0.4-
0.2-
0
Mercury
Largemouth
Bass
Largemouth
Bass
Striped
Michigan
Lakes
Maryland
Reservoirs
Toxaphene
Shenandoah
River, Virginia
Lake Trout
1987-89
Lake Michigan Man/land
Virginia
Pennsylvania
District
of Columbia
Figure 26. Comparisons of Chesapeake Bay finfish fillet tissue concentrations with other areas of the
nation with known, elevated fillet tissue concentrations for chlordane, mercury, PCBs, and toxaphene.
ND = none detected. Sources: Chesapeake Bay Program 1993b; Collier Personal Communication;
Czarneski 1989; Frey Personal Communication; Gregory Personal Communication; Hand and Friedemann
1990; Hauge et al. 1990; Michigan Department of Natural Resources 1990; Murphy Personal Commu-
nication; Schwartz et al. 1991; Sloan et al. 1991.
98
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
the lower Potomac River had the lowest PCB
tissue concentrations.
As there are no specific areas with elevated
finfish tissue concentrations of toxaphene in the
Chesapeake Bay basin, toxaphene concentrations
in lake trout fillets from Lake Michigan (1987 to
1988) were compared to the most recent tissue
data for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District
of Columbia finfish. All 1990 data for Maryland
were below detection limits, as were the data for
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Co-
lumbia (Figure 26).
SHELLFISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Compared to the national data (polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons concentrations in Boston
Harbor and Puget Sound and DDT concentra-
tions in the Gulf of Mexico and Southern California)
concentrations in Chesapeake Bay oyster tissue
are relatively low [46]. The 1990 NOAA Na-
tional Status and Trends Program oyster tissue
data for Chesapeake Bay do, however, show
some significant patterns when compared to
national average and median concentrations.
Tissue concentrations of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons were highest in the upper main-
stem Bay at the mouth of the Patapsco River and
in the Elizabeth River. Total PCBs and total DDT
concentrations were highest at the northern (up-
per mainstem Bay) and southern (James River)
Bay stations. Chlordane tissue concentrations
were highest at the northern Bay stations. Total
butyltin tissue concentrations were highest at the
northern Bay and James River stations. Lead
tissue concentrations were low compared with
the national median concentration. Nickel tissue
concentrations were high at all Chesapeake Bay
stations, especially the northern Bay stations,
compared with the national median concentra-
tion. Cadmium tissue concentrations were also
high at stations near the Patapsco River and
within Baltimore Harbor, compared with the
national median concentration. Mercury tissue
concentrations were lower than the national median
concentration at all the Chesapeake Bay stations.
Arsenic tissue concentrations clustered around
the national median concentration.
Some trends become apparent in comparing
the 1989 NOAA National Status and Trends
shellfish data with the EPA Mussel Watch Pro-
gram data of the 1970s. Both programs sampled
at three of the same common sites. According to
Lauenstein et al. [172], there was statistical de-
crease in zinc concentrations at all stations except
one on the lower Virginia Eastern Shore where
an increase could have been associated with marina
construction.
Using only NOAA National Status and Trends
Mussel Watch Project data, other trends are vis-
ible between 1986 and 1991. Concentrations of
chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, and PCBs have de-
clined consistently over time. The region adjacent
to the Patapsco River mouth showed an increase
in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from 1988
to 1989, perhaps tied to a local spill. There have
been both decreases and increases in tissue con-
centrations since 1986 for most metals. Silver
tissue concentrations decreased until 1988, at
which time a statistically significant increase
occurred. Chromium tissue concentrations fol-
lowed the same pattern. A pattern of a decrease
followed by an increasing trend occurred at the
northern Bay sites for copper tissue concentra-
tions. Since the same temporal pattern was
documented at NOAA stations along the East
Coast north to Long Island Sound, it could be
correlated to a climatic or natural change along
the Atlantic coast.
Maryland
Over nearly two decades of data, declines
have been recorded in oyster tissue concentra-
tions of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, zinc, and
chlordane in the Maryland portion of the Chesa-
peake Bay (Figures 27-31). Significant declines
99
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Arsenic Concentration Trends
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Chester River
0.8
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
*
.a 0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
I
0.8
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Pocomoke River
87 88 89 90
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1990 Concentrations
I
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
87 88 89 90
Chesapeake Wast Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nantfcoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 27. Concentrations of arsenic in oyster tissue in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay from
1974-1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and the
mainstem Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Sources: Eisenberg and Topping 1981; Garreis and
Pittman 1981 a, 1981 b, 1982; Garreis and Murphy 1986a, 1986b; Maryland Department of the Environment
unpublished data (d); Murphy 1990.
in the metal concentrations in the 1970s are fol-
lowed by relatively consistent concentrations
throughout the 1980s. Chlordane concentrations
declined throughout the data record and concen-
trations were no longer detected by 1990.
During Maryland's 1990 monitoring of oys-
ter tissue concentrations, mercury concentrations
were less than 0.01 percent of the FDA action
level at all locations, with the Potomac River
concentrations slightly higher than those for the
other sub-basins (Figure 29). With the exception
of oysters collected from the West Chesapeake
and Choptank river sub-basins, PCB concentra-
tions were below the detection limit in oysters
from the 1990 collection areas (Figure 32). Nickel
and manganese are recent additions to Maryland's
program, therefore, no historical data were avail-
able. In the 1990 data, oysters appear to accumulate
higher tissue concentrations of manganese than
nickel. Little variation was observed among the
collection areas for either metal.
The observed 1990 oyster tissue concentra-
tions were not of concern because they fall well
below levels established for protection of human
health. Concentrations of aldrin, alpha-BHC,
chlordane, chromium, dacthal, DDD, DDE, DDT,
dieldrin, dacthal, endosulfan, endrin, gamma-
BHC, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide,
100
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Cadmium Concentration Trends
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Chester River
4-
f 3H
I.H
111
•••••••• .1
|
2-
Illlllll I ••
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Pocomoke River
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1990 Concentrations
3-
I
• •••••••• 1
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
87 88 89 90
Chesapeake West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nanticoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 28. Concentrations of cadmium in oyster tissue in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay from
1974-1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and the
mainstem Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Sources: Eisenberg and Topping 1981; Garreis and
Pittman 1981 a, 1981b, 1982; Garreis and Murphy 1986a, 1986b; Maryland Department of the Environ-
ment, unpublished data (d); Murphy 1990.
hexachlorobenzene, methoxychlor, mirex, and
toxaphene were not detected in oyster tissue during
the 1990 survey.
During Maryland's 1990 intensive survey of
25 chemicals in blue crabs, the only organic
chemicals detected were chlordane and PCBs.
Laboratory procedures for chlordane analysis
changed between the 1983 and 1990 blue crab
surveys, however, these data indicate a decline in
blue crab chlordane concentrations from the
Patapsco River (i.e., Baltimore Harbor) and a
small rise for chlordane in blue crab concentra-
tions from the Magothy River. The other areas
surveyed both years (Choptank River, Eastern
Bay, Gunpowder River, and Herring Bay) showed
little difference in blue crab tissue concentrations
between the two collections. Data for PCB con-
centrations in blue crab tissue are only available
for the 1990 collection. With the exception of the
Patapsco River blue crab tissue samples, PCB
concentrations were at or below the detection
limit at all collection sites.
Mercury concentrations in blue crab tissue
showed little change between the 1983 and 1990
collections; all concentrations were approximately
0.01 percent of the FDA action level. With the
exception of the Gunpowder and Patapsco rivers,
arsenic tissue concentrations declined between
101
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Mercury Concentration Trends
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Chester River
0.03
0.025-
oi 0.02-
ol
13
^ 0.015-
S 0.01 -
0.005-
Illlilllll II
III I I 1 I
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 69 90
0.03
0.025-
01 0.02-
Dl
j 0.015-
S 0.01 -
0.005-
ihiiiih.
•
iii—r^n 1 i
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Pocomoke River
1990 Concentrations
o> 0.02-
"&)
D
^ 0.015-
5 0.01 -
0.005-
0
Him. •
I
0.03
0.025-
0.02-
0.015-
0.01-
0.005-
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Chesapeake West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nanlicoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 29. Concentrations of mercury in oyster tissue in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay from
1974-1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and the
mainstem Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Sources: Eisenberg and Topping 1981; Garreis and
Pittman 1981 a, 1981b, 1982; Garreis and Murphy 1986a, 19865; Maryland Department of the Environ-
ment, unpublished data (d); Murphy 1990.
1983 and 1990 at all areas sampled in both sur-
veys (Choptank River, Eastern Bay, Herring Bay,
and Magothy River). Blue crab tissue concentra-
tions from the Gunpowder and Patapsco rivers
stayed the same or increased slightly between the
1983 and 1990 collections. Cadmium and lead
tissue concentrations in blue crabs declined from
1983 to 1990 at all areas sampled during both
collections. In the case of lead, the 1990 blue crab
tissue concentrations were below detection limit
for all samples collected from the Choptank River,
Eastern Bay, Gunpowder River, and Herring Bay.
Zinc and copper exhibited increasing concen-
trations in blue crab tissue from all areas surveyed
in 1983 and 1990, with the exception of the
Choptank River site where a slight drop in both
metals was observed. Tissue concentrations were
highest for the Patapsco River, Magothy River
and Herring Bay collection areas. In 1990, the
Patapsco River blue crabs had substantially higher
concentrations of nickel than crabs compared to
the other collection areas.
The observed 1990 blue crab tissue concen-
trations were not of concern because they fall
well below levels established for the protection
of human health. Concentrations of aldrin, alpha-
BHC, chromium, dacthal, ODD, DDE, DDT,
dieldrin, endosulfan, endrin, gamma-BHC, hep-
102
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Zinc Concentration Trends
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Mainstem
Chester River
3000
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
0
lllllllll.l II
3000
2000-
Illlllllllll
Lil
197475 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Pocomoke River
197475 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1990 Concentrations
3000
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
n
iiiiiin
I
2500-
2000-
1500-
1000-
500-
197475 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
Chesapeake West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choplank Nanticoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 30. Concentrations of zinc in oyster tissue in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay from 1974-
1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and the mainstem
Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Sources: Eisenberg and Topping 1981; Garreis and Pittman 1981 a,
1981b, 1982; Garreis and Murphy 1986a, 1986b; Maryland Department of the Environment, unpublished
data (d); Murphy 1990.
tachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorobenzene,
methoxychlor, mirex, and toxaphene were not
detected in blue crab tissue during the 1990 sur-
vey.
Virginia
Through Virginia's oyster tissue contaminant
monitoring program, samples from 47 sites were
analyzed for heavy metals and those from 24 sites
for pesticides. Recognizing the relatively high
detection limits (e.g., 0.1 ppm for organochlo-
rines, 0.5 ppm for pentachloroaniosole, and 1.0
ppm for PCBs), no pesticides have been found
above these limits since the late 1970s (Chesa-
peake Bay Program 1993b; Virginia Department
of Health, unpublished data). Since the early
1970s, metal concentrations in Virginia oysters
were as follows:
• Arsenic: Concentrations ranged from 0.01
ppm to 2.57 ppm, with an average 1.0 ppm
and no readily discernible trend.
• Cadmium: Concentrations ranged from 0.2
to 1.6 ppm with higher concentrations ob-
served in shellfish collected from lower salinity
stations.
• Chromium: Concentrations were normally
<1 ppm although some data were high with
103
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Maryland Oyster Tissue Chlordane Concentration Trends
Maryland Chesapeake Bay Malnstem
Chester River
linlllllL
0.05'
0.02-
0.01-
Illllllllll,
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84
Pocomoke River
86 87 88 89 90
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
1990 Concentrations
I
£ 0.02-
0.01-
1974 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
89 90
Chesapeake West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nanticoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 31. Concentrations of chlordane in oyster tissue in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay
from 1974-1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and
the mainstem Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Bars marked with an asterisk (*) are concentrations
below the detection limit. Sources: Eisenberg and Topping 1981; Garreis and Pittman 1981 a, 1981b,
1982; Garreis and Murphy 1986a, 1986b; Maryland Department of the Environment, unpublished data
(d); Murphy 1990.
several questionable concentrations reaching
92 ppm.
Copper: Concentrations ranged from 7.4
ppm to 156 ppm with higher concentrations
in shellfish collected from lower salinity sta-
tions and James River stations.
Lead: Concentrations ranged from <0.2 ppm
to 2.0 ppm with no readily discernible trend.
Zinc: Concentrations ranged from 208 ppm
to 1,701 ppm (one reported value of 14,000
ppm) with higher concentrations in shellfish
collected from lower salinity stations and
James River stations.
The primary sites of concern in Virginia are
the Elizabeth River and Little Creek, especially
for organic chemical contaminants (i.e., polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons and their breakdown
products) in blue crabs [46,63]. These two areas
are classified as "prohibited" under the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program (Table 44; Figure
24). Oysters and clams cannot be taken for
human consumption or for relay or depuration.
Large numbers of blue crabs are routinely har-
vested, however, from the Elizabeth River and
some from Little Creek.
104
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
0.03
I
c
.2 0.025 -
CO
Maryland Oyster Tissue PCBs Concentration - 1990
I
o
o
0)
3
CO
CO
CO
>
o
m
o
Q.
0.02-
0.015-
0.01-
0.005 -
1 I
Chesapeake West Patuxent Potomac Chester Choptank Nanticoke
Bay Chesapeake River River River River River
Figure 32. Concentrations of PCBs in oyster tissue collected from the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay
in 1990. West Chesapeake includes the Magothy, Severn, South, West, and Rhode rivers and the mainstem
Bay from Herring Bay to Drum Point. Source: Maryland Department of the Environment unpublished data (d).
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Finfish and shellfish tissue contaminant con-
centrations throughout the Chesapeake Bay and
its tidal tributaries have declined significantly
since the 1970s for several metals, pesticides, and
organic chemical contaminants. Similar down-
ward trends in tissue concentrations have been
observed in the non-tidal portions of the Bay
basin. Concentrations of some metals, however,
show recent increasing trends in concentrations.
The highest levels of shellfish and finfish
contamination were observed at Chesapeake Bay
stations in the northern Bay and the Elizabeth
River. In some cases, these chemical contami-
nant concentrations were not as high as those seen
in the most impacted parts of the country; in other
cases, they do reach levels comparable to national
median concentrations.
Based on the comparisons made with areas
having recognized finfish tissue contamination
problems across the country, it appears that tissue
contaminant concentrations of some chemicals in
Chesapeake Bay finfish are not as high as maxi-
mum concentrations measured in the northeast
states or the Great Lakes. A few chemicals in
areas with existing fish consumption restrictions
in place—chlordane in Back River and PCBs in
the Shenandoah River—show higher concentra-
tions comparable to other fish contaminant problem
areas in the country.
Box 7. Sources of information on Chesapeake Bay finfish and shellfish tissue contamination
Chesapeake Bay Finfish/Shellfish Tissue Contamination Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [46]
Comprehensive Review of Selected Toxic Substances • Environmental Samples in Virginia [289]
Maryland Reports on Finfish Tissue Contamination [88]
Maryland Reports on Shellfish Tissue Contamination [84,85,86,87,207]
NOAA National Status and Trends Program Reports [209,211,215,216]
State of the Chesapeake Bay - Second Annual Monitoring Report Compendium [180]
105
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Within the Chesapeake Bay basin, existing
bans or advisories on finfish/shellfish consump-
tion focus primarily on bottom-feeding finfish
contaminated with chlordane, dioxin, mercury,
and/or PCBs. Past fish consumption bans (Ke-
pone in the James River) or restrictions (dioxin
in the Potomac River within Maryland) were
lifted once tissue contaminant concentrations fell
below health advisory standards. Outside of
these areas, the available tissue data indicate no
cause for human health concerns. A more com-
plete assessment of Bay finfish tissue
contamination problems is not possible at this
time due to areas with no tissue data, lack of
action levels for a wide range of chemical con-
taminants and an uncertain relationship between
tissue concentrations and ecological impacts.
Wildlife Contamination
The critical issue forum on Chesapeake Bay
wildlife contamination, held in November 1991,
focused on a critical review of data and informa-
tion on the effects of exposure and uptake of
chemical on Chesapeake Bay basin birds, mam-
mals, reptiles, and amphibians [44]. Much of the
data and information presented at the forum was
extracted from a comprehensive review by Heinz
and Wiemeyer [144], discussing the impacts of
chemical contaminants on Chesapeake Bay tar-
get waterfowl, raptor, and wading bird species.
This review was originally published in Habitat
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Re-
sources - Second Edition [83]. Findings from the
forum and recent studies of biomarkers and con-
taminants in birds and muskrats are summarized
in this report.
BIRDS
Little doubt remains that organochlorine pes-
ticides and possibly other chemicals caused adult
mortality and reproductive impairment in rap-
tors, waterfowl, and wading birds in the Chesapeake
Bay in the recent past (Table 45). Lead poison-
ing, from the ingestion of lead shot used by
hunters, also may have reduced survival. Various
environmental contaminants have adversely im-
pacted those bird populations that use the Chesa-
peake Bay by reducing survival and reproductive
success.
Given the difficulty in finding birds killed by
chemical contaminants and the irregular nature of
the reporting process for notifying authorities of
wildlife mortalities, it is likely that many more
birds died from exposure to chemical contami-
nants than were reported. The major classes of
chemicals of concern are organochlorines (in-
cluding pesticides such as DDT and its metabolite
DDE, dieldrin, and Kepone), metals (principally
lead and cadmium), oil, organophosphorus and
carbamate insecticides (such as Abate and Furadan
which are cholinesterase inhibitors), herbicides,
and PCBs.
Pesticides/Organic Compounds
Dieldrin and carbofuran have caused mortal-
ity in several bird species in the Chesapeake Bay
region (Table 45) [18, 62, 164, 205, 222, 241,
246, 247]. Organochlorine pesticides probably
had a greater impact on bird reproduction than on
adult survival. DDE was largely responsible for
the decline of bald eagle reproduction beginning
in the 1950s and continuing into the 1970s (Table
46) [229, 303].
Osprey populations began to decline in the
Chesapeake Bay in the 1950s and did not start to
recover until the early 1970s (Table 47) [4, 152,
243, 244, 329]. In osprey eggs, DDE has been
closely associated with eggshell thinning and
also appeared responsible for negative effects on
reproduction [330]. Concentrations of organochlo-
rine pesticides generally declined in the tissues
of ospreys found dead around the Chesapeake
Bay during the 1970s and early 1980s, while PCB
concentrations remained unchanged [333]. Ke-
pone may have also affected avian reproduction
in the Chesapeake Bay [159].
Compared to DDE concentrations in black
ducks from other regions, eggs from the Chesa-
peake Bay were fairly free of this chemical
contaminant. It is unlikely that organochlorine
pesticides or PCBs have posed a hazard to black
106
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 45. Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings—birds
Species
Toxic Substance
Observed Concentrations/Effects
Source
Cattle egret, Dieldrin
great blue herons
Bald eagles
Bald eagles
Osprey
Barn owl
Mallard
Bald eagle
Bald eagle
Osprey
Bald eagle
Dieldrin
Bald eagles, Carbofuran
American kestrels,
red-tailed hawks
DDE
Peregrine falcon DDE
DDE
DDE
Abate
Great blue heron Kepone
Kepone
Kepone
Kepone
DDE, Dieldrin, PCBs
Likely cause of death of individuals of both
species.
Likely cause of death of Chesapeake Bay eagles.
Associated with the death of individuals of these
species.
According to a national survey, the highest levels
were found in individuals from Chesapeake Bay
region.
High concentrations resulted in failure of nests in
Chesapeake Bay region.
Believed responsible for Chesapeake Bay
population declines.
Fifteen percent of population on Maryland side of
lower Potomac River contained levels of DDE
high enough to impact reproduction.
Reproductive impairment at levels of 1 ppm on a
dry weight basis.
Residues ranging from 2.4 to 36 ppm (wet weight)
in livers of individuals from Hog Island Wildlife
Refuge were detected.
Elevated levels found in tissues and eggs of
individuals collected from the James River region.
Loss of all breeding pairs in James River area
(1975-1978) may have been due to kepone
contamination.
Eggs from areas near James River contained
elevated levels.
Concentrations of DDE (10 ppm), dieldrin (1
ppm), and PCBs (25 ppm) were found in eggs
collected from Chesapeake Bay area between
1973-1979.
Ohlendorf1981
Reicheletal. 1969
Mulhernetal 1970
BelisleetaM972
Cromartieetal1975
ProutyetaM977
Kaiser et all 980
Reicheletal 1984
Chesapeake Bay Program
1992b
Wiemeyeretal1984
PeakalletaM975
Wiemeyeretal 1988
KlaasetaM978
Fransonetal 1983
Huggett and Bender 1980
Stafford et all 978
Wiemeyeretal 1984
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1990
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1982
Staff ordet all 978
Wiemeyeretal 1988
Chesapeake Bay Program
1992b
107
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 45 (con't.) Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings—birds
Species
Toxic Substance
Observed Concentrations/Effects
Source
Bald eagle
Bald eagle
Osprey
Osprey
Canvasback
Black ducks
Wood ducks,
Mallards, Black
ducks,
Pintails
Osprey
Bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
DDE, Dieldrin, PCBs
High levels of dieldrin (> 4 ppm) were responsible
for mortality of individuals found in the Chesa-
peake Bay region.
Carbamate, organophos- Implicated in the mortality of individuals in the
phorus pesticides Chesapeake Bay region.
DDE/Dieldrin, PCBs
Eggs collected from Chesapeake Bay area in
1960s and 1970s contained approximately 3 ppm
DDE and 3-10 ppm PCBs.
Organochlorine pesticide Concentrations in tissue of individuals found in
Chesapeake Bay during 1970s and 1980s
declining.
Organochlorine
pesticides, PCBs
DDE
DDE
DDE, ODD + DDT,
dieldrin PCBs, mercury
DDE, heptachlor
epoxide, PCBs,
oxychlordane
Levels detected in individuals collected from
Chesapeake Bay in 1973 and 1975 were safe
relative to those known to affect survival and
reproduction.
Levels found in eggs collected from Chesapeake
Bay area were low, relative to other areas (i.e.,
New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts).
Ingested lead (from lead shot) was considered
probable cause of elevated levels in livers of
individuals from the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Median DDE residues in eggs from Glenn L
Martin Refuge in Maryland in 1986 was greater
than the value associated with 10% eggshell
thinning (2.0 ppm), but below the value associ-
ated with a production rate of 1.0 young per nest.
Eggs failing to hatch collected in Maryland and
Virginia from 1980-1984 contained geometric
mean concentrations of 4.4 ppm DDE, 0.42 ppm
ODD + DDT, 0.31 ppm dieldrin, 14 ppm PCBs,
and 0.07 ppm mercury.
One egg collected on South Marsh Island,
Maryland contained 14 ppm DDE, 0.36 ppm
heptachlor epoxide, 0.75 ppm oxychlordane and
8.2 ppm PCBs.
Mulhernetal. 1970
Belisleetal. 1972
Cromartie et al. 1975
Proutyetal. 1977
Kaiser etal. 1980
Reicheletal. 1984
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1982
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1990
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1990
Wiemeyer et al. 1975
Weimeyer et al. 1988
Wiemeyer et al. 1987
White etal. 1979
Reichel and Addy 1968
Scanlonetal. 1980
DiGiulio and Scanlon 1984
Wiemeyer et al. 1988
Audet etal. 1992
Gilroy and Barclay 1988
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1992b; Funderburk et al. 1991.
108
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 46. Chesapeake Bay region bald eagles contamination and population timeline.
Pre-European Contact:
1936:
Late 1940s:
1950-1970:
1962:
1970:
1970s:
1973-1979:
1980-1984:
1985:
1992:
As many as 3,000 pairs in Chesapeake Bay area.
Average young per nesting attempt is 1.6 young.
DDT introduced.
Major decline in bald eagle population, primarily due to exposure to organochlorine pesticides.
Nest production drops to 0.2 young per pair.
As few as 80-90 breeding pairs (nest failure due to widespread DDT use).
Absence of all breeding pairs of bald eagles in the James River area, possibly related to elevated
kepone levels.
Concentrations of DDE, dieldrin, and PCBs in eggs collected from Chesapeake Bay nests were
10 ppm, 1.0 ppm, and 25 ppm, respectively, higher than in any other area in the United States.
(To ensure successful reproduction, eggs should contain no more than 2 ppm DDE, 0.3 ppm
dieldrin, and 5 ppm PCBs.)
Significant drop in DDE, dieldrin, and PCBs concentrations to 4.5 ppm, 0.3 ppm, and 15 ppm,
respectively.
Total of 185 breeding pairs in Maryland and Virginia.
Total of 152 occupied nests, 146 active nests, 112 successful nests, and 185 new young in
Maryland.
Sources: Fraser et al. 1991; Heinz and Wiemeyer 1991; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993a.
ducks, at least since the egg surveys began [140,
179, 248].
Wing surveys showed that black ducks from
the Chesapeake Bay region contained lower con-
centrations of most organochlorine pesticides and
PCBs than black ducks from states such as Mas-
sachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Moreover,
organochlorine pesticides and PCB s have steadily
declined in black duck wings collected in the
Chesapeake Bay region [37, 142, 143, 240, 326,
328].
Surveys of PCBs and organochlorine pesti-
cides in the brains and carcasses of wading birds
found dead along the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries were conducted in the late 1960s and
1970s. Concentrations of these chemical con-
taminants in great blue herons, green-backed
herons, and snowy egrets were too low to have
been the cause of death. Residues of PCBs and
organochlorine pesticides in the eggs of green-
backed herons and cattle egrets from the Potomac
River were below levels believed to affect repro-
duction (Ohlendorf etal. 1979). In a more recent
survey of the first nesting colony of double-
crested cormorants in Chesapeake Bay, metals
and organochlorine residues in eggs were below
levels considered harmful [145].
Metals
Various metals, including chromium, copper,
zinc, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead, do not
appear to have had an adverse effect on Chesa-
peake Bay ospreys or bald eagles. Concentrations
in tissues of birds found dead around the Bay
were generally at background levels [333, 334].
109
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 47. Chesapeake Bay region ospreys contamination and population timeline.
1950 -1970: Organochlorine pesticide accumulation in osprey tissue increases.
1950s: Osprey numbers begin to decline.
1960: Production rate necessary for population stability is 0.95 -1.3 year per female.
1960: Shell thickness up to 35% in some areas, >15% thickness, egg likely to break. DDE (a DDT
metabolite) most closely associated with eggshell thinning.
1960s-1970s: Eggs contained 3 mg/kg DDE, 3-10 mg/kg PCBs.
1966-1971: Nest productivity below level necessary to sustain population.
1972: DDT banned.
1970s-1980: Organochlorine pesticide concentrations in osprey tissue declined, PCBs remain unchanged.
Osprey numbers begin to increase.
1980s: Over 2,000 pairs in Chesapeake Bay area, representing 20% of the Nation's total.
Sources: Reese 1991; Heinz and Wiemeyer 1991.
Except for sea ducks, canvasbacks had the
highest concentrations of cadmium in the liver
and among the highest in the kidney. Lead, zinc,
and copper concentrations in the canvas back
were similar to other ducks and were not consid-
ered harmful [69]. Black ducks and other dabbling
ducks generally had higher lead concentrations
than sea ducks and diving ducks, attributable to
the higher densities of spent shot in areas inhab-
ited by the dabbling ducks. Cadmium, zinc, and
copper in black ducks were below concentrations
believed to be harmful to birds [69]. Lead was
the only metal in wood ducks that was suffi-
ciently high to be associated with sublethal impacts
such as physiological changes [69, 268].
In a review of contaminant effects on birds in
the Chesapeake Bay, Ohlendorf and Fleming
[221] stated, "In the Chesapeake Bay, high con-
centrations of cadmium and lead in sea ducks,
lead in dabbling ducks, and DDE in some ospreys
and bald eagles are the current avian contaminant
issues." In addition, recent isolated examples of
direct toxic impacts of chemical contaminants on
individual species of birds have been recorded.
These include:
• Bald eagle deaths caused by consumption of
either illegally poisoned baits or terrestrial
animals which had ingested carbofuran;
• Diazinon consumption effects on mallards,
doves, and robins in Virginia urban areas; and
• Elevated DDE tissue concentrations in per-
egrine falcons and bobwhite quail.
The indirect effects of chemical contaminants on
bird habitat and food sources (i.e., the loss of
submerged aquatic vegetation) caused by excess
nutrients, suspended sediment, and, possibly,
herbicides are probably more serious than the
direct impact of chemical contaminants on birds
[230].
MAMMALS
Whether populations or communities of wild
mammals within the Chesapeake Bay basin have
been or are now being adversely affected by
110
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
exposure to chemical contaminants is a question
that cannot yet be fully answered due to lack of
data [44]. Elevated residues of cadmium, lead,
pesticides, PCBs, andpolycyclic aromatic hydro-
carbons have been reported in selected mammals
but the data are very limited (Table 48). There
appear to be at least two possible issues of con-
cern: the potential for adverse impacts on mink
populations due to exposure to PCBs and the
mortality of mammals—especially species of fox
size and smaller—that results from primary or
secondary poisoning by anti-cholinesterase agri-
cultural chemicals.
REPTILES
The adverse effects of chemical contaminants
on reptiles both in the Chesapeake Bay basin and
elsewhere are not well known [44]. The effects
of PCBs, dioxins, or furans on reptiles have never
been firmly established although limited evi-
dence implies that these compounds could cause
both deformities and delayed hatching in the eggs
of the snapping turtle [28]. A study of the effects
of four organophosphorus pesticides on a lizard
showed that these effects were more similar to
birds and mammals than amphibians and fish
[128]. No other studies of the effects of cholinest-
erase-inhibiting pesticides on reptiles are known.
Reptiles, particularly turtles, can accumulate
metals from metals-contaminated environments
but there are no documented cases of wild reptiles
dying from metal poisoning [1, 220]. The physi-
ological and behavioral responses of reptiles to
metal exposure have not been determined.
AMPHIBIANS
Overall, insufficient information exists on the
current status of amphibian populations. There
is very limited research or residue analysis col-
lected regionally from which to assess either the
actual or potential adverse effects from chemical
contaminants on amphibians within the Chesa-
peake Bay [44]. Amphibians, however, are
sensitive to metals and organochlorine pesticides.
Frogs, bullfrogs, and toads collected on a
relatively undisturbed wildlife refuge in Mary-
land were analyzed for metal residues. Adults
accumulated high concentrations of copper whereas
tadpoles accumulated lead, zinc, copper, cobalt,
cesium, strontium, iron, magnesium, and, to a
lesser extent, cadmium [129].
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Although organochlorine pesticides and, per-
haps PCBs affected birds throughout the
Chesapeake Bay basin in the past, there is little
evidence that they are still causing significant
adverse impacts. Continued increasing popula-
tion trends in two of the bird species historically
impacted by these toxic chemicals—bald eagle
and ospreys—indicate that the severe wildlife
contamination problems once present throughout
the Bay basin have diminished. Waterfowl, rap-
tor, and wading bird contamination issues in
Chesapeake Bay basin have moved from severe
basinwide impacts due to elevated concentra-
tions of a number of chemical contaminants to a
much more limited set of species, chemical type,
and region-specific issues. Existing data are too
limited to determine whether chemical contami-
nants are adversely impacting Chesapeake Bay
populations of mammals, reptiles, and amphib-
ians.
Box 8. Sources of further information on Chesapeake Bay wildlife contamination
Chesapeake Bay Wildlife Contamination Critical Issue Forum [44]
"Effects of Contaminants on Birds" in Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources, 1991 Edition [144]
111
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 48. Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings—mammals.
Species
Toxic Substance
Observed Concentrations/Effects
Source
Raccoons
White footed
mouse
Little brown bats
Big brown bats,
little brown bats
Mink
Atlantic bottlenose
dolphin
Muskrat
River otters
Mink
Kepone
Kepone
DDE, dieldrin, PCBs
DDE, dieldrin, PCBs
PCBs, DDE,
oxychlordane,
heptachlor epoxide,
dieldrin
DDE, dieldrin, PCBs
Nickel, selenium
Lead, cadmium
Lead
Feral house mice Methomyl (Lannate)
Elevated residues reported in individuals
collected in James River region.
Elevated residues reported in individuals
collected in James River region. Levels in
mice collected at the reference site were
significantly lower.
Mean maximum concentrations of 1.80 ppm
DDE, 1.01 ppm dieldrin, and 3.22 ppm PCBs
reported in individuals collected from North
East, Maryland.
Big brown bat carcasses collected in Laurel,
Maryland contained concentrations of DDE
(5.32 ppm) and PCBs (4.99 ppm). Little brown
bat carcasses contained concentrations of 3.0
ppm DDE and 11.6 ppm PCBs.
Mean PCB concentrations in individuals
collected in Maryland were at levels known to
prevent reproduction. Mean concentrations of
the other constituents were less than 0.5 ppm
(wet weight).
The blubber in individuals collected from
Maryland and Virginia contained a maximum of
80 ppm (lipid weight) DDE, 6 ppm dieldrin, and
195 ppm PCBs.
Reduced body and spleen weights through
depression of immunological function was
likely caused by nickel (00.5 ppm dry weight-
lower Elizabeth River) and selenium (5.31
ppm—upper Elizabeth River).
Median concentrations of lead in bone and
cadmium in kidneys in individuals collected in
the Virginia portion of Chesapeake Bay were
2.95 ppm lead (dry weight) and 0.15 ppm
cadmium (dry weight).
Individuals from areas adjacent to Chesapeake
Bay contained lead concentrations >3 ppm
(dry wt.) in their bones and cadmium at >2
ppm (dry wt.) in kidneys.
Significant depression (11-12%) of brain
cholinesterase activity in individuals occurred
just after spraying near Chesapeake Bay.
Bryant etal. 1978
Terman and Hugget 1980
Clark and Prouty 1976
Clark and Prouty 1976
O'Shea et al. 1981
Kuehl etal. 1991
Halbrook1990
Anderson-Bledsoe and
Scanlon 1983
Ogle et at 1985
Montz etal. 1983
112
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 48 (con't). Summary of Chesapeake Bay basin wildlife contamination findings—mammals.
Species
Toxic Substance
Observed Concentrations/Effects
Source
Raccoons (13)
Opossums (4)
Red foxes (4)
Muskrats(1)
White tailed deer(1)
River otter (1)
Squirrel (1)
Gray fox (1)
Red fox (1)
Raccoon (1)
Raccoon (1)
Muskrats
Carbofuran
Parathion
Famphur
Avicide
(unidentified)
PAHs
Muskrat
PAHs
Responsible for the mortality of these individu-
als in Chesapeake Bay counties. Number of
actual individuals listed in parentheses.
Responsible for the mortality of one individual
of each species in Chesapeake Bay counties.
Responsible for the mortality of one individual
of this species in Chesapeake Bay area.
Responsible for the mortality of one individual
of this species in Chesapeake Bay area.
Carcasses collected in the upper Elizabeth
River area had detectable levels of PAHs (1-6
compounds). Individuals collected in the upper
and lower Elizabeth River had PAH concentra-
tion >0.03 ppm (dry wt.). Individuals from the
lower Elizabeth River had greater liver
microsomal enzyme activity. Twenty-seven
metals were detected in muskrat kidneys.
DNA adducts were detected in individuals
collected from the Elizabeth River and
Nansemond River areas. The greatest
concentration was found in one individual from
the Nansemond River (236 nmol per mol).
DNA adducts form as a result of exposure to
DNA-reactive Carcinogens (i.e., PAHs) and are
believed to be an initiating event in cancer
development.
Chesapeake Bay
Program 1992b
Chesapeake Bay
Program 1992b
Chesapeake Bay
Program 1992b
Chesapeake Bay
Program 1992b
Halbrook and Kirkpatrick
1991
Halbrook etal. 1992
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1992b.
113
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
114
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
STATE REGULATORY AND
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
The 1989 Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strat-
egy was written "to achieve a reduction of toxics
consistent with the Water Quality Act of 1987"
and to build upon existing regulatory and man-
agement programs already in place. Many of the
environmental responses and trends described
previously are a direct or indirect result of these
state and federal programs. Summaries of these
programs are described below and in greater
detail in Appendix A to provide the reader with
a better understanding of these ongoing pro-
grams.
Pennsylvania
Water Quality
Standards Program
The Pennsylvania Department of Environ-
mental Resources regulates chemicals through
codified chemical-specific and narrative require-
ments in chapters 16 and 93 of the Pennsylvania
Code. These requirements serve as the basis for
developing water quality-based effluent limita-
tions which are incorporated into National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
and other regulatory actions protecting water
uses. The major provisions are as follows:
• Prohibit discharges of chemicals in toxic
amounts.
• Specify scientific procedures for the develop-
ment of both threshold and non-threshold
human-health based criteria.
• Specify a risk management level of one ex-
cess cancer in a population of one million
over a 70-year lifetime for the control of
carcinogens.
• Provide guidelines for the development of
fish and aquatic life criteria.
• Specify analytical procedures for criteria imple-
mentation.
• Specify appropriate design conditions.
• Provide listings of specific numeric criteria
and analytical detection limits.
Pennsylvania's Department of Environmen-
tal Resources reviews Chapter 93 and revises it,
if necessary, during each Triennial Water Quality
Standards review mandated by Section 303(c) of
the Clean Water Act. The Pennsylvania Environ-
mental Quality Board approved the most recent
Triennial Review revisions on August 17, 1993.
Upon completion of the state regulatory review
process they will be forwarded to EPA for ap-
proval.
The Department of Environmental Resources
also reviews Chapter 16, which includes listings
of numeric criteria and analytical detection lim-
its, at least annually and often more frequently.
Since its initial adoption in 1989, Chapter 16 has
been revised four times; a fifth revision is in
preparation. There are 145 chemicals for which
numeric standards have been established in Chapter
16.
The Department of Environmental Resources
conducts an ongoing water quality assessment
program which includes the collection and evalu-
ation of information regarding waste sources,
water quality, water uses, and criteria that are
used to establish cause and effect relationships.
A Water Quality Assessment Summary, an ab-
breviated record of the analysis of water quality
information, is completed for each assessment
activity.
The most recent assessment information (from
the 1993 305(b) update) shows that just over 956
stream miles are impacted by chemical contami-
115
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
nants in the Susquehanna River basin. Of these,
nearly 894 miles (93.5 percent) are affected by
metals from abandoned mine drainage—a major
problem in portions of the North Branch Susque-
hanna River and the upper West Branch
Susquehanna River. In addition, about eight
miles of degradation are attributed to active mining.
Only about 54 miles are affected by chemical
contaminants from other sources. These include
segments with fish consumption advisories, im-
pacts from contamination at Texas Eastern
compressor stations, volatile organic compounds,
and metals mobilized by acid rain.
Point Source Programs
PERMITTING PROGRAM
Pennsylvania is an NPDES-delegated state
and carries out NPDES permitting, compliance,
and enforcement programs in accordance with
state and federal regulations and the memoran-
dum of agreement between the Department of
Environmental Resources and the EPA. For over
a decade, toxics control and management have
composed a major portion of the state's NPDES
program and are being carried out pursuant to the
Bureau of Water Quality Management's Toxics
Management Strategy. The Toxics Management
Strategy is the basis for writing NPDES permits
for all point sources including the 304(1) dis-
charges. Appendix A provides more detailed
descriptions of the Toxics Management Strategy
and toxics evaluation procedures.
Generally, all NPDES permit renewal actions
are made on a watershed basis. The Department
of Environmental Resources' watershed permit-
ting process focuses on the highest water quality
improvement priorities while ensuring that all
permits are reviewed and renewed over a five-
year period.
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania is implementing the federal
stormwater permitting regulations (40 CFR
116
122.26). The Department of Environmental
Resources has issued two stormwater general
permits—one for industrial activities and one for
construction activities. The permits for stormwa-
ter discharges from industrial activities are handled
by the Department's Bureau of Water Quality
Management with the majority granted through
these general permits. Individual permits are
required for certain activities, however, such as
discharges to designated anti-degradation wa-
ters, Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) Title III facilities that exceed the
reportable quantities for listed chemicals, and
stormwater discharges containing or expected to
contain chemicals.
BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Pennsylvania's point source control program
is a chemical-specific approach to limiting chemi-
cals in wastewater discharges. As a result, less
emphasis has been placed on whole effluent tox-
icity testing as a control measure. Although
biomonitoring is viewed as an important aspect
of toxics management, its role has been limited
due to resource constraints. In cooperation with
EPA Region III, Pennsylvania has identified a
select number of cases for implementing whole
effluent toxicity testing requirements. In these
cases, the Department of Environmental Resources
incorporates the whole effluent testing require-
ments in the NPDES permits with EPA interpreting
the results of these tests. Follow-up actions
required as a result of the testing are coordinated
between the department and the EPA. Pennsyl-
vania plans to continue seeking resources to expand
its use of biomonitoring as a toxics control mea-
sure.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania has not been delegated primacy
for the pretreatment program. However, the
Bureau of Water Quality Management is actively
participating in the program in a number of ways.
Any pretreatment problems identified as a result
of Department of Environmental Resources field
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
activities are referred to EPA for action. Forty-
three facilities in Pennsylvania's portion of the
Chesapeake Bay basin have or are required to
have pretreatment programs in place.
In addition to consultation with EPA Region
III on its implementation actions, the Department
of Environmental Resources, in cooperation with
the Water Pollution Control Association of Penn-
sylvania, has been sponsoring pretreatment forums
around the state for pretreatment coordinators,
treatment plant operators, and consultants. The
Department of Environmental Resources' Op-
erator Outreach Program provides on-site
pretreatment assistance to municipalities around
the state. The future of a request for delegation
of the pretreatment program will depend on the
availability of adequate staff resources to imple-
ment a meaningful program.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania has controlled pesticide use
through a program implementing the 1987 amend-
ments to the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act.
The program requires licensing of all pesticide
applicators. Commercial and public applicators
must be licensed for application of all pesticides,
while private applicators, such as farmers, must
be licensed to apply restricted use pesticides.
Over 25,000 applicators are licensed under this
program. To become licensed, an applicator must
pass an examination which insures that the appli-
cant has the required knowledge for pesticide use
in conformance with label requirements. Once
licensed, an applicator must follow label require-
ments and receive update training or face license
revocation.
Pennsylvania is actively promoting an inte-
grated pest management program. The program
is designed to encourage integrated pest manage-
ment using mechanical, cultural, and chemical
control measures to develop pest control strate-
gies. The foundation of the integrated pest
management program is an agreement between
the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and
Pennsylvania State University. The program is
promoted through educational efforts using au-
diovisual presentations and technical handouts;
the program techniques and results have received
much media attention. Over $1 million in inte-
grated pest management research projects have
been funded over the past four years. This re-
search has resulted in successful measures for
reducing or eliminating pesticide use on tomato
and poinsettia crops and the establishment of a
U.S. Department of Agriculture cost share pro-
gram to encourage the adoption of crop
management services. By the end of 1992, an
estimated 400,000 acres were subject to inte-
grated pest management practices.
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Pennsylvania Storm Water Management
Act, implemented by the Department of Environ-
mental Resources' Bureau of Dams, Waterways,
and Wetlands, requires counties to prepare wa-
tershed stormwater management plans, considering
the hydrologic and hydraulic effects of changes
in land use including nonpoint source pollution.
The plans must identify water quality controls
associated with nonpoint source pollution; stan-
dards and criteria are implemented by local
municipalities through the adoption of codes and
ordinances.
Hazardous Waste
Management Programs
RCRA PROGRAM
Residual and hazardous waste regulations
have been developed as part of Pennsylvania's
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
program to focus on source reduction as a means
to prevent waste. In the waste management
hierarchy, source reduction has the highest pri-
ority followed by use and reclamation, treatment,
and disposal. The hazardous and residual waste
117
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
regulations require each generator to develop a
source reduction strategy. The generator must
specify what actions will be taken to reduce
waste, when the actions will be taken, and the
reduction expected.
A source reduction strategy manual has been
developed to help generators comply with the
requirements and to achieve source reduction.
The manual includes a discussion of the regula-
tory requirements, the elements of a comprehensive
source reduction program, the means to measure
reduction, and the ways to conduct a source
reduction opportunity assessment. The Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources is also
developing a technical assistance program to help
waste generators implement source reduction
programs.
In the future, the Department of Environmen-
tal Resources will be training its own staff to
identify waste reduction opportunities during
inspection and permitting activities. The depart-
ment may also develop a strategy for targeting
technical resources to those waste streams where
management capacity shortfalls may exist.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Pennsylvania continues to play an active role
in the Federal Superfund Program by cooperat-
ing with the EPA at the 99 state sites on the
National Priority List. In addition, the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources is pursuing
remediation at additional hazardous waste sites
that are not on the federal list under the auspices
of the State Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act enacted
in 1988.
To date, eight sites in Pennsylvania have been
addressed and removed from the EPA Superfund
List—more than any other state. Cleanups by
potentially responsible parties have also been
started at 16 additional sites on the list. Under
the state's Superfund Program, responses have
been completed at an additional 29 sites with ten
more sites scheduled for remedial action.
Air Quality Control Program
The Department of Environmental Resources
requires the application of Best Available Tech-
nology to control airborne pollutants, including
toxic chemicals, from new sources. In addition,
specific policies mandate acceptable levels of air
toxic chemicals from municipal and hospital waste
incinerators. Permittees for these types of facili-
ties, as well as for coke oven batteries, must
perform an air toxics analysis as part of their
requirements.
The department plans to implement all of the
Clean Air Act requirements for the control of
hazardous air pollutants (toxic chemicals) pro-
mulgated by the EPA for both new and existing
sources. When possible, pollution prevention
requirements will be incorporated during the
development of the regulations.
The State of Maryland has numerous pro-
grams to reduce potentially toxic chemicals in the
environment. Concerns center on the protection
of both human and environmental health. To this
end, efforts have focused on the reduction of
toxic materials released to the air, land, and water.
Since materials released to the atmosphere and
deposited on land have the potential to contami-
nate state waters, all of Maryland's control efforts
ultimately benefit water quality.
Maryland's efforts to control releases have
been supplemented with several pollution pre-
vention programs. These programs are essential
given the problems associated in dealing with
potentially toxic chemicals once they are released
to the environment. Some of the key programs in
Maryland that address the control of potentially
toxic chemicals are presented below.
Water Quality
Standards Program
Water quality standards established in Mary-
land are designed to protect all waters for
118
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
recreational use and the propagation and growth
of a balanced population of fish and wildlife.
More stringent classifications have been estab-
lished for shellfish, recreational (put and take)
trout fishing, natural trout propagation, and po-
table water. The water quality standard for
chemicals states that "...waters may not be pol-
luted by chemicals which may be harmful to
aquatic life." Numeric criteria for substances of
concern have also been established to provide
additional protection.
In 1989, Maryland adopted water regulations
prohibiting the discharge of chlorine or chlorine
compounds to natural trout waters and requiring
the dechlorination of any effluent treated with
chlorine. Maryland also adopted water quality
standards for tributyltin. Specific numeric stan-
dards for an additional 27 potentially toxic
chemicals were adopted in 1990.
The Maryland Department of the Environ-
ment continually assesses the merit and adequacy
of the state's water quality standards. The re-
evaluation process is scheduled to occur every
three years in conjunction with the EPA review
of the state's water quality program, but can
occur more frequently when specific needs are
identified.
Point Source Programs
PERMITTING PROGRAM
The goal of the permitting program is to
ensure that state waters meet established criteria,
including those established for potentially toxic
chemicals. Specific chemical limitations estab-
lished in the discharge permits, in conjunction
with biological monitoring, allow the Depart-
ment of the Environment to control the discharge
of pollutants.
Major and minor dischargers with the poten-
tial for releasing chemicals have had requirements
incorporated into their permits to conduct acute
and chronic bioassay tests to screen for toxic
effects. Facilities with toxic discharges have
been required to conduct confirmatory testing
and undergo a toxicity reduction evaluation to
identify and remove sources within the plant or
collection system.
Facilities discharging to waters impacted by
chemicals will have their permits modified to
include numeric restrictions on pollutants of
concern. Permit modifications will be instituted
as problems are identified; modifications will
also be incorporated as permits are reviewed
during the normal permit renewal process (i.e.,
every five years).
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Approved programs delegating authority to
issue pretreatment permits have been established
in 17 jurisdictions statewide. These jurisdictions
control 31 wastewater treatment plants and regu-
late wastes from over 260 industrial facilities and
numerous smaller facilities. Specific limitations
on the discharge of chemicals have been estab-
lished and applied to each contributing facility.
The Maryland Department of the Environment
maintains the data for influent and effluent con-
centrations of chemicals at wastewater treatment
plants.
Specific facility discharge limitations will be
reevaluated as revised toxic control regulations
are implemented. Additional jurisdictions may
be required to establish pretreatment programs as
wastewater treatment plants and the number of
significant industrial facilities increase.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Maryland Department of Agriculture is
responsible for regulating the use, sale, storage,
and disposal of pesticides. The primary functions
of the pesticide management program are to enforce
state and federal pesticide use laws and regula-
119
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
tions, ensure that pesticides are applied properly
by competent individuals, and protect the health
of citizens and natural resources. These functions
are carried out through five major programs: 1)
pesticide applicator certification and training; 2)
pesticide use inspection and enforcement; 3)
pesticide technical information collection and
dissemination; 4) groundwater, worker, and en-
dangered species protection; and 5) special
programs.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
Through regulations established in 1983, each
county and municipality was required to adopt a
stormwater management program by July 1984.
The requirements of the program are designed to
help meet the goal of maintaining pre-develop-
ment runoff characteristics, including factors
contributing to the transport of chemical con-
taminants.
A 1988 amendment to Maryland's Stormwa-
ter Management Act required that runoff
characteristics and water quality be enhanced on
redevelopment projects, even if the amount of
impervious land did not increase. Stormwater
runoff permits are required for these facilities in
ten industrial categories, construction sites dis-
turbing more than five acres, and municipalities
with populations over 100,000. Maintenance of
stormwater control structures is essential in miti-
gating the effects of stormwater and its associated
contaminants.
Hazardous Waste
Management Programs
RCRA PROGRAM
The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act requires numerous controls on the handling
of hazardous wastes. The primary intent of the
regulations is to prevent the contamination of
land and water by toxic pollutants. Control strat-
egies include elements that address the treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
As part of the overall strategy to reduce the
generation of hazardous wastes, the Department
of the Environment established a Pollution Pre-
vention/Waste Minimization program in 1990.
Over 3,000 waste generators have been advised
of available technical assistance and the estab-
lishment of a clearinghouse to provide information
on available reduction processes and technolo-
gies. Advanced training for inspectors will help
them to identify situations in which waste reduc-
tion technologies could be used. Failure of
hazardous waste generators to implement waste
reduction efforts may result in enforcement ac-
tions.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), or
Superfund Law, was created in 1980 to clean up
hazardous waste sites to prevent or mitigate the
contamination of surface water and groundwater.
In addition, it established response requirements
for releases or threats of releases of hazardous
substances that may endanger public health, public
welfare, or the environment. Maryland enacted
its own Superfund law in 1984. A total of 450
potential CERCLA sites have been identified in
Maryland.
The Department of the Environment has been
assessing known waste disposal sites and ranking
them according to a grading system which con-
siders the types of wastes present and their impact
on the surrounding human population and/or
environment. Sites which meet criteria estab-
lished by the federal government are placed on
the National Priority List. Twelve sites have met
these criteria and have had imminent hazards
abated. Four additional sites have been proposed
for the National Priority List; further site resto-
ration at these sites is in progress. Those sites that
do not meet the federal criteria but are still con-
120
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
sidered hazardous are remediated under the state
program. Restoration efforts will continue at the
National Priority List sites and the 41 sites cur-
rently included on the state list. The restoration
of these sites will help prevent the contamination
of the state's surface water and groundwater by
chemicals.
Air Quality Control Program
Maryland toxic air pollutant regulations were
promulgated in 1988 to restrict the emission and
subsequent land and water deposition of poten-
tially toxic chemicals. These regulations require
that chemical emissions be quantified and re-
ported. This self-monitoring and reporting process
places the industry in the position of reporting its
discharges to its own management, the Depart-
ment of the Environment, and the public. A
demonstration of no adverse impact on public
health must be provided with new sources re-
quired to employ toxics-best available control
technology. Incorporated in the process is a
requirement to evaluate pollution prevention
options.
Approximately 400 facilities met the January
1992 regulatory requirements by demonstrating
their compliance. Over 1,000 sources are con-
trolled under the state regulations (Figure 33);
many of these facilities have made significant
reductions in their emissions. The enforcement
program associated with this program is expected
to bring all facilities into compliance. Some
modifications to the state program will be needed
to establish compatibility with Title III of the
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
District of Columbia
Water Quality
Standards Program
The District of Columbia promulgated an
extensive set of chemical-specific water quality
standards in 1985. More recently, the district
revised its water quality standards for surface
water and groundwater. The standards were
published as proposed rules on September 7,
1990 and were submitted to a public hearing on
June 6, 1991. Due to the significant number of
responses and comments from both interested
parties and the EPA on the standards for surface
waters, standards for groundwater were published
separately as Proposed Rulemaking on April 2,
1993. This division allowed the district time to
incorporate the comments from the public hear-
ing and discussions between the District of
Columbia government and other concerned agen-
cies into the surface water standards.
The water quality standards for groundwater
were promulgated as Final Rule on July 2,1993.
The water quality standards for surface water
were published as Proposed Rulemaking on April
2, 1993. The standards are currently under re-
view for Final Rulemaking by the District of
Columbia's Corporation Council. A decision for
finalizing the water quality standards for surface
water will be made in 1994.
Point Source Programs
PERMITTING PROGRAM
The major point source discharge in the Dis-
trict of Columbia comes from the Blue Plains
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Combined sewer
overflows are also a point source of pollution.
The District of Columbia's point source program
strives to use the best and most cost-efficient
technology for the treatment of municipal efflu-
ent and combined sewer overflows. The Blue
Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, one of the
largest treatment facilities in the country, pro-
vides primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment
followed by chlorine disinfection and sulfur di-
oxide dechlorination to eliminate the toxic effects
of residual chlorine.
121
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Air Toxics Sources Regulated in Maryland
1000-
(0
o
a
3
O
500-
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure 33. Number of sources regulated under Maryland's toxic air pollutant regulation from 1988-1992.
Source: Maryland Department of the Environment, unpublished data (b).
The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant
serves the District of Columbia, parts of Mont-
gomery and Prince George's counties, Maryland,
parts of Fairfax County, Virginia, and several
suburban federal facilities. The District of
Columbia's share in the current full treatment
design flow is 135 million gallons per day.
Presently, the EPA issues NPDES permits for
the District of Columbia with review and com-
ments from the District of Columbia government.
Regulations were drafted to establish procedures
which will allow the District of Columbia to issue
discharge permits for point sources within its
jurisdiction. These regulations are expected to be
finalized in 1994.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia Department of Public
Works, Water and Sewer Utility Administration
manages the program for the pretreatment of
industrial waste discharged into the sewer system
and Blue Plains. The District of Columbia pro-
mulgated pretreatment regulations in 1986, last
amended in 1990. Under these pretreatment
regulations, the District of Columbia has issued
42 discharge permits to control metals and other
chemicals emanating from industrial dischargers
of waste to the sanitary sewer. The District of
Columbia has also issued 56 Temporary Dis-
charge Authorizations to individual companies,
mostly for groundwater remediation.
COMBINED SEWER
OVERFLOW PROGRAM
The District of Columbia is currently reevalu-
ating the combined sewer overflow problem to
determine control options. As part of this study,
chemical contaminants will be identified in the
combined sewer overflows. Depending on the
results, the District of Columbia may need to
develop a program to control chemical contami-
nants in combined sewer overflows.
122
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The main objectives of the district's Pesticide
Management Program are to train and certify
pesticide applicators in the proper labeling, dis-
tribution, disposal, storage, transportation, and
safe use and handling of pesticides by:
• assuring compliance with applicable legal
requirements related to the distribution, sales,
storage, production, transportation, use, ap-
plication, and disposal of pesticides,
• minimizing the hazards of pesticide use to
human health, fish and wildlife, and the en-
vironment,
• encouraging non-chemical control methods,
such as mechanical, cultural, and biological
controls, to reduce the quantity of pesticides
used in the district, and;
• continuing to implement civil penalties in the
form of Civil Infraction Tickets for those
violations of the District Pesticide Law which
do not warrant criminal prosecution.
The pesticides program, initiated in 1978, also
includes a lawn care initiative, public outreach
and educational activities, and groundwater
management planning.
INTEGRATED PEST
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia's Integrated Pest
Management program began in 1992 with sur-
veys targeted at two groups: organizations and
businesses registered to apply pesticides in the
district; and residential users of pesticides. To
educate the public on the benefits of integrated
pest management, the district has produced and
distributed two pamphlets and created a portable
display for use at community functions.
NONPOINT SOURCE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In response to Section 319(h) of the Clean
Water Act requirements, the District of Columbia
prepared a Nonpoint Source Management Plan in
1989 and submitted it to the EPA. This document
provides a district-wide strategy for controlling
nonpoint source pollution and describes present
and planned nonpoint source pollution abatement
projects. One outcome of this plan was the
creation of a Nonpoint Source Management Pro-
gram by the District of Columbia with funding
assistance from Section 319(h) funds.
The main goal of the District of Columbia's
Nonpoint Source Management Program is to reduce
nonpoint source pollution, improving water qual-
ity. Because 65 percent of the District of
Columbia's surface area is impervious, the Non-
point Source Management Program targets urban
stormwater runoff. The purpose of the Nonpoint
Source Management Program is to coordinate
these activities, ensuring that limited funds are
used efficiently, certain areas of nonpoint source
prevention and control are addressed, and high-
priority waterbodies are targeted.
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia established the
Stormwater Management Program in 1984. The
program controls nonpoint source pollution through
a regulatory mechanism by ensuring that devel-
opers control both the quantity and quality of
stormwater runoff from project sites by using
best management practices. The program re-
views and approves all construction and grading
plans submitted to the District of Columbia gov-
ernment for compliance with stormwater
management regulations. Engineers also provide
technical assistance to developers on the selec-
tion of best management practices for a particular
site. Enforcement of regulations is through the
District of Columbia's Civil Infraction Program
123
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
in which inspectors have the authority to issue
citations to violators of stormwater management
regulations, fines, and stop-orders.
Hazardous Waste Programs
HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste
Management Program was developed to protect
human health and the environment from hazard-
ous waste releases due to improper handling,
transportation, storage, and disposal activities
pursuant to the District Hazardous Waste Man-
agement Act of 1977 and the Resources
Conservation and Recovery Act. Disposal of
hazardous waste is prohibited in the district;
wastes are transported out of the district for dis-
posal. Program activities focus on RCRA grant
responsibilities which include program authori-
zation and regulation development, permitting,
program administration, waste minimization and
pollution prevention, and compliance monitoring
and enforcement.
WASTE MINIMIZATION AND
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
A revised waste minimization and pollution
prevention program is being developed to meet
the 1993 Capacity Assurance Plan submittal re-
quirements. This program endorses the national
goals of pollution prevention and waste reduc-
tion. The technical assistance portion of this
program will identify source reduction and recy-
cling opportunities, promote the use of additional
waste minimization methods through the distri-
bution of fact sheets, and work toward in-house
waste reduction audits for specific industries.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE
TANK PROGRAM
The District of Columbia's Underground
Storage Tank Program was established to prevent
and control the leaks and spills that may result
from underground storage tanks and contaminate
groundwater and subsurface soil. All non-resi-
dential underground storage tanks containing
gasoline or hazardous materials must be regis-
tered, allowing the district to record the location,
contents, and condition of storage tanks. All
newly installed underground storage tanks are
required to be non-corrosive.
Air Quality Control Program
Air pollution control activities in the District
of Columbia are authorized by the 1984 amend-
ments to the district's Air Pollution Control Act
and the Federal Clean Air Act. The district's air
pollution control program develops and imple-
ments plans and programs for protecting and
managing the district's air resources. This pro-
gram determines allowable source emissions,
issues construction and operating permits, and
inspects air pollution sources. It also coordinates
and inspects asbestos renovation and demolition
and operates and maintains a district-wide ambi-
ent air quality monitoring network.
The District of Columbia's air pollution con-
trol programs, currently under development, are
designed to comply with Title III of the Clean Air
Act which requires Maximum Available Control
Technology Standards for chemicals in various
industrial and commercial source categories.
Virginia
Water Quality
Standards Program
Instream water quality standards include both
narrative statements that describe general water
quality requirements and numeric limits for the
specific physical, chemical and biological char-
acteristics of water. Generally, an instream water
quality standard is the maximum concentration
allowed in the water before unacceptable adverse
124
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
effects occur. Past water quality standards fo-
cused on the protection of aquatic life, with the
exception of standards for public water supplies
and groundwater. Recent emphasis has been
placed on the protection of human health (as a
result of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water
Act), leading to the development of water quality
standards for potentially toxic chemicals.
Efforts to address chemical contaminants in
Virginia's waters date back to the Kepone con-
tamination of the James River in 1976. In addition
to Kepone, the Virginia State Water Control
Board adopted other water quality standards in
response to identified toxic problems in the
Chesapeake Bay area involving specific chemi-
cals.
In March 1992, Virginia's efforts to comply
with the Clean Water Act's requirements to adopt
water quality standards for chemicals culminated
in the adoption of a new section in the state water
quality standards specifically addressing chemi-
cals. Included in this section were 41 numeric
standards for the protection of aquatic life and 66
numeric standards for the protection of human
health. This new section also included defini-
tions of acute and chronic toxicity, an allowance
for employing updated EPA information in estab-
lishing effluent limits, an application of saltwater
and freshwater standards, and allowances to derive
site-specific modifications and variances to the
standards.
Point Source Programs
PERMITTING PROGRAM
VPDES Permit Program
Requirements for chemical specific monitor-
ing are written into Virginia Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (VPDES) permits as special
conditions. The Virginia Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Toxics Management Program
developed these monitoring requirements in the
early 1980s. The program aims to involve all
industrial and municipal VPDES permit holders
with the potential to discharge chemicals in a
systematic program of biological and chemical
testing. This testing should identify those waste-
water discharges toxic to aquatic life, the specific
chemicals responsible for this toxicity, and any
chemicals exceeding state criteria or standards.
The need for inclusion of a permittee in the
Toxics Management Program is determined at
the time of permit issuance, reissuance, or modi-
fication using information provided by the
permittee as well as additional data from the
Department of Environmental Quality or other
sources. Generally, the Toxics Management
Program special conditions include quarterly
chronic and/or acute toxicity testing for one year
using both vertebrates and invertebrates. Quar-
terly chemical testing is required in conjunction
with the toxicity testing and includes analyses for
all pollutants identified in accordance with sec-
tion 3 07 (a) of the Clean Water Act (the priority
pollutants) as well as for additional organic chemi-
cal contaminants detected.
Once the Toxics Management Program data
have been generated for a particular outfall, they
are evaluated according to several decision cri-
teria specified by the Toxics Management
Regulation. These criteria relate to acute and
chronic impacts and compliance with water qual-
ity standards or criteria. If an effluent demonstrates
acute and/or chronic toxicity, the permittee is
required to perform a toxicity reduction evalua-
tion, which is described below.
In response to the development and subse-
quent adoption of the water quality standards for
chemicals, the Department of Environmental
Quality developed an implementation guidance
document for permit writers to determine the
appropriate effluent limits for affected plants.
Due to conflicts with permittees over draft per-
mits containing toxic limits, the Department of
Environmental Quality decided to revise the
guidance document. The updated document
became available in June 1993 and has resolved
125
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
most of the earlier problems. Progress is now
being made in drafting chemical-specific permit
limits and the staff is working to clear any back-
log of pending permits at the state level. Despite
the filing of a lawsuit after the Department of
Environmental Quality adopted water quality
standards for specific chemicals in March 1992,
staff continued to draft permits in response to the
water quality standards and issued these permits
with both acute and chronic limits for whole
effluent toxicity.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A toxicity reduction evaluation is a stepwise
process for identifying specific chemicals or classes
of chemicals responsible for the effluent's toxic-
ity and for evaluating and implementing treatment
alternatives to reduce the concentrations to ac-
ceptable levels. If chemical data indicate that the
effluent either actually or potentially contributes
to violations of water quality criteria and/or stan-
dards in the receiving stream, water quality-based
permit limits for the parameter of concern are
recommended for inclusion in the VPDES per-
mit. Appendix A provides a breakdown of current
program statistics for VPDES permits in the Bay
drainage area.
Toxics Management Regulation
Since November 1988, Virginia's Toxics
Management Regulation has driven the Toxics
Management Program. Earlier this year, public
notification was given that the Virginia Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality intended to repeal
the Toxics Management Regulation to eliminate
any confusion and duplication of regulations
resulting from the concurrent adoption of a re-
vised VPDES Permit Regulation. The Permit
Regulation will include language from the fed-
eral NPDES regulations on the evaluation of
effluent toxicity and the mechanisms to control
toxicity through chemical-specific and whole
effluent toxicity limitations. The testing require-
ments and decision criteria of the Toxics
Management Regulation will be used as staff
guidance in the implementation of the toxics
control provisions of the VPDES Permit Regu-
lation. Virginia's position on the control of
potentially toxic chemicals will not be substan-
tially altered due to these actions.
304(1) List
The 304(1) list refers to a 1987 Clean Water
Act section which required the states to develop
a list of facilities discharging potentially toxic
chemicals (307(a) priority pollutants) in quanti-
ties that exceeded state water quality standards or
criteria. The 23 plants included in Virginia's
304(1) list that discharge to the Bay drainage area
are listed in Appendix A.
Each listed facility was required to develop
an Individual Control Strategy to address its dis-
charge of potentially toxic chemicals; all have
received approval for their Individual Control
Strategies and eight had the provisions of their
strategy incorporated into the VPDES permit in
the last two years. The 304(1) list plants are being
reevaluated as a priority in light of the new water
quality standards for specific chemicals. Effluent
limits are also being calculated for their permits
where necessary.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
The primary purpose of the Pretreatment
Program is to protect publicly-owned treatment
works (POTWs) and the environment from the
adverse impact that may occur when toxic wastes
are discharged into a municipal wastewater sys-
tem. This protection is achieved by regulating the
non-domestic users of the POTWs that discharge
toxic or unusually strong conventional waste.
The POTWs are not usually designed to treat
toxic industrial wastes. Such wastes may inter-
fere with the plant's biological treatment processes,
pass through untreated into receiving waters, or
contaminate sludge to the extent that lawful dis-
posal is severely restricted or precluded. Under
the Pretreatment Program, the POTW authorities
are responsible for controlling their industrial
users.
126
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The Virginia Water Control Board received
authorization to administer the Pretreatment Pro-
gram in April 1989, becoming one of only 25
states having delegated responsibility for all three
point source control programs (NPDES Permit,
Federal Facilities NPDES Permit, and Pretreat-
ment) authorized under the Clean Water Act.
The 35 POTWs in Virginia's Bay drainage
area now have approved pretreatment programs
(see Appendix A). These plants receive waste-
water from 100 categorical industries subject to
federal pretreatment standards due to industrial
class and 139 significant non-categorical indus-
tries which require inspection at the state level.
Since authorization, all POTWs with approved
programs have been audited yearly and follow-
up actions have been taken to correct any
deficiencies. All categorical industries identified
in Virginia and nearly 270 significant non-cat-
egorical industries have been inspected and the
owners advised of the findings. Industrial waste
surveys are conducted statewide through special
conditions in the VPDES permits and are re-
peated every five years to determine if other
authorities will be required to develop pretreat-
ment programs.
STORM WATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water
Act to include a requirement that EPA develop
a phased approach in regulating stormwater dis-
charges under the NPDES permit program. On
November 16,1990, the EPA published the final
NPDES Permit Application Regulations for Storm
Water Discharges. These regulations established
permit application requirements for stormwater
discharges from municipal storm sewer systems
serving a population of 100,000 or more and for
stormwater discharges associated with industrial
activity.
There 11 separate municipal storm sewer
systems in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay drainage
area required to file stormwater permit applica-
tions under the regulations. Of these, three are
large municipal systems (with populations greater
than 250,000) and the rest are medium-sized
municipal systems (with populations between
100,000 and 250,000). Appendix A contains a
complete listing of the municipalities required to
develop and issue permits under this program.
Two additional localities (Richmond and Alex-
andria) meet the population criteria in the
regulation, but their stormwater discharges are
being handled under a different program due to
the existence of combined sewers.
The localities affected by the regulations must
develop stormwater management programs that
include two major elements: (1) a program that
reduces the discharge of pollutants from munici-
pal storm sewers to the maximum extent practical;
and (2) the adoption and implementation of ap-
propriate ordinances to prohibit illicit discharges
into stormwater systems (such as illegal hookups
or dumping).
The Department of Environmental Quality
expects to have a permit issued to each of the
affected localities by mid 1994. The permit will
require implementation and monitoring of the
program. If stormwater monitoring during the
permit term (no longer than five years) shows that
the management program is not reducing pollu-
tion effectively, then the locality must make
improvements.
The regulations define the 11 categories of
industrial activities required to apply for storm-
water permits. The term "industrial activity"
covers manufacturing facilities, hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, landfills
that receive industrial wastes, recycling facili-
ties, steam electric power generating facilities,
transportation facilities, domestic wastewater
treatment plants greater than one million gallons
per day, and construction activities disturbing
five or more acres.
There are an estimated 4,500 industrial facili-
ties and 3,000 to 5,000 construction sites in Virginia
127
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
that may file stormwater permit applications under
this program. Individual and general permits will
be developed and issued for industrial discharg-
ers under this program. An estimated 2,000
additional facilities have also applied for storm-
water permits through EPA's "Group Application"
process. These facilities will also be issued
stormwater permits by the Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality after EPA develops model
permits for each group and forwards these to the
states. Stormwater permitting requirements are
being incorporated into the VPDES permit pro-
gram and the permit regulations will be modified
to incorporate the stormwater permitting require-
ments, if necessary.
In June 1993, the State Water Control Board
adopted four draft VPDES stormwater general
permits as emergency regulations. These regu-
lations allow the Department of Environmental
Quality to cover several categories of stormwater
discharges (see Appendix A for a complete list
of categories). The general permit emergency
regulations will expire one year from the effec-
tive date. By that time, the Department of
Environmental Quality will have taken the four
general permits through the administrative pro-
cess for permanent adoption.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Virginia Pesticide Management Program
has undergone significant change since passage
of the new Pesticide Control Act in 1989. This
legislation created a Pesticide Control Board which
has broad powers to carry out enforcement and
other mandates of the pesticide act. The Pesti-
cide Control Board has adopted regulations which
control pesticide businesses, the certification of
pesticide applicators, the establishment of public
participation guidelines, and setting of fees. The
board is working on regulations for the registra-
tion of pesticides and their storage and
disposal—both of particular significance to the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
Several surveys have been conducted to es-
timate pesticide use since 1990. Pesticide use
information has been gathered for forestry, gypsy
moth control, mosquito control, rights-of-way,
and ornamental and lawn care pest control as well
as agronomic commodities and vegetables (corn,
soybeans, tobacco, winter wheat, small grains,
tomatoes, and potatoes) in Virginia.
In 1990, Virginia initiated a program to col-
lect and dispose of unwanted pesticides from
agricultural producers. This highly successful
program has safely and properly removed and
destroyed more than 87 tons of pesticides which
posed a potential threat to health and the environ-
ment. A pilot program to recycle plastic pesticide
containers properly has also been implemented.
The Virginia Pesticide Control Board has
also funded research for the past three years.
Major areas of supported research have focused
on alternatives to traditional chemical pesticides
and determination of the extent of pesticide con-
tamination in groundwater. This research should
lead to reduced pesticide use and wider applica-
tion of integrated pest management practices.
Data from the groundwater studies will add im-
portant new information to the understanding of
Virginia's hydrogeology and the impact of pes-
ticide use on Virginia's groundwater resources.
A task force completed the drafting of the Ge-
neric Pesticides and Ground Water Management
Plan for Virginia, in May, 1993. Now under
review by the EPA, this plan will guide future
pesticide-specific management plans should they
be required and the establishment of procedures
for protecting human health and the environment.
Hazardous Waste
Management Programs
The Waste Division of the Department of
Environmental Quality is responsible for the
regulatory programs addressing solid waste, haz-
ardous waste and hazardous materials, and the
state Superfund Program. These programs en-
128
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
compass management of solid, hazardous, and
radioactive waste, emergency planning for haz-
ardous materials (SARA Title III), and hazardous
materials transportation activities. Recent em-
phasis has been on identifying waste reduction
approaches.
The Waste Division has jurisdiction over four
areas of activity which present a potential threat
to public health and the environment. Threats
exist from: (1) chemicals used in production
processes; (2) the subsequent generation, treat-
ment, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials,
both products and wastes; (3) the transportation
of hazardous materials; and (4) the management
of solid (non-hazardous) wastes which include
household hazardous and industrial wastes.
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
"Solid waste" consists of non-hazardous waste
such as garbage, debris, dewatered sludge, scrap
metal, white goods, and other disposed of or
abandoned materials. The Waste Division regu-
lates solid waste management facilities, including
sanitary, construction/demolition/debris, and in-
dustrial landfills; materials recovery facilities;
energy recovery and incineration facilities;
composting facilities; and solid waste transfer
stations.
A significant area of concern is the storage
and final disposal of generated waste. Waste
disposed of in landfills represents a potential
long-term liability although regulations for solid
waste management programs are now integrating
new design standards for land disposal facilities.
Older solid waste facilities that do not meet new
standards are being phased out of operation by
federal mandates. The Waste Management Di-
vision administers three solid waste programs
which directly support the toxics reduction strat-
egy: solid waste management program, waste
management planning, and litter control and re-
cycling.
RCRA PROGRAM
Commercial and industrial facilities which
generate, store, treat, dispose of, or transport
hazardous wastes are subject to RCRA. Virginia
has adopted Hazardous Waste Management Regu-
lations which integrate RCRA's requirements for
handling waste from "cradle to grave." Although
it is difficult to estimate the amount of hazardous
waste produced in Virginia, changes in the regu-
lations in 1990 caused previously unregulated
wastes to fall within the domain of RCRA, wid-
ening the sphere of regulated wastes. Virginia
does not currently have a permitted commercial
and chemically secure landfill facility for the
disposal of hazardous waste.
The Waste Division administers five hazard-
ous waste or hazardous materials programs that
support a basin wide toxics reduction strategy: a
hazardous waste management program; state site
certification for hazardous waste management;
Virginia Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance
Program; Virginia Emergency Response Council
(SARA Title III); and an environmental response
and remediation program.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Waste Division also administers a related
program, Superfund, in support of the basinwide
strategy. Superfund includes state participation
in the investigation and clean up of existing or
abandoned sites where serious threats to human
health or the environment exist due to past dis-
posal practices or continued releases from
non-permitted facilities.
Air Quality Control Program
The Air Toxics Program in the Department of
Environmental Quality is charged with the main-
tenance and improvement of the state's air quality.
Emphasis is now being directed at a health-based
state air toxic pollution control program and the
technology-based hazardous air pollution control
129
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
program requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
In 1989, following a four-year pilot program,
the department began a statewide evaluation of
toxic chemical emissions from existing facilities,
while reviewing new and modified permit appli-
cations for toxic chemical emissions under the
state program. Between 1988 and 1990, approxi-
mately 300 facilities were inventoried statewide
(including facilities near the Chesapeake Bay).
This inventory resulted in the identification of
chemicals emitted at significant levels, leading to
the development of some permit limits and test-
ing requirements. With the passage of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, the inventory pro-
cess was curtailed because the federal operating
permit requirements of the act would accomplish
the same purpose as the state inventory.
Currently, the state air toxics program is an
established part of the department's facility re-
view procedure. The department's air toxics
regulations address 238 toxic chemicals. The
development of an air toxics data base has been
delayed but is being revived under requirements
of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Since the signing of the 1989 Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy, the department has: 1) pro-
vided emission inventory data to Chesapeake
Bay Program contractors; 2) conducted one year
(1990) of toxics canister sampling of 41 volatile
organic chemicals in the Tidewater (Hampton)
area; and 3) conducted two years (1989 to 1990)
of non-methane organic compound canister sam-
pling in Norfolk and one year (1990) of
non-methane organic compound canister sam-
pling in Chesapeake. Due to a reduction in
department resources, the only canister sampling
currently being performed is in Hopewell.
Atmospheric Deposition
Other monitoring activities being conducted
near the Bay include: 1) acid precipitation moni-
toring (Hampton, West Point) forpH, ammonium,
fluoride, chloride, bromide, nitrate, sulfate, and
phosphate; and 2) the Chesapeake Bay Atmo-
spheric Deposition Study (Haven Beach, Mathews
County). Researchers from the Virginia Institute
of Marine Sciences and Old Dominion Univer-
sity are measuring metals and organic contaminants
in atmospheric deposition at Haven Beach, Vir-
ginia.
The requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments necessitate a toxic chemical emis-
sions inventory of all applicable facilities in
Virginia. The initial survey of these sources
began in the late summer of 1993. This informa-
tion will be updated annually, providing a much
more extensive and accurate inventory of emis-
sions to evaluate. This information should be
available to interested parties by mid-1994.
The Air Division will assist in providing any
information pertinent to the Great Waters Pro-
gram—the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(Section 112(m)) study which includes Chesa-
peake Bay. This study will use emissions inventory
data to assess the relative atmospheric loading of
toxic pollutants into the Bay. Updates of the toxic
chemical emission inventory should assist with
periodic assessments and provide input for more
refined atmospheric dispersion models of the
Bay.
130
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
PROGRESS TOWARDS
THE STRATEGY'S GOALS
Interim and
Long-Term Goals
Since the Toxics Subcommittee was estab-
lished in September 1989, it has focused on
defining key Bay toxics problems and issues and
implementing the Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy. The Toxics Subcommittee increasingly
emphasized linking strategy implementation and
budget priorities with progress in achieving the
two goals of the strategy:
"The long-term goal of this Strategy is to
work towards a toxics free Bay by eliminat-
ing the discharge of toxic substances from
all controllable sources."
"By the year 2000, the input of toxic sub-
stances from all controllable sources to the
Chesapeake Bay will be reduced to levels
that result in no toxic or bioaccumulative
impacts on the living resources that inhabit
the Bay or on human health."
The basinwide strategy contained the com-
mitment that "by December 1989, the signatories
commit to completing the design of a system for
measuring progress under the Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy" [53]. The Toxics Subcom-
mittee identified a set of measures against which
"results" from strategy implementation are com-
pared to gauge progress. A set of milestones was
established to lay the groundwork for a system to
measure progress towards achievement of the
strategy's two goals (Table 49) [42].
Implementation
Progress
To provide a sense of the diversity of efforts
undertaken to control, reduce, and prevent load-
ings and releases of potentially toxic chemicals
into the Bay basin and progress being made
towards the basinwide strategy goals and com-
mitments, a series of brief implementation "stories"
are summarized below. These stories have been
selected to provide particular examples of both
programmatic and environmental progress as well
as areas requiring attention in the future.
Definition of Bay
Toxics Problems
Significant progress has been made in better
defining the nature, extent, and magnitude of the
Bay's toxics problems. Because of our increased
confidence in understanding toxics problems,
managers are able to act on a prioritized set of
reduction and prevention activities, while focus-
ing on a more narrowed set of monitoring,
assessment, and research needs.
Box 9. Selected Chesapeake Bay toxics data and literature synthesis books, reports, and papers
Atmospheric Deposition of Nitrogen and Contaminants to Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed [304]
Chesapeake Bay: A Technical Synthesis [292]
Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay: The Regional Perspective [150]
Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources [182]
Low-Level Effect of Toxic Chemicals on Chesapeake Bay Organisms [338]
Occurrence and Distribution of Pesticides in Chesapeake Bay [163]
Sources, Cycling, and Fate of Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay [259]
The Chesapeake Bay Toxics Issue Revisited [337]
131
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 49. Milestones for measuring progress towards the interim Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
goal.
Milestone 1: Definition of the magnitude and extent of regional and baywide toxics problems and their
relative risk to the Chesapeake Bay system and implementation of actions to address the
identified toxic problems.
Milestone 2: Achievement of the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy commitments.
Milestone 3: Reduction of toxic substance loadings below the baseline loadings established through the
Basinwide Toxics Loading and Release Inventory to ambient concentrations which meet
EPA water quality criteria and state water quality standards and cause no toxic impact.
Milestone 4: Elimination of the discharge of waste water that causes an acute or chronic impact, initially
from point sources which discharge below the fall line and then from point sources which
discharge above the fall line.
Milestone 5: Reduce ambient concentrations of toxic substances within the waters and sediments of
Chesapeake Bay to concentrations that have no toxic impact on Bay living resources.
Milestone 6: Manage the application of pesticides to lower ambient levels of pesticides to concentrations
at which there is no toxic impact to living resources within the waters and sediments of
Chesapeake Bay.
Milestone 7: Minimize loadings of toxics substances into the waters of Chesapeake Bay through
implementation of pollution prevention activities addressing industrial processes, agricultural
practices, homeowner activities, and stormwater controls.
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program 1991c.
BAY BASIN STATES 304(L) LISTS
Under the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act, the states were required to list those
that discharge potentially toxic chemicals in
quantities exceeding water quality standards or
criteria. Sixty-eight facilities were identified
within the Chesapeake Bay basin (Figure 34;
Appendix B). To address their discharges, each
facility was required to develop an individual
control strategy—an NPDES permit containing
conditions necessary to meet applicable water
quality standards for the identified chemicals.
ELIZABETH RIVER INITIATIVE
The Hampton Roads Harbor, a major deep
water port, is situated on the Elizabeth River, a
sub-estuary of the James River. The Elizabeth
River watershed drains over 300 square miles and
is among the most heavily urbanized and indus-
trialized areas in the state. Low topographic
relief and poor flushing has resulted in a river that
functions more like a lake than a free-flowing
estuary.
In 1983, the Chesapeake Bay Program iden-
tified the Elizabeth River system as one of the
most heavily polluted bodies of water in the Bay
watershed. In response to ongoing as well as
historical studies which indicated elevated con-
centrations of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
and metals in the river, a comprehensive Eliza-
beth River Restoration Strategy was implemented
in 1988. The following Elizabeth River Toxics
Initiative activities from 1989 through 1992 illus-
trate management efforts to assess and implement
control strategies for restoration of the Elizabeth
River.
• A total of 182 sets of effluent samples were
collected for chemical analysis of priority and
non-priority metals and organic chemicals
from 95 outfalls at 40 facilities throughout the
tidewater region.
132
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basin 304(1) Facilities
Figure 34. Locations of the state designated 304(1) facilities (•) within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Source: U.S. EPA Region 3, unpublished data.
133
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Sixty-six static acute tests using marine test
species were conducted from October 1988 to
October 1990. The Virginia State Water
Control Board staff use this information dur-
ing modification or reissuance of VPDES
permits.
Two regional permit writers and one inspec-
tor, dedicated to the facilities on the Elizabeth
River, have provided the necessary regula-
tory focus in protecting water quality.
Inspections have more than doubled since the
inspector was hired.
A best management practice was developed
for shipyard management and to ensure con-
sistency in conducting inspections at the 24
shipyards along the Elizabeth River.
A project designed to study oily waste treat-
ment technologies revealed that in some cases
the treatment units operated with negative
removal efficiencies. Oil and grease use, as
a measured parameter, does not correlate well
with toxicity.
A frequency distribution model was devel-
oped for the Elizabeth River which includes
a list of 251 extractable organic chemicals.
This information will be used for toxicity
assessments and for prioritizing water quality
standards development and adoption.
Box 10. Chesapeake Bay Program Reports directly sponsored by the Toxics Subcommittee
A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year One Report [114J
A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay - Year Two Report [113]
A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay • Year Three Report [110]
A Review of Estuarine Aquatic Toxicity Data for the Development of Aquatic Life Criteria for Atrazine in Chesapeake Bay [121]
An Updated Review of Estuarine Aquatic Toxicity Data for the Development of Aquatic Life Criteria for Atrazine in Chesapeake Bay
[122]
An Assessment of Salinity Effects on the Toxicity of Atrazine to Chesapeake Bay Species: Data Needs for
Annual Loading Estimates of Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay Basin [224]
Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessments Workshop [170]
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. Phase I: July 1990-June 1991 [11]
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. Phase II: July 1990-December 1991 [14]
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [45]
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Survey of Toxic Analytical Capabilities Survey and Assessment [137]
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory [50]
Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory: Technical Update - Point Sources by Facility [51]
Chesapeake Bay Contaminated Sediment Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [48]
Chesapeake Bay Fall line Toxics Monitoring Program: 1990-1991 Loadings [193]
Chesapeake Bay Fall line Toxics Monitoring Program: 1992 Interim Report [194]
Chesapeake Bay Fall line Toxics Monitoring Program: 1992-1993 Loading Report [195]
Chesapeake Bay Finfish/Shellfish Tissue Contamination Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [46]
Chesapeake Bay Groundwater Toxics Loading Workshop Proceedings [47]
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List [40]
Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List Information Sheets [41]
Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contaminant Concentrations Critical Issue Forum Proceedings [49]
Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxic Substances [43]
Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay Sediments: 1984-1991 [76]
Development of a Chronic Sediment Toxicity Test for Marine Benthic Amphipods [68]
Development of Estuarine Criteria [108]
Pilot Monitoring for 14 Pesticides in Maryland Surface Waters [169]
Screening of Candidate Species for Development of Standard Operating Procedures for Aquatic Toxicity
Southern Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study, Year 1 Report [70]
Standard Operating Procedures lor Conducting Acute and Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Tests with Eurytemoraaffinis. a CalanoidCopepod
[343]
Status and Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Wildlife Contamination [48]
The Influence of Salinity on the Chronic Toxicity of Atrazine to an Estuarine Copepod: Filling a Data Need for Development of an
Estuarine Chronic Criterion [109]
Testing with Resident Chesapeake Bay Biota [342]
134
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program Framework
Harvest/Consumption
Point/Nonpoint Sources
Atmospheric Deposition
Decomposition and Settling
Figure 35. Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research framework. The names of the lead principal investigators
are listed in the boxes positioned adjacent to the process or effect being studied. Sources: Maryland
and Virginia Sea Grant 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993.
Achievement of
Strategy Commitments
A large majority of the 80 commitments in the
basinwide strategy have been completed or are
underway. Appendix C provides a summary
matrix of the strategy commitments and current
status. Progress towards several commitments
dealing with existing regulatory and statutory
requirements has not been effectively tracked
through the existing system.
INTEGRATED BAY TOXICS
RESEARCH PROGRAM
In 1990, a Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research
Program was established through joint funding
by the Chesapeake Bay Program and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The
research program has two goals: to understand
how Chesapeake Bay ecosystem processes influ-
ence the transport, fate, and effects of potentially
toxic chemicals; and to understand the effects
that representative chemicals have upon ecologi-
cal processes, including trophic dynamics, in the
Bay. These goals are being accomplished through
the development of a unique, interdisciplinary,
and inter-institutional research program, admin-
istered jointly by the Maryland and Virginia Sea
Grant programs. The research program is focus-
ing on the effect that low levels of potentially
toxic chemicals have on living resources in areas
other than those with known toxics problems
(Figure 35). Major findings from the first three
years of the program are described on pages 47-
50.
135
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
LOADING AND RELEASE INVENTORY
The Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Load-
ing and Release Inventory is the first step in the
establishment of a comprehensive baseline of
loadings and releases. As baselines are estab-
lished for the different sources of potentially
toxic chemicals, more detailed accounts of progress
in loading reductions can be tracked and reported
within and across the jurisdictions.
Reductions in
Chemical Loadings
BALTIMORE HARBOR
BOTTOM HABITAT RESPONSES
Maryland Department of the Environment's
Industrial Discharge Program has documented
substantial reductions in toxic chemicals and
conventional pollutants discharged into Balti-
more Harbor and the Patapsco River since the
implementation of Maryland's NPDES Program
in 1974 (Figure 36). For example, chromium,
lead, zinc, and copper from some of the most
significant point source discharges to Baltimore
Harbor were reduced by 99, 75, 94, and 99 per-
cent, respectively, from 1975 to 1988. These
reductions are attributed to both the NPDES
program and the closing of a major metal indus-
try. During this period of documented declines,
biological assessments of Baltimore Harbor and
the mouth of the Patapsco River indicated sub-
stantial improvements in the benthic community' s
species abundance and diversity.
INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS
STORY - NORSHIPCO
NORSHIPCO, a shipbuilding and repair fa-
cility on the Elizabeth River, had a toxic discharge
of oily wastewater. The only treatment this
contaminated waste water received was use of an
oil/water separator. Sampling conducted as a
requirement under the Toxics Management Pro-
gram indicated an extremely toxic effluent. As
a result, a Toxics Reduction Evaluation was ini-
250 -r
^ 200-
Q
1_
"§ 150-
0)
o
% 100-
V)
TJ
° 50-
0-
Reduction of Point Source Discharges
of Selected Chemicals to Baltimore Harbor
I
419 3,632
D D
0.036
—
*0.04
,— i
^.^^••BB^.—.
Antimony Arsenic Chromium
—
Cc
k
>pper
L
ead {
3el
549 2,896
*0.04
r
enium
—
K
!inc
—
Ph
I
I
en
•_
DlS
Figure 36. Reductions in point source discharges of selected metals and phenol to Baltimore Harbor
from selected NPDES permitted facilities. * = No data,
= <1975, =1988, =1992. Source: Maryland
Department of the Environment, unpublished data (c).
136
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
tiated in 1988. The shipyard decided to provide
pretreatment and send the oily waste water to the
local sewage authority in 1993.
INDUSTRIAL PROGRESS
STORY - WAYNETEX
Waynetex, a manufacturer of a woven polypro-
pylene and polyethylene fabric, formerly
discharged effluent into the Potomac River. The
Virginia Toxics Management Program found the
discharge to be acutely toxic due to a surfactant
present at toxic concentrations in the cooling
water. The manufacturer implemented in-house
pollution prevention measures by controlling the
potential overflow of surfactant into the cooling
water and sending the waste water to the local
municipal wastewater treatment plant.
LEAD CONCENTRATION
DECLINES IN PRECIPITATION
concentrations of precipitation at the Lewes,
Delaware atmospheric deposition monitoring
station since 1982 (Figure 37). This decline is the
result of banning lead as a gasoline additive.
Over the same period, there have been no declin-
ing trends in the concentrations of other metals
(e.g., copper).
VIRGINIA PESTICIDE MIXING
AND LOADING FACILITIES
Pesticide mixing and loading facilities may
be a significant source of pesticide loadings to
local and regional environments from the routine
operation of these facilities. The Virginia De-
partment of Conservation and Recreation's
Division of Soil and Water Conservation became
aware of this potential loading source through a
program to monitor water quality improvements
resulting from the implementation of best man-
agement practices.
Scientists from the University of Delaware
have observed significant declines in the lead
Samples collected at the main sampling sta-
tion, located approximately one-quarter mile
3.5'
3-
2.5i
I *-
o
i
Q.
|
O
o
1-
0.5-
0-
Trends in
Rainfall Metals Concentrations
1982
1984
1986
i i
1988
i i
1990
1992
Figure 37. Trends in concentrations of lead ()and copper () in precipitation measured at Lewes, Delaware
from 1982-1992. Source: Church and Scudlark 1992.
137
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
downstream of a fertilizer and chemical mixing
and loading facility, showed consistently high
concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor after
moderate to intense rainfall (Figure 38). Direct
sampling of the facility's stormwater outfall
showed concentrations as high as 9,006 ug/L of
metolachlor and 2,858 ug/L of atrazine. In co-
operation with the Southern States Cooperative
facility, best management practices were installed
with changes in operation procedures in the fall
of 1988. As a result of these structural and
procedural changes, pesticide concentrations
downstream of the facility declined dramatically.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has supported
a statewide inventory of agricultural chemical
mixing and loading facilities. The purpose of this
inventory, scheduled to be conducted in the spring
of 1994, is to assess the potential impact of these
facilities on water quality.
Elimination of Acutely or
Chronically Toxic Discharges
VIRGINIA'S TOXICS
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In its portion of the Chesapeake Bay drainage
area, Virginia currently has 269 industrial and
municipal dischargers in the Toxics Management
Program. The program requires each discharger
to monitor its effluent using acute and chronic
toxicity tests if applicable and monitor for prior-
ity and non-priority pollutants. The biological
data are evaluated to determine if the decision
criteria of the Toxics Management Regulation
have been met, the chemical data are compared
to water quality standards to find possible in-
stream violations.
Currently, 53 facilities in the Bay basin have
failed the decision criteria of the regulation and
Pesticide Concentrations Downstream
of a Virginia Pesticide Mixing and Loading Facility
~ 6000
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
Figure 38. Annual average concentrations of the pesticides atrazine (•) and metolachlor Qg%) recorded
at a samp-ling station a one-quarter mile below the Southern States Prince William-Facquier Cooperative
Inc.-Calverton Branch pesticide mixing and loading facility. Best management practices were installed
and changes in facility operations were initiated in 1989. Source: Virginia Department of Conservation
and Recreation, unpublished data.
138
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
are required to conduct a toxicity reduction evalu-
ation. Eight facilities have completed their
evaluations while several others are very close to
achieving the goal of toxicity reduction or elimi-
nation. Following completion of the toxicity
reduction evaluation, whole effluent toxicity limi-
tations are applied when toxicity is exhibited in
the whole effluent tests. Chemical-specific limi-
tations are included when water quality violations
occurred.
Reduce Ambient
Concentrations of Chemicals
DECLINES IN WATER COLUMN
TRIBUTYLTIN CONCENTRATIONS
Scientists at the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science have documented significant declines in
water column concentrations of tributyltin, a
chemical used as an additive to boat bottom
antifouling paint. Declining concentrations over
a seven-year period occurred at sites in and around
a heavily industrialized harbor surrounded by
naval, commercial, and recreational shipyards
and marinas (Figure 39). Similar declines oc-
curred within a strictly recreational marina (Figure
40). Tributyltin concentrations began to decline
in 1987, the same year that the states of Maryland
and Virginia enacted restrictions on the use tribu-
tyltin in boat bottom paints. Tributyltin products
are now classified as "restricted use" and can only
be applied by certified applicators at licensed
marinas.
RECENT DECLINES IN SEDIMENT
CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
Using sediment core analyses, scientists at
the University of Maryland have recorded peaks
Trends in Tributyltin Concentrations
in Hampton Roads, Virginia
Marina 2
Marina 1 Hampton Yacht Club City Dock
Stations
Old Point Comfort
1986-87 E2 1987-88 Q 1988-89 H 1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
Figure 39. Mean annual water column tributyltin concentrations at five stations around Hampton Roads,
Virginia. Source: Huggett et al. 1992.
139
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
in sediment concentrations of metals in the late
1940s and in the 1970s for polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons with significant declines through
the early 1990s. Currently, sediment metal con-
centrations are at levels similar to those of the
1920s (Figure 19). Current polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon sediment concentrations are at con-
centrations found in middle mainstem Bay
sediments during the late 1800s (Figure 21).
MARYLAND SHELLFISH TISSUE
CONTAMINANT TRENDS
Maryland's Shellfish Monitoring Program has
documented declines in shellfish tissue concen-
trations of arsenic, cadmium, copper, mercury,
and zinc from 1974 to 1990 (Figures 27-31). The
magnitude of concentration reductions for the
five metals ranged from 50 to 90 percent. For the
first year since the monitoring began in the early
1970s, the 1990 data for oyster tissue data also
recorded no detection of the insecticide chlor-
dane which was banned in 1987.
KEPONE IN THE JAMES RIVER
From 1966 through 1975, an estimated 199,580
pounds of kepone, a persistent chlorinated hydro-
carbon insecticide, was released to the James
River and surrounding environment through at-
mospheric emissions, wastewater discharge, and
disposal of off-specification batches during pro-
duction of this pesticide. Kepone contamination
in the tidal James River extended from Hopewell
to Newport News, Virginia; scientists found fish
adulterated with the substance as far upriver as
Richmond, Virginia.
In July 1975, the Virginia Department of
Health closed Life Sciences Products Inc. be-
Trends in Tributyltin Concentrations
in Sarah Creek, Virginia
Sarah A
Sarah B Sarah C
Stations
Sarah D
1986-87 53] 1987-8
1988-89 £3 1989-90 FS 1990-91 H 1991-92
Figure 40. Mean annual water column tributyltin concentrations at four stations in Sarah Creek, a
tributary to the York River in Virginia. Source: Huggett et al. 1992.
140
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
cause of inadequate employee protection in ke-
pone production. State and federal government
staff evaluated the situation and initiated research
and monitoring efforts to determine the extent
and degree of the kepone problem. They found
widespread kepone contamination of water, sedi-
ment, finfish, and shellfish and closed the James
River to all finfish and shellfish harvesting. After
a thorough review, the state permitted catches of
shad, herring, catfish, and female blue crabs. The
fishing ban was further modified over the years
as scientists gathered additional monitoring in-
formation. In 1980, the sportfishing ban was
lifted and by 1981 commercial fishing resumed
for shellfish and all finfish except striped bass.
The water, sediment, and finfish of the tidal
James River are still contaminated with kepone.
Fortunately, kepone concentrations in all areas
have decreased and should slowly continue to
drop over the years due to the burial and dilution
of kepone-containing sediments by less contami-
nated sediments (Figure 41). Monitoring of kepone
concentrations in the sediment and fish will con-
tinue throughout the contaminated reach of the
James River, providing assurance that consumers
of Virginia's seafood remain protected.
BASINWIDE DECREASES IN
WILDLIFE CONTAMINATION
Dramatic decreases in the concentrations of
chemical contaminants in birds over the past 20
to 30 years have resulted in increasing numbers
of bald eagles and ospreys, the two species most
impacted (Figure 42). Levels of chlorinated
pesticides were once at sufficiently high concen-
trations to cause eggshell thinning and mortality
in these two species. By the late 1970s and early
1980s, concentrations of these contaminants had
James River
Kepone Timeline
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
Figure 41. Trends in Kepone concentrations in spot, croaker, and bluefish collected from the James
River. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1993a.
141
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
dropped to levels that no longer impacted the
Bay's raptor populations (Tables 46 and 47).
Manage the Application
of Pesticides
Jurisdictional efforts to implement pesticide
management programs within the Bay basin have
progressed significantly and are highlighted be-
low. Ultimately, progress must be measured as
reductions in ambient concentrations of pesti-
cides to levels below which there is no potential
for adverse effects on the Bay's living resources.
BASINWIDE INCREASES IN
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENT A TION
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia have
made substantial progress in bringing hundreds
of thousands of acres of the bay watershed under
a system of integrated pest management (Figure
43). Integrated pest management practices are
also used on thousands more acres that are out-
side of the formal Cooperative Extensive Service
programs in these three Bay basin jurisdictions.
PENNSYLVANIA'S
ONE-PLAN PROGRAM
The "one plan" concept is an attempt by state
and federal agencies administering programs for
farmers to integrate these programs. The result
will be a single integrated plan for each farm that
meets all state and federal requirements. Pro-
grams such as integrated pest management and
nutrient management will be coordinated at the
farm level to assure that conflicts between differ-
ent management practices do not develop. A pilot
program in Pennsylvania's York County is field
Maryland Chesapeake Bay
Bald Eagle Populations
200-
3
O
O
c
O
75
3
O
Q.
O
O)
150-
50-
(0
m
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
Figure 42. Bald eagle active nests () and young () counts in the Maryland portion of Chesapeake Bay
from 1977 through 1992. Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1993a.
142
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
testing the development of a single plan to assist
farmers with the compliance of three Pennsylva-
nia laws (Pennsylvania Clean Streams,
Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Law, and
Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachment Act)
and three federal acts (1985 Food Security Act,
1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act).
IMPLEMENTATION OF ATRAZINE
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The Maryland Department of Agriculture has
developed and implemented a best management
practices program to reduce the possibility of
atrazine, a herbicide, from reaching drinking water
supplies and to reduce runoff to surface waters.
Atrazine is the most widely used pesticide in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Due to its wide-
spread use and persistence in the environment, it
has been listed as a Chesapeake Bay Toxic of
Concern.
Recommended best management practices
for atrazine include: proper handling, storage,
and disposal; use of cultural and tillage practices;
maintenance of a 50-foot setback from wells
when mixing, loading, or using atrazine; imple-
mentation of a 200-foot application buffer around
lakes, reservoirs, and public water supplies;
maintenance of a 66-foot application buffer from
points where surface water runoff from fields
enters streams and rivers; and delayed use of
atrazine if heavy rains are forecast.
The program for growers and commercial
pesticide applicators recommends landowner
evaluation of each farm site to determine if best
management practices are in place or are needed
o
o>
O>
CO
c
CO
(0
0)
0.
•o
a
2
CD
0)
0)
•o
3
(0
>
Chesapeake Bay Basin
Integrated Pest Management Implementation
1988 1989
1990 1991
1992 1993
Figure 43. Estimated acres of agricultural lands in Maryland (^), Pennsylvania (Q, and Virginia (|)
on which integrated pest management practices have been implemented. Source: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 1993a.
143
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
to protect ground and surface water when using,
storing, and disposing of atrazine products. While
these best management practices focus on atra-
zine, they are equally effective for other pesticides.
Education materials, including a best man-
agement practices brochure, farm site evaluation,
training video, manual on the use of the best
management practices, and best management
practices posters have been developed for distri-
bution to farmers, pesticide applicators, and dealers.
Training sessions addressing the purpose and
implementation of the best management prac-
tices have been conducted for the agricultural
community on a statewide basis in Maryland. An
atrazine best management practices display was
developed and shown at several agricultural con-
ventions, training sessions, and seminars.
ATRAZINE ESTUARINE
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
In 1991, the Chesapeake B ay Program funded
a two-year effort to develop estuarine water quality
criteria for atrazine. The project included a com-
prehensive literature review of atrazine toxicity
in Chesapeake Bay organisms and an investiga-
tion of the relationship of salinity to atrazine
toxicity in two Bay organisms [108,109,121].
The result will be publication of estuarine water
quality criteria for atrazine in 1994; EPA is also
working on publication of freshwater and marine
water quality criteria for atrazine. The approach
used to develop the estuarine criteria for this
herbicide will provide the necessary framework
for the development of estuarine aquatic life
criteria for other chemical contaminants in the
Chesapeake Bay.
VIRGINIA PESTICIDE
DISPOSAL PROGRAM
In response to a comprehensive review of
pesticide management in Virginia which showed
that the storage of unusable and banned pesti-
cides represented a serious hazard to the
environment, the Virginia Pesticide Control Board
recognized the need for an agricultural pesticide
disposal program. Three areas were selected for
participation in a 1990 pilot project—Clarke,
Frederick, and Northumberland counties. The
final cost to collect, pack, transport, and dispose
of the waste was $158,977. The average cost per
participant was $2,304 and the average cost per
pound of pesticide waste collected was $5.26
(contracting costs only). Pesticides collected in
the largest quantities during the pilot project were
DDT (both in pure form and in combination with
other insecticides), endrin, and lead arsenate.
The total quantity of agricultural pesticide waste
collected was 31,797 pounds. The average amount
of pesticide waste per participant was 461 pounds.
Based on a 1991 statewide survey of fanners,
pesticide dealers, and small pest control firms, it
is estimated that over 300,000 pounds of waste
pesticide are stored by the agricultural commu-
nity throughout Virginia.
Virginia Department of Agriculture and Con-
sumer Services, in cooperation with the Virginia
Pesticide Control Board, implemented a second
pesticide disposal effort during 1992. Five areas
were selected to participate in the 1992 Pesticide
Disposal Program—Accomack, Nelson,
Northampton, Nottoway, and Rockingham coun-
ties. The total quantity of pesticides collected
during the program was 57,237 pounds. The final
direct cost for conducting the 1992 program was
$225,264.10, including the contract costs of col-
lection, packaging, transportation, and disposal
($216,058.40) and state laboratory analysis of
unknowns ($9,205.70). The average cost per
pound was approximately $3.93 with the average
cost per participant approximately $1,179. The
most common pesticide wastes collected included
DDT, carbofuran, orthoxenol, disulfoton, and
arsenic-containing pesticides.
144
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Minimize Chemical Loadings
BAY BASIN HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS
WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS
Numerous local governments within the Bay
watershed have undertaken successful household
hazardous waste collection events. In Virginia,
Fairfax County was one of the first areas to
sponsor a collection day. Since 1985, the Fairfax
County program has received waste from over
5,500 residents. Other collection days have been
organized in Loudon County, Prince William
County, and the City of Alexandria.
In Maryland, Anne Arundel County initiated
its collection day program in 1988. The first
event drew 466 cars bringing 23,264 pounds of
waste to the collection site. Participation in
subsequent events has grown to a present rate of
over 1,000 participants at collection day events.
Since the inception of Anne Arundel County's
program, more than 4,100 residents have partici-
pated, resulting in the collection of over 350,000
pounds of household hazardous waste. The
county's total cost for the program since 1988 is
$623,000 or approximately $3,720 per ton.
Montgomery County, Maryland has had similar
successes. Initiated in 1987, Montgomery County's
program participation increased from 648 resi-
dents at its first event to 1,152 people in 1992.
The county estimates its average cost to be ap-
proximately $128 per vehicle served. Other
Maryland collection events have occurred in
Baltimore, Howard, Frederick, and Prince George's
counties.
In 1993, the District of Columbia success-
fully conducted a household hazardous waste
collection program. The program, sponsored by
the Department of Public Works, attracted more
than 1,000 participants. The district has a total
of four one-day collection events scheduled an-
nually.
In Pennsylvania, York County has provided
its citizens with an annual household hazardous
waste collection event since 1985. Due to ongo-
ing education and publicity efforts, awareness
and participation have increased each year. A
recent event in 1991 was attended by 1,167 resi-
dents. The household hazardous waste was
collected during two consecutive Saturdays in
two different locations and was staffed by a
contracted hazardous waste handling company.
The 1991 collection days cost the county ap-
proximately $242,000, $237,000 of which was
paid to the contractor for its services. The re-
maining $5,000 was spent for publicity, distribution
of household hazardous waste wheels, and em-
ployee time. The York County Solid Waste
Management Authority funds the program.
Elsewhere in Pennsylvania, Lancaster County
and the Northern Tier Solid Waste Authority are
among the local governments participating in
collection efforts. One of the few permanent
facilities in the Bay watershed, Lancaster County's
1,200 square foot collection and storage building
has numerous safety features. Two full-time staff
accept the waste, classify it, store it on shelves,
combine certain items (oil, paint, and anti-freeze),
and fill out the necessary paperwork. At least
once every 90 days the contracted hazardous
waste hauler packs the waste in drums and ships
them to an appropriate disposal facility. Some of
these household wastes are deposited in hazard-
ous waste landfills; others are incinerated or
recycled.
PENNSYLVANIA POLLUTION
PREVENTION PROGRAM
A Source Reduction Strategy Manual has
been developed to help generators comply with
the requirements and to achieve source reduction.
The manual includes a discussion of the regula-
tory requirements, elements of a comprehensive
source reduction program, the means to measure
reduction, and ways to conduct a source reduc-
145
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
tion opportunity assessment. The Department of
Environmental Resources is also in the process
of developing a technical assistance program to
help waste generators implement source reduc-
tion programs.
MARYLAND POLLUTION PREVENTION
PROGRAM
The Maryland Department of the Environ-
ment has received $350,00 from the EPA to fund
a multimedia pollution prevention program ini-
tiative during the past two years. Current projects
include a collaboration with other state agencies
to: 1) investigate the capital needs of small busi-
nesses for pollution prevention implementation;
2) develop industry-specific technical assistance;
3) design and present a series of pollution preven-
tion seminars; and 4) create and present a
multimedia technical cross-training curriculum
for department staff.
MARYLAND INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL POLLUTION
PREVENTION SUCCESSES
To date, Maryland businesses have realized
a number of successes in pollution prevention.
The following are examples of the achievements
the department encourages through integration of
pollution prevention into its regulatory and non-
regulatory programs.
AAI Corporation, Cockeysville, is a large manu-
facturer of systems for the military and federal
government. A plating system that produces
heavy metal-laden effluent has been fitted with
an ion exchange system and complementary elec-
trolytic recovery process. Rather than disposing
of the raw effluent as hazardous waste, the metals
are extracted for resale and recycling and the
treated effluent is reused in the plating process.
Better Engineering Manufacturing, Baltimore, is
a manufacturer of water-based cleaning equip-
ment for industrial and automotive uses. The
company's products replace solvent-based sys-
tems and are in use at government facilities and
private businesses worldwide.
Beretta, Accokeek, is a small arms manufacturing
operation that has significantly reduced the gen-
eration of hazardous waste through the introduction
of and use of a treatment/metals recovery system
that reduces the waste toxicity and volume of
their metal plating operations. Further reductions
can be attributed to the installation of a coolant
recycling unit and the use of non-hazardous inks
in the silk screen printer, which uses an evapo-
rator to reduce the volume of lead in wastewater.
Black & Decker, Easton, is a facility that manu-
factures metal tools, small motors, and other
machine parts. The company has eliminated the
use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane by using equipment
manufactured by Better Engineering Manufac-
turing. Better Engineering Manufacturing's jet
washer design encompasses a turn table on which
the parts are placed, rotated, and cleaned with a
biodegradable detergent and water solution. In
another example of source reduction through
solvents replacement, this new operation has
eliminated emissions from previously used sol-
vent cleaner and substantially reduced the costs
and liabilities of waste disposal.
Cambridge Incorporated, Cambridge, a manu-
facturing operation that fabricates wire cloth for
a conveyor product line and has been recognized
by the Maryland Department of the Environment
as an outstanding example of hazardous waste
source reduction. Cambridge implemented an
aqueous-based system for cleaning belts and other
products as an alternative to its old solvent clean-
ing system, eliminating use of the organic solvent
trichloroethane. Wash/rinse tanks now contain
detergent and deionized water along with electric
immersion heaters, oil skimmers, and turbo-charg-
ers to aid the degreasing process. With lower
operating costs and total elimination of contami-
nated solvents, Cambridge estimates the payback
period for the cost and installation of the new
system to be slightly over four years. In addition
to cost and environmental benefits, lowered risk
146
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
to employees was also cited as a factor in the
company's decision to eliminate the use of
trichloroethane.
Ecoprint, Silver Spring, is a small printing com-
pany that received an EPA grant of $25,00 to
develop an extremely low metal content ink in
1992. In conjunction with a Chicago-based ink
manufacturer, Ecoprint reformulated ink pigments
with the metal content reduced from the hundreds
or thousands of parts per million to pigments with
five to ten parts per million. This modification
means that not only is less metal used in the ink
manufacturing, but less metal is released to the
environment through incineration, burial in land-
fills, or as a residual product of paper recycling.
MID Atlantic Finishing, Capital Heights, is a
plating company that has reduced the toxicity and
volume of its hazardous waste. In addition to the
treatment of waste from the plating line, the rinse
water is passed through an ion exchange system
that removes waste metals. The clean effluent is
then recycled back into the rinse section of the
plating operation. This action reduces the amount
of hazardous waste requiring disposal and fresh
water required for the rinse operation.
Rocky Top Wood Preservers, Inc., Hagerstown,
is a lumber pressure treatment facility that has
taken comprehensive measures to minimize haz-
ardous waste and to recycle all generated wastes.
Company efforts include a shaker system to re-
move debris from the initial delivery of lumber.
The facility has a tapered concrete floor with
drains that collect and return effluent from the
drip pad for recycling in a later charge. As a
matter of routine operations, work vehicles are
limited to particular service areas to prevent carry-
over contamination of dirt and dust from entering
the service charge and drip-drying areas. The
facility offers an excellent example of pollution
prevention principles applied in plant design and
operation.
Vulcan-Hart Company, Essex, has converted its
solvent-based wet paint operation to a powder
paint process. Factors which led to the change
to powder-based paints included meeting the Clean
Air Act thresholds for air emissions, reducing
cost and liability for disposal of hazardous waste
sludge, and realizing overall quality and cost
benefits of the powder-based paint system. In
addition to being more energy efficient, the pow-
der-based paint operation is also readily adaptable
to the recovery and reuse of waste powder. Overall
operating and maintenance costs are also lower
than costs associated with the wet paint system.
Along with exceeding minimal compliance lim-
its and reducing worker risk, the company expects
financial payback on its investment within three
years.
VIRGINIA POLLUTION
PREVENTION PROGRAM
Soon after the Virginia Department of Waste
Management was created in 1986, the Waste
Management Board recommended the establish-
ment of a pollution prevention technical assistance
program, based upon a recommendation by the
Virginia Toxics Roundtable. The 1988 General
Assembly appropriated funds for the establish-
ment of the Waste Reduction Assistance
Program—a voluntary program designed to re-
duce Virginia's waste and prevent pollution of
the air, land, and water. Program clients include
Virginia industries, local and state governments,
and institutions, among others. To date, the focus
has been primarily on gathering, consolidating,
and disseminating existing waste reduction ma-
terials. This program will continue to play a
prominent role in promoting pollution prevention
within the Virginia Department of Environmen-
tal Quality—organized to facilitate pollution
prevention.
In 1990, the Virginia Department of Waste
Management received a $300,000 multi-year
pollution prevention grant from the EPA. The
grant funded the Interagency Multimedia Pollu-
tion Prevention Project which supported
multimedia pollution prevention efforts and in-
volved staff from the Virginia Department of
147
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Waste Management, Virginia Department of Air
Pollution Control, and the Virginia State Water
Control Board.
VIRGINIA INDUSTRIAL AND
COMMERCIAL POLLUTION
PREVENTION SUCCESSES
Automata, Sterling, is a circuit board manufac-
turer committed to pollution prevention. The
company has eliminated methylene chloride and
1,1,1-trichloroethane from its production pro-
cesses and has instituted engineering systems to
reduce waste production.
AT&T, Richmond, converted from solvent-based
production to aqueous-based production of cir-
cuit boards eliminating the need to use methylene
chloride and trichloroethane solvents. Prior to
the change, the facility purchased approximately
four million pounds of solvent annually which
ultimately resulted in the production of hazard-
ous waste or release of atmospheric emissions.
Colonial Circuit, Fredericksburg, changed its
plating operations wastewater pretreatment pro-
cess and achieved a reduction of 80,000 pounds
of hazardous waste per year. The old system
generated approximately 90,000 pounds of a
hazardous waste sludge that was sent out-of-state
for land disposal. The new ion-exchange system
produces a metallic product that can be reused in
the process. The cost of the new system was
under $ 100,000 and paid for itself in less than two
years through reduced hazardous waste disposal
costs. The quality of the wastewater discharged
from the facility also improved.
C.R. Hudgins, Lynchburg, is a medium-sized,
privately-owned company that has significantly
reduced the amount of hazardous waste gener-
ated by continually improving its operating
procedures and housekeeping practices. By au-
tomating its plating processes and implementing
the newest techniques to reduce the amount of
carry-over from the plating tanks to the rinse
process, the company reduced the amount of
hazardous waste generated from 1987 to 1989 by
41 percent. This reduction also prevented more
than one million pounds of hazardous waste from
being sent to a landfill. In July 1993, the facility
announced a $2.2 million expansion.
DuPont Spruance, Richmond, instituted source
reduction and recycling efforts within their Kevlar
production process that reduced generated haz-
ardous waste by more than 80 percent.
Additionally, organic emissions were reduced by
7 percent over a three-year period.
DuPont, Waynesboro, won a Virginia Governor's
Environmental Excellence Award for its com-
mitment to pollution prevention and recycling.
Through distillation and reclamation, almost all
hazardous materials are recovered and reused in
the company's processes. Retrofitting old gas-
kets has eliminated most fugitive air releases.
The facility has also reduced polymer and yarn
waste by using waste exchanges. In addition,
DuPont has extended its environmental programs
to the surrounding community.
Ericsson GEMobile Communications, Lynchburg,
manufactures land radios, cellular phones, mo-
bile telephones, and mobile data units. In 1987,
the company was using four different solvents for
circuit board cleaning. By 1992, it was only using
freon. Through the use of a no-clean flux solder-
ing process it eliminated the use of freon in 1993.
The small amount of cleaning required is done
using alcohols. The facility has committed to
EPA's 33/50 program and is well ahead of the 337
50 goals. Ericsson GE also has an aggressive
solid waste program, recycling 100% of its paper
and cardboard as well as thousands of pounds of
radio scrap.
Expert-Brown, Richmond, was the first printer in
Virginia to employ a new waterless printing tech-
nology that reduces waste paper by approximately
one-fourth of previous levels and reduces water
use and waste from fountain solutions. The
company has an environmental ethic which cov-
ers all aspects of its operation, using aqueous
148
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
developers, non-alcohol fountains in its non-
waterless presses, and both recycling film and
press wipes.
Ford Motor Company, Norfolk, has implemented
numerous pollution prevention changes over the
past several years. Some of the changes include:
switching to high solids paints; significantly re-
ducing volatile organic compound emissions; using
gasoline vapor recovery in fueling operations;
and eliminating or dramatically reducing the use
of 1,1,1 -trichloroethane, iron cyanide, lead, chro-
mium, and all chlorofluorocarbons. The facility
uses several pollution prevention support com-
mittees to continuously improve its pollution
prevention efforts.
Lewis Creative Technologies, Richmond, a small
commercial printer, has reduced the amount of
waste produced through the extensive use of
computerized pre-press technology. Desktop
publishing reduces the paper waste from paste-
up; direct-to-film technology eliminates the need
for photographic paper altogether. The company
is also an environmental leader in other areas,
using less hazardous blanket cleaners, aqueous
developers, and two-sided offset plates. The
company expects to expand soon into direct-to-
plate technology, eliminating the need for film
which will remove all silver from its waste stream.
Madison Wood Preservers, Madison, a lumber
pressure-treating facility, has been recognized by
the EPA for its leadership in pollution prevention.
The company has developed a new closed-loop
system that continually recycles water and pre-
servatives, filtering and restrengthening the
mixture. In addition, Madison Wood Preservers
has also added a third step to the normal two-step
moisture-removing process that minimizes unus-
able materials and the waste from rejects.
Pier IX, Newport News, is a coal storage facility
that developed an innovative stormwater collec-
tion system, preventing coal dust runoff from
entering the James River. The company won a
1991 Virginia Governor's Environmental Excel-
lence Award.
Reynolds Metals, Bellwood Printing, pioneered
the use of water-based inks in the early 1980s.
Since then, the Bellwood facility has found wa-
ter-based substitutes for foil inks, paper inks,
primers, protective overcoats, glues, and thermo-
setadhesives. Reynolds has measured reductions
of 97.3 percent in volatile organic compounds
and reductions in hazardous air pollutants of 94
percent since 1983. In addition, innovative recy-
cling programs that include reblending waste ink
for use as backprint ink have been implemented.
Richmond Newspapers, Mechanicsville, opened
a $171 million printing facility in 1991 that was
designed to achieve the highest environmental
standards. Volatile organic compound emissions
have been dramatically reduced through the use
of a dry blanket waste system. Virtually no
hazardous waste is generated as a result of a
comprehensive waste ink recycling program. In
addition, the company recycles all other waste
materials created by the facility. Half of the
newsprint used is 100 percent recycled. Environ-
mental stewardship at the company extends to
facility management (e.g., Stage II vapor recov-
ery at the refueling island, energy conservation
via computer controlled heating and cooling
systems, and automated lighting automation sys-
tems) and landscaping (e.g., non-potable water in
landscaping and sprinkling and wetlands creation
and maintenance).
William Byrd Press, Richmond, has reduced the
amount of hazardous waste generated by more
than 60 percent over the past 5 years through the
use of an ink reclamation system.
Schuller International, Edinburg, produces roof-
ing materials using old telephone books and lottery
tickets as raw materials. The company continues
to expand the amount of recyclable materials
used in its products.
Union Camp, Richmond, has eliminated solvent
use at its facility through the use of water-based
adhesives.
149
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
150
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
REFINEMENTS TO THE
BASINWIDE STRATEGY
Pollution Prevention
Targeting Industrial/
Commercial Sector
Pollution Prevention Actions
Building upon existing state and federal ef-
forts to encourage adoption of pollution prevention
approaches, findings from the reevaluation of the
1989 Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy should
be used to target prevention opportunities. Geo-
graphically targeting Regions of Concern and
Areas of Emphasis is one example of applying the
practical use of new knowledge on the nature,
magnitude and extent of Bay toxic problems.
The revised strategy needs to take advantage
of the existing and often extensive institutional
structures within the industrial manufacturing
and commercial sectors, rather than attempting to
create a new and overlapping infrastructure. Many
of these existing institutional structures (e.g.,
statewide chambers of commerce) already have
a strong commitment to the adoption of pollution
prevention approaches by their members. A
strong link between the strategy reevaluation
findings and these existing commitments to pol-
lution prevention should be forged within the
revised strategy.
Public/Private Partnership for
Integrated Pest Management
Implementation
Integrated pest management is a decision-
making process that uses regular monitoring to
determine if and when pesticide treatments are
needed. This type of management employs physi-
cal, mechanical, cultural, biological, and
educational methods, keeping pest numbers low
enough to prevent intolerable damage or annoy-
ance. Treatments are applied only where
monitoring has indicated that the pest will cause
unacceptable economic, medical, or aesthetic
damage. Chemicals with the lowest toxicity are
used as a last resort.
Integrated pest management requires the
collection of site-specific information to improve
decision-making skills and facilitate the selection
of appropriate pest management alternatives.
Effective integrated pest management strategies
involve the wise and appropriate use of chemicals
as a defense against pests with populations that
cannot otherwise be controlled. These strategies
do not advocate the complete elimination of
pesticides.
In urban landscape, turf, recreational and
structural settings, the adoption of integrated pest
management is similar to agriculture. In agricul-
tural settings, pesticide use is tempered by the
economics of production and the lifelong expe-
rience of growers. In urban settings, where
treatment areas are small and scientific knowl-
edge of pesticide impacts is lacking, aesthetics
rather than economics determine pesticide use.
Surveys indicate that urban pesticide use per acre
is comparable or higher than agricultural use and
that the pesticide load per person is also greater.
In both the urban and agricultural settings, the
greatest impediment to implementation of inte-
grated pest management is the availability of
experts beyond cooperative extension agents. Such
an alternative or supplemental source of expertise
exists within commercial, agrichemical dealerships
and urban pest control services. Most of these
people have extensive experience, although many
would require more specialized training in inte-
grated pest management. Currently, few businesses
are adequately staffed to provide individualized
151
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
site monitoring at the intensity recommended in
integrated pest management scouting programs.
Despite the staff and training limitations, these
businesses have tremendous potential to influ-
ence the overall adoption of integrated pest
management.
In partnership with private interests, a two-
pronged approach could be taken. Agricultural
agencies could ensure that a system for profes-
sional crop advisor certification is available
throughout the region, with the private sector
providing trained, certified experts throughout
the Bay basin. In working with the agricultural
community and private sector on nutrient man-
agement and soil conservation plans, integrated
pest management planning could become a logi-
cal and integral component of whole farm planning
efforts.
Regulatory Program
Implementation
Building on the progress of regulatory pro-
gram implementation to date, the revised strategy
needs to be consistent with and supplement the
existing state, federal, and local legislative and
regulatory mandates. Regulatory programs should
be targeted towards Bay toxics problems as iden-
tified through the strategy reevaluation and,
therefore, place emphasis on Toxics of Concern,
Regions of Concern, and significant sources of
inventoried chemical loadings and releases.
Focus on Chesapeake Bay
Toxics of Concern
Future revisions of the Toxics of Concern List
should include the latest Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram information on point and nonpoint source
loadings, ambient concentrations, aquatic toxic-
ity, and federal and state regulations and/or
restrictions. The process for reviewing and re-
vising the Toxics of Concern List (e.g., adding or
removing chemicals from the list) must be based
on an objective, risk-based ranking system fol-
lowed by professional interpretation of the resultant
rankings.
Revision of the Toxics of Concern List should
also include identification of chemicals of poten-
tial concern for the Chesapeake Bay basin. Given
collection of additional data and information,
these compounds would be considered for future
placement on the Toxics of Concern list. Ranking
the comprehensive list of Bay basin potentially
toxic chemicals using a risk-based system would
help identify those chemicals which don't rank in
the top few percent but may pose a threat in the
future (based on a set of selection guidelines). A
chemical could be placed on this secondary list
due to increasing use (in the case of a pesticide)
or anticipated increases in loadings (for a com-
pound associated with increases in population
and changes in land use).
Increased reliance on the identified Toxics of
Concern and Chemicals of Potential Concern
would enable agency managers to anticipate (rather
than react to) chemical-specific related issues.
Possible actions range from aggressive imple-
mentation of a pollution prevention program
targeted at specific sources of the identified chemi-
cal contaminants to the implementation of
discharge permit limits before the targeted chemical
contaminants become widespread in the Bay basin
environment.
Regional Focus
The most severe toxics contamination prob-
lems in the Chesapeake Bay are geographically
limited to areas with known adverse impacts—
the Patapsco, Anacostia, and Elizabeth
rivers—often located near urban centers that are
close to the Bay. Through the strategy reevalu-
ation process, an in-depth analysis of existing
data has identified other Bay habitats where lower
concentrations of chemicals may have a chronic
effect (e.g., reduced growth or reproduction) rather
than an acute impact (e.g., death) or where present
152
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
activities may lead to the development of toxics-
related problems in the future if action is not
taken now.
The concept of geographically targeting areas
with toxics-related problems for toxics reduction
and prevention activities is not unique to the
Chesapeake Bay region. This approach has been
utilized successfully in the Great Lakes and the
Puget Sound to focus limited resources on those
areas most affected by toxic chemicals. A geo-
graphical targeting approach could play a critical
role in future strategy implementation of specific
reduction and prevention actions within the Chesa-
peake Bay basin.
Without a geographical focus, however, the
revised strategy could cover too many areas and
issues to be effective. The identification of Regions
of Concern will narrow the scope to definable
areas on which to focus specific actions. At the
same time, the Regions of Concern approach is
meant to go beyond obvious sites of contamina-
tion to include areas that are less impacted but are
still considered problematic. Regions with evi-
dence of potential chemical contaminant-related
impacts would also be identified as Areas of
Emphasis and targeted for more prevention-ori-
ented actions. The identification of Regions of
Concern and Areas of Emphasis will clarify the
geographic extent of Chesapeake Bay toxics
problems and establish a basis for targeting re-
duction and prevention actions and defining future
assessment, monitoring, and research priorities.
In a recent issue paper entitled Chesapeake
Bay Regions of Concern: A Geographical Tar-
geting Approach to Toxics Reduction and
Prevention, a Region of Concern was initially
defined as "a delineated area within the tidal
boundaries of the Bay and its tributaries within
which available information indicates that chemi-
cals are either adversely impacting the Bay system
or for which the reasonable potential to do so
exists" [297]. Decisions on designation of these
regions will be made by evaluating available data
and information within a set of criteria which
reflect impacts or the significant potential for
impacts on Bay habitats, living resources, and
human health, with a focus on those areas show-
ing multiple effects. Criteria under consideration
include water column contamination, water col-
umn toxicity, sediment contamination, sediment
toxicity, fish and shellfish tissue contamination,
and benthic community structure. A protocol for
the identification and delineation of Regions of
Concern will be developed in advance of the 1994
Chesapeake Executive Council meeting.
Once designated, the Regions of Concern
(areas with known toxic impacts) and the Areas
of Emphasis (areas with the potential to develop
serious chemical contaminant-related impacts)
will be focal points for multi-agency cooperative
efforts in specific toxics assessment, reduction,
and prevention within the tidal waters of the
Chesapeake Bay. This approach will ensure a
geographical focus for the development of more
specific reduction and prevention action plans
based on the identification of areas which are
most impacted or likely to be impacted by chemi-
cal contaminants. The Chesapeake Executive
Council has already directed development of
Regional Action Plans for three designated Re-
gions of Concern: Baltimore Harbor, Anacostia
River, and Elizabeth River [54]. This increased
geographical specificity will promote more local
involvement and citizen participation in imple-
mentation of the revised strategy. By reducing
and preventing chemical contaminant loadings
and releases, the ultimate goal of minimizing and
eventually eliminating adverse impacts on living
resources within the Regions of Concern and the
Chesapeake Bay can be realized.
Directed Toxics
Assessments
The strategy reevaluation has revealed the
potential exists for the low levels of chemical
contaminants in many Bay habitats to affect the
Bay's living resources adversely. These levels,
153
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
are concentrations lower than thresholds gener-
ally associated with known toxic effects on living
resources (e.g., EPA aquatic life criteria and state
water quality standards) and elevated above natu-
ral background levels (e.g., enrichment of metal
concentrations in sediment above natural earth
crustal levels). Future assessments must focus on
the risks posed to the Bay's living resources and
the ecosystem due to low level chemical expo-
sure, including the potential for additive or
synergistic effects from multiple chemicals. These
assessment must use chemical and biological
methods with sufficient sensitivity to detect these
effects.
Future transport and fate studies should focus
on the following areas:
• Chemical speciation/bioavailability: Large
gaps exist in our ability to distinguish be-
tween the total quantity of a chemical
contaminant in the system and the percentage
of that contaminant available for biological
uptake.
• Sediment transport/resuspension: The rapid
and persistent resuspension of particle-bound
contaminants affects contaminant residence
time and fate.
• Trophic accumulation: Biological and eco-
logical factors which govern the accumulation
and transfer of chemicals through Bay food
webs are still largely unknown.
• High quality measurements of chemical con-
taminant loadings and extant concentrations:
Many of the loading estimates for important
chemical contaminants are based upon data
of questionable quality. In addition, little
information is available concerning concen-
trations in the Bay.
Future trophic transfer studies should focus
on the following areas:
• Uptake and transfer: The factors that govern
uptake and incorporation by microbes and
phytoplankton are fairly well known. The
same factors for higher trophic levels are not
well understood and need to be examined.
• Differences between pelagic and benthic
pathways: Benthic invertebrates have several
feeding patterns which affect their exposure
to chemical contaminants. In addition, trophic
linkages in the water column are likely to be
driven by different processes. Studies that
compare and contrast those processes impor-
tant in regulating exposure need to be
conducted.
• Indirect effects due to trophic interactions:
Shifts in prey species abundance caused by
exposure to contaminants can result in altered
feeding strategies and predator communities
which, in turn, can affect contaminant trans-
fer within the food web. The importance of
such indirect processes is poorly understood.
Future studies of effects should focus on
understanding the interactive and cumulative
effects of low levels of chemicals, both anthro-
pogenic and natural in origin, on the Bay's living
resources.
Ambient Toxicity/
Community Assessments
The relationship between chemical loadings
or ambient concentrations in water column and
bottom sediment habitats and cumulative bio-
logical effects from chemical exposure has not
been clearly demonstrated. Determining chemi-
cal contaminant-related adverse effects on living
resources in natural habitats can be most realis-
tically accomplished by the direct measurement
of biological responses in ambient media. To
measure progress in achieving the revised strat-
egy goals, agencies must be able to evaluate the
effects of exposure to low levels of chemical
contaminants. The ambient toxicity assessment
program uses biological indicators to detect ad-
verse effects of ambient conditions on the Bay's
living resources.
154
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The use of biologically relevant endpoints
(e.g., reduced reproduction) provides an inte-
grated measure of toxic conditions. The traditional
approach of chemical-specific monitoring does
not provide such a measure as the bioavailable
fraction of a chemical contaminant is often un-
known or not directly measurable. If no significant
biological effects are reported on the living re-
sources, then the chemical contaminants are not
available at biologically adverse concentrations.
As a logical extension of existing Toxicity
Identification and Reduction Evaluation proce-
dures directed at point source discharges, ambient
toxicity testing can confirm that a contaminant
problem from a point source has been eliminated.
Ambient toxicity testing can also provide addi-
tional assessment of the level of protection present
beyond the mixing zone—valuable information
not currently obtained from traditional effluent
toxicity testing.
Since nonpoint source inputs of chemical
contaminants are now recognized as significant,
agencies must look beyond point sources for the
cause of the impacts. When biological indices
(i.e., fish or benthic indices of biological integ-
rity) indicate stressed communities, toxicity
assessments can be used to provide additional
data to identify reasons for the stress. This
coupled approach may indicate that additional
investigation into possible point and nonpoint
sources is needed. Such information would aid
agency managers in targeting reduction and pre-
vention actions.
Ambient toxicity testing must also be coupled
with in-field biological assessments to match
"impact-predicted" responses based on ambient
toxicity data with "impact-observed" responses
based on biological assessments. Where biologi-
cal community indices indicate stress, the ambient
toxicity testing could help determine whether the
source of the stress is related to chemical con-
taminant exposure.
Future ambient toxicity/in-field biological
assessments should be used to further delineate
identified Regions of Concern and Areas of
Emphasis and can be used to determine if other
regions should be identified and targeted for
reduction and prevention actions. These assess-
ments may verify or eliminate exposure to chemical
contaminants as a cause for stressed living re-
source communities in critical Bay habitats.
Better Estimation of Chemical
Loadings and Releases
The reported loadings and releases for many
of the sources inventoried in the Basinwide Tox-
ics Loading and Release Inventory were not
collected to calculate load or release estimates,
but to assess compliance (e.g., point sources), use
patterns (e.g., pesticide applications), or for other
purposes. To develop a comprehensive baseline
of chemical loadings and releases to the Bay
basin, the following must be accomplished: 1)
ongoing and future loading estimation studies
and monitoring programs should use consistent
chemical fractions or sets of fractions (e.g., total,
total recoverable, dissolved, paniculate) across
all potential loading sources; 2) sample collec-
tion methods used should minimize sample
contamination (since contamination yields higher
load estimates); and 3) analytical methods that
yield lower detection limits (which will ensure
more definitive loading estimates) should be used.
POINT SOURCES
• State and federal compliance monitoring pro-
grams should collect data necessary to ensure
that dischargers comply with permitted dis-
charges. These programs should also provide
information (i.e. flow, concentration) needed
to develop individual facility loading esti-
mates for chemical contaminants.
• A system for routine state submission of point
source discharge data should be implemented.
155
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• The basinwide inventory should include load-
ing estimates for all individual point source
facilities discharging to waters within the Bay
basin. The estimates should be based initially
on available data and eventually on data col-
lected for calculating facility-specific loading
estimates.
URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
• Establish, coordinate, and implement compa-
rable sampling, load estimation, and reporting
procedures for the collection and analysis of
stormwater runoff data for large municipal
populations within the Bay basin.
• Account for the effectiveness of the structural
and non-structural stormwater management
practices in use throughout the Bay basin
when revising the inventory's estimates of
urban stormwater loadings of chemical con-
taminants.
FALL LINE LOADINGS
• Ensure loadings of metals, organic chemical
contaminants, and pesticides are fully char-
acterized in terms of fraction (dissolved vs.
paniculate) and flow (baseflow vs. storm flow)
for the three major Bay tributaries—Susque-
hanna, Potomac, and James rivers—which
jointly contribute more than 80 percent of the
freshwater flow.
• Conduct necessary fall line monitoring to
estimate loadings of chemical contaminants
from the remaining tributary fall lines—Patux-
ent, Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunkey,
Appomattox, and Choptank rivers.
ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION
• Monitor to estimate atmospheric deposition
loadings contributed from local urbanized
areas (e.g., Baltimore, Norfolk/Hampton
Roads) to Bay tidal waters and the surround-
ing watershed.
• Improve estimates of "dry" atmospheric depo-
sition loadings of chemical contaminants.
• Improve estimates of atmospheric deposition
fluxes of pesticides.
• Conduct intensive deposition studies to de-
termine the sources of atmospherically
deposited chemical contaminants and the fate
and bioavailability of these chemical con-
taminants.
• Develop estimates of atmospheric deposition
loadings of chemicals to above fall line land
and water surfaces and to below fall line land
surfaces.
PESTICIDES
• Develop and apply a standard survey ques-
tionnaire for all Bay basin jurisdictions using
common survey parameters and report the
results to a single data base in a consistent
format.
• Conduct coordinated state studies to link
pesticide use estimates to the amount of pes-
ticides delivered to tributaries, groundwater,
and Bay tidal waters. These studies should
focus on major crops (e.g., corn) and land use
(e.g., suburban residential) that use signifi-
cant quantities of pesticides.
• Design watershed-specific monitoring projects
to develop data bases that will provide the
information necessary to assess the accuracy
of predictive models linking pesticide appli-
cations with pesticide loadings to tidal surface
waters.
SHIPPING/TRANSPORT/BOATING/
MARINAS
• Develop chemical loadings estimates for those
shipping, boating, and marina activities and
structures (including pressure-treated wood)
that have the highest potential to impact the
Bay adversely.
156
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Targeting Source Reduction/
Prevention Through Mass
Balancing
With increasingly stringent controls on con-
ventional (i.e., point) sources of chemicals, the
relative importance of diffuse nonpoint sources
is increasing. More precise accounting of both
human-generated and natural chemical contami-
nant loads to the Bay is critical in understanding
how chemicals cycle within the ecosystem and
the ultimate effect of these chemicals on the
living resources. The magnitude of inputs and
outputs of chemicals must be determined to have
successful and cost-effective control strategies.
Establishment of a "mass balance" for Chesa-
peake Bay would provide an appropriate conceptual
framework to estimate the relative importance of
the sources of chemical contaminants to the Bay.
In such a model, quantities of a chemical entering
and exiting the water body by various pathways
are determined. The framework would provide
a means by which to array and interpret data from
a diverse arrays monitoring, modeling, research,
and load estimation studies, projects, and pro-
grams [13].
Investments in load estimation studies would
need to be coupled with efforts to better estimate
the removal rates (e.g., losses resulting from
burial, gas exchange, degradation) from Chesa-
peake Bay. A better understanding of the time
lag between reduction or prevention of chemical
loadings and a corresponding reduction in the
concentration of chemicals in the sediments and
overlying water column are critical to support
risk reduction-based decisions on what chemical
contaminants to reduce, from where, by how
much, and over what time period.
The mass balance approach should be an
integral part of the Regions of Concern compo-
nent of the revised strategy. It is not necessary
or advisable to develop a definitive mass balance
for a region. Rather, the mass balance approach
should identify the relative importance of various
sources of chemical contaminant-related impacts
so that effective risk-reduction strategies can be
developed. As this approach is used in the vari-
ous Regions of Concern, it may point toward
more comprehensive risk management strategies
for the basin as a whole.
157
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
158
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOWARDS A REVISED STRATEGY
Based on the findings of the strategy reevalu-
ation report, the Chesapeake Executive Council
directed the Bay Agreement signatories to revise
the existing Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strat-
egy by the next annual Executive Council meeting
(Table 50) [54]. During its September 1993
meeting, the Executive Council further directed
that the revised strategy emphasize four areas:
pollution prevention, regulatory program imple-
mentation, regional focus, and directed toxics
assessments. The process for revising the basin-
wide strategy will incorporate broad public
involvement in the strategy's development, re-
view, and implementation. The revised strategy
will build upon the findings from the strategy
reevaluation and be structured around the Execu-
tive Council's four areas of emphasis. Following
a series of stakeholder roundtables and a public
review of the draft strategy document, the final
strategy will be presented to the Chesapeake
Executive Council at their 1994 annual meeting
for signature and adoption by the Chesapeake
Bay Agreement signatories.
Table 50. Chesapeake Executive Council Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Directive
Chesapeake Executive Council
Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Directive
In January 1989, the Chesapeake Executive Council adopted the Basinwide Toxics Reduction
Strategy in fulfillment of the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement and committed to reevaluate the
Strategy in 1992. The long term goal of the Strategy is to work towards a toxics free Bay. The
strategy uses the requirements of the 1987 Clean Water Act as a foundation for action and initiates
a multi-jurisdictional effort to better define the nature, extent, and magnitude, of toxic problems.
Through the strategy reevaluation, it has been determined that:
• In some locations, toxic problems exist in the Chesapeake Bay. The nature, extent, and severity
of toxic impacts range widely throughout the Bay: a few well known areas have serious, localized
problems; and, some other regions that were previously thought to be uncontaminated have
shown some toxic effects.
• No evidence was found of severe, systemwide responses to toxics similar in magnitude to the
observed effects throughout the Bay due to excessive levels of nutrients, such as declines in
underwater grasses and widespread low dissolved oxygen conditions.
• Existing programs are reducing the input of toxics to the Chesapeake Bay.
• Concentrations of some toxic substances in fish, shellfish, wildlife and their habitats are on the
decline although elevated levels are observed in several urbanized regions.
• Widespread areas have low levels of toxic substances below thresholds associated with adverse
effects on the Bay's living resources. The long term effects from these low levels remain unclear.
The reevaluation has shown that significant steps toward controlling the input of toxics to the Bay
system have been taken over the past decade. However, much remains to be done to address the
known and potential problems identified by the reevaluation. We should therefore pursue the
159
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 50 (con't.) Chesapeake Executive Council Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Directive
following directions in the development of a strategy to protect the Bay and its resources from
toxic pollution: increase emphasis on pollution prevention; supplement regulatory programs: use
a regional focus to address problem areas; and focus assessments in direct support of management
actions.
Therefore, the Chesapeake Executive Council directs the Bay Agreement signatories to revise,
by the next annual Council Meeting, the existing Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy through
a process that incorporates broad public involvement in the Strategy's development, review, and
implementation. Further, the Council directs that emphasis be placed on the following four areas:
1. Pollution prevention
The revised Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy shall recognize pollution prevention as the
preferred approach to reducing risks to human health and living resources due to exposure to
toxics within the Chesapeake Bay region. The revised Strategy shall:
• Promote pollution prevention education and technical assistance programs within all levels
of government—federal, state, and local—throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
• Expand support of integrated pest management programs for controlling and minimizing
pesticide use in agricultural, urban, and suburban areas;
• Create additional incentives for industry and advance technical assistance, training, and
outreach opportunities to aid industry with incorporating pollution prevention actions into
their daily business activities;
• Continue to integrate pollution prevention approaches into environmental regulatory pro-
grams wherever feasible; and,
• Use pollution prevention as the principal means to offset increases in toxics loadings due to
land use changes and population growth in the Bay basin.
2. Regulatory program implementation
The revised Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy shall be consistent with, and supplement, the
requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) to ensure protection
of human and living resources. The revised Strategy shall:
• Support the CWA and CAA regulatory programs through recognition and promotion of the
toxic reduction actions taken throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
• Quantify toxics reductions from ongoing implementation of CWA and CAA programs and
anticipated habitat and living resources improvements;
• Focus Chesapeake Bay Program commitments on toxics reduction and prevention actions;
and,
• Undertake additional actions needed beyond requirements of the CWA and CAA to achieve
the goals of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement and the revised Strategy.
160
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Table 50 (con't.) Chesapeake Executive Council Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Directive
3. Regional focus
The revised Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy shall direct reduction and prevention actions
toward regional areas with known toxic problems as well as areas where significant potential
exists for toxic impacts on living resources and habitats. At this time the Elizabeth River,
Baltimore Harbor, and the Anacostia River are designated as the initial Chesapeake Bay Regions
of Concern. Action plans to address the problems related to toxics in these three systems shall
be developed by the next annual meeting of the Council. In addition, the revised Strategy shall:
• Establish a process for characterizing and designating additional areas of the Bay as Regions
of Concern; and,
• Focus multi-agency cooperative efforts toward planning and implementing the necessary
assessment, reduction, remediation, and prevention actions to restore and protect the
designated Regions of Concern.
4. Directed toxics assessments
The revised Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy shall ensure that toxics assessments will
directly support management decisions for the reduction and prevention of toxics. The initial
baseline inventory of toxics loading and release sources by facility will be completed by April
1, 1994 to allow measurement of progress towards the Strategy goals. In addition, the revised
Strategy shall:
• Require assessments of the potential impacts on the Bay's living resources from the observed
widespread low level concentrations of toxics in Bay habitats.
Source: Chesapeake Executive Council 1993.
161
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
162
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
REFERENCES
1. Albers, P.H., L. Sileo, and B.M. Mulhern. (1986). "Effects of environmental contaminants on
snapping turtles of a tidal wetland." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 15:39-49.
2. Alden, R.W. Ill, and AJ. Butt. (1987). "Statistical classification of the toxicity and polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbon contamination of sediments from a highly industrialized seaport." Environ.
Toxicol. and Chem. 6:673-684.
3. Alden, R.W. Ill, AJ. Butt, and RJ. Young, Jr. (1988). "Toxicity testing of sublethal effects of
dredged materials." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17:381-385.
4. Ames, P.L. (1966). "DDT residues in the eggs of the osprey in the Northeastern United States and
their relation to nesting success." 7. Appl. Ecol. 3:87-97.
5. Anderson-Bledsoe, K.L. and P.P. Scanlon. (1983). "Heavy metal concentrations in tissues of
Virginia river otters." Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 30:442-447.
6. Audet, D., D. Scott, and S.N. Wiemeyer. (1992). "Organochlorines and mercury in osprey eggs
from the eastern United States." J. Raptor Res. 26(4):219-224.
7. Bachman, L.J., P.J. Phillips, and L.D. Zynjuk. (1992). "The Significance of Hydrologic Land-
scapes in Estimating Nitrogen Loads in Base Flow to Estuarine Tributaries of the Chesapeake
Bay." American Geophysical Union, Spring 1992 Meeting.
8. Baker, I.E. (personal communication). University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Labora-
tory, Solomons, Maryland. September 1993.
9. Baker, I.E. (unpublished data). Chesapeake Bay sediment core polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
data. University of Maryland, Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Solomons, Maryland. Septem-
ber 1993.
10. Baker, J.E. and S.J. Eisenreich. (1990). "Concentrations and fluxes of polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons and polychlorinated biphenyls across the air-water interface of Lake Superior."
Environ. Sci. and Technol. 24:342-352.
11. Baker, I.E., T.M. Church, J. Ondov, J.R. Scudlark, K. Conko, D.L. Leister, and Z.Y. Wu. (1992).
Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. Phase I: July 1990-June 1991. Final Report to
Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Annapolis, Maryland.
12. Baker, I.E., D.L. Leister, R.M. Dickhut. (1993a). "Atmospheric wet deposition of hydrophobic
organic contaminants to Chesapeake Bay." Trans. Amer. Geophy. Union (EOS). 74(16),79.
13. Baker, I.E., T.M. Church, S. Eisenreich, W.F. Fitzgerald, and J.R. Scudlark. (1993b). Relative
Loadings of Toxic Contaminants and Nitrogen to the Great Waters. A report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 142 pp.
163
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
14. Baker, J.E., D. Burdige, T.M. Church, G. Cutter, R.M. Dickhut, D.L. Leister, J.M. Ondov, and J.R.
Scudlark. (1994a). Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study. Phase II: July 1990 -
December 1991. Final Year 2 Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Annapolis,
Maryland.
15. Baker, I.E., R. Harvey, and F.C. Ko. (1994b). "Role of plankton in controlling the partitioning and
transport of hydrophobic organic contaminants in the Chesapeake Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed).
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report
Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
16. Batiuk, R. (1987). Survey of Tributyltin and Dibutyltin Concentration at Selected Harbors in
Chesapeake Bay: Final Report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
17. B attelle. (1988). Review of Technical Literature and Characterization of Aquatic Surface Microlayer
Samples. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
18. Belisle, A.A., W.L. Reichel, L.N. Locke, T.G. Lament, B.M. Mulhern, R.M. Prouty, R.B. DeWolf,
and E. Cromartie. (1972). "Residues of organochlorine pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
mercury and autopsy data for bald eagles, 1969 and 1970." Pestic. Monit. J. 6:133-138.
19. Bellama, J.M. and W.H. Zoller. (1983). An Investigation of the Character of and Constituents of
Slicks on Water Surfaces Near Power Plants in the Chesapeake Bay. Report to the Maryland Power
Plant Siting Program, PPRP-83.
20. Bender, M.E., W.J. Hargis Jr., J. Huggett, and M.H. Roberts Jr. (1988). "Effects of Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons on Fishes and Shellfish: An Overview of Research in Virginia." Mar.
Environ. Res. 24:237-241.
21. Benner, B.A., G.E. Gordon, and S.A. Wise. (1989). "Mobile sources of atmospheric polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons: a roadway tunnel study." Environ. Sci. and Technol. 23:1269-1278.
22. Bidleman, T.F., G.W. Patton, D.A. Hinkley, M.D. Walla, and B.T. Hargrave. (1988). "Airborne
organochlorines (HCH) in the Canadian high arctic." Meeting of the Third Chemical Congress of
North America, Toronto, Ontario, June 5-10, 1988.
23. Bieri, R.H., C. Hein, R. Huggett, P. Shou, H. Slone, C. Smith, and C. Su. (1986). "Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons in surface sediments from the Elizabeth River subestuary." Int. J. Environ.
and Anal. Chem. 26:97-113.
24. Bieri, R.H., C. Hein, R. Huggett, P. Shaw, H. Slone, C. Smith, and C. Su. (1982). Toxic Organic
Compounds in Surface Sediments from the Elizabeth and Patapsco Rivers and Estuaries. Final
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600V53-83-012.
164
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
25. Bieri, R.H., P. DeFur, RJ. Huggett, W. Maclntyre, P. Shou, C.L. Smith, and C.W. Su. (1981).
Organic Compounds in Surface Sediments and Oyster Tissues from the Chesapeake Bay. Final
report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Year 1 and 2. Grant No. R 806012010.
26. Biggs, R.B. (1970). "Sources and distribution of suspended sediment in northern Chesapeake
Bay." Mar. Geol. 9:187-201.
27. Bingaman, D. (personal communication). Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania. May 1993.
28. Bishop, C.A., RJ. Brooks, J.H. Carey, P. Ng, R.J. Norstrom, and D.R.S. Lean. (1991). "The case
for a cause-effects linkage between environmental contamination and development in eggs of the
common snapping turtle (Chelydra s. serpentine) from Ontario, Canada." J. Toxicol. and Environ.
Health 4:521-547.
29. Block, E. (1990). Organochlorine Residues and Histopathological Examination of Fish from the
Potomac andAnacostia Rivers, Washington, DC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental
Contaminants Division, Annapolis Field Office, Annapolis, Maryland. Publication No. AFO-C90-
01.
30. Broman, D., C. Naf, and Y. Zebuhr. (1991). "Long-term high- and low-volume air sampling of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
along a transect from urban to remote areas on the Swedish Baltic coast." Environ. Sci. and
Technol. 25:1841-1850.
31. Brush, G.S. (1984). "Patterns of recent sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay (Virginia-
Maryland, USA) tributaries." Chem. Geol. 44:227-242.
32. Brush, G.S. (1989). "Rates and patterns of estuarine sediment accumulation." Limnol. and
Oceanog. 34(7): 1235-1246.
33. Brush, G.S. and F.W. Davis. (1984). Stratigraphic evidence of human disturbance in an estuary."
Quat. Res. 22:91-108.
34. Bryant, C.P., R.W. Young, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. (1978). "Kepone residues in body tissues of
raccoons collected along the James River, east of Hopewell, Virginia." Virg. J. Sci. 29:57
(abstract).
35. Bunton, T.E. and S.M. Baksi. (1988). "Cholangioma in white perch (Morone americana) from the
Chesapeake Bay." J. Wildlife Dis. 24:137-141.
36. Byrne, R.J. and J.L. Anderson. (1973). "Shoreline erosion in Virginia's tidal rivers and Chesapeake
Bay." Vir. J. Sci. 24(3), 158.
37. Cain, B.W.(1981). "Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in wings of adult mallards
and black ducks, 1979-80." Pestic. Monitor. J. 15:128-134.
165
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
38. Capone, D.G., J.E. Baker, and J.W. Gooch. "Microbial degradation of chlorinated hydrocarbons
under alternating redox conditions in Chesapeake Bay sediments." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994).
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report
Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
39. Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee. (1992). Local Solutions - A Local
Government Guide to Managing Household Hazardous Waste in the Chesapeake Bay Region.
76 pp.
40. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1991a). Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List: Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee and
Living Resources Subcommittee Joint Criteria and Standards Workgroup. Annapolis, Maryland.
41. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1991b). Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List Information Sheets.
Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee and Living Resources Subcommittee Joint
Criteria and Standards Workgroup. Annapolis, Maryland.
42. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1991c). Chesapeake Bay Program's System for Measuring Progress
Under the Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy - Draft. Presented to the Implementation
Committee by the Toxics Subcommittee. 6 pp.
43. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1992a). Comprehensive List of Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxic Sub-
stances. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
44. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1992b). Status and Assessment of Chesapeake Bay Wildlife Contami-
nation. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 80/92.
45. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1993a). Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition of Toxics Critical
Issue Forum Proceedings. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesa-
peake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 86/93.
46. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1993b). Chesapeake Bay Finfish/Shellfish Tissue Contamination
Critical Issue Forum. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake B ay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 97/93.
47. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1993c). Chesapeake Bay Ground-water Toxics Loading Workshop
Proceedings. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 96/93.
48. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1993d). Chesapeake Bay Sediment Contamination Critical Issue
Forum Proceedings. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 87/93.
166
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
49. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1993e). Chesapeake Bay Water Column Contaminants Critical Issue
Forum Proceedings. Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report. Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 95/93.
50. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1994a). Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory.
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Commitment Report. Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 102/94.
51. Chesapeake Bay Program. (1994b). Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Loading and Release Inventory:
Technical Update - Point Source Loads by Facility. Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation
Directive Report. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 114/94.
52. Chesapeake Bay Program Toxics Subcommittee. (1993). Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy
Reevaluation Plan. Annapolis, Maryland. 4 pp.
53. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1989). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy:
An Agreement Commitment Report from the Chesapeake Executive Council. Annapolis, Mary-
land.
54. Chesapeake Executive Council. (1993). Directive No. 93-2 Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevalua-
tion. Annapolis, Maryland.
55. Church, T.M. (unpublished data). University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware. April 1993.
56. Church, T.M. and J.R. Scudlark. (1992). In: The Deposition and Fate of Trace Metals in our
Environment. U.S. Forest Service Technical Report NC-150. (E.S. Veny and S.J. Vermette, eds.)
Proceedings of the National Atmospheric Deposition Program Symposium, Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, October 8,1991.
57. Clark, D.R., Jr., and R.M. Prouty. (1976). "Organochlorine residues in three bat species from four
localities in Maryland and West Virginia, 1973." Pestic. Monit. J. 10:44-53.
58. Cohn, T.A. (1988). Adjusted Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Moments of Lognormal
Populations from Type I Censored Samples. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report No. 88-350.
59. Cole, R.H., R.E. Frederick, R.P. Healy, and R.G. Rolan. (1983). NURP Priority Pollutant
Monitoring Project, Summary of Findings. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
60. Collier, J. (personal communication). District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regu-
latory Affairs, Washington, D.C. June 1994.
61. Cornwell, J.C., DJ. Burdige, and W.R. Boynton. (1994). "Direct measurements andbiogeochemi-
cal controls of sediment-water flux of trace metals from estuarine sediments." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed).
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report
Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
167
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
62. Cromartie, E., W.L. Reichel, L.N. Locke, A. A. Belisle, T.E. Kaiser, T.G. Lament, B .M. Mulhern,
R.M.Prouty, and D.M. Swineford. (1975). "Residues of organochlorine pesticides and polychlo-
rinated biphenyls and autopsy data for bald eagles, 1971-72." Pestic. Monit. J. 9:11-14.
63. Croonenbergs, R. (personal communication). Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia.
March 1993.
64. Gushing, E.M., I.H. Kantrowity, and K.R. Taylor. (1973). Water Resources of the Delmarva
Peninsula. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 822.
65. Czarnezki, J.M. (1989). Contaminant levels in Missouri fish-1987. Missouri Department of
Conservation, Fish and Wildlife Research Center, Columbia, Missouri. 22 pp.
66. Dagakalakis, K.D. and T.P. O'Connor. (1994). Inventory of Chemical Concentrations in Coastal
and Estuarine Sediments. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS ORCA 76. Silver Spring, Maryland.
67. DeFur, P. and C.L. Smith. (1987). Analysis of Effluents and Associated Sediments and Tissue for
Toxic Organic Compounds 1985-1986. Final Report to Virginia State Water Control Board,
Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
68. DeWitt, T.H., M.S. Redmond, I.E. Sewall, and R.C. Swartz. (1992). Development of a Chronic
Sediment Toxicity Test for Marine Benthic Amphipods. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Newport, Oregon. CBP/TRS 89/93.
69. DiGiulio, R.T. and P.P. Scanlon. (1984). "Heavy metals in tissues of waterfowl from the
Chesapeake Bay, USA." Environ. Pollut. 35A:29-48.
70. Dickhut, R.M., G. Cutter, J. Ondov, and D. Burdige. (1992). Southern Chesapeake Bay Atmo-
spheric Deposition Study Year 1 Report. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
71. Dickhut, R.M., K.E. Gustafson, K. Liu, E.H. MacDonald. (1994). "Air/water partitioning and mass
transfer properties of toxic organic chemicals". In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994). Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons,
Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
72. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. Unpublished Data. District
of Columbia Monitoring Program data for 1989 and 1990 from Hamid Karimi. May 1993.
73. Donat, J.R. (1994). "The chemical speciation of dissolved copper and cadmium in Chesapeake
Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research
Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
168
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
74. Eisenberg, M. and JJ. Topping. (1981). Heavy Metal, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl and Pesticide
Levels in Shellfish and Finfishfrom Maryland Waters, 1976-1980. Maryland Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore, Maryland.
75. Eisenreich, S.J. and W.M.J. Strachan. (1992). Estimating Atmospheric Deposition of Toxic
Substances to the Great Lakes - An Update. Proceedings from workshop held in Ontario, Canada.
Sponsored by The Great Lakes Protection Fund and Environment Canada. January 31- February
2,1992.
76. Eskin, R., K. Rowland, D. Allegre, and R. Magnien. (1994) Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay
Sediments: 1984-1991. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake
Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
77. Finger, S.E. (1987). Striped Bass Contaminant Studies in 1987. Progress report. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri. 17 pp.
78. Finger, S.E. (1989). Striped Bass Contaminant and Water Quality Studies in the Nanticoke,
Choptank, Rappahannock, Mattaponi, Pamunkey, and James Rivers. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Columbia, Missouri.
79. Foreman, W.T. and T.F. Bidleman. (1990). "Semivolatile organic compounds in the ambient air
of Denver, Colorado." Atmos. Environ. 24:2405-2409.
80. Franson, J.C., J.W. Spann, G.H. Heinz, C. Bunck, and T. Lament. (1983). Effects of dietary
ABATE on reproductive success, duckling survival, behavior, and clinical pathology in game-
farm mallards." A rchives of Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 12:529-534.
81. Fraser, J.D., D.A. Buehler, G.D. Thencs, and J.K.D. Seeger. (1991) "Bald Eagle." In: S.L.
Funderburk, J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, andD. Riley (eds.). Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources - Second Edition. Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
82. Frey, R. (personal communication). Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. April 1993.
83. Funderburk, S.L., J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley (eds.). (1991). Habitat Requirements
for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources - Second Edition. Living Resources Subcommittee,
Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
84. Garreis, MJ. and F.A. Pittman. (198 la). Heavy Metal, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl, and Pesticide
Levels in Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and Soft Shell (Mya arenaria)from the Choptank River,
Maryland. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental
Programs, Baltimore, Maryland.
85. Garreis, M.J. and F.A. Pittman. (1981b). Heavy Metal, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl, and Pesticide
Levels in Oysters (Crassostrea virginica): 1979 Oyster Spat Survey. Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore, Maryland.
169
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
86. Garreis, M.J. and F.A. Pittman. (1982). Heavy Metal, Poly chlorinated Biphenyl, and Pesticide
Levels in Oysters (Crassostrea virginica): 1980 Oyster Spat Survey. Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Program, Baltimore, Maryland.
87. Garreis, M.J. andD.L. Murphy. (1986a). Inner Harbor Crab Survey: Heavy Metal and Chlorinated
Hydrocarbon Levels in Callinectes sapidus in the Chesapeake Bay. Technical Report 24. Maryland
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore,
Maryland.
88. Garreis, M.J. andD.L. Murphy. (1986b). Intensive Survey for Chlordane Contamination inFinfish
in Lake Roland, Back River, and Patapsco River. Technical Report 24. Maryland Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs, Baltimore, Maryland.
89. Gassner, G., M.J. Line, M.M. Millard, J.R. Plimmer, W.K. Vogelbein, and P. Van Veld. (1990).
"Feasibility study: magnetic resonance imaging of hepatic neoplasms in mummichog Fundulus
heteroclitus from a creosote-contaminated environment." In: J.A. Mihursky and A. Chaney (eds.).
New Perspective in the Chesapeake Bay System: A Research and Management Partnership.
Proceedings of a conference December 4-6, Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consor-
tium Publication No. 137.
90. Gilmour, C. (unpublished data). Academy of Natural Science of Philadelphia, Benedict Estuarine
Research Laboratory, Benedict, Maryland. April 1993.
91. Gilroy M.J and J.H. Barclay. (1988). "DDE residues and eggshell characteristics of reestablished
peregrines in the eastern United States." pp. 403-411. In: T.J Cade, J.H. Enderson, C.G. Thelander
and C.M. White (eds.). Peregrine Falcon Populations: Their Management and Recovery. The
Peregrine Falcon Fund, Inc., Boise Idaho.
92. Glotfelty, D.E., G.H. Williams, H.P. Freeman, and M.M. Leech. (1990). "Regional atmospheric
transport and deposition of pesticides in Maryland." In: Long Range Transport of Pesticides. D.A.
Kurtz, (ed). pp. 199-221
93. Goldberg, E.D., V. Hodge, M. Koide, J. Griffin, E. Gamble, O.P. Bricker, G. Matisoff, G.R.
Holdren, and R. Baum. (1978). "A pollution history of the Chesapeake Bay." Geochimica
Cosmochimica Acta 42:1413-1425.
94. Gregory, J. (personal communication). Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Rich-
mond, VA. 1994.
95. Gucinski, H.R. (1986). "The effect of sea surface microlayer enrichment on TBT transport." In:
Oceans 86 Conference Proceedings, Vol. 4. Washington, DC. pp. 1275-1279.
96. Gucinski, H.R., R. Preston, and R.J. Laird. (1991). Surface Microlayer Sampling Results for the
Chesapeake Bay, Spring 1988. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS
59/91.
170
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
97. Gustafson, K.E. (1993). "Molecular diffusion coefficients for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in air and water." MS thesis. The College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine
Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
98. Halbrook, R.S. (1990). "Muskrat populations in Virginia's Elizabeth River: Influence of Environ-
mental Contaminants." Ph.D. dissertation. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State University.
171 pp.
99. Halbrook, R.S. and R. Kirkpatrick. (1991). "Environmental Contaminants and Muskrats in
Virginia's Elizabeth River." In: J.A. Mihursky and A. Chaney (eds.). New Perspectives in the
Chesapeake Bay System: A Research and Management Partnership. Proceedings of a conference
December 4-6, 1990, Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No.
137.
100. Halbrook, R.S., R.L. Kirkpatrick, D.R. Bevan, B.P. Dunn. (1992). "DNA adducts detected in
muskrats by 32P-postlabeling analysis." Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 11:1605-1613.
101. Hale. R.C., G.G. Vandas, C.L. Smith, and E. Bush. (1993). Analysis of Effluents and Associated
Sediments and Tissue for Toxic Organic Compounds 1990-1992. Report to Virginia Water Control
Board, Richmond, Virginia. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
102. Hall, L.W., Jr. (1984). Field Assessments of Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, Larval Survival as
Related to Contaminants and Changes in Water Quality Parameters. Final report. The Johns
Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Shady Side, Maryland. 39 pp.
103. Hall, L.W., Jr. (1985). In-situ Investigations for Assessing Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis, Larval
and Yearling Survival as Related to Contaminants and Changes in Water Quality Parameters -
East Coast Striped Bass Habitats. Final Report. The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics
Laboratory, Shady Side, Maryland. 40 pp.
104. Hall, L.W., Jr. (1988). "Tributyltin Environmental Studies in Chesapeake Bay." Mar. Pollut. Bull.
(19)9:431-438.
105. Hall, L.W., Jr., A.E. Pinkney, L.O. Horseman, and S.E. Finger. (1985). "Mortality of striped bass
larvae in relation to contaminants and water quality in a Chesapeake Bay tributary." Trans. Am.
Fish.Soc. 114:861-868.
106. Hall, L.W., Jr., A.E. Pinkney, R.L. Herman, and S,E. Finger. (1987a). "Survival of striped bass
larvae and yearlings in relation to contaminants and water quality in the upper Chesapeake Bay."
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:391-400.
107. Hall, L.W., Jr., S.E. Finger, and M.C. Ziegenfuss. (1993a). "A review of in-situ and on-site striped
bass contaminant and water quality studies in the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed." Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 14:3-15.
171
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
108. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, and R.D. Anderson. (1993b). An Assessment of Salinity Effects
on the Toxicity ofAtrazine to Chesapeake Bay Species: Data Needs for Development ofEstuarine
Criteria. Final report to the Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.
109. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, and R.D. Anderson. (1994a). The Influence of Salinity on Chronic
Toxicity of Atrazine to an Estuarine Copepod: Filling a Data Need for Development of an
Estuarine Chronic Criterion. University of Maryland, Queenstown, Maryland.
110. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, R.D. Anderson, W.D. Killen, R.W. Alden III, and P. Adolphson.
(1994b). A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year Three Report, May
1994. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
111. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, J.A. Sullivan and D.M. Palmer. (1992a). In-situ
Striped Bass Contaminant and Water Quality Studies in the Potomac River and Upper Chesapeake
Bay in 1990. University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown,
Maryland. 63 pp.
112. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, J.A. Sullivan, and D.M. Palmer. (1992b). "The
influence of contaminant and water quality conditions on larval striped bass in the Potomac River
and upper Chesapeake Bay in 1990: An in-situ study." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 24:1-10.
113. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.J. Bushong, S.A. Fischer, R.D. Anderson, R.W. Alden III, J.W
Gooch, and N. Shaw. (1992c). A Pilot Study for Ambient Toxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Year
Two Report, March 1992. Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 827
92.
114. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.A. Fischer, R.W. Alden, E. Deaver, J.W. Gooch, and N. DeBert-
Hastings.(l99la). A Pilot Study for AmbientToxicity Testing in Chesapeake Bay. Vol. 1, YearOne
Report, April 1991. Chesapeake Bay Program Office. CBPYTRS 64\91.
115. Hall, L.W. Jr., M.C. Ziegenfus, S.J. Bushong, J.A. Sullivan and M.A. Unger. (1991b). Striped Bass
Contaminant and Water Quality Studies in the Potomac River and Upper Chesapeake in 1989:
Annual Contaminant and Water Quality Evaluations in East Coast Striped Bass Habitats. Final
Report. University of Maryland, Wye Research and Education Center, Queenstown Maryland. 84
pp.
116. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.J. Bushong, J.A. Sullivan and M.A. Unger. (1992d). "In-situ
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) contaminant and water quality studies in the Potomac River and
Upper Chesapeake Bay in 1989." Aq. Toxicol. 22:181-222.
117. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfuss, S.J. Bushong, and M.A. Unger. (1988a). Striped Bass Contami-
nant and Water Quality Studies in the Potomac River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Annual
Contaminant and Water Quality Evaluations in East Coast Striped Bass Habitats. Final Report.
The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Shady Side, Maryland.
118. Hall, L.W., Jr., M.C. Ziegenfus, S.J. Bushong, and M.A. Unger. (1989). "Studies of contaminant
and water quality effects on striped bass prolarvae and yearlings in the Potomac River and upper
Chesapeake Bay." Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 118:619-629.
172
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
119. Hall, L.W., Jr., MJ. Lenkevich, W.S. Hall, A.E. Pinkney, and S.J. Bushong. (1986a). "Monitoring
organotin concentrations in Maryland waters of Chesapeake Bay." In: Oceans 86 Conference
Proceedings, Vol. 4, Washington, DC. pp. 1275-1279.
120. Hall, L.W., Jr., MJ. Lenkevich, W.S. Hall, A.E. Pinkney, and S.J. Bushong. (1987b). "Evaluation
of butyltin compounds in Maryland waters of Chesapeake Bay." Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18:73-83.
121. Hall, L.W., Jr. and R.D. Anderson. (1991). A Review ofEstuarine Aquatic Toxicity Data for the
Development of Aquatic Life Criteria for Atrazine in Chesapeake Bay. Report to the Maryland
Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.
122. Hall, L.W., Jr. and R.D. Anderson. (1993). An Updated Review ofEstuarine Aquatic Toxicity Data
for the Development of Aquatic Life Criteria for Atrazine in Chesapeake Bay. University of
Maryland, Queenstown, Maryland. CBP/TRS 108/94. 65 pp.
123. Hall, L.W., Jr., S.J. Bushong, M.C. Ziegenfus and W.S. Hall. (1987c). Mobile On-Site andln-Situ
Striped Bass Contaminant Studies in the Choptank River and Upper Chesapeake Bay - Annual
Contaminant and Water Quality Evaluations in East Coast Striped Bass Habitats. The Johns
Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, Shady Side, Maryland. 78 pp.
124. Hall, L.W., Jr., S.J. Bushong, M.C. Ziegenfuss, and W.S. Hall. (1988b). "Concurrent mobile on-
site and in-situ striped bass contaminant and water quality studies in the Choptank River and upper
Chesapeake Bay." Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. 7:815-830.
125. Hall, L.W., Jr., S.J. Bushong, W.E Johnson, and S.W. Hall. (1987d). Spatial and Temporal
Distribution of Butyltin Compounds in a Northern Chesapeake Bay Marina and Receiving System.
Final report. NAVESA, Washington, D.C.
126. Hall, L.W., Jr., W.S. Hall, and S.J. Bushong. (1986b). In-situ Investigations for Assessing Striped
Bass, Morone saxatilis, Prolarval and Yearling Survival as Related to Contaminants and Water
Quality Parameters in the Potomac River - Contaminant and Water Quality Evaluations in East
Coast Striped Bass Habitats. Final report. The Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics
Laboratory, Shady Side, Maryland. 57 pp.
127. Hall, L.W., Jr., W.S. Hall, S.J. Bushong, and R.L. Herman. (1987e). "In-situ striped bass (Morone
saxatilis) contaminant and water quality studies in the Potomac River." Aq. Toxicol. 10:73-99.
128. Hall, R.J. and D.R. Clark, Jr. (1982). "Responses of the iguanid lizard Anolis carolinensis to four
organophosphorus pesticides." Environ. Pollut. 28A:45-52.
129. Hall, R.J. and B.M.Mulhern. (1984). Are Anuran Amphibians Heavy Metal Accumulators? Special
Publication - University of Kansas, Museum of Natural History, pp. 123-133.
130. Hamilton, P. A. and R.J. Shedlock. (1992). Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the Ground Water? A
CORE Study of the Delmarva Peninsula - Delaware, Maryland, Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1080.
173
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
131. Hand, J. and M. Friedmann. (1990). Mercury, largemouth bass, and water quality: A preliminary
report. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Surface Water Management.
54pp.
132. Hardy, J.T., E.A. Crecelius, L.D. Antrim, V.L. Broadhurst, P.O. Boehm, and W.G. Steinhauer.
(1987). Aquatic Surface Contamination in Chesapeake Bay. Final report to the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, Energy Administration Power Plant Siting Program, Annapolis,
Maryland.
133. Hargis, W.J., Jr. and D.E. Zwerner. (1988a). "Effects of certain contaminants on eyes of several
estuarine fishes." Mar. Environ. Res. 24:265-270.
134. Hargis, W.J., Jr. and D.E. Zwerner. (1988b). "Some histologic gill lesions of several estuarine
finfishes related to exposure to contaminated sediments: A preliminary report." In: M.P. Lynch and
E.G. Krome, (eds.) Understanding the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research. Proceed-
ings of a conference, March 29-31,1988. Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consortium
Publication No. 129.
135. Hargis, W.J., Jr., M. Faisal, and D.E. Zwerner. (1991.) "Ulcer disease syndrome in Atlantic
menhaden in the Chesapeake system." Abstract. In: J.A. Mihursky and A. Chancy, (eds). New
Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management Partnership. Proceedings
of a conference, December 4-6, 1990, Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consortium
Publication No. 137.
136. Hargis, W.J., Jr; M.H. Roberts, Jr., and D.E. Zwerner. (1984). "Effects of contaminated sediments
and sediment-exposed effluent water on an estuarine fish: acute toxicity." Mar. Environ. Res.
14:337-354.
137. Hartwell, S.I., J.D. Savitz, and C. Zimmerman. (1990). Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxic
Analytical Capabilities Survey and Assessment. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons,
Maryland. CBP/TRS 55/91. 88 pp.
138. Hartwell, S.I. and S.J. Jordan. (1991). "Effects of contaminants on shellfish and finfish." In: S.L.
Funderburk, J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley (eds.). Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake
Bay Living Resources - Second Edition. Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay
Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
139. Hartwell, S.I., D.A. Wright, and J.D. Savitz. (1993). "Relative sensitivity of survival, growth, and
reproduction ofEurytemora affinis (copedia) to assessing polluted estuaries." Water, Air, and Soil
Poll. 71:281-291.
140. Haseltine, S.D., B .M. Mulhern, and C. Stafford. (1980). "Organochlorine and heavy metal residues
in black duck eggs from the Atlantic flyway, 1978." Pest. Monit. J. 14:53-57.
174
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
141. Hauge, P., P. Morton, M. Boriek, and G. Casey. (1990). Poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
chlordane, and DDTs in selected fish and shellfish from New Jersey waters, 1986-1987: Results
from New Jersey's Toxics in Biota Monitoring Program. New Jersey Department of Environmen-
tal Protection, Division of Science and Research, Trenton, New Jersey. 66 pp.
142. Heath, R.G. (1969). "Nationwide residues of organochlorine pesticides in wings of mallards and
black ducks." Pestic. Monit. J. 3:115-123.
143. Heath, R.G. and S.A. Hill. (1974). "Nationwide organochlorine and mercury residues in wings of
adult mallards and black ducks during the 1969-70 hunting season." Pestic. Monit. J. 7:153-164.
144. Heinz, G.H. and S.N. Wiemeyer. (1991). "Effects of contaminants on birds." In: S.L. Funderburk,
J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley, (eds.). Habitat Requirements for the Chesapeake Living
Resources - Second Edition. Living Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapo-
lis, Maryland.
145. Heinz, G.H. (personal communication). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife
Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. October 1992.
146. Helz, G.R. (1976). "Trace elements inventory for the northern Chesapeake Bay with emphasis on
the influence of man". Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta 40:573-580.
147. Helz, G.R., G.H. Setlock, A.Y. Cantillo, and W.S. Moore. (1985a). "Processes controlling regional
distribution of 210Pb, 226Ra, and anthropogenic Zn in estuarine sediments." Earth Plan. Sci.
76:23-24.
148. Helz, G.R., K.L. Fermi, M. Nichols, and S.A. Sinex. (1985b). "Processes controlling Fe, Mn, and
Zn in sediments of northern Chesapeake Bay." Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 21:1-16.
149. Helz, G.R., S.A. Sinex, G.H. Setlock, and A.Y. Cantillo. (1981). Chesapeake Bay Sediment Trace
Elements. Final Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. University of Maryland,
College Park, Maryland. 202 pp.
150. Helz, G.R. and RJ. Huggett. (1987). "Contaminants in Chesapeake Bay: The Regional Perspec-
tive." In: S.K. Majumdar, L.W. Hall Jr., and H.M. Austin, (eds.) Contaminant Problems and
Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Harris-
burg, Pennsylvania. 573 pp.
151. Helz, G.R. and N. Valette-Silver. (1992). "Beryllium-10 in Chesapeake Bay sediments: an
indicator of sediment provenance." Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci. 34:459-469.
152. Henny, C.J. (1977). "Research, management, and status of the osprey in North America." In: R.D.
Chancellor, (ed.) World Conference on Birds of Prey. International Council for Bird Preservation.
153. Hippe, D.J. (personal communication). U.S. Geological Survey. February 1993.
175
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
154. Hoff, R.M., G.C. Muir, and N.P. Grift. (1992). "Annual cycle of polychlorinated biphenyls and
organohalogen pesticides in air in southern Ontario, 1, air concentration data." Environ. Sci.
Technol. 26:266-275.
155. Hoff, R.M. and K. Chan. (1987). "Measurement of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in the air
along the Niagara River." Environ. Sci. and Technol. 21:556-561.
156. Holsen, T.M., K.E. Knoll, S. Liv, andC. Lee. (1991). "Dry deposition of polychlorinated biphenyls
in urban areas." Environ. Sci. Technol. 25:1075.
157. Huggett, R.J., M.A. linger, and D.J. Westbrook. (1986). "Organotin concentrations in southern
Chesapeake Bay." In: Oceans 86: Proceedings, Volume 4 Organotin Symposium, pp. 1262-1265.
Washington, D.C.
158. Huggett, R.J., M.A. Unger, P.P. Seligman, and A.O. Valkivs. (1992). "The marine biocide
tributlytin." Environ. Sci. and Technol. 26(2):232-237.
159. Huggett, R.J. and M.E. Bender. (1980). "Kepone in the James River." Environ. Sci. and Technol.
14:918-923.
160. Huggett, R.J., M.E. Bender and M.A. Unger. (1987). "Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons in the
Elizabeth River, Virginia." In: K.L. Dickson, A.W. Maki, and W. A. Brungs, (eds.) Fate and Effects
of Sediment-Bound Chemicals in Aquatic Systems. Pergamon Press, Elmsford, New York, pp 327-
341.
161. Huggett, R.J., P.O. defur, and R.H. Bieri. (1988). "Organic compounds in Chesapeake Bay
sediments." Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:454-458.
162. Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994). Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research
Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
163. Johnson W.E., J.R, Plimmer, R.B. Kroll, and A.S. Pait. (in review). "Occurrence and distribution
of pesticides in Chesapeake Bay." In: Perspectives on Chesapeake Bay, 1994: Advances in
Estuarine Sciences. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, Maryland.
164. Kaiser, T.E., W.L. Reichel, L.N. Locke, E. Cromartie, A.J. Krynitsky, T.G. Lament, B.M.
Mulhern, R.M. Prouty, C.J. Stafford, and D.M. Swineford. (1980). "Organochlorine pesticide,
PCB, and PBB residues and necropsy data for bald eagles from 29 states-1975-77." Pestic. Monit.
J. 13:145-149.
165. Keeler, G.J., J.M. Pacyna, T.F. Bidleman, J.O. Nriagu. (1993). Identification of Sources Contrib-
uting to the Contamination of the Great Waters by Toxic Compounds. A report prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 145 pp.
176
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
166. Kingston, H.M., R.R. Greenberg, E.S. Beary, B.R. Hardas, J.R. Moody, T.C. Rains, and W.S.
Liggett. (1982). The Characterization of the Chesapeake Bay: A Systematic Analysis of Toxic
Trace Elements. EPA-79-D-X-0717.
167. Klaas, E.E., S.N. Wiemeyer, H.M. Ohlendorf, and D.M. Swineford. (1978). "Organochlorine
residues, eggshell thickness, and nest success in barn owls from the Chesapeake Bay." Estuaries
1:46-53.
168. Knap, A.H. and K.S. Binkely. (1991). "Chlorinated organic compounds in the troposphere over the
western north Atlantic Ocean measured by aircraft." Atmos. Environ. 25 A: 1507.
169. Kroll, R.B. and D.L. Murphy. (1993). Pilot Monitoring for 14 Pesticides in Maryland Surface
Waters. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland. CBP/TRS 106/94.108
pp.
170. Krome.E. (ed). (1990). Chesapeake Bay Ambient Toxicity Assessment Workshop Report. Proceed-
ings of a workshop, July 25-27,1989, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 42/90.
171. Kuehl, D.W., R. Haebler, and C. Potter. (1991). "Chemical residues in dolphins from the U.S.
Atlantic Coast including Atlantic bottlenose obtained during the 1987/88 mass mortality."
Chemosphere 22:1071-1084.
172. Lauenstein, G.G., A. Robertson, and T.P. O'Connor. (1990). "Comparison of trace metal data in
mussels and oysters from a mussel watch program of the 1970' s with those from a 1980' s program."
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 21(9):440-447
173. Lawson, M. (personal communication). Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services, Richmond, Virginia. May 1993.
174. Leister, D.L. and I.E. Baker. (1994). "Atmospheric deposition of organic contaminants to
Chesapeake Bay." Atmosph. Environ. 28(8): 1499-1520.
175. Libelo, L., W.G. Maclntyre, and G.H. Johnson. (1991). "Groundwater Nutrient Discharge to the
Chesapeake Bay: Effects of Near-Shore Land Use Practices." In: J.A. Mihursky, and A. Chancy,
(eds.) New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System: A Research and Management Partnership.
Proceedings of a conference, December 4-6 1990, Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research
Consortium Publication No. 137.
176. Ligocki, M.P., C. Leuenberger, and J.F. Pankow. (1985a). "Trace organic compounds in rain - II.
Gas scavenging of neutral organic compounds." Atmosph. Environ. 19:1609-1617.
177. Ligocki, M.P., C. Leuenberger, and J.F. Pankow. (1985b). "Trace organic compounds in rain - III.
Particle scavenging of neutral organic compounds." Atmosph. Environ. 19:1619-1626.
177
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
178. Long, E.R. and L.G. Morgan. (1990). The Potential for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed
Contaminants Tested in the National Status and Trends Program. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assess-
ment, National Ocean Service. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52.
179. Longcore, J.R. and B.M. Mulhern. (1973). "Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated
biphenyls in black duck eggs from the United States and Canada - 1971." Pestic. Monit. J.
7:62-66.
180. Lynch, M.P. and E.G. Krome, (eds.). (1987). State of the Chesapeake Bay - Second Annual
Monitoring Report Compendium. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 125.
181. MacDonald, D.D. (1993). Development of an Approach to the Assessment of Sediment Quality in
Florida Coastal Waters. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
182. Majumdar, S.K., L.W. Hall Jr., and H.M. Austin, (eds). (1987). Contaminant Problems and
Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources. Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton,
Pennsylvania. 573 pp.
183. Martin, E.A., J.L. Glenn, C.A. Rice, G. Harrison, E. Gum, and M. Curington. (1981). Concentra-
tions of selected trace metals in shallow cores from the tidal Potomac River and estuary. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report 81-1175, U.S. Department of the Interior.
184. Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant College Programs. (1990). Environmental Effects Research on
Chesapeake Bay, Toxics Research Program. Submitted to the National Sea Grant College
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
185. Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant College Programs. (1991). Environmental Effects Research on
Chesapeake Bay, Toxics Research Program. Submitted to the National Sea Grant College
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
186. Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant College Programs. (1992). Environmental Effects Research on
Chesapeake Bay, Toxics Research Program. Submitted to the National Sea Grant College
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
187. Maryland and Virginia Sea Grant College Programs. (1993). Environmental Effects Research on
Chesapeake Bay, Toxics Research Program. Submitted to the National Sea Grant College
Program, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
188. Maryland Department of the Environment, (unpublished data (a)). Maryland 1989-1990 304(1)
monitoring survey data from D. Murphy. Baltimore, Maryland. August 1993.
189. Maryland Department of the Environment, (unpublished data (b)). Maryland air toxics sources
from P. Tinsley. Baltimore, Maryland. September 1993.
178
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
190. Maryland Department of the Environment, (unpublished data (c)). Maryland point source
discharge reductions to Baltimore Harbor. From P. Tinsley. Baltimore, Maryland. September
1993.
191. Maryland Department of the Environment, (unpublished data (d)). Shellfish and finfish tissue
contaminant concentration data from D. Murphy. Baltimore, Maryland. September 1993.
192. Maryland Department of the Environment. (1991). Assessment ofToxicity of Chesapeake Bay
Sediment. Report to Maryland Department of Natural Resources. June 1991.
193. Maryland Department of the Environment. (1993). Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring
Program: 1990-1991 Loadings. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 98/93.
194. Maryland Department of the Environment and Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments. (1994a). Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Program: 1992 Interim Report.
Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office,
Annapolis, Maryland.
195. Maryland Department of the Environment and Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments. (1994b). Chesapeake Bay Fall Line Toxics Monitoring Program: 1992-1993 Loading
Report. Final report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
196. Matthias, C.L., S.J. Bushong, L.W. Hall Jr., J.M. Bellama, and F.E. Brickman. (1988) "Simulta-
neous butyltin determinations in the microlayer, water column and sediment of a northern
Chesapeake Bay marina and receiving system." Appl. Organo-Metalic Chem. 2:547-552.
197. Matthias, C.L. J.M. Bellama, G.J. and F.E. Brickman. (1986). "Comprehensive method for the
determination of aquatic butyltin and butylmethyltin species at ultratrace levels using simultaneous
hybridization/extraction with gas-chromatography flame photometric detection." Environ. Sci.
and Technol. 20:609-615.
198. May, E.B., R. Lukacovic, H. King, and M.M. Lipsky. (1987). "Hyperplastic and neoplastic
alterations in the livers of white perch (Morone americana) from the Chesapeake Bay." /. Natl.
Cancer Inst. 79:137-143.
199. McGlone, M.L.S. (1991). "Processes affecting the behavior of redox-sensitive elements in
Chesapeake Bay." Ph.D. dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia. 222 pp.
200. Mehrle, P.M., D.I. Buckler, and S.E. Finger. (1986). Impacts of Contaminants on Striped Bass in
the Chesapeake Bay. Progress Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri. 37 pp.
201. Mehrle, P.M., D.R. Bukler, S.E. Finger, and L. Ludke. (1984). Impact of Contaminants on Striped
Bass in Chesapeake Bay. Progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia, Missouri.
28pp.
179
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
202. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. (1990). Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program,
1990 Annual Report. Michigan Department of Natural, Surface Water Quality Division (MI/DNR/
SWQ-90/077). 261 pp.
203. Montz, W.E., Jr., P.P. Scanlon, and R.L. Kirkpatrick. (1983). "Effects of field application of the
anti-cholinesterase insecticide methomyl on brain acetylcholinesterase activities in wild Mus
musculus" Bull Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 31:158-163.
204. Mostaghimi, S., P.W. McClellan, U.S. Tim, T.A. Dillaha, R.K. Byler, V.O. Shanholtz, and J.M.
Flagg. (1989). "Impact of agricultural activities on ground-water quality in Virginia." In:
Proceedings From Groundwater Issues and Solutions in the Potomac River Basin/ Chesapeake
Bay Region. Washington, DC. Co-sponsored by the Association of Ground-Water Scientists and
George Washington University, p. 421-435.
205. Mulhern, B.M., W.L. Reichel, L.N. Locke, T.G. Lamont, A. Belisle, E. Cromartie, G.E. Bagley,
and R.M. Prouty. (1970). "Organochlorine residues and autopsy data from bald eagles 1966-68."
Pestic. Monit. J. 4:141-144.
206. Murphy, D. (personal communication). Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore,
Maryland. April 1993.
207. Murphy, D.L. (1990). Contaminant Levels in Oysters and Clams from the Chesapeake Bay, 1981-
1985. Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland. Technical Report No. 102.
208. Nacci, D., S. Nelson, W. Nelson, E. Jackim. (in press). "Application of the DNA Strand Breaks in
Marine Bivalves." Mar. Environ. Res.
209. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1987). National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality. Progress Report. A Summary of Selected Data on Chemical
Contaminants in Tissues Collected During 1984,1985, and 1986. NO AA Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 38, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
210. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1988). National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality. Progress Report. A Summary of Selected Data on Chemical
Contaminants in Sediments Collected During 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 44, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
211. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1989a). National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality. Progress Report. A Summary of Data on Tissue Contamination
from the First Three Years (1986-1988) of the Mussel Watch Project. NOAA Technical Memo-
randum NOS OMA 49, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
180
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
212. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1989b). National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality. Progress Report. A Summary of Individual Organic Contami-
nants in Sediments Collected During 1984, 1985,1986, and!987. NO A A Technical Memorandum
NOS OMA 47, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
213. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (1991). National Status and Trends Program
for Marine Environmental Quality. Progress Report. Second Summary of Data on Chemical
Contaminants in Sediments from the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical
Memorandum NOS OMA 59, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
214. Newell, R.I.E., D.P. Weston, D.L. Penry, and J.E. Baker. (1994). "Uptake of dissolved and
particulate-associated toxicants by the eastern oyster." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994). Chesapeake
Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons,
Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
215. O'Connor, T.P. (1990). Coastal Environmental Quality in the United States, 1990: Chemical
Contamination in Sediment and Tissue. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
216. O'Connor, T.P. (1992). Recent Trends in Coastal Environmental Quality: Results from the First
Five Years of the NOAA Mussel Watch Program. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland.
217. Ogle, M.C., P.P. Scanlon, R.L. Kirkpatrick, and J.V. Gwynn. (1985). "Heavy metal concentrations
in tissues of mink in Virginia." Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 35:29-37.
218. Ohlendorf, H.M. (1981). "The Chesapeake Bay's birds and organo-chlorine pollutants." Trans. N.
Amer. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf. 46:259-270.
219. Ohlendorf, H.M., E.E. Klaas, and T.E. Kaiser. (1979). Environmental Pollutants and Eggshell
Thickness: Anhingas and Wading Birds in the Eastern United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Special Scientific Report - Wildlife No. 216. 94 pp.
220. Ohlendorf, H.M., R.C. Hothem, and T.W. Aldrich. (1988). "Bioaccumulation of selenium by
snakes and frogs in the San Joaquin Valley, California." Copeia 1988:704-710.
221. Ohlendorf, H.M. and W.J. Fleming. (1988). "Birds and environmental contaminants in San
Francisco and Chesapeake Bays." Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:487-495.
222. Ohlendorf, H.M., D.M. Swineford, and L.N. Locke. (1981). "Organochlorine residues and
mortality of herons." Pestic. Monit. J. 14:125-135.
181
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
223. Olmi.EJ., Ill, and B. Hens, (eds.) (1992). Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies, Toxics
Research Program. Workshop Report. Prepared by the Virginia Sea Grant College in Cooperation
with the Maryland Sea Grant College Program.
224. Olsenholler, S.M. (1991). Annual Loading Estimates of 'Urban Toxic Pollutants in the Chesapeake
Bay Basin. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C. 74 pp.
225. Olson, G.J. andF.E. Brinckman. (1986). "Biodegradation of TBTby Chesapeake Bay microorgan-
isms." In: Oceans 87: Proceedings, Volume 4, Organotin International Symposium, pp. 1196-1201.
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
226. O'Shea, T.J., T.E. Kaiser, G.R. Askins, andJ.A. Chapman. (1981). "Polychlorinatedbiphenyls in
a wild mink population." In: J.A. Chapman and D. Pursley (eds.) Worldwide Furbearer Conf.
Proc. Volume III. Frostburg, Maryland, pp. 1746-1752
227. Owens, M. and J. Cornwell. (in review). "Recent decreases in metal deposition in Chesapeake Bay
sediment." Environ. Geol. and Water Sci.
228. Pait, A.S., A.E. De Souza, and D.R.G. Farrow. (1992). Agricultural Pesticide Use in Coastal
Areas: A National Summary. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Ocean
Resources Conservation, and Assessment, Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,
Rockville, Maryland.
229. Peakall, D.B., T.J. Cade, C.M. White, and J.R. Haugh. (1975). "Organochlorine residues in
Alaskan peregrines." Pest. Monit. J. 8:255-260.
230. Perry, M.C. (1987). "Waterfowl of Chesapeake Bay." In: S.K. Majumdar, L.W. Hall, Jr., and H.M.
Austin (eds.) Contaminant Problems and Management of Living Chesapeake Bay Resources.
Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Easton, Pennsylvania, pp. 94-115
231. Peterson, J.C and P.H. Freeman. (1982). "Phthalate ester concentration variations in dated
sediment cores from Chesapeake Bay." Environ. Sci. Technol. 16(8):464-469.
232. Phelps, H.L. (1987). Biotoxicity ofAnacostia Water and Sediments. Final report to the District of
Columbia Department of Environmental Services. 23 pp.
233. Phelps, H.L. (1990). Anacostia River Sediment Toxicity: Localization and Characterization using
a Corbicula Larva Bioassay. Technical Completion Report. University of the District of Columbia,
Water Resources Research Center, Washington, D.C. 10 pp.
234. Phelps, H.L. (1991). A Preliminary Study for Identification of Sediment Toxics in the Tidal
Freshwater Anacostia River. Technical Completion Report. University of the District of Colum-
bia, Water Resources Research Center, Washington, D.C.
235. Phelps, H.L. (1993). "Sediment toxicity of the Anacostia River estuary, Washington, DC." Bull.
Environ. Contam. andToxicol. 51:582-587.
182
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
236. Phelps, H.L. and K. Clark. (1988). Clam Assay for Toxic Sediment at Kenihvorth Marsh. Final
Technical Report to U.S. National Park Service, Center for Urban Ecology, Washington, D.C.
237. Phelps, H.L., K. Clark, and K. Warner. (1988). "Development of an estuarine solid-phase sediment
bioassay using molluscan larvae." Abstract. In: M.P. Lynch and E.G. Krome, (eds.) Understanding
the Estuary: Advances in Chesapeake Bay Research. Proceedings of a conference. March 29-31,
1988, Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 129.
238. Phillips, S. (personal communication). U.S. Geological Survey, Towson, Maryland. May 21,1993.
239. Pinkney, A.E. and E. Rzemien. (1993). Testing the Toxicity of Baltimore Harbor Sediments with
Leptocheirusplumulosus. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
240. Prouty, R.M. and C.M. Bunck. (1986). "Organochlorine residues in adult mallard and black duck
wings, 1981-1982." Environ. Monit. and Assess. 6:49-57.
241. Prouty, R.M., W.L. Reichel, L.N. Locke, A.A. Belisle, E. Cromartie, T.E. Kaiser, T.G. Lamont,
B .M. Mulhern, and D.M. Swineford. (1977). "Residues of organochlorine pesticides and polychlorin-
ated biphenyls and autopsy data for bald eagles, 1973-74." Pestic. Monit. J. 11:134-137.
242. Rago, P.J., R.M. Dorazio, A.R. Richards, and D.G. Deuel. (1989). Emergency Striped Bass
Research Study Report -1988. U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C.
243. Reese, J.G. (1975). "Osprey nest success in Eastern Bay, Maryland." Ches. Sci. 16:56-61.
244. Reese, J.G. (1977). "Reproductive success of ospreys in central Chesapeake Bay." Auk 94:202-
221.
245. Reese, J.G. (1991). "Osprey." In: S.L. Funderburk, J.A. Mihursky, S.J. Jordan, and D. Riley, (eds.)
(1991). Habitat Requirements for Chesapeake Bay Living Resources - Second Edition. Living
Resources Subcommittee, Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
246. Reichel, W.L., E. Cromartie, T.G. Lamont, B.M. Mulhern, and R.M. Prouty. (1969). "Pesticide
residues in eagles." Pest. Monit. J. 3:142-144.
247. Reichel, W.L., S.K. Schmeling, E. Cromartie, T.E. Kaiser, A.J. Krynitsky, T.G. Lamont, B.M.
Mulhern, R.M. Prouty, CJ. Stafford, and D.M. Swineford. (1984). "Pesticide, PCB, and lead
residues and necropsy data for bald eagles from 32 states-1978-81." Environ. Monit. and Assess.
4:395-403.
248. Reichel, W.L. and C.E. Addy. (1968). "A survey of chlorinated pesticide residues in black duck
eggs." Bull. Environ. Contam. andToxicol. 3:174-179.
183
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
249. Riedel, G.F. and C. Gilmour. (unpublished data). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory, Benedict, Maryland. April 1993.
250. Riedel, G.F. and J.G. Sanders, (unpublished data). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
Benedict Estuarine Research Laboratory, Benedict, Maryland. April 1993.
251. Riedel, G.F. (1993). "The annual cycle of arsenic in a temperate estuary." Estuaries 16:533-540.
252. Riedel, G.F., J.G. Sanders, and C.C. Gilmour. "Contaminant flux from sediments: impact on
Chesapeake Bay food webs." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed.). (1994). Chesapeake Bay Environmental
Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons, Maryland. U.S.
Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay
Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
253. Roberts, M.H. Jr., D.W. Sved, and S.P. Felton. (1987). "Temporal changes in AHH and SOD
activities in feral spot from the Elizabeth River, a polluted sub-estuary." Mar. Environ. Res. 23:89-
101.
254. Roberts, M.H., W.J. Hargis, Jr., C.J. Strobel, and P.P. DeLisle. (1989). "Acute toxicity of PAH
contaminated sediments to the estuarine fish Leiostomus xanthurus." Bull. Environ. Contam. and
Toxicol. 42:142-149.
255. Roeser, L. (1988). Pesticide Use in the Chesapeake Bay Basin. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Annapolis, Maryland. CBP/TRS 23/88.
256. Sanders, J.G. (unpublished data). Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Benedict
Estuarine Research Laboratory, Benedict, Maryland. April 1993.
257. Sanders, J.G. (1985). "Arsenic geochemistry in Chesapeake Bay: Dependence upon anthropogenic
inputs and phytoplankton species composition." Mar. Chem. 17:329-340.
258. Sanders, J.G. and G.F. Riedel. (1987). "Chemical and physical processes influencing bioavailability
of toxics in estuaries." In: P.L. Maurice and E.G. Krome, (eds.). Perspectives on the Chesapeake
Bay: Recent Advances in Estuarine Sciences. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No.
127.
259. Sanders, J.G. and G.F. Riedel. (1992.) "Sources, cycling and fate of contaminants in Chesapeake
Bay." Wat. Sci. Techol. 26:2645-2652.
260. Sanders, J.G., G.F. Riedel, and G.R. Abbe. (1991). "Factors controlling the spatial and temporal
variability of trace metal concentrations in Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin)." In: M. Elliot and J.P.
Ducrotoy, (eds.) Estuaries and Coasts: Spatial and Temporal Inter comparisons. Olsen and Olsen,
Fredensborg, Denmark.
184
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
261. Sanders, J.G. andK.G. Sellner. (1994). "The importance of algal blooms in the transport of carbon
and toxic trace elements in Chesapeake Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994). Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons,
Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
262. Sanders, J.G. and SJ. Cibik. (1985). "Adaptive behavior of euryhaline phytoplankton communi-
ties to arsenic stress." Mar. Ecol. Bull. 22:199-205.
263. Sanders, J.G. and SJ. Cibik. (1988). "Response of Chesapeake Bay phytoplankton communities
to low levels of toxic substances." Mar. Pollut. Bull. (19)9:439-444.
264. Sanford, L.P. (1992). "New sedimentation, resuspension, and burial." Limnology and Oceanog-
raphy 37(6): 1164-1178.
265. Sanford, L.P. and J.P. Halka. (1991). "Sediment resuspension in the northern Chesapeake Bay."
Abstracts of the llth International Estuarine Research Conference, San Francisco, California,
November 1991.
266. Sanford, L.P., DJ. Conley, J.C. Cornwell, J.E. Baker, W.R. Boynton, H.R. Harvey, J.P. Halka, and
F. Mohlenberg. (1992). Resuspension and sediment-water exchange in mid-Chesapeake Bay.
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 73 (43:Supplement)220.
267. Sanford, L.P., J.P. Halka, and J.M. Hill. (1994). "Resuspension and transport of sediment
associated toxics in the northern Chesapeake Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994). Chesapeake Bay
Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons,
Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
268. Scanlon, P.P., V.D. Stotts, R.G. Oderwald, T.J. Dietrick, and R.J. Kendall. (1980). "Lead
concentrations in livers of Maryland waterfowl with and without ingested lead shot present in
gizzards." Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 25:855-860.
269. Schaffner, L.C. and R.M. Dickhut. (1994). "Role of benthic communities in sediment associated
toxic chemical fate and transport in lower Chesapeake Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). (1994).
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research Program 1993 Workshop Report
Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
270. Schlosser, L. (personal communication). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Annapolis, Maryland. October 1992.
271. Schueler,T.R. (1987). Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban BMPs. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
272. Schuble, J.R. (1968). Suspended Sediment of Northern Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Institute
Technical Report No. 35. The Johns Hopkins University. 269 pp.
185
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
273. Schwartz, J.P., N.M. Dunston, and C.A. Batdorf. (1991). PCBs in Winter Flounder, American
Lobster, and Bivalve Mollusks from Boston Harbor, Salem Harbor, and Coastal Massachusetts:
1984-1989. Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement, Division of
Marine Fisheries. Publication No. 16, 966-63-250-10-910C.R. Salem, Massachusetts. 56 pp.
274. Scudlark, J., K.M. Conko, and T.M. Church. (1994). "Atmospheric wet deposition of trace
elements to Chesapeake Bay: CBADS Year 1 results". Atmos. Environ. 28(8): 1487-1498
275. Shigenaka, G. (1990). Chlordane in the Marine Environment of the United States: Review and
Results from the National Status and Trends Program. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS
OMA 55, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Ocean Service, Seattle, Washington.
276. Simmons, G.M. (1989). "The Chesapeake Bay's hidden tributary: submarine ground-water
discharge." In: Proceedings from Ground-Water Issues and Solutions in the Potomac River/
Chesapeake Bay Region. Washington, DC. Co-sponsored by the Association of Ground-Water
Scientists and George Washington University.
277. Simon, R., M. Colom-Altes, J.O. Grimalt, and J. Albaiges. (1991). "Background levels of
atmospheric hydrocarbons, sulphate and nitrate over the western Mediterranean." Atmos. Environ.
25A:1463-1471.
278. Sinex, S.A. and G.R. Helz. (1981). "Regional geochemistry of trace elements in Chesapeake Bay
sediments." Environ. Geol. 3:315-323.
279. Sinex, S.A. and G.R. Helz. (1982). "Entrapment of zinc and other trace metals in a rapidly flushed
industrialized harbor." Environ. Sci. and Technol. 16:820-825.
280. Sinex, S.A. and D.A. Wright. (1988). "Distribution of trace metals in the sediments and biota of
Chesapeake Bay." Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19(9):425-431.
281. Sinnott, A. and E.M. Gushing. (1978). Summary Appraisals of the Nation's Ground-Water
Resources - Mid-Atlantic Region. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 813-T.
282. Sloan, R., B. Young, K. McKown, and V. Vecchio. (1991). PCS in Striped Bass from New York
Marine Waters. New York State Department of Environment, Division of Fish and Wildlife,
Bureau of Environmental Protection, Technical Report 91-1. Albany, New York. 61 pp.
283. Stafford, C.J., W.L. Reichel, D.M. Swineford, R.M. Prouty, and M.L. Gay. (1978). "Gas-liquid
chromatographic determination of kepone in field-collected avian tissues and eggs." /. Assoc.
Offic. Analyt. Chemists 61:8-14.
284. Sunda, W.G., P.A. Tester, and S.A. Huntsman. (1990). "Toxicity of trace metals toAcartia tonsa
in the Elizabeth River and southern Chesapeake Bay." Estuar. and Coast. Shelf Sci. 30:207-221.
186
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
285. Swackhammer, D.L., B.M. McVeety, and R.A. Hites. (1988). "Deposition and evaporation of
polychlorinated biphenyl congeners to and from Siskiwit Lake, Isle Royal, Lake Superior."
Environ. Sci. Technol. 22:664.
286. Takayanagi, K. and G.T.F. Wong. (1984). "Organic and colloidal selenium in southern Chesa-
peake Bay and adjacent waters." Mar. Chem. 14:141-148.
287. Terman, C.R. and R.J. Huggett. (1980). "Occurrence of kepone in white-footed mice (Peromyscus
leucopus noveboracensis) on Jamestown Island, Virginia." Virg. J. Sci. 31:102 (abstract).
288. Thiyagarajah, A., D.E. Zwerner, and WJ. Hargis, Jr. (1988). "Renal lesions in estuarine fishes
collected from the Elizabeth River, Virginia." J. Environ. Pathol, Toxicol. and Oncol. 9:261-268.
289. Tingler, J.N., R.E. Galloway Jr., L.J. Hegstrom, L.D. Seivard, and R.A. Gregory. (1990).
Comprehensive Review of Selected Toxic Substances - Environmental Samples in Virginia.
Information Bulletin Number 583, Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia.
290. Tsai, C.F., J. Welch, C. Kwei-yang, J. Shaeffer, and L.E. Cronin. (1979). "Bioassay of Baltimore
Harbor Sediments." Estuaries 2:141-153.
291. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (unpublished data). Region III 304(1) site locations from
F. Cruz. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. July 1993.
292. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1982). Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A
Synthesis. Annapolis, Maryland. 635 pp.
293. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983a). Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 186 pp.
294. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1983b). Chesapeake Bay: A Profile of Environmental
Change. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
295. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1992). Sediment Classification Methods Compendium.
EPA 823-R-92-006. Washington, D.C.
296. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993a). Chesapeake Bay Program Environmental
Indicators. Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis, Maryland.
297. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993b). Regions of Concern: A Geographic Targeting
Approach to Toxics Reduction and Prevention. Issue paper presented to the Chesapeake Bay
Program's Toxics Subcommittee. 16 pp.
298. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1993c). 7997 Toxics Release Inventory: Public Data
Release. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Washington, DC.
187
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
299. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994a). Chesapeake Bay Basin Water Quality Standards
Database. Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Annapolis, Maryland.
300. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994b). Report to Congress: Deposition of Toxic Air
Pollutants to the "Great Waters." Washington, DC.
301. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1994c). Special interest group forum for fish consump-
tion risk management/nonpoint source information exchange computer bulletin board system.
Washington, D.C.
302. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1982). The Chesapeake Bay Region Bald Eagle Recovery Plan.
Region 5, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 81 pp.
303. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (1990). Chesapeake Bay Region Bald Eagle Recovery Plan: First
Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. 80 pp.
304. Valigura, R., J. Baker, and L. McConnel. (in review). "Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and
contaminants to Chesapeake Bay and its watershed." In: Perspectives on the Chesapeake Bay,
1994: Advances in Estuarine Sciences. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Solomons, Maryland.
305. Van Veld, P.A., DJ. Westbrook, B.R. Woodin, R.C. Hale, C.K.L. Smith, R.J. Huggett, and JJ.
Stegeman. (1990). "Induced cytochrome P-450 in intestine and liver of spot (Leiostomus xanthurus)
from a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contaminated environment." Aq. Toxicol. 17:119-132.
306. Velinsky, D.J. (1994). "Loading estimates for specific chemical contaminants in Chesapeake
Bay." In: Jacobs, J.M. (ed). Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Studies: Toxics Research
Program 1993 Workshop Report Solomons, Maryland. U.S. Department of Commerce National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Chesapeake Bay Office, Annapolis, Maryland.
307. Velinsky, D. J., C. Hay wood, T.L. Wade, and E. Reinharz. (1992). Sediment Contamination Studies
of the Potomac andAnacostia Rivers around the District of Columbia. Final report to the District
of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs. ICPRB report #92-2, Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, Maryland. 140 pp.
308. Velinsky, D.J. and G. Cutter, (unpublished data). Old Dominion University, Department of
Oceanography, Norfolk, Virginia. March 1993.
309. Velinsky, D.J., T.L. Wade, and G.T.F. Wong. (1986). "Atmospheric deposition of organic carbon
to Chesapeake Bay." Atmos. Environ. (20)5:941-947.
310. Villa, O. and P. Johnson. (1974). Distribution of Metals in Baltimore Harbor. Technical Report No.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 3, Annapolis Field Office, Annapolis,
Maryland.
311. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, (unpublished data). Virginia pesticide
mixing and loading facility data from J. Cox. Richmond, Virginia. August 1993.
188
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
312. Virginia Department of Health, (unpublished data). Virginia shellfish contaminant monitoring
data from R. Croonenbergs. Richmond, Virginia. March 1993.
313. Virginia Water Control Board. (1991). Elizabeth River Toxics Initiative, First Biennial Progress
Report 1990. Basic Data Bulletin No. 84, Prepared by the Virginia Water Control Board,
Chesapeake Bay Office, Richmond, Virginia.
314. Vogelbein, W.K., J.W. Fournic, P.A. Van Veld, and R.J. Huggett. (1990). "Hepatic neoplasms in
the mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus from a creosote-contaminated site." Cancer Res. 50:5978-
5986.
315. Wade, T.L. (1983). "Bulk atmospheric deposition of hydrocarbons to lower Chesapeake Bay."
Atmos. Environ. (17)11:2311-2320.
316. Ward, P.P. (1979). "Disparities in Turtle Populations on Carroll Island, Maryland as a Measure of
Past Environmental Impacts." Ph.D. Dissertation. The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland.
317. Warner, K.A., S.I. Hartwell, J.A. Mihursky, C.F. Zimmerman, and A. Chancy. (1992). The Lower
Patapsco River/Baltimore Harbor Contaminant Data Base Assessment Project-1991. Baltimore
Regional Council of Governments, Baltimore, Maryland. 90 pp.
318. Warriner, J.E., E.S. Mathews, and B.A. Weeks. (1988). "Preliminary investigations of the
chemiluminescent response in normal and pollutant exposed fish." Mar. Environ. Res. 24:281 -284.
319. Weeks, B.A. and I.E. Warriner. (1984). "Effects of toxic chemicals on macrophage phagocytosis
in two estuarine fishes." Mar. Environ. Res. 24:281-284.
320. Weeks, B. A., I.E. Warriner, P.L. Mason, and D.S. McGinnis. (1986). "Influence of toxic chemicals
on the chromatactic response offish macrophages." /. Fish Biol. 28:653-658.
321. Weis, J. and P. Weis. (1992). "Transfer of contaminants from CCA-treated lumber to aquatic
biota."/ Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 161:189-199.
322. Weis, P., J. Weis, and L. Coohill. (1991). "Toxicity to estuarine organisms of leachate from
chromated copper arsenate treated wood." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 20:118-124.
323. Weis, P., J. Weis, A. Greenburg, and T. Nosker. (1992). "Toxicity of construction materials in the
marine environment: a comparison of chromated-copper-arsenate-treated wood and recycled
plastic." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 22:99-106.
324. Weisberg, S.B., J.B. Frithsen, A.F. Holland, J.F. Paul, K.J. Scott, J.K. Summers, H.T. Wilson, R.
Valente, D.G. Heinbuch, J. Gerritsen, S.C. Schimmel, andR.W. Latimer. (1992). EMAP-Estuaries
Virginian Province 1990 Demonstration Project Report. EPA 600/R-92/100. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
189
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
325. Westbrook, D.J., EJ. Travelstead, F.A. Espourteille, C.D. Rice, and R.J. Huggett. (1986).
Tributyltln in Whole Water and Sediment Collected from Marinas and the Hampton Roads Area
in the Southern Chesapeake Bay. Final Report. College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science, Gloucester Point, Virginia.
326. White, D.H. (1979). "Nationwide residues of organochlorine compounds in wings of adult
mallards and black ducks, 1976-77." Pest. Monit. J. 13:12-16.
327. White, D.H., R.C. Stendell, and B.M. Mulhern. (1979). "Relations of wintering canvasbacks to
environmental pollutants-Chesapeake Bay, Maryland." Wilson Bull 91:279-287.
328. White, D.H. and R.G. Heath. (1976). "Nationwide residues of organochlorines in wings of adult
mallards and black ducks, 1972-73." Pestic. Monit. J. 9:176-185.
329. Wiemeyer, S.N. (1971). "Reproductive success of Potomac River ospreys-1970." Ches. Sci.
12:278-280.
330. Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, and A.J. Krynitsky. (1988). "Organochlorine pesticides, poly-
chlorinated biphenyls, and mercury in osprey eggs--1970-79—and their relationships to shell
thinning and productivity." Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 17:767-787.
331. Wiemeyer, S.N., C.M. Bunck, T.G. Lament, C.R. Sindelar, F.J. Gramlich, J.D. Fraser, and M.A.
Byrd. (1984). "Organochlorine pesticide, polychlorobiphenyl, and mercury residues in bald eagle
eggs— 1969-79—and their relationships to shell thinning and reproduction." Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 13:529-549.
332. Wiemeyer, S.N., P.R. Spitzer, W.C. Krantz, T.G. Lamont, and E. Cromartie. (1975). "Effects of
environmental pollutants on Connecticut and Maryland ospreys." /. Wildlife Mngmt 39:124-139.
333, Wiemeyer, S.N., S.K. Schmeling, and A. Anderson. (1987). "Environmental pollutant and
necropsy data for ospreys from the eastern United States, 1975-1982."/. WildlifeDis. 23:279-291.
334. Wiemeyer, S.N., T.G. Lamont, and L.N. Locke. (1980). Residues of environmental pollutants and
necropsy data for eastern United States ospreys, 1964-1973. Estuaries 3:155-167.
335. William, G.H. (1986). "Field Measurements of Pesticide Washout in Rain Near Beltsville,
Maryland." M.S. Thesis. University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
336. Wong, G.T.F. and C.S. Moy. (1984). "Cesium-137, metals, and organic carbon in sediments of the
James River estuary, Virginia." Estuar. and Coast, and Shelf Sci. 18:37-49.
190
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
337. Wright,D.A. (1991). "The Chesapeake Bay Toxics Issue Revisited." Mar. Pollut. Bull. (22)10:487-
491.
338. Wright, D.A., J.D. Savitz, and S.I. Hartwell. (1992). "Low-level effects of toxic chemicals on
Chesapeake Bay organisms." In: Perspectives on Chesapeake Bay, 1992: Advances in Estuarine
Sciences, pp. 45-74.
339. Wu, T.L., L. Lambert, D. Hastings, and D. Banning. (1980). "Enrichment of the agricultural
herbicide atrazine in the microsurface water of an estuary." Environ. Contam. andToxicol. 24:411-
414.
340. Wu, T.L. (1981). "Atrazine residues in estuarine water and the aerial deposition into Rhode River,
Maryland." Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 15:173-184.
341. Wu, Z. Y. and J.M. Ondov. (in press). "The Chesapeake Bay deposition study, Year 1: Sources and
dry deposition of selected elements in aerosol particles." Atmosph. Environ.
342. Ziegenfuss. M.C. and L.W. Hall, Jr. (1993). Screening of Candidate Species for Development of
Standard Operating Procedures for Aquatic Toxicity Testing with Resident Chesapeake Bay Biota.
University of Maryland, Queenstown, Maryland. CBP/TRS 103/94. 88 pp.
343. Ziegenfuss, M.C. andL. W. Hall, Jr. (1994). Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Acute
and Chronic Aquatic Toxicity Tests with Eurytemora affinis, a Calanoid Copepod. University of
Maryland, Queenstown, Maryland.
344. Zimmerman, C. (1991). "Submarine Groundwater Discharge to the Patuxent River and Chesa-
peake Bay." In: J. A. Mihursky and A. Chancy, (eds.). New Perspectives in the Chesapeake System:
A Research and Management Partnership. Proceedings of a conference, December 4-6, 1990.
Baltimore, Maryland. Chesapeake Research Consortium Publication No. 137.
191
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
192
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
APPENDIX A
State Regulatory/Management Program
Implementation Progress -
Expanded Descriptions
A-1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
A-2
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Pennsylvania
Water Quality Standards Program
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources regulates chemicals through Chapter
93 (Water Quality Standards) and Chapter 16 (Water Quality Management Strategy-Statement of
Policy), both of which are codified in the PA Code. These requirements serve as the basis for water
quality effluent limitations incorporated into NPDES permits and other regulatory actions to protect
water uses.
Chapter 93 is reviewed and revised, if necessary, during each Triennial Water Quality Standards
review mandated by Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. Chapter 16, which includes listings of
numeric criteria and analytical detection limits, is reviewed and revised at intervals not exceeding
one year. These reviews include public participation that meets EPA requirements.
As part of the Triennial Water Quality Standards review, Pennsylvania adopted a new compre-
hensive toxics regulation and statement of policy on March 11,1989. The EPA approved these actions
on April 11, 1990. The requirements apply to all discharges to the commonwealth waters, including
those in the Chesapeake Bay Basin.
Section 93.8a (Toxic Substances) within Chapter 93 (Water Quality Standards) provides an
improved and strengthened regulatory basis for controlling toxic discharges. It identifies reasons for
controlling toxics, the type of substances to be controlled, design conditions, and risk management
levels, while providing a basis for the development of criteria.
Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy - Statement of Policy is a water quality
policy for regulating toxic pollutants in wastewater discharges. Subchapter A of the strategy sets forth
guidelines for the development of criteria for chemicals and lists the water quality criteria for toxic
chemicals. Subchapter B lists associated analytical methods and detection levels.
Subchapter A establishes guidelines for criteria Federal Clean Water Act, Section 307(a) Priority
Pollutants and any other chemical which the department determines is a concern due to its presence
in wastewater discharges. These guidelines are divided into two categories—one for the development
of aquatic life criteria and the other for the development of human health criteria. The human health
criteria are further subdivided into threshold and non-threshold categories. Subchapter B is a
compilation of data on the analytical methods and minimum detection limits for the Priority Pollutants
and some other chemicals. Most methods are EPA-approved, but another may be listed in some cases
in which EPA has no approved method.
These requirements serve primarily as the basis for the issuance of NPDES permit water quality-
based effluent limitations, as well as compliance actions related to wastewater discharges. The
summarized provisions included in Chapter 93 and Chapter 16 are as follows:
Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards. Section 93.Sa Toxic Substances
• Prohibits discharge of chemicals in toxic amounts.
• Defines chemicals as Priority Pollutants and any others identified by the department.
A-3
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• Provides a basis for development of human health criteria threshold and non-threshold toxics.
• Establishes a health risk management level of one excess cancer in a population of one million
(IxlO6) over a 70-year lifetime.
• Provides a basis for development of aquatic life criteria using EPA criteria when available or uses
an application factor times 48 or 96 hours LC50 for representative important species.
• Allows the department to consider synergistic, antagonistic and additive impacts.
• Establishes design conditions to meet criteria.
• Allows the department to require effluent toxicity testing when necessary and to establish effluent
limits based on this testing.
• Specifically incorporates, by reference, Chapter 16 under which the water quality criteria for toxics
are established. The Pennsylvania Bulletin publishes the changes annually.
Chapter 16 Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy - Statement of Policy
• Provides guidelines for development of aquatic life criteria. Addresses short-term effects by the
application of criterion maximum concentration (CMC) and criterion continuous concentration
(CCC) for protection of aquatic life.
• Provides guidelines for the development of human health-based criteria. Addresses threshold level
and non-threshold (cancer) toxic effects.
• Includes Table 1 (Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Substances).
• Addresses approved analytical methods and detection limits.
• Includes Table 2 (Approved EPA Analytical Methods and Detection limits).
• Includes Table 3 (Description of EPA Methods for the Analysis of Priority Pollutants).
As a minimum, Chapter 93 is reviewed and, if necessary, revised during each Triennial Water
Quality Standards review mandated by Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act. This review considers
the need to incorporate new or revised water quality criteria for statewide applicability and other issues
or policies of statewide concern. Revisions to water use designations and the criteria appropriate to
protect these uses are made as use attainability studies are completed. Appropriate regulatory action
and public participation, including a public hearing when necessary, are included in the review and
revisions. Chapter 16, which includes listings of numeric criteria and analytical detection limits, is
reviewed and revised at intervals not exceeding one year. All changes involve appropriate public
participation including a public hearing. The Pennsylvania Bulletin publishes the results of these
reviews.
The department conducts a water quality assessment program which includes the collection of
chemical, biological, and physical data of water bodies as well as modeling to predict the water quality
at design conditions. Professional judgement, based on wastewater sources and land uses, is also
incorporated into the program. A record of each assessment, along with a water quality assessment
summary, is completed for each activity. These summaries are added to the department's Assessment
Data Base and are used for the basinwide assessment of water quality and the preparation of the biennial
305(b) report required by the Federal Clean Water Act. The 1993 305(b) update shows that just over
956 stream miles are impacted by chemical contaminants in the Susquehanna River basin. Of these,
nearly 894 miles (93.5 percent) are affected by metals draining from abandoned mines, a major
problem in portions of the North Branch Susquehanna River and the upper West Branch Susquehanna
River. About 54 miles are affected by toxics from other sources.
A-4
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The department uses State Water Plan Subbasin Areas as a geographic basis to report its
assessments. The subbasins within the Susquehanna River basin along with a summary of the toxics
problems in each follow:
Subbasin 4 - Upper Susquehanna River
Only 17.5 stream miles are impacted by toxics. Of these, 11.6 miles are degraded by heavy metals
from acid mine drainage. The remaining problems are small with each affecting less than three stream
miles.
Subbasin 5 - Upper Central Susquehanna River
All 111.7 stream miles reported as degraded due to toxics are impacted by metals from abandoned
mine drainage. The biggest problems are on Catawissa Creek (41.5 miles), the Susquehanna River
(28 miles), and Black Creek (25.5 miles).
Subbasin 6 - Lower Central Susquehanna River
Approximately 162.8 miles are adversely affected by metals draining from abandoned mines. The
major problems are on Mahanoy Creek (52.2 miles), Shamokin Creek (34.7 miles), and Wisconisco
Creek (16.7 miles).
Subbasin 7 - Lower Susquehanna River
Toxics problems affect 62.4 stream miles. Metals from abandoned mine drainage impact 39.8 miles
primarily in the upper Swatara Creek basin. The other 22.6 miles are relatively small segments (8
miles or less) impacted by various sources: two segments are impacted by contamination at Texas
Eastern compressor station sites, two are impacted by metals mobilized by acid rain, two are impacted
by volatile organic compounds, one (Codorus Creek) reflects a fish consumption advisory for dioxin,
and one (Susquehanna River) has elevated levels of heavy metals.
Subbasin 8 - Upper West Branch Susquehanna River
All but 8.1 miles of the 377.2 stream miles impacted by toxics are due to metals draining from
abandoned mines. Past mining has resulted in many problems in the headwater areas of the West
Branch and some of its tributaries. Metals from active mining are listed as the source of the remaining
problems.
Subbasin 9 - Central West Branch Susquehanna River
A total of 177.4 stream miles has been impacted by toxics. Of these, 155.6 are affected by metals
from acid mine drainage. The major degradation is on the West Branch (50.6 miles), the Beech Creek
basin (26 miles), Babb Creek (14 miles), and the Cooks Run basin (10.1 miles). Approximately 15.2
miles of Spring Creek have been contaminated by Mirex, which caused the Pennsylvania Fish and
Boat Commission to ban fishing. In addition, five miles on Kettle Creek appear to be impacted by
metals that come from the operation of a dam.
A-5
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Subbasin 10 - Lower West Branch Susquehanna River
All of the reported toxics impacts (18.8 miles) are the result of drainage from abandoned mines. The
most severe problem is on Loyalsock Creek (13.4 miles).
Subbasin 11 - Upper Juniata River
Toxics problems impact 26.9 stream miles, of which 24.3 miles are affected by metals from acid mine
drainage. The largest impact is on Sugar Run (6.3 miles). The other problems (2.6 miles total) are
related to a Texas Eastern compressor station site and a paper mill.
Subbasin 12 - Lower Juniata River
Toxics impacts total 1.4 miles. One problem (0.8 miles) is related to a Texas Eastern compressor
station site and the other (0.6 miles) is due to volatile organic compounds.
Point Source Programs
NPDES PROGRAM
Pennsylvania is an NPDES-delegated state and carries out NPDES permitting, compliance, and
enforcement programs in accordance with state and federal regulations and the memorandum of
agreement between the Department of Environmental Resources and the EPA.
Toxics control and management have been a major portion of the state's NPDES program since
the early 1980s and are implemented pursuant to the Bureau of Water Quality Management's Toxics
Management Strategy. The Toxics Management Strategy is the basis for writing NPDES permits for
all point sources including the 304(1) discharges. A brief summary of the Toxics Management Strategy
and toxics evaluation procedures is outlined below.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania is implementing the federal stormwater permitting regulations (40 CFR 122.26) for
stormwater discharges associated with industrial activities under the point source program. In
Pennsylvania, two stormwater general permits have been issued—one for industrial activities and the
other for construction activities. The Water Quality Management Program handles permits for
stormwater discharges from industrial activities; the Land and Water Conservation Program handles
permits for stormwater discharges from construction activities through county conservation districts
as part of the Department's erosion and sedimentation control program. The majority of the discharges
are expected to be managed through these general permits. However, individual permits are required
for certain activities: discharges to streams designated as "special protection" under the anti-
degradation program; SARA Title III facilities that exceed the reportable quantities for listed
chemicals; and stormwater discharges containing or expected to contain toxic chemicals.
Pennsylvania has not established a specific toxic chemical control strategy for the Chesapeake
Bay basin. The department addresses these substances statewide through several regulatory and
A-6
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
administrative programs which are discussed below. These programs are used in the development
of Individual Control Strategies and for other NPDES permitting actions in the Bay basin.
The department has initiated a Watershed Permitting Process to manage permitting and other point
source control actions, pursuant to sections 304(1) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. A Total
Maximum Daily Load/Waste Load Allocation screening of point sources is conducted to identify
chemical contaminant parameters of concern and the scope of field data collection needs. Based on
these screenings, water body surveys are conducted for the substances of concern. This information
is used to perform a detailed analysis and water quality-based multiple discharge waste load allocation.
The waste load allocations are then translated into effluent limitations for NPDES permits.
The Federal Clean Water Act controls toxic pollutants by mandating that "...it is the national policy
that the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts be prohibited...." The control of toxics is also
mandated by the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law in which pollution is defined as "...contamination
of any waters of the Commonwealth such as will create or is likely to create a nuisance or render
such waters harmful, detrimental, or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare to domestic,
municipal commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other legitimate beneficial uses..."
Toxics Control and Management Strategy
Pennsylvania Code 93.7(f) and Pennsylvania Chapter 16 form the basis for the Bureau of Water
Quality Management's Toxics Control and Management program. Chemicals are controlled and
managed under the Water Quality Toxics Management Strategy developed pursuant to the above cited
references. The Toxics Management Strategy is a water quality approach to control the discharge
of priority pollutants and other chemicals. The Toxics Management Strategy uses a comprehensive
step-by-step process for evaluating toxic pollutants and developing appropriate effluent limitations.
The steps in the application of the strategy are:
• Step 1: Conduct a preliminary review
• Step 2: Determine pollutants of further interest
• Step 3: Develop water-quality based limits and selection of toxics to be limited in the permit
• Step 4: Establish NPDES permit terms and conditions for control of toxic pollutants.
• Step 5: Follow up evaluation after initial permit issuance.
• Step 6: Establish final permit requirements
A brief discussion of the actions required for each step follows.
Step 1 - Conduct a Preliminary Review
The purpose of this step is to become familiar with the facilities and the wastewater discharges
for which the NPDES permit application has been submitted. This step resolves any discrepancies
in the application data and focuses on initial pollutants of interest. Pertinent historical data are
reviewed including the compliance status of the applicant.
Step 2 - Determine Pollutants of Further Interest
The purpose of this step is to compile a complete list of toxic pollutants of interest based on
knowledge of actual or potential pollutant presence in the discharges under review. Pollutants of
further interest would be identified by the following screening process:
A-7
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
1. Priority pollutants which have a best available technology requirement. If a pollutant is required
to be regulated by an applicable best available technology guidelines for the industry, the best
available technology limit or the corresponding water quality-based limit (whichever is more
stringent), must be in the permit regardless the presence or absence of the pollutant.
2. Non-best available technology priority pollutants for which the discharger must sample and
analyze. These pollutants will also be designated as pollutants of further interest pending
evaluation of water quality-based limits in Step 3.
3. Other toxics identified by the applicant as present in the discharge. Several places on the industrial
NPDES application form allow the applicant to indicate that certain toxic pollutants are expected
in the discharge. When the applicant identifies such pollutants as routinely present in the discharge,
they become pollutants of further interest.
4. Other toxics known or suspected to be present by the permit writer. Based upon the type of
discharger and the toxic pollutants normally associated with the discharge, the permit writer can
designate any other appropriate toxics as pollutants of further interest.
Step 3 - Develop Water-Quality Based Effluent Limits and Selection of Toxics to be Addressed in the
Permit
The purpose of this step is to determine which toxic pollutants should be addressed in the NPDES
permit and in what manner they should be addressed using criteria established in the Water Quality
Toxics Management Strategy.
Step 4 - Establish of NPDES Permit Terms and Conditions for Control of Toxic Pollutants
The purpose of this step is to establish appropriate effluent limitations, monitoring and reporting
requirements, and other special conditions to be incorporated into the NPDES permit, based on the
results of steps 1 through 3. One of the special conditions in this step is the requirement to conduct
a Toxics Reduction Evaluation. Toxics Reduction Evaluations are conducted when the water quality-
based requirements may not be met with available technology. This evaluation allows the discharger
to: (1) study the characteristics of its waste discharge; (2) verify the extent of the toxic pollutants
associated with the wastewater; (3) determine sources of these toxic pollutants; and (4) recommend
control and/or treatment technologies which may reduce or eliminate the toxic pollutants. The
department has developed extensive guidelines for conducting Toxicity Reduction Evaluations.
Under the permit conditions, the department may grant an extension of time to achieve the water
quality-based effluent limitations, provided the permittee meets all eligibility requirements contained
in Sections 95.4 of the department's rules and regulations.
A third special condition contains procedures for the demonstration of alternative site-specific
bioassay-based instream water quality criteria. When water quality-based effluent limitations for the
pollutants listed in the permit have been developed for the protection of fish and aquatic life, the
permittee may demonstrate alternative site-specific bioassay-based instream safe concentration values
for these pollutants. These procedures must be carried out in accordance with the Rules and
Regulations of the department contained in Sections 93.8(D-E).
A fourth condition is the incorporation of procedures for demonstrating alternative method
detection limits. The permittee may request an opportunity to demonstrate alternative facility-specific
A-8
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
minimum detection limits to account for interfering factors associated with the wastewater in
questions.
Step 5 - Follow Up Evaluation After Initial Permit Issuance
The purpose of this step is to evaluate information submitted by permittees in response to initial
permit special conditions concerning water quality-based effluent limitations and other requirements
for the management of toxic pollutants.
During Step 5, the department evaluates the information in Step 4 which may have been submitted
by the permittees in response to permit requirements: toxics reduction evaluations, requests for time
extensions, requests for alternative site specific bioassay-based effluent limitations, and requests for
alternative method detection limit determinations.
Step 6 - Establish Final Permit Requirements
The purpose of this step is to evaluate the results of the follow-up evaluations discussed in Step
5 of the NPDES permit and the related enforcement documents. Based on review of the toxics
reduction evaluation and any related demonstrations, the NPDES permit may be reopened and
modified or revoked and reissued to reflect appropriate changes resulting from the above evaluations.
The current toxics management program in Pennsylvania is essentially a chemical-by-chemical
approach; applicable water quality criteria are based on protection of the most sensitive use (i.e.,
aquatic life or human health).
BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
Pennsylvania's chemical-specific approach to limit toxics in wastewater discharges has taken
precedence over the use of biomonitoring as a means of controlling effluent toxicity. In a limited
number of cases, the department has included whole effluent toxicity testing requirements in NPDES
permits. Although the department views biomonitoring as an important element of toxics manage-
ment, the limited availability of staff resources has prevented its widespread use in the NPDES
program. For those cases in which biomonitoring requirements have been imposed, EPA Region III
staff have interpreted the test results with follow-up actions coordinated between the two agencies.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Pennsylvania has not been delegated primacy for the pretreatment program. The Bureau of Water
Quality Management is actively participating in the program in a number of ways. Any pretreatment
problems that Pennsylvania identifies as a result of field or compliance review activities are referred
to EPA for action. The following 43 facilities in the Chesapeake Bay Basin have or are required to
have pretreatment programs in place:
Altoona City Authority (2 plants)
Tyrone Borough Sewer Authority
Bellefonte Borough
Curwensville Municipal Authority
Lock Haven City
Columbia Borough Authority
Lancaster Area Sewer Authority
Lancaster City Sewer Authority
Lebanon City Authority
Greater Hazelton Sewer Authority
A-9
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Pine Creek Municipal Authority
Berwick Municipal Authority
Carlisle Borough Authority
Hampden Township Sewer Authority (2 plants)
Lower Allen Sewer Authority
Shippensburg Borough Authority
Derry Township Municipal Authority
Harrisburg City Authority
Chambersburg Borough Authority
Huntingdon Borough Authority
Lackawanna River Basin Authority (4 plants)
Scranton City Sewer Authority
Adamstown Borough Sewer Authority
York City Sewer Authority
Lower Lackawanna Valley Sewer Authority
Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority
Williamsport Sewer Authority (2 plants)
Union Township Municipal Authority
Danville Municipal Authority
Milton Municipal Authority
Shamokin-Coal Township Jt. Sewer Authority
Sunbury City Municipal Authority
Middleburg Municipal Authority
Kelly Township Municipal Authority
Hanover Area Municipal Authority
Penn Township Sewer Authority
Springettsbury Township Sewer Authority
In addition to consulating with EPA Region III on its implementation actions, the Department
of Environmental Resources, in cooperation with the Water Pollution Control Association of
Pennsylvania, has been sponsoring pretreatment forums around the state for pretreatment coordinators,
treatment plant operators, and consultants. The department plans to hold these forums about every
six months. Also, the department's Operator Outreach Training Program provides on-site pretreat-
ment assistance to municipalities around the state. Formal delegation of the pretreatment program
depends on the availability of adequate staff resources to implement a meaningful program.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The 1987 amendments to the Pennsylvania Pesticide Control Act are implemented through a
regulatory program. All commercial and public applicators must be licensed to apply any pesticides
while private applicators, such as farmers, must only be licensed to apply restricted-use pesticides.
Over 25,000 applicators are licensed under this program. To become licensed, an applicator must
pass an examination that requires knowledge of pesticide use in conformance with the label. Once
licensed, an applicator must follow label requirements and periodically update training or face license
revocation.
Pennsylvania is actively promoting an integrated pest management program. The program
encourages integrated pest management using mechanical, cultural, and chemical control measures
in developing pest control strategies. The integrated pest management program is founded on an
agreement between the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and Penn State University. Audio-
visual presentations and technical handouts promote the program and its techniques and the results
have received much media attention. Over $ 1 million in integrated pest management research projects
have been funded over the past four years. This research has resulted in successful measures for
reducing or eliminating pesticide use on tomato and poinsettia crops and the establishment of a U.S.
Department of Agriculture cost-share program to encourage the adoption of crop management
services. By the end of 1992, an estimated 400,000 acres were under integrated pest management.
A-10
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The stormwater management program mandated by the Pennsylvania Storm Water Management
Act is implemented by the Department of Environmental Resources' Bureau of Dams, Waterways
and Wetlands. The act requires each county to prepare watershed stormwater management plans which
consider the hydrologic effects of land use changes and nonpoint source pollution. The plans must
identify water quality controls associated with nonpoint source pollution. Local municipalities
implement standards and criteria through the adoption of codes and ordinances.
Hazardous Waste Management Programs
RCRA PROGRAM
Residual and hazardous waste regulations, developed through Pennsylvania's RCRA program,
focus on source reduction to prevent waste. In the waste management hierarchy, source reduction
has the highest priority, followed by use and reclamation, treatment, and disposal. The hazardous
and residual waste regulations require each generator to develop a source reduction strategy. The
generator must specify what actions it will take to reduce waste, when the actions will be taken, and
the amount of reduction expected. A Source Reduction Strategy Manual helps generators to comply
with the requirements and achieve source reduction. The manual includes a discussion of the
regulatory requirements, elements of a comprehensive source reduction program, reduction measure-
ments, and source reduction opportunity assessments. The department is also developing a technical
assistance program to help waste generators implement source reduction programs.
In the future, the department will be training its own staff to identify waste reduction opportunities
during inspection and permitting activities. The department is also considering development of a
strategy to target technical resources to those waste streams which may have management capacity
shortfalls.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Pennsylvania plays an active role in the federal Superfund Program by cooperating with EPA at
the 99 state sites on the National Priority List. In addition, the department is pursuing remediation
at sites not on the federal list under the auspices of the State Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act enacted
in 1988.
To date, eight sites in Pennsylvania have been addressed and removed from the EPA Superfund
List—more than any other state. Cleanups by potentially responsible parties have also been started
at 16 additional sites on the EPA list. Under the state's superfund program, responses have been
completed at an additional 29 sites with ten more sites scheduled for remedial action.
Air Quality Control Programs
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources requires the application of Best
Available Technology to control air pollutants, including toxics, from new sources. In addition,
specific policies already exist regarding acceptable levels of air toxics from municipal and hospital
A-11
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
waste incinerators. Permittees for these types of facilities, as well as for coke oven batteries, must
perform an air toxics analysis as part of their requirements.
The department plans to implement all of the Clean Air Act requirements for the control of
hazardous air pollutants (toxics) promulgated by EPA for both new and existing sources. When
possible, pollution prevention requirements will be incorporated during development of the regula-
tions.
Maryland
There are numerous programs to protect people and the environment from potentially toxic
chemicals in the environment. Most of these programs are founded in law and detailed in regulations.
In the Chesapeake Bay region, there are also programs and policies derived from the formal agreements
signed by Maryland's Governor.
This appendix summarizes the efforts of the Maryland Departments of the Environment and
Agriculture to protect the public and the environment from potentially toxic chemicals, including
descriptions of programs to control or reduce toxic emissions, and examples of the progress made
by these programs.
Water Quality Standards Program
Water quality standards form the basis of Maryland's water pollution control program. Standards
provide a regulatory mechanism to restore, protect, and maintain "fishable and swimmable" waters
by protecting public health and aquatic life (i.e., fish, shellfish and other aquatic communities).
Maryland's water quality standards reflect the latest scientific knowledge of the effects of pollutants
on human health and aquatic life as well as controlling the discharge of pollutants. High quality state
waters are protected from degradation and waters already degraded are improved to provide for
reasonable public use and increased survival and diversity of aquatic life.
Maryland has assigned specific uses to its state waters. Waters protected for recreational use and
the preservation of balanced populations of fish and wildlife require stringent standards and a high
degree of protection. Restrictive designations, such as shellfish harvesting waters, put and take trout
waters, and natural trout population waters, impose additional restrictions, as does the potable
(drinkable) waters designation. Other less restrictive uses, like industrial water supply, irrigation,
and navigation, are also protected.
Water quality standards are a combination of the use designation and the corresponding water
quality criteria, which may be general (narrative) or specific (numerical). Water quality standards
establish regulations which prevent the deterioration of water quality and can also be enforced in the
courts if necessary.
One of Maryland's general water quality criteria states that potentially toxic chemicals may not
be present in waters at levels harmful to human, plant, or aquatic life. This narrative water quality
criterion allows the state to limit the discharge of any substances which may cause toxicity through
permits. Specific water quality criteria are numeric values for named substances. For example, the
criterion for protection of salt water aquatic life from short term exposure to silver is 2.3 micrograms
per liter (parts per billion).
A-12
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The first water quality criteria for potentially toxic chemicals were adopted for aldrin, dieldrin,
endrin, toxaphene, DDT, PCBs, and benzidine in 1980. In 1987, Maryland enacted a law severely
limiting the use of boat anti-fouling paints containing tributyltin. The use and sale of these paints
came under regulation. The Department of the Environment subsequently adopted water quality
criteria for tributyltin in fresh and marine waters in 1989. The Department of the Environment also
adopted regulations prohibiting the discharge of chlorine or its compounds to natural trout waters and
requiring the dechlorination of any effluent treated with chlorine. The Department of the Environment
also adopted water quality standards for 27 potentially toxic chemicals in April, 1990, in response
to requirements of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. On June 7,1993, these regulations
were modified to facilitate their implementation.
The Department of the Environment continually assesses the merit, adequacy, and efficacy of
Maryland's water quality standards through specific actions to determine that either a need exists or
identify a pollutant of particular concern. Additionally, there exists a federally mandated review of
state water quality standards every three years.
Point Source Programs
NPDES PROGRAM
Facilities which discharge wastewater must obtain discharge permits to insure that point source
discharges to surface waters are in compliance with state water quality standards. The National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a federal program to regulate discharges nation-
wide. Maryland received approval in 1974 to administer the NPDES program through a state discharge
permit program which resembles the federal program.
The goal of the Maryland NPDES permit program is to assure that the state's water quality
standards are not violated as a result of a single discharge or a group of discharges to a specific water
body. This goal is accomplished using both technology-based and water quality-based permit limits.
These limits establish the quality of the discharge by setting maximum limits on the levels of specific
constituents in the effluents, including potentially toxic chemicals.
The Department of the Environment is required by the NPDES program to investigate all
discharges—only chemical contamination which is either very low or cannot be eliminated for practical
and financial reasons is allowed. All NPDES permits must be renewed every five years. This provides
the Department of the Environment with an opportunity to review the discharger's performance and
to impose additional or more restrictive permit limits if necessary.
In 1974, when the Department of the Environment began issuing NPDES permits, the emphasis
was on technology-based limits. Industries discharging to state waters were required to use the best
available technology in treating their discharges. Municipal sewage treatment plants were required
to employ secondary treatment technology. In the late 1980s, permits were issued with increasing
emphasis on water quality-based limits which impose more stringent controls than technology-based
limits. The 1990 adoption of regulations aimed at the control of toxic chemical discharges placed
additional emphasis on the water quality-based approach. These regulations establish quantitative
criteria for the protection of human health and aquatic life for 27 potentially toxic chemicals.
Additional implementation requirements were added to these regulations in 1993. All new and
renewed NPDES permits are now written to meet the toxic chemical discharge control requirements.
A-13
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
All industrial and municipal facilities with NPDES permits are systematically monitored to assure
that the limits specified are not exceeded. Best management practices are also required by NPDES
permits at certain sites for control of potentially toxic chemicals that may be transported by runoff.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Department of the Environment also implements stormwater management and sediment
control programs. Erosion and sedimentation from areas undergoing urban land development may
impair water quality. Pollutants and nutrients accumulate rapidly on paved impervious surfaces. They
are then transported into water bodies with stormwater runoff. Large sediment influxes may carry
levels of toxic chemicals which are potentially harmful to aquatic life.
The primary goals of the state's sediment control and stormwater management programs are to
maintain the pre-development runoff characteristics after development and thus reduce stream channel
erosion, local flooding, siltation, and sedimentation. Although most of the sediment and stormwater
control practices are not directly related to the control of toxic chemicals, many provide indirect
benefits. Reduction in sediment transport and excessive surface water runoff provides some control
of soil-attached chemicals. Best management practices often contribute to the interception and
confinement of toxic chemicals.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
Maryland's Pretreatment Program controls pollutants discharged by industrial users to publicly
owned wastewater treatment plants. The national pretreatment program, which was established with
the 1976 amendments to the Clean Water Act, sets the framework, responsibilities, and requirements
for implementing and enforcing pretreatment standards. Maryland received full delegation of
pretreatment authority from EPA in September 1985.
Local governments have primary responsibility for pretreatment program implementation. Pre-
treatment programs are required for all wastewater treatment plants with a capacity of five million
gallons per day or more and for smaller plants with significant industrial dischargers. There are
currently 17 approved local pretreatment programs in Maryland. The Department of the Environment
oversees the implementation of these programs for compliance with the Department's requirements
and takes enforcement action where necessary. As amendments are made to the federal pretreatment
regulations, Maryland adjusts its state program to incorporate all such modifications.
Progress made by the Pretreatment Program can be demonstrated using two of Maryland's largest
facilities. The Back River and Patapsco River wastewater treatment plants are the municipal facilities
which handle waste water for the Baltimore metropolitan area. Since the implementation of the
pretreatment program in 1983, discharges of chromium, copper, cyanide, nickel, and zinc have been
substantially reduced.
BIOMONITORING PROGRAM
All industries and municipalities are required to conduct biological effluent monitoring or
biomonitoring if the potential for toxicity in their surface water discharges exists. Biomonitoring is
used to test for the occurrence of toxicity as a result of unexpected interactions of chemicals present
A-14
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
in the effluent. Biomonitoring refers to laboratory testing of wastewater effluent for toxicity using
biological organisms, such as fish and crustaceans. Short-term laboratory exposures (i.e., 48 hours)
of organisms to full strength and diluted effluent provide an estimate of the effluent's acute toxicity
through the observation of the deaths or abnormal behavior of the test organisms. Longer laboratory
exposures (i.e., 7 days) provide estimates of effluent chronic toxicity through the observation of more
subtle effects such as impairment in the test organisms' growth or reproduction.
Maryland has implemented a two-pronged program for the biomonitoring of wastewater effluents.
All major and some minor wastewater treatment facilities are required to provide data from acute and
chronic bioassay tests on the effluent. The type and frequency of the testing is determined by discharge
flow, receiving water flow, and the potential to cause a toxic impact. These monitoring requirements
are designed to identify possible contributors of acutely or chronically toxic materials to Maryland
surface waters. Whenever biomonitoring reveals an effluent with acute or chronic toxicity, confir-
matory testing and a toxicity reduction program to eliminate effluent toxicity is required of the
responsible industry or municipality.
The second part of the biomonitoring program is the use of the Department of the Environment's
Biomonitoring Laboratory to independently test effluents from selected facilities. The benefits of
the independent laboratory tests include the identification of toxic effluents, potential violations of
water quality standards, and the verification of biotoxicity testing results submitted by dischargers
to meet their NPDES permit requirements. Since 1986, an increasing number of facilities have been
tested in this manner—the vast majority show no toxicity. The few in which toxicity has been found
have either eliminated the cause of toxicity or are in the process of doing so.
By 1990, all major industrial facilities had been assessed; 15 dischargers were found to have some
toxicity in their discharge. Since that time, only six still have evidence of toxicity in their discharge.
Of all municipal wastewater discharges evaluated to date, more than 95 percent have shown no
evidence of toxicity in their effluents.
CHEMICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
Concentrations of chemical contaminants in effluents from municipal wastewater treatment plants
and industrial processes are also monitored. This monitoring assures that the discharger does not
exceed the limits of potentially toxic chemicals specified in their discharge permit. Dischargers are
required to perform and report chemical monitoring of their effluent on a monthly basis. In addition,
the Department of the Environment preforms random chemical-specific testing of effluents.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Maryland Department of Agriculture is responsible for regulating the use, sale, storage, and
disposal of pesticides. The primary functions of the pesticide management program are to enforce
state and federal pesticide use laws and regulations, ensure that pesticides are applied properly by
competent individuals, and protect the health of citizens and natural resources. These functions are
carried out through five major programs:
A-15
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• pesticide applicator certification and training;
• pesticide use inspection and enforcement;
• pesticide technical information collection and dissemination;
• groundwater, worker, and endangered species protection; and
• special programs.
The Department of Agriculture certifies private and commercial users of pesticides through written
certification examinations and mandatory annual update training to verify the competence of personnel
applying pesticides. The department licenses and issues permits to businesses and public agencies
that apply general or restricted use pesticides as well as pest control consultants that recommend
pesticides or identify pests. Under the enforcement program, the Department of Agriculture conducts
routine inspections of licensed pesticide businesses, public agencies, and restricted use pesticide
dealers. Pesticide misuse and consumer complaints are also investigated. Pesticide information (use
and regulations) is provided to pesticide applicators, dealers, federal and state agencies, and the general
public. Pesticide usage surveys have been conducted since 1982 on a three-year interval to obtain
information on use from farmers and private and commercial applicators.
The Department of Agriculture is developing a state management plan for agricultural pesticides
and has implemented an Atrazine Best Management Practices Program to protect groundwater and
surface water resources. Implementation plans for worker protection and endangered species
protection programs have also been developed.
Special programs conducted by the department include an integrated pest management program
for schools, an empty pesticide container recycling program, a pilot disposal program for unusable
pesticides, and a well water monitoring program for farmers.
Hazardous Waste Management Programs
Since the National Environmental Protection Act in 1969, there have been numerous laws passed
to reduce potentially toxic materials in the environment. Most of them, including the Clean Water
and Clean Air Acts, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980, and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, have resulted in regulatory
systems that have served very effectively to reduce releases of potentially toxic chemicals into the
environment, help scientists and managers understand where those releases occur, and list the
chemicals that are involved.
In many cases, Maryland has received delegated authority to write state regulations within the
guidelines of federal regulations. Some of the progress that has been made under these programs
is presented below.
OIL CONTROL PROGRAM
The Oil Control Program regulates the aboveground and underground storage and transfer of
petroleum products to prevent oil pollution. The underground storage tank program is based on the
federal program adopted under Subtitle I of RCRA. The aboveground storage tank program has
A-16
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
established management requirements for the storage and handling of petroleum products to prevent
releases of petroleum into the environment.
In 1988 the EPA passed regulations requiring the upgrade or replacement of underground storage
tanks to meet certain technical standards, which were adopted by Maryland in 1991. These standards
(early release detection, corrosion protection, and overfill/spill prevention) are designed to prevent
releases from underground storage tanks. The new design features of underground storage tanks will
prevent tanks from leaking in the future.
The aboveground storage tank program requires tanks to have secondary containment to collect
any spills that may. The size of the containment must be equal to the greatest tank volume. The dike
is constructed of an impermeable material and designed to prevent the petroleum from escaping into
the environment. Additional requirements include proper venting and other related safety issues.
In the future, the Oil Control Program will continue to oversee the implementation of the
underground storage tank requirements to meet the 1998 compliance deadline. Also, inspections of
underground storage tanks will increase to determine if the owners are complying with the early release
detection monitoring. This will prevent future leaks and, if they occur they will be detected at an
early stage.
Another goal of the Oil Control Program is to remediate sites that have been previously
contaminated with petroleum products. Currently, the program oversees more than 950 responsible
party cleanups where some type of monitoring or remediation is occurring on a site that was previously
contaminated with a petroleum product. The objectives of remedial actions are to close the source
of contamination immediately, install treatment systems to prevent the further movement of oil into
the environment, and restore the quality of the water to its natural state.
Air Quality Control Programs
The Clean Air Act regulations promulgated by the Department of the Environment's Air and
Radiation Management Administration, Maryland's Air Toxics Control and Mobile Sources Toxic
Reduction Programs, and the Urban Air Toxics Initiative have greatly increased the number of
facilities which must control air pollutant emissions. These regulations and programs have: decreased
the emissions of criteria pollutants such as sulfur and nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and volatile
organic compounds; decreased ambient air borne lead dramatically; and provided for significant
decreases in emissions of toxic chemicals from mobile sources. Projections are for continued
decreases in all of these areas except lead, which has reached background levels.
The Air and Radiation Management Administration has been implementing programs that reduce
air releases of potentially toxic chemicals since the 1970's. Many of these reductions were achieved
by regulating chemicals called "criteria pollutants" for which a National Ambient Air Quality Standard
has been established. These pollutants were regulated primarily to insure that ambient exposures do
not result in concentrations that are toxic or "unhealthful" to people when they are inhaled.
A-17
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
AIR TOXICS CONTROL PROGRAM
In 1988, the Department of the Environment adopted groundbreaking air toxics regulations. These
regulations have established Maryland as a leader in the area of air toxics control. Maryland's program,
which was one of the first comprehensive state regulatory initiatives to be adopted, is considered by
many to be one of the premiere air management programs in the country.
The regulations, covering over 600 pollutants, apply to small and large stationary sources. Sources
covered by this regulation include very large operations like a steelmaking or chemical manufacturing
plant to sources as well as a neighborhood drycleaner. As more facilities have been required to control
emissions, total emissions of toxic chemicals have decreased.
The long-term goal of the program is to eliminate, to the extent practical, all toxic chemical releases
from stationary sources required to have an air quality permit. This policy, which is embodied in
the regulations' best available control technology provision, requires that any new equipment at a
new or existing plant minimize toxic emissions by using best available control technology and
pollution prevention practices. The regulation also insures that any residual emissions do not cause
toxic effects.
There were two critical dates contained in the regulation. By July 1,1990, sources were required
to demonstrate that their emissions of carcinogenic and highly toxic chemicals would not unreasonably
endanger public health. This requirement resulted in emission reductions of approximately 80 percent
between 1988 and 1990.
Sources were also required to demonstrate that their emissions of a second group of pollutants
composed of less toxic chemicals would not unreasonably endanger public health. This demonstration
had to be made by January 1, 1992. Because these materials are less toxic, a smaller percentage
reduction was achieved. The actual reduction is currently being quantified.
Between 1990 and 1992 the Department of the Environment entered into 18 consent orders with
sources that could not comply with the two compliance dates. At this time, almost all of these orders
are complete.
MOBILE SOURCE TOXICS REDUCTIONS
There have been significant reductions in the release of toxic chemicals from mobile sources such
as automobiles and trucks. These reductions have resulted from technology advances generally, as
well as cleaner fuels (generally efforts to reduce the release of pollutants that form ozone). The Air
Lead Program, has essentially eliminated lead, a pollutant of extreme toxicity, from the exhaust of
mobil sources and the air.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established additional requirements to reduce mobile
source emissions of toxic chemicals. Specifically, the new rules require cars to be built with cleaner
emissions which will drastically reduce mobile sources of air pollution. Additional reductions will
be generated from a variety of new programs that require gasoline to be reformulated to reduce
emissions of ozone forming materials and specific toxic chemicals.
A-18
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
URBAN AIR TOXICS INITIATIVE
The Department of the Environment has been leading a national effort to improve the determination
of the need for additional regulatory programs to address the complex mixture of potentially toxic
chemicals found in the air of all urban environments. This initiative began in 1985 as part of an EPA
sponsored Integrated Environmental Management Project. In 1989, the Department hosted a highly
successful national workshop on urban air toxins.
As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the EPA is required to study and evaluate
urban area sources and reduce potential cancer risk from these sources by 75 percent. Because of
its experience with controlling air toxics, the Department of the Environment has been awarded a
$500,000 grant to assist EPA with this effort. A final report to EPA is to be completed in the fall
of 1994. The Department, however, will be using the interim results of the study in developing and
implementing "co-control" strategies to reduce toxic releases and ozone forming emissions. The Clean
Air Act requires Maryland to submit a major ozone plan by November, 1994.
AIR TOXICS MONITORING PROGRAM
The Department's Air and Radiation Management Administration began its current monitoring
program for toxics in 1990; less sophisticated toxics monitoring for metals began in the 1950s. In
1990, the Air and Radiation Management Administration started sampling for 41 toxic chemicals
around Baltimore City. Additional sites at three other locations have been added since the program's
inception. The site locations change each year, so that nearly a dozen locations have been sampled
for at least one season.
In addition, the Air and Radiation Management Administration will begin sampling for a
comprehensive list of volatile organic compounds as part of the national Photochemical Assessment
Monitoring Stations network. This effort will include sampling for some priority toxic chemicals.
Metals have been sampled since the mid-1950s by the Air and Radiation Management Admin-
istration and its predecessors. Iron, manganese, nickel, cadmium, chromium, arsenic and lead have
all been sampled at some period all across the state. The sampling for the other metals was discontinued
several years ago as most concentrations were below the level of detection or at only background
levels. Only lead is still sampled.
Concentrations of three of the more common carcinogens found in the air of all urban areas (1,3-
butadiene, benzene, and chloroform) are sampled at a downtown Baltimore site. Benzene and
butadiene are released primarily from mobile sources. Chloroform is an industrial as well as mobile
source pollutant. Mean concentrations of benzene are about 1.3 parts per billion and of butadiene
about 0.32 parts per billion while chloroform mean concentrations are less than 0.2 parts per billion
indicating that most of the volatile organic compounds are from cars and trucks (mobile sources) rather
than industrial sources. Concentrations of both benzene and butadiene appear to be decreasing.
Toxics Release Inventory Trends
The Toxics Release Inventory of the Department of the Environment's Hazardous and Solid Waste
Management Administration shows a decrease of 46 percent from 1988 to 1991, for the combined
A-19
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
total of all releases to air, water, and land. The 83 percent decrease in direct releases to water was
greater than observed decreases in releases to air or land. While not as dramatic as water, there has
also been a steady decrease in reported air releases of 37 per cent since 1988. Land releases have
decreased by 28 percent over the same time period. Decreasing trends are expected to continue due,
in part, to implementation of more stringent regulations, but also to voluntary pollution prevention
and source reduction activities in which many facilities are now engaging.
Pollution Prevention Program
Over the past two years, the Department of the Environment has received $350,000 from EPA
to fund a multimedia pollution prevention initiative. Current projects include collaborating with other
state agencies to:
• investigate the capital needs of small business for pollution prevention implementation;
• develop industry-specific technical assistance;
• design and present a series of pollution prevention seminars; and
• create and present a multimedia technical cross-training curriculum for Department staff.
Environmental Monitoring Programs
The Department of the Environment's Water Management Administration has several monitoring
programs to evaluate the impact of pollution in Maryland's surface waters. These programs look for
indications of impacts caused by changes in ecological communities and measure the accumulation
of chemical contaminants in fish and shellfish tissue.
FISH TISSUE MONITORING PROGRAM
Since the early 1970s, the chemical contaminant levels in fish found in Maryland waters have
been monitored. In 1977, a statewide fish tissue monitoring network was established in the Maryland
portions of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. While this monitoring program did not originally
focus specifically on the safety offish for consumption, it was modified in 1989 to address this concern.
Currently, the monitoring program divides state waters into three groups: western Maryland
watersheds, Chesapeake Bay watersheds, and Baltimore/Washington urban watersheds.
Samples from each of these areas are collected every three years. Collections consist of two
samples of accumulator species and one sample of game species. Of the accumulator samples, one
includes whole fish, while the second includes only fillet tissue. Of the game species, only the fillet
portion is analyzed. This allows water-quality managers to evaluate the relative levels of chemical
contaminants of concern accumulating in state waters, and contaminant levels in the fish to determine
safety for human consumption.
Follow-up tissue surveys have also documented declines in chemical levels. For example, arsenic
and chlordane in striped bass from the lower Potomac have exhibited substantial declines for the period
1986 to 1991. Lead and cadmium data from surveys of blue crab tissue in 1983 and 1990 indicate
decreasing concentrations in all tributaries evaluated.
A-20
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
With the exception of chlordane levels in Baltimore Harbor, Back River, and Lake Roland, current
contaminant levels in tissue are below those recognized as harmful to human health. Fish consumption
advisories, recommending that consumption of bottom feeding species be limited, have been issued
for these affected waterbodies. In those waters where follow-up data have been collected, levels of
the chemical contaminants identified in these advisories are declining.
The Water Management Administration also periodically conducts intensive surveys of contami-
nant levels in the edible portion (fillet) of both resident and migratory species in the Chesapeake Bay
and its tributaries. The species surveyed have included white perch, spot, channel catfish, brown
bullhead, American eel, bluefish, striped bass, and blue crab.
SHELLFISH TISSUE MONITORING PROGRAM
Since the 1960s, the Department of the Environment has been surveying metal and pesticide levels
in oysters and clams from the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. From the 1970s through 1987,
samples were collected annually or biannually. In response to low levels of contaminants and
negligible yearly changes in those levels, this baywide sampling is now performed once every three
years, with the off years being devoted to analysis of results and intensive small-scale shellstock
surveys. This comprehensive data record for metals and some pesticides in shellfish tissue provides
information regarding long term trends in levels of toxic substances in Maryland estuaries.
Shellfish monitoring data indicate dramatic declines in tissue concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,
copper, mercury and zinc from 1974 through 1990 (the most recent year for which data are available).
The 1990 data also show that, for the first year since monitoring began in the early 1970s, the insecticide
chlordane, removed from the market in April 1988, was not detected in oyster tissue.
PESTICIDES MONITORING PROGRAM
As part of new initiatives under the 1989 Chesapeake Bay Basin Toxics Reduction Strategy, the
Department of the Environment has implemented two special projects to assess levels of potentially
toxic chemicals and their effect in Maryland surface waters.
In 1992, the Department of the Environment performed seasonal monitoring of selected Maryland
waters for high-usage and high-profile pesticides. Waters were selected adjacent to agricultural lands
to assess the potential contribution of agricultural pesticide usage to Maryland surface waters.
Preliminary results of this project indicate that only a few pesticides were detected, primarily during
periods of application. No pesticides were detected at levels exceeding relevant criteria.
In 1992, the Department of the Environment performed a preliminary survey of pesticide usage
in several neighborhoods of the Baltimore metropolitan area and of residential pesticide levels in
selected Baltimore streams. A seasonal stream monitoring project is planned in 1994 to assess the
potential contribution of residential pesticide usage to urban streams.
SEDIMENT CONTAMINANT MONITORING PROGRAM
Most chemical contaminants released to water are found in very low concentrations in the water
because most substances adsorb to particles and settle to the bottom. For this reason, sediments provide
some indication of where water pollution has occurred and a relative indication of its concentration.
A-21
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Determination of concentrations of potentially toxic chemicals in bottom sediments is not currently
required by any regulatory program. Nor do applicable state or federal regulatory criteria exist for
determining "acceptable" concentrations of any contaminant, although EPA is currently drafting
sediment quality criteria. The Department of the Environment's Chesapeake Bay and Watershed
Management Administration currently monitors 46 sites in Maryland tributaries annually and 22
stations in Maryland's mainstem intermittently. The sediment is analyzed for metals and for organic
chemical contaminants.
Baltimore Harbor is a major urban and industrial area that has been subject to contamination from
industrial and municipal effluents, nonpoint source runoff, and atmospheric deposition. A comparison
of historical and current monitoring data shows that in general, sediment contaminant concentrations
are decreasing in both the Chesapeake Bay mainstem and Baltimore Harbor. The mainstem of
Chesapeake Bay is subject to the same sources, but at a much greater distance, with more chance for
dilution, yet decreases in sediment concentrations are present in the mainstem as well. This is due,
in large part, to substantial declines since the mid-1970s in the discharge of metals. One of the driving
forces for these reductions has been the NPDES Program.
BENTHIC COMMUNITY MONITORING PROGRAM
In the early 1970s, the Maryland Department of the Environment established a benthic monitoring
program. It includes stations located in water bodies across the state which are sampled biennially.
Evaluations of populations of benthic or bottom dwelling organisms provide assessments of overall
water quality conditions. Stations are specifically selected to monitor water quality changes upstream
and downstream of major discharges, around metropolitan areas, and suspected nonpoint pollution
sources, or to document conditions in relatively unaffected or pristine streams. Intensive, site-specific
benthic investigations are made to evaluate the possible impacts of specific discharges on water quality
and stream biota.
District of Columbia
Water Quality Standards Program
The District of Columbia promulgated an extensive list of water quality standards for toxics in
its waters in 1985. More recently, the district revised its water quality standards for surface and ground
waters. The water quality standards were published as proposed rules on September 7, 1990 and
addressed at a public hearing on June 6,1991. Due to a significant number of responses and comments
from interested parties and the EPA on the proposed standards for surface waters, the groundwater
standards were published separately as Proposed Rulemaking on April 2, 1993. This separation
allowed the District of Columbia to incorporate comments from the public hearing and discussions
between the District of Columbia government and other concerned agencies into the surface water
standards.
The water quality standards for groundwater were promulgated as Final Rule on July 2,1992 and
the water quality standards for surface water were published as Proposed Rulemaking on April 2,1993.
The water quality standards were reviewed and approved for final rulemaking by the District of
Columbia's Corporation Counsel and the final set of standards adopted in March 1994.
A-22
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Both chronic and acute criteria have been established for chemicals in the water quality standards.
The chemicals include those for which EPA has published water quality criteria as well as several
substances for which no EPA criteria exist.
Although the District of Columbia does not currently use groundwater sources for potable water
supplies, the groundwater will be protected for beneficial uses including surface water recharge,
drinking water in other jurisdictions, and potential future use as a raw drinking water source. The
constituents and numerical criteria for groundwater are those established by the EPA for drinking
water.
Point Source Program
PERMITTING PROGRAM
The main point source discharge in the District of Columbia is the Blue Plains Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Combined sewer overflows are also a point source of pollution. The District of
Columbia's point source program strives to use the best and most cost-efficient technology for the
treatment of municipal effluent and combined sewer overflow. Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment
Plant, one of the largest treatment facilities in the country, provides primary, secondary, and tertiary
treatment followed by chlorine disinfection and sulphur dioxide dechlorination to eliminate the toxic
effects of residual chlorine.
The Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant serves the District of Columbia as well as parts of
Montgomery and Prince Georges counties in Maryland, parts of Fairfax County in Virginia, and
several suburban federal facilities. The District of Columbia's share in the current full treatment design
flow is 135 million gallons per day.
A study conducted on a sludge management plan for Blue Plains recommended a combination
of composting (off-site) and incineration (on-site) as a long-term sludge disposal plan. The District
of Columbia is unable to dispose of the 2,000 tons per day of sludge generated by Blue Plains and
has relied on neighboring jurisdictions for sludge disposal on land. The District of Columbia has tried
to obtain approval to incinerate the sludge, however, this request has been rejected by the EPA.
Presently, the EPA issues NPDES permits in the District of Columbia with review and comments
from the District of Columbia government. Regulations were drafted to establish procedures which
will allow the district to issue discharge permits for point sources within its jurisdiction. These
regulations are expected to be finalized in 1994.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia Department of Public Works, Water and Sewer Utility Administration
manages the pretreatment of industrial waste discharged into the sewer system and Blue Plains. The
district promulgated pretreatment regulations in 1986 and last amended them in 1990. Under these
pretreatment regulations, the District of Columbia has issued 42 discharge permits to control heavy
metals and toxics emanating from industrial dischargers and entering the sanitary sewer. The District
of Columbia has also issued 56 Temporary Discharge Authorizations to individual companies, mostly
for groundwater remediation.
A-23
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOW ABATEMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia, like other metropolitan cities, has faced combined sewer overflow
problem for several decades. The major areas of concern are: aesthetic degradation due to the discharge
of combined sewer overflow debris; frequent fish kills due to severe dissolved oxygen depletion; and
restriction of water contact recreation due to fecal coliform contamination.
O'Brien and Gere conducted a detailed feasibility study to reduce the combined sewer overflow
problem in the District of Columbia in 1983. Several alternatives were considered and the most cost-
effective recommendations included:
1. Increase the storage capacity of the trunk sewers by providing dynamically controlled fabridams
at nine of the largest overflows and increase the weir heights of overflow structures at 54 sites;
2. Increase the capacities of pumping stations to avoid overflow to the river;
3. Complete the separation of several partially separated drainage areas;
4. Reduce biological oxygen demand, solids that settle, and fecal coliform levels in the Anacostia
River by constructing three swirl treatment facilities;
5. Construct a screening facility at Piney Branch; and
6. Include a separation process at the main Anacostia interceptor.
The District of Columbia's Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement Program includes all of the
above recommendations. The program is expected to cost $70.6 million. Phase 1, which includes
recommendations 1 and 2, has been completed.
A major swirl facility has been constructed at North East Boundary near Robert F. Kennedy
Stadium with a treatment capacity of 400 million gallons per day. Before construction of the other
two facilities, the performance of the facility was reviewed. The evaluation revealed significantly
reduced fecal coliform bacteria levels in the facility's effluent. In November 1991, the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments performed a study of the water quality benefits of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement project in the tidal Anacostia River. The study found that fecal coliform
bacteria levels in the Anacostia River, both upstream and in the combined sewer overflow impacted
zones, were significantly reduced. The water quality in the District of Columbia should continue to
improve with completion of all O'Brien and Gere recommendations.
Although the plan does not specifically address toxics in combined sewer overflows, the District
of Columbia is reevaluating the combined sewer overflow problem and determining options for
chemical control. As part of this study, the toxics in the combined sewer overflows will be identified.
Depending upon the results, a program to control toxics in combined sewer overflows may be
developed.
Nonpoint Source Programs
Nonpoint source pollution within the District of Columbia has a significant impact on the receiving
waters. Therefore, the District of Columbia government is committed to develop mechanisms to
prevent and control nonpoint source problems. In response to the Section 319(h) of the Clean Water
A-24
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Act requirements, the District of Columbia prepared a Nonpoint Source Management Plan in 1989
and submitted it to the EPA. This document provides a statewide strategy for controlling nonpoint
source pollution and describes present and planned nonpoint source pollution abatement projects. A
Nonpoint Source Management Program by the District of Columbia, using Clean Water Act Section
319(h) funds, resulted from this plan.
The main goal of the District of Columbia's Nonpoint Source Management Program is to reduce
nonpoint source pollution to improve water quality. Approximately, 65 percent of the District of
Columbia's surface area is impervious, therefore, the Nonpoint Source Management Program targets
urban runoff. Surface runoff carries sediment, heavy metals, road salts, oil and grease, and other
contaminants to the receiving waters.
The Nonpoint Source Management Program establishes a system to coordinate these activities,
ensuring that the limited funds are used efficiently. It also ensures that certain aspects of nonpoint
source prevention and control are addressed and that high-priority water bodies are targeted.
The four goals of the Nonpoint Source Management Program are as follows:
1. Coordinate nonpoint source activities and other nonpoint source activities among state, regional,
and federal agencies involved in nonpoint source pollution prevention and control.
2. Inform and educate city residents about nonpoint source pollution prevention and control,
particularly in nutrient management.
3. Facilitate technology transfer, particularly for those technologies that prevent and control urban
runoff.
4. Update the District of Columbia Nonpoint Source Assessment Report and Management Plan to
incorporate information gained from nonpoint source monitoring efforts and successful nonpoint
source control strategies. The plan should also reflect new prevention and control strategies within
the District of Columbia.
The District of Columbia's Nonpoint Source Management Program has identified several sites
for implementing projects that would demonstrate new urban nonpoint source control technologies.
The program is sponsoring a demonstration project at Anacostia Park within the Anacostia River
watershed. The District of Columbia, in both its nonpoint source assessment and Nonpoint Source
Management Plan, has targeted this watershed for nonpoint source control actions to help improve
the water quality of the Anacostia River.
The demonstration project will have a sand filter stormwater management structure under a parking
lot serving the park. Presently, the District of Columbia recommends this type of structure to
developers applying for a stormwater permit. The structure allows for moderate detention and oil
separation; it also has built-in infiltration to separate suspended matter from stormwater runoff that
would otherwise be discharged directly to surface waters. The structure also protects groundwater
from possible contamination because it is a self-contained structure. The Nonpoint Source Manage-
ment Program has requested additional Section 319(h) funds to monitor the efficiency of this facility
and provide maintenance.
A-25
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The goal of the District of Columbia's Stormwater Management Program, established in 1984,
is to control nonpoint source pollution by ensuring that developers control both the quantity and quality
of Stormwater runoff from project sites by using best management practices. The program reviews
and approves all construction and grading plans submitted to the District of Columbia government
for compliance with Stormwater management regulations. Engineers also provide technical assistance
to developers to select best management practices for a particular site. The District of Columbia's
Government Civil Infraction Program enforces the regulations. Inspectors have the authority to issue
citations, fines, and stop-orders to violators of Stormwater management regulations.
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The main objectives of the District of Columbia's Pesticide Management Program are to train
and certify pesticide applicators in the proper labeling, distribution, disposal, storage, transportation,
and safe use and handling of pesticides. Regulatory activities associated with this program are pursuant
to the provisions in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended. This
program, initiated in 1978, is also responsible for the enforcement of the Pesticide Operation Act of
1977 and Supporting Regulations for the District of Columbia (DC Pesticides Operation Act and the
DC Municipal Regulations, Title 20).
The District of Columbia will develop a plan for implementing the revised 40 CFR 171 regulations
for certification and training after they have been finalized. The District of Columbia will compose
its certification and training requirements with the revised federal requirements.
The District of Columbia's pesticides program has the following functions:
• To assure compliance with applicable legal requirements related to the distribution, sales, storage,
production, transportation, use, application, and disposal of pesticides.
• To minimize the hazards of pesticide use to human health, fish and wildlife, and the environment,
while assuring the continued availability of the chemicals necessary for their protection.
• To encourage non-chemical control methods, such as mechanical, cultural, and biological controls,
to reduce the quantity of pesticides used in the District of Columbia.
• To implement civil penalties using Civil Infraction Tickets for those violations of the District of
Columbia Pesticide Law that do not warrant criminal prosecution.
The District of Columbia's Lawn Care Initiatives include the following activities:
• Distribute EPA and District of Columbia information concerning compliance during lawn care
use inspections. The District of Columbia will compile fact sheets addressing lawn care
compliance issues such as licensing requirements, drift misuse, and supervision of application
safety.
• Target non-agricultural use inspections of the lawn care industry and report to EPA Region III
the number of lawn care inspections and enforcement actions.
A-26
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
• Continue to pursue tips and complaints concerning lawn care advertising violations discovered
during inspections.
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
The District of Columbia's Integrated Pest Management program began in 1992 with surveys
targeted at two groups: organizations and businesses registered to apply pesticides in the District of
Columbia and residential users of pesticides. To educate the public on the benefits of integrated pest
management, the District of Columbia has produced and distributed two pamphlets and created a
portable display for use at community functions.
PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
To distribute useful information on District of Columbia and federal pesticide regulations, a
quarterly "Regulatory Newsletter" will be published and sent to all pesticide operators licensed to
do business in the District of Columbia. In addition, the District of Columbia will cooperate with
other agencies to educate the public in the safe, legal, and effective use of pesticides through news
releases, information bulletins, and community meetings.
The District of Columbia has developed a communication strategy in cooperation with industry
groups and the University of the District of Columbia Cooperative Extension Service to distribute
information to the public and the regulated community on the new Worker Protection Standards. The
District of Columbia has been informing industry groups, the general public, and government agencies
about the proposed worker standards.
The District of Columbia has worked with the University of the District of Columbia Cooperative
Extension Service to develop a training and education program for greenhouse workers. The training
program targets the safe use of pesticides and the responsibility of each person to protect themselves
from misused or mishandled pesticides.
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION PREVENTION
Under the District of Columbia's pesticide program, a specific groundwater management plan is
being developed. The main thrust will be directed toward the training of lawn care and exterior
landscape pesticide applicators in the proper use of pesticides to prevent groundwater contamination.
A final groundwater implementation plan to control pesticide contamination of groundwater will be
submitted to the EPA Region III.
The District of Columbia meets several times a year with the University of the District of Columbia
Cooperative Extension Service to discuss changes in the applicator training necessary to protect
groundwater. The District of Columbia will specifically discuss Chesapeake Bay concerns as they
relate to pesticide use and disposal. They will also continue to share information obtained from use-
observation inspection monitoring with the Cooperative Extension Service and update training to
include problem areas.
A-27
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT POLICY
The District of Columbia has developed an Enforcement Response Policy which utilizes an
Enforcement Matrix, a Schedule of Fines, and a list of enforcement actions for each type of violation.
Investigations will be initiated by the District of Columbia within 24 hours of from receipt of the
complaint. The District of Columbia initiates enforcement actions within one to two weeks following
completion of a case.
Surface Water Monitoring Program
WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM
The goals of the District of Columbia's surface water quality monitoring program are to develop
a reliable water quality data base and to assess long-term water quality in response to different
management strategies. Traditionally, the program has focused on the Potomac River estuary and
its tributaries. The federal Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake Bay Agreement have resulted in
the need for additional water quality data, particularly toxics data. The District of Columbia
determined where data deficiencies were and recommended, as a first step, a survey of sediments for
chemical contaminants.
Water column samples for metals analysis are collected on a quarterly basis. Fish samples are
collected on an annual basis for heavy metal and EPA Priority Pollutant analysis. The District of
Columbia has also funded two surveys (1990 and 1992) to determine the extent and type of chemical
contaminants in the sediment. The Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin was selected
to conduct the two surveys. Both surveys were designed to determine the possible impact from point
sources of pollution on the sediments. The results showed elevated levels of heavy metals at certain
locations. In addition, the Water Quality Monitoring Program has submitted a proposal to the EPA
Region III to monitor the impact of nonpoint source runoff on sediment quality. If approved, the
monitoring data will help develop a more complete picture of the sources of toxic loadings to the
District of Columbia's sediments.
The survey and analysis of sediments from the District of Columbia's waters confirmed the
presence of a wide variety of organic chemicals (60 out of 100 Priority Pollutants). These chemicals
were found at almost every location sampled. In most cases, however, the quantities detected were
extremely small or close to background levels.
It was estimated that the total PCB concentrations at all stations were at levels of possible concern
for meeting the EPA criteria of the one in a million, 70-year cancer risk level for humans. Chlordane
levels were detected above the Food and Drug Administration's "action levels" at eight of the 28
locations sampled. Based on EPA guidelines for the Great Lakes, six metals from the Priority Pollutant
list were typically at heavily polluted levels.
In a fish tissue survey conducted in 1989, catfish tissue analyses confirmed the presence of PCBs
and chlordane in quantities at or above the Food and Drug Administration's action levels of 2.0 parts
per million for PCBs and 0.3 parts per million for chlordane. On July 31, 1989 the District of
A-28
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Columbia's Commissioner of Public Health issued a public health advisory on the consumption of
channel catfish, carp, and eel caught within the city limits of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. The
advisory warned residents to limit their consumption of the affected species to one-half pound per
week. This warning was necessary because various surveys conducted by the District of Columbia
indicated that a significant portion of residents consume fish caught in the Anacostia or Potomac rivers.
Hazardous Waste Programs
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste Management Program, was developed to protect
both human health and the environment from hazardous waste releases due to improper handling,
transportation, storage, and disposal activities, pursuant to the District of Columbia Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 1977, RCRA and their amendments. Disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited
in the District of Columbia; wastes are transported out of the District of Columbia for disposal.
Program activities focusing on RCRA grant responsibilities which include program authorization
and regulation development, permitting, program administration, waste minimization and pollution
prevention, and compliance monitoring and enforcement.
In 1993, the District of Columbia drafted hazardous waste regulations in conformance with the
requirement of the District of Columbia's Office of Documents for codification in the District of
Columbia Municipal Regulations. The proposed regulations were forwarded to the District of
Columbia Office of the Corporation Counsel for legal review.
To assist the regulated community in understanding the District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste
Management Program, copies of the regulations, generator fact sheets, and copies of the Generator
Handbook are distributed to new notifiers of regulated waste activity and generators. The District
of Columbia also conducts generator workshops.
Site inspections are performed to determine whether generators, transporters, and storage facilities
are complying with applicable regulations. These compliance evaluation inspections are performed
in conformance with procedures contained in the RCRA Inspection Manual. (Selection criteria
inspections schedules will include Bay impact).
The District of Columbia uses EPA's RCRA Implementation Plan-Flexibility Process to redirect
resources available under EPA priorities which are not applicable to the District of Columbia. The
EPA developed this process to allow jurisdictions to redirect resources intended to address national
priorities toward local issues. This process will be used in the District of Columbia to identify non-
notifiers of regulated waste, generators affected by the Toxicity Characteristics rule, and facilities
that may impact the Chesapeake Bay.
The District of Columbia is in the process of issuing a hazardous waste questionnaire to identify
violators and non-notifiers of regulated waste activity. The questionnaire will be mailed to businesses
identified by the selected Standard Industrial Codes or the District of Columbia business category,
as reported on business license applications to the District of Columbia Business Regulation
Administration. (Selection Criteria will include Chesapeake Bay impact.)
A-29
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The District of Columbia's Hazardous Waste Management Program is developing a civil enforce-
ment policy based on the District of Columbia Hazardous Waste Regulations, the District of Columbia
Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, and the EPA Enforcement Response Policy. The policy will
describe an enforcement penalty matrix which will include the regulation cited, the severity and
frequency of the violation, and the monetary penalty for first, second, and third offenses.
WASTE MINIMIZATION AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM
A revised waste minimization and pollution prevention program is being developed to meet the
1993 Capacity Assurance Plan submittal requirements. This program endorses the national goals of
pollution prevention and waste reduction. The technical assistance portion of this program will
identify source reduction and recycling opportunities and promote the use of additional waste
minimization methods through the distribution of fact sheets. It will also promote in-house waste
reduction audits for specific industries.
Waste reduction in the RCRA program will be enhanced through revisions of inspection proce-
dures and the development of waste minimization programs by generators. Designated facilities are
required to develop specific pollution prevention programs by statute.
The District of Columbia is developing an integrated pollution prevention and waste minimization
program in accordance with guidance received from the EPA. This program endorses the national
goals of waste elimination and reduction. The Toxics Source Reduction and Business Assistance Act
provides the initial statutory basis for implementing pollution prevention within the district.
The District of Columbia has received "Pollution Prevention Incentives for the States" funding
from the EPA to educate and train District of Columbia employees on pollution prevention, produce
pollution prevention workshops for the automotive service sector, and develop a district-wide
Pollution Prevention Strategic Plan. It is anticipated these efforts will be facilitated by the Center
for Hazardous Materials Research and will encourage participation from the private sector, the
university community, and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. An information
resource center for pollution prevention and waste minimization is also planned. Future projects may
include a district analog to the federal Source Reduction Review Project to incorporate pollution
prevention into the rulemaking process.
Concurrently, the waste minimization component of the hazardous waste management program,
funded by EPA Region III through RCRA, is being expanded to comply with increased emphasis from
EPA to incorporate pollution prevention in the media programs. The waste reduction strategy will
be detailed in the District of Columbia's RCRA 3011 workplan. This effort is also coordinated with
and is in accordance with the waste reduction mandates in the Capacity Assurance guidance.
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
The District of Columbia's Underground Storage Tank Program was established to prevent and
control leaks and spills that may result from underground storage tanks and contaminate groundwater
and subsurface soil. All non-residential underground storage tanks containing gasoline or hazardous
materials must be registered, allowing the District of Columbia to record the location, contents, and
condition of storage tanks. All newly installed underground storage tanks are required to be non-
corrosive.
A-30
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The Leaking Underground Storage Program was established to provide remediation efforts where
releases occurred. The program has a trust fund to provide funding for remediation and to recover
costs from the responsible parties (which are reimbursed to the trust fund).
In 1993, the District of Columbia amended the Underground Storage Tank Management Act. The
amendment made several technical and clarifying modifications which improve the administration
of the act and reduce the potential for litigation from enforcement actions.
Air Quality Control Program
Air pollution control activities in the District of Columbia are authorized by the 1984 amendments
to the District of Columbia's Air Pollution Control Act and the Federal Clean Air Act. Under the
District of Columbia's air pollution control program, plans and programs are developed and imple-
mented to protect and manage the District of Columbia's air resources. This program determines
allowable source emissions, issues construction and operating permits, and inspects air pollution
sources. This program also coordinates and inspects asbestos renovation and demolition, and operates
and maintains a district-wide ambient air quality monitoring network.
The District of Columbia air pollution control programs will comply with Title III of the Clean
Air Act—Maximum Available Control Technology Standards for chemicals—once EPA has finalized
the standards.
Virginia Regulatory/Management Program
Implementation Progress
Water Quality Standards Program
Instream water quality standards include both narrative statements which describe general water
quality requirements and numeric limits for the specific physical, chemical, and biological charac-
teristics of water. The statements and limits describe the water quality necessary for reasonable and
beneficial uses such as swimming, the propagation and growth of aquatic life, and the domestic water
supply. Generally, instream water quality standards are the maximum concentration allowed in the
water before unacceptable adverse effects occur.
Past water quality standards focused on the protection of aquatic life with the exception of
standards for public water supplies and groundwater. Recent emphasis has been placed on the
establishment of water quality standards for the protection of human health, however, due to the 1987
amendments to the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act mandates the adoption of water quality
standards for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to Section 307(a) for which criteria have been
published under Section 304(a) and the discharge or presence of which could reasonably be expected
to interfere with designated uses adopted by the state.
Efforts to address chemicals in Virginia's waters date back to the Kepone contamination of the
James River in 1976. The following water quality standards were adopted by the Virginia State Water
A-31
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Control Board in response to identified toxic problems in the Chesapeake Bay area involving specific
chemicals.
Standard Basis
Kepone Contamination of James River
Mercury Contamination of South Fork Shenandoah River
Dioxin Contamination of Jackson and James rivers
Chlorine Toxicity to aquatic life
Tributyltin Toxicity to aquatic life
Virginia's attempts to comply with the Clean Water Act's requirements to adopt water quality
standards for toxic chemicals culminated with the adoption of new section VR 680-21-01.14
(Standards for Surface Water) to the standards on March 30,1992. Included in this section were 41
numeric standards for the protection of aquatic life and 66 numeric standards for the protection of
human health. This section also included definitions of acute and chronic toxicity, an allowance for
using updated EPA information in establishing effluent limits, an application of saltwater and
freshwater standards, and allowances to derive site-specific modifications and variances to the
standards.
Other amendments facilitated implementation and clarified the standards. These amendments
included revisions of sections VR 680-21-01.2 (General Standard and Mixing Zones), VR 680-21-
01.4 (Stream Application: Stream Flow), and VR 680-21-07.2 (Outstanding State Resource Waters).
Because the new table contained all the standards for surface water, VR 680-21-01.10 (Mercury in
Fresh Water), VR 680-21-02.3 (Surface Water Standards for Surface Public Water Supplies), and VR
680-21-03 (Water Quality Criteria) were deleted. The amendments became effective on May 20,1992
and were submitted to the EPA for review. The EPA approved Section VR 680-21-01.14 in July,
1992 and the agency approved the remaining amendments, including changes to the antidegradation
section, in August, 1992.
Shortly after the adoption of these standards, several municipal and industrial wastewater plant
owners filed a lawsuit in the State Circuit Court. The suit challenged the standards for mercury, copper,
lead, zinc, and ammonia, claiming a failure to account for the impact of the receiving water
characteristics on metal toxicity and the natural occurrence of metals in these waters. In June 1993,
the court ordered a dismissal of the appellant's case, ruling that the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality acted within the scope of its authority and that its action was both reasonable
and based on substantial evidence.
Point Source Programs
PERMITTING PROGRAM
VPDES Permit Program and Toxics
Requirements for toxics monitoring are written into Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (VPDES) permits as special conditions. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
A-32
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Toxics Management Program develops these monitoring requirements which originated in the early
1980s. The program attempts to involve all industrial and municipal VPDES permit holders with
the potential to discharge toxics pollutants in a systematic program of biological and chemical testing.
This testing should identify those wastewater discharges toxic to aquatic life, the specific substances
responsible for this toxicity, and any substances exceeding state criteria or standards.
The need for inclusion of a permittee in the Toxics Management Program is determined at the
time of permit issuance, reissuance, or modification using information provided by the permittee as
well as additional VPDES data or data from other sources. Generally, the Toxics Management
Program special conditions include quarterly chronic and/or acute toxicity testing for one year using
both vertebrates and invertebrates. Quarterly chemical testing is required in conjunction with the
toxicity testing and includes analyses for all pollutants identified in accordance with Section 307(a)
of the Clean Water Act (i.e., Priority Pollutants) as well as for additional organic contaminants detected
using appropriate EPA analytical methods. Deviations from standard testing requirements may be
made on a case-by-case basis.
Once the Toxics Management Program data have been generated for a particular outfall, they are
evaluated according to the following decision criteria specified by the Toxics Management Regu-
lation:
1. The effluent must show no acute toxicity in at least 75 percent of the tests performed.
2. The effluent must show no predicted chronic toxicity in the receiving stream under low flow
conditions in at least 75 percent of the tests performed. (Chronic toxicity testing is only applicable
to effluents predicted to make up at least 1 percent of the receiving stream during low flow
conditions.)
3. Predictions of the effluent's concentration of individual pollutants should be under Virginia's
water quality standards or criteria for the protection of human health or aquatic life in the receiving
stream.
If an effluent passes criteria 1 and 2, annual toxicity testing is usually required for the life of the
permit. If an effluent demonstrates acute and/or chronic toxicity by failing criteria 1 and/or 2 above,
the permittee is required to perform a toxicity reduction evaluation which is described below.
In response to the adoption of the water quality standards for toxic chemicals, the Department
of Environmental Quality developed an implementation guidance document for permit writers to
determine the appropriate effluent limits for affected plants. The guidance was revised due to conflicts
with permittees over draft permits containing toxic limits. The updated document became available
in June 1993 and has resolved most of the earlier problems. Permits for toxic chemicals are now being
drafted and the staff will clear any backlog of pending permits at the state level. Despite the lawsuit
filed after the Department of Environmental Quality adopted water quality standards for toxics in
March 1992, the staff continued to draft permits in response to the water quality standards. Permits
were issued with both acute and chronic limits for whole effluent toxicity.
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
A toxicity reduction evaluation is a stepwise process to identify specific chemicals or classes of
chemicals responsible for the effluent's toxicity and to evaluate and implement treatment alternatives
A-33
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
to reduce the concentrations to acceptable levels. If chemical data indicate that the effluent actually
or potentially contributes to violations of water quality criteria and/or standards in the receiving stream,
water quality-based permit limits for the parameter of concern should be included in the VPDES
permit.
A breakdown of current program statistics for VPDES permits in the Bay drainage area follows:
• Bay area plants in Toxics Management Plan: 279
• Data review of plants indicates toxicity reduction evaluation needed: 18
• Permittees involved in toxicity reduction evaluations: 22
• Plants with completed toxicity reduction evaluations: 7
• Plants that have ceased direct discharge to a receiving stream (off line or connect to publicly owned
treatment works): 4
• Plants performing instream impact study = 1
Toxics Management Regulation
Since November 1988, Virginia's Toxics Management Regulation (VR 680-14-03) has driven the
Toxics Management Program. Public notification was given that the Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality intended to repeal the Toxics Management Regulation to eliminate any
confusion or duplication of regulations resulting from the concurrent adoption of a revised VPDES
Permit Regulation (VR 680-14-01.1).
The Permit Regulation will include language from the federal NPDES regulations on the evaluation
of effluent toxicity and the mechanisms to control toxicity through chemical-specific and whole
effluent toxicity limitations. The testing requirements and decision criteria of the Toxics Management
Regulation will be used to guide implementation of the toxics control provisions of the VPDES Permit
Regulation. Virginia's position on the control of toxic pollutants will not be substantially altered due
to these actions.
304(1) List
The 304(1) list refers to a 1987 Clean Water Act section which requires the states to develop a
list of plants discharging toxic chemicals (307(a) priority pollutants) in quantities that exceeded state
water quality standards or criteria. The 23 plants included in Virginia's 304(1) list that discharge to
the Bay drainage area are:
VPDES PLANT TYPE CLASS BASIN
VA0002178 Merck IND Major Potomac
VA0002208 Avtex Fibers* IND Major Potomac
VA0002402 Genicom IND Major Potomac
VA0002771 Modine Manufacturing** IND Major James
VA0002861 Reynolds - Bell wood IND Minor James
VA0003468 Solite IND Minor James
VA0003492 Aqualon IND Minor James
VA0004031 Holly Farms - Glen Allen IND Minor James
VA0004383 NorShipCo - Berkley IND Minor Elizabeth
A-34
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Major
Major
Minor
Minor
Major
Minor
Major
Major
Elizabeth
James
James
Elizabeth
James
James
Potomac
James
James
Elizabeth
James
Rappahannock
James
James
VA0004405 NorShipCo - Brambleton IND
VA0004421 U.S. Navy Sewells Point FED
VA0004791 Georgia Bonded Fibers IND
VA0005215 Norfolk Naval Shipyard FED
VA0006262 Lynchburg Foundry IND
VA0024970 Lynchburg STP MUN
VA0025151 Waynesboro STP MUN
VA0025216 Fort Eustis STP FED
VA0050962 Narox Inc. IND
VA0053813 Colonnas Shipyard IND
VA0054607 GE - Charlottesville IND
VA0059145 Culpepper Wood Preservers IND
VA0063177 Richmond STP MUN
VA0066630 Hopewell STP MUN
NOTES: * Permit revoked; ceased operation 11/89
** Connected to POTW
STP = sewage treatment plant
IND = industrial facility
FED = federal facility
MUN = municipal facility
Each listed facility was required to develop an Individual Control Strategy to address its discharge
of toxics; all have received approval for their Individual Control Strategies and eight had the provisions
of their strategy incorporated into the VPDES permit in the last two years. The 304(1) list plants are
being reevaluated in light of the new water quality standards for toxics and effluent limits are being
calculated for the permits when necessary. The major difference between these plants and other
dischargers with effluent limits for chemicals is that the compliance schedule for 304(1) plants is three
years; others will usually have four years.
PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
The Pretreatment Program is primarily designed to protect publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) and the environment from the adverse impact of toxic wastes discharged into a municipal
wastewater system. This protection is achieved by regulating the non-domestic users of those POTWs
that discharge toxic or unusually strong conventional waste. The POTWs are not usually designed
to treat toxic industrial waste. Such waste may interfere with the plant's biological treatment processes,
pass through untreated into receiving waters, or contaminate sludge to the extent that lawful disposal
is severely restricted or precluded.
Under the Pretreatment Program, the POTW authorities are responsible for controlling their
industrial users. The EPA or delegated stated provide oversight and regulation of the program. The
Virginia Water Control Board received authorization to administer the Pretreatment Program in April
1989, becoming one of only 25 states with delegated responsibility for all three point source control
programs (NPDES Permit; Federal Facilities NPDES Permit; and Pretreatment) authorized under the
Clean Water Act.
A-35
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The following 35 POTWs in Virginia's Bay drainage area now have approved pretreatment
programs.
Potomac Basin: AlexandriaSTP,ArlingtonSTP,AugustaCo.S.A.(6plants),Harrisonburg/
Rockingham STP, Lower Potomac STP, Opequon STP, Upper Occoquan
STP, Waynesboro STP.
Rapp. Basin: Culpepper STP, FMC STP, Little Falls Run STP, Massaponax STP.
York Basin: Gordonsville STP, HRSD-York STP.
James Basin: HRSD-Army Base STP, HRSD-Boat Harbor STP, Camelot STP, Fall-
ing Creek STP, Henrico STP, Hopewell STP, HRSD-James River STP,
HRSD-VIP STP, Lynchburg STP, Moores Creek STP, HRSD-Nanse-
mond STP, Petersburg STP, Proctors Creek STP, Richmond STP,
HRSD-Williamsburg STP.
Bay/Coastal: HRSD-Chesapeake/Elizabeth STP.
These plants receive wastewater from 100 industrial categories subject to federal pretreatment
standards due to industrial class (e.g., metal finishing, electroplating) and 139 significant non-
categorical industries (with process wastewater flow of 25,000 gallons per day or more), which require
inspection at the state level. With almost 750 municipalities statewide required to perform industrial
waste surveys to determine the types of industries discharging to their systems, the number of
significant industrial categories to be inspected by the state should increase over the next few years.
Since authorization, all POTWs with approved programs have been audited yearly and follow-
up actions have been taken to correct any deficiencies. All industrial categories identified in Virginia
and nearly 270 significant non-categorical industries have been inspected and the owners advised of
the findings. All VPDES permits issued to POTWs with approved programs have special conditions
for their implementation. Those POTWs with developing programs have an enforceable schedule
for submitting a program for approval. The VPDES permits will be amended to include the
implementation language when approval is received. Industrial waste surveys are conducted statewide
through special conditions in the VPDES permits and are repeated every five years to determine if
other authorities will be required to develop pretreatment programs.
There is agreement at all levels of government and industry that national standards are needed
for the pretreatment program. Many of the industries listed as categorical in the NPDES program
have no promulgated pretreatment standards. The POTWs are then forced to become "miniature
regulatory agencies," setting their own industrial user permit limits through extensive sampling and
analysis and working with industry to ensure compliance.
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.) requiring the EPA to
develop a phased approach in the regulation of stormwater discharges under the NPDES permit
program. On November 16, 1990, the U.S. EPA published the final NPDES Permit Application
Regulations for Storm Water Discharges (55 FR 47990). These regulations established permit
A-36
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
application requirements for stormwater discharges from municipal storm sewer systems serving a
population of 100,000 or more and for those associated with industrial activity.
Eleven municipal storm sewer systems in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay drainage area are required
to file stormwater permit applications under the regulations. Of these, three are large municipal
systems (serving populations over 250,000) and the rest are medium-sized municipal systems (serving
populations between 100,000 and 250,000). Individual permits will be developed and issued for each
of the following municipalities under this program:
Cities - Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Virginia Beach.
Counties - Arlington, Chesterfield, Fairfax, Henrico, and Prince William.
Two additional localities (Richmond and Alexandria) meet the population criteria in the regulation,
but their stormwater discharges are being handled under a different program due to their combined
sewers.
The localities affected by the regulations must develop stormwater management programs that
include two major elements:
1. A program to reduce the discharge of pollutants from municipal storm sewers to the maximum
extent practical; and
2. Adoption and implementation of ordinances to prohibit illicit discharges into stormwater systems
(such as illegal hookups or dumping).
The Department of Environmental Quality expects to have a permit issued to each of these localities
by mid 1994. The permit will require implementation and monitoring of the program. If stormwater
monitoring during the permit term (no longer than five years) shows that the management program
is not reducing pollution effectively, then the locality must make improvements.
The regulations define the eleven categories of industrial activities required to apply for stormwater
permits. The term "industrial activity" covers: manufacturing facilities; hazardous waste treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities; landfills receiving industrial wastes; recycling facilities; steam electric
power generating facilities; transportation facilities; domestic wastewater treatment plants greater
than one million gallons per day; and construction activities disturbing five or more acres.
An estimated 4,500 industrial facilities and 3,000 to 5,000 construction sites in Virginia may file
stormwater permit applications under this program. Individual and general permits will be developed
and issued for industrial dischargers. An estimated 2,000 additional facilities have also applied for
stormwater permits through EPA's "group application" process. The Department of Environmental
Quality will issue stormwater permits to these facilities after the EPA develops model permits for
each group and forwards these to the states.
The Department of Environmental Quality administers the federal NPDES permit program under
the state VPDES permit program. The permit program is authorized under the State Water Control
Law (Sections 62.1-44.15, -44.16, and -44.17 of the Code of Virginia). The Permit Regulation (VR
680-14-01) sets forth the policies and procedures followed in the administration of the permit program.
A-37
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
The federal stormwater regulations require the state to incorporate stormwater permitting into the
VPDES permit program.
The federal regulations, guidance documents, and application forms are being used for this
program with modification for Virginia's needs. Stormwater permitting requirements are being
incorporated into the VPDES permit program and the permit regulations will be modified to
incorporate the stormwater permitting requirements, if necessary.
On June 28, 1993, the State Water Control Board adopted four draft VPDES stormwater general
permits as emergency regulations. These permits allow the Department of Environmental Quality
to cover stormwater discharges from the following categories of dischargers: (a) heavy manufacturing
facilities [EPA Category 2 facilities]; (b) light manufacturing facilities [EPA Category 11 facilities];
(c) transportation facilities; landfills, land application sites, open dumps; material recycling facilities;
and steam electric power generating facilities; and (d) construction sites. In addition, the department
has drafted a general permit for non-metallic mineral mining industries that covers both process water
and stormwater discharges.
The general permit emergency regulations will expire one year from the effective date. By that
time, the Department of Environmental Quality will have taken the four general permits through the
administrative process for permanent adoption. All of the general permits have been submitted to
the EPA for comment/approval. The department expects to start issuing the general permits by this
fall.
The Department of Environmental Quality's permit section is currently responsible for all
stormwater permitting activities. Stormwater permitting activities underway include: Storm Water
Permitting Program development—review of Part 1 and Part 2 applications for municipal separate
storm sewer systems; development of stormwater general permits; development of stormwater general
permit criteria under an EPA 104(b)(3) stormwater grant; and assistance of industrial facilities and
municipalities with stormwater permit application problems, questions, and review.
Nonpoint Source Programs
PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Virginia Pesticide Management Program has undergone significant change since passage of
the new Pesticide Control Act in 1989. The creation of a new 11-member (now 12-member) Pesticide
Control Board was one of the immediate results of the legislation. As a policy board, this organization
has broad powers to enforce the pesticide act.
The Pesticide Control Board has promulgated regulations which control the setting of fees,
pesticide businesses, the certification of pesticide applicators, and the establishment of public
participation guidelines. The board is working on regulations for the registration of pesticides and
the storage and disposal of pesticides.
An estimate of pesticide use on 12 agricultural crops was completed in 1990, followed by a more
accurate accounting of through surveys that were carried out in 1991 and 1992 on 20 agricultural crops.
A-38
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
In addition, pesticide use information has been gathered for forestry, gypsy moth control, mosquito
control, rights-of-way, and ornamental and lawn care pest control in Virginia. This information is
available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
In 1990, Virginia initiated a program to collect and dispose of unwanted pesticides from
agricultural producers. This highly successful program has safely and properly removed and destroyed
more than 37 tons of pesticides which posed a potential threat to both health and the environment.
An additional 100,000 pounds of unwanted pesticides were collected in four localities in 1993.
A pilot program to recycle plastic pesticide containers was implemented in three counties in 1992
and was expanded to six localities in 1993. Thousands of plastic pesticide containers, which would
have ended up in landfills or been discarded along state roads, now will be recycled into new products
or used for energy production. This program eliminates another potential source of pollution to the
environment in general and the Chesapeake Bay in particular.
The Virginia Pesticide Control Board has also funded research for the past three years. Major
areas of supported research have focused on: (1) alternatives to traditional chemical pesticides; and
(2) the extent of pesticide contamination in Virginia's groundwater. Alternatives to traditional
chemical pesticides should reduce the overall use of pesticides and encourage wider application of
integrated pest management practices. Data from the groundwater program will add important new
information to the understanding of Virginia's hydrogeology and the impact of pesticide use on
Virginia's groundwater resources.
A task force completed the drafting of a Generic Pesticides and Ground Water Management Plan
for Virginia in May, 1993. Following a comment period, the plan was submitted to the EPA in the
fall. This plan forms the basis for future pesticide-specific management plans, if required. The
groundwater management plans will establish procedures for protecting human health and the
environment.
Hazardous Waste Management Programs
The Waste Division of the Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the Department of
Waste Management) is responsible for the regulatory programs which address solid waste, hazardous
waste and hazardous materials, and the state Superfund program. These programs encompass
management of solid, hazardous, and radioactive waste, emergency planning for hazardous materials
(SARA Title III), and hazardous materials transportation activities. Both solid and hazardous waste
management present significant planning, regulatory, and enforcement challenges to Virginia with
emphasis on identifying waste reduction approaches.
Three types of activities present potential toxic threats to public health and the environment which
are within the jurisdiction of the Waste Division. Threats exist from: (1) the use of chemicals in
production processes; (2) the subsequent generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
materials (both product and wastes); and (3) the management of solid (non-hazardous) wastes which
include household hazardous and industrial wastes.
A-39
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Waste Division administers three solid waste programs which support a basinwide toxics
reduction strategy: the solid waste management program, waste management planning, and litter
control and recycling. "Solid waste" consists of municipal, institutional, commercial, and industrial
non-hazardous waste (including regulated medical waste). These wastes include garbage, debris,
dewatered sludge, scrap metal, white goods, and other disposed of or abandoned materials, but not
wastewater discharges. The Waste Division regulates solid waste management facilities including
sanitary, construction/demolition/debris, and industrial landfills; materials recovery facilities; energy
recovery and incineration facilities; composting facilities; and solid waste transfer stations.
The storage and disposal of wastes generated is a significant area of concern. Wastes in landfills
represent a potential long-term liability although solid waste management programs are now inte-
grating new design standards for land disposal facilities. Older solid waste facilities that do not meet
new standards are being phased out of operation by federal mandates.
Solid Waste Management Program
The Solid Waste Management Program is responsible for the permitting and regulation of solid
waste management activities. Since 1987, the program has grown to include regulations and programs
to address financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of private facilities; medical waste;
yard waste composting; current flow and stockpiled tires; and the 1993 Virginia Solid Waste
Management Regulations that integrate the federally mandated Subtitle D design and capping
specifications.
Milestones:
1. New regulations, effective March 1993, improve the siting, engineering, design, construction, and
operation of waste management activities. Landfill post-closure care and corrective action
programs are being upgraded. Siting requirements include wetland considerations.
2. Compliance and enforcement programs were expanded in 1992.
3. Financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of municipal facilities were required as of
April 1993.
Solid Waste Management Planning
The Solid Waste Management Planning Program requires the development of policies, programs,
and initiatives to address major waste management issues in Virginia. It promotes citizen participation
in the development of plans and regulatory programs and informs the public of trends and activities
in waste management.
Milestones:
1. The solid waste management plan draft should be prepared by July 1994.
A-40
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
2. The local and regional solid waste management plans have been reviewed and all but one regional
plan have been approved with completion expected by July 1994. All plans must be updated by
1997.
3. Local and regional programs submitted recycling rates in 1993, with all but six programs achieving
compliance. Recycling rates must be submitted for staff review by April 1994.
Litter Control and Recycling
The goals of the program are to: 1) reduce the quantities of material entering the waste stream
by encouraging recycling; 2) promote proper waste disposal practices to prevent and reduce littering;
3) increase the capabilities of recycling professionals in Virginia; 4) improve the consistency and
visibility of litter prevention efforts in Virginia; and 5) ensure the effective allocation and management
of resources.
Milestone:
1. Approve recycling plans and quantity reports from localities to indicate how state-mandated
recycling goals are met.
RCRA PROGRAM
The Waste Division administers five hazardous waste or hazardous materials programs that
support a basinwide toxics reduction strategy: a hazardous waste management program; state site
certification for hazardous waste management; Virginia Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance
Program; the Virginia Emergency Response Council (SARA Title III); and an environmental response
and remediation program. "Hazardous waste" describes either a listed RCRA waste or waste material
with ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic properties. In Virginia, the Waste Division regulates
treatment/storage facilities, large quantity generators, small quantity generators, and transporters.
Commercial and industrial facilities which generate, store, treat, dispose of, or transport hazardous
wastes are subject to RCRA. Virginia has adopted Hazardous Waste Management Regulations which
integrate RCRA's requirements for handling hazardous waste from "cradle to grave." Although it
is difficult to estimate the amount of hazardous waste produced in Virginia, changes in the regulations
in 1990 caused previously unregulated wastes to fall within the domain of RCRA, widening the sphere
of regulated wastes. Virginia does not currently have a permitted commercial landfill facility which
is chemically secure for the disposal of hazardous waste.
The Hazardous Waste Management Program is responsible for the permitting and regulation of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities along with generators and transporters of
hazardous waste. Hazardous wastes are designated or listed wastes or characteristic wastes that may
cause substantial present or potential hazard to the public or the environment when improperly
managed.
Milestones:
1. Over 500 large quantity hazardous waste generators exist in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake
Bay watershed.
A-41
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
2, At least four land-based hazardous waste disposal units east of the fall line and three others within
the Bay watershed have been closed or are being closed and have or will receive post-closure care
permits.
3. As of 1993, no operating permits for land-based hazardous waste disposal units are pending.
4. There is currently a plan for geographic targeting of health and ecological risks within Virginia's
portion of the Bay watershed with the focus on performing "risk assessments" of hazardous waste
facilities to enable the Department of Environmental Quality to prioritize facilities for inspection.
State Site Certification for Hazardous Waste Management
This regulation addresses the siting of new or expanded hazardous waste management facilities.
Site certification is required in addition to permits for the design and operation of these facilities to
evaluate off-site environmental impacts.
Milestones:
1. By December 1995, reassess siting regulations for potential revisions. Regulations are updated
every two years.
Virginia Hazardous Waste Capacity Assurance Program
Virginia prepared its first Capacity Assurance Plan in 1989 in response to Section 104(c) (9) of
CERCLA. The statute requires that a state must assure that hazardous waste treatment or disposal
facilities have adequate capacity to manage the waste reasonably expected to be generated within the
state over the next 20 years before EPA will fund remedial actions.
The 1989 Virginia Capacity Assurance Plan received conditional approval from the EPA. Virginia
has planned to assure adequate capacity by committing resources to pollution prevention and waste
minimization efforts to reduce the generation of waste. Virginia's Capacity Assurance Plan was part
of the Northeast States Capacity Assurance Planning Project that was established to develop additional
regional treatment and disposal capabilities.
Milestones:
1. In 1992, the second Capacity Assurance Plan was submitted to and approved by the EPA.
2. The next Capacity Assurance Plan must be submitted by May 1994. If the EPA determines that
capacity "shortfalls" exist, based on the aggregate data from all states, Virginia will have to prepare
a detailed plan on how it will handle its share of the waste contributing to these shortfalls.
SARA Title III Program
The SARA Title III Program implements a state program in accordance with the federal
"Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act" of 1986. Since 1987, this program has
been responsible for the electronic data base of hazardous chemical information submitted by regulated
facilities under SARA Title III. The program functions in an outreach and educational capacity,
A-42
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
providing information to the public and industry and preparing the Annual Toxic Release Inventory
Report.
Environmental Response and Remediation Program
The Office of Environmental Response and Remediation was created within the Waste Division
in 1992 by combining the activities and personnel of the Emergency Response Program and the State
Cleanup Program. The Office of Environmental Response and Remediation responds to releases and
improper handling of solid and hazardous wastes and coordinates the cleanup of sites where the wastes
remain in the environment. The Office of Environmental Response and Remediation responds to
critical releases by providing support for DBS and local HazMat Teams 24 hours a day, seven days
a week.
Milestones:
1. Over the past twelve months, the Office of Environmental Response and Remediation received
approximately 400 reports of hazardous waste mismanagement. These cases were referred to the
responsible office within the Department of Environmental Quality and investigated as appro-
priate.
2. The Office of Environmental Response and Remediation performed approximately 200 site
investigations in response to these reports.
3. The Office of Environmental Response and Remediation is represented on the Tidewater Envi-
ronmental Task Force, an interagency group that locates improperly handled hazardous materials
and waste.
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
This program provides state participation in the investigation and cleanup of existing or abandoned
sites where serious threats to human health or the environment exist due to past disposal practices
or continued releases from non-permitted facilities. Three programs exist within the state Superfund
Program.
Through the Site Assessment Program, sites are investigated to determine whether action is
warranted. In partnership with EPA Region III, the Remedial Program investigates and performs the
cleanup of Virginia's National Priority List (NPL) sites. As of 1992, 23 NPL sites are in the state
with at least 15 in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Based on a 1990 agreement,
the commonwealth has provided technical assistance to 30 Department of Defense installations to
assure compliance with state standards and regulations.
Milestones:
1. Since 1988, staff have completed more than 100 preliminary assessments.
2. Of the 15 NPL sites in the Virginia portion of the Chesapeake Bay watershed, five are east of
the fall line. To date, one site has been cleaned up, six are in the cleanup stage, one is in the design
A-43
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
stage, one is in the design negotiation stage, four are in the study stage, and two have yet to be
addressed. Three sites are Department of Defense facilities.
Air Quality Control Program
The Air Toxics Program in the Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the Department
of Air Pollution Control) is charged with implementing and improving the applicable provisions of
the state's air quality regulatory requirements. In 1989, following a four-year pilot program, the
department began a statewide evaluation of chemical emissions from existing facilities while
reviewing new and modified permit applications for chemical emissions under the state program.
Between 1988 and 1990, approximately 300 facilities were inventoried statewide (including facilities
near the Chesapeake Bay). This inventory identified chemicals that led to the development of some
permit limits and testing requirements. With the passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments,
the inventory process was curtailed because the federal operating permit requirements of the act would
accomplish the same goal as the earlier state inventory.
The state toxics program is an established part of the department's facility review procedure with
its toxics regulations addressing 238 toxic chemicals and compounds. The development of a toxics
data base has been delayed but is being revived under requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments.
Since the signing of the 1988 Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy, the department has:
• Provided emission inventory data to Chesapeake Bay Program contractors.
• Conducted one year (1990) of toxics canister sampling of 41 volatile organic compounds in the
Tidewater (Hampton) area.
• Conducted two years (1989 to 1990) of non-methane organic compound canister sampling in
Norfolk and one year (1990) of non-methane organic compound canister sampling in Chesapeake.
Due to a reduction in department resources, the only current canister sampling is in Hopewell.
Atmospheric Deposition
Other monitoring activities near the Bay include:
• Acid precipitation monitoring at Hampton and West Point for pH, ammonium, fluoride, chloride,
bromide, nitrate, sulfate, and phosphate; and
• Chesapeake Bay Atmospheric Deposition Study (Mathews County, Haven Beach).
Researchers from the Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences and Old Dominion University are
measuring metals and organic contaminants in atmospheric deposition at Haven Beach, Virginia. The
objectives of this study are to measure the concentration of metals and organic contaminants in
precipitation and atmospheric aerosols precisely, determine the temporal and spatial variability in
precipitation and aerosol concentration and the corresponding fluxes, evaluate the relative magnitude
of atmospheric depositional processes, and to estimate the annual atmospheric loading to the Bay's
surf ace waters.
A-44
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Future Actions:
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments requires a toxics emission inventory of all applicable
facilities in Virginia. The initial survey of these sources began in the late summer of 1993. This
information will be updated annually, providing a more extensive and accurate inventory of
emissions. This information should be available to interested parties by mid-1994.
The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments Great Waters Provisions (Section 112(m)) include Chesa-
peake Bay. Emissions inventory data will be used to determine atmospheric loadings of toxic
pollutants into the Bay. Updates of the toxics emission inventory should support periodic
assessments and provide data for more refined atmospheric dispersion models of the Bay.
A-45
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
A-46
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
APPENDIX B
Chesapeake Bay Basin States
304(1) Facilities
B-1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
B-2
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
FACILITY NAME
TRIBUTARY
DIRECTLY
NPDES NO. DISCHARGED TO:
MAJOR
TRIBUTARY
BASIN
NEW YORK
Corning Inc.
NY003972 Cohocoton River
Susquehanna River
PENNSYLVANIA
Armstrong World PA0008761
Glatfelter Paper PA0008869
United Piece Dye Works PA0009172
Cerro Metals PA0009202
Lowengart and Co. - Mercerburg PA0009521
Penlec - Shawville PA0010031
Letterkenny Army Depot PA0010502
York City Sewer Authority PA0020621
Nawkein Boro Authority PA0020893
Huntington Water and SA PA002691
Scranton Sewer Authority PA002692
Throop Sewer Authority PA0027090
Penn Township PA0037150
New Freedom Boro PA0043257
Pittman-Moore (Inc. Chemical) PA0070505
Westfield Tanning Co. PA0008800
Wyeth - A Yerst Lab PA0013862
York City Wastewater PA0026263
Mountain Top Area PA0045985
Susquehanna River
Codorus Creek
Susquehanna River
Logan Branch
Johnston Run
West Branch
Rowe Run
Codorus Creek
Chickies Creek
Juniata River
Lackawanna River
Lackawanna River
Oil Creek
S. Branch Codorus Creek
Jordan Creek
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
Susquehanna River
MARYLAND
Delmarva Power & Light MD0000094
WR Grace Company MD0000311
Amoco Oil Baltimore Asphalt TE MD0000388
Eastern Stainless MD0000981
General Motors MD0001163
Bethlehem Steel - Baltimore MD0001201
SCM Chemicals MD0001270
Sherwin-Williams MD0001296
Carr - Lowery Glass Company MD0001414
Chemetals Corporation MD0001775
Nevamar Corporation (003) MD0002003
SCM Hawkins Point Plant MD0002161
Chesapeake Park MD0002852
David Taylor NS&DC MD0003051
Universal Foods MD0003298
Back River WWTP MD0021555
Salisbury WWTP MD0021571
Fallston WWTP MD0052141
BG and E - Brandon Shores MD0054321
Nanticoke River
Curtis Bay
Curtis Bay
Bacon Creek
Colgate Creek
Bear Creek
Colgate Creek
Gwynns Falls
Middle Branch
Arundel Cove
Picture Spring Branch
Patapsco River
Dark Head/Cowpen Creeks
Severn River
Colgate Creek
Back River
Wicomico River
Wildcat Branch
Patapsco River
Nanticoke River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Severn River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
Severn River
Patapsco River
Back River
Wicomico River
Patapsco River
Patapsco River
B-3
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
FACILITY NAME
G & S Coal
Winner Brothers Coal Company
Reichs Ford Landfill
MES Hawkins Point Landfill
Garret Round Glade
NPDES NO.
MD0058238
MD0058416
MD0061093
MD0061417
MD0061646
TRIBUTARY
DIRECTLY
DISCHARGED TO:
Jennings.RP Three Fork Run
Vale Run, Georges Creek
Bush Creek
Thons Cove
Round Glade Run
MAJOR
TRIBUTARY
BASIN
Potomac River
Potomac River
Potomac River
Potomac River
Potomac River
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Blue Plains WWTP
DC0021199 Potomac River
Potomac River
DELAWARE
No 304(1) facilities within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
Virginia
Merck & Company VA0022178
Avtex Fibers (003, 004) VA0002208
Genecom Corporation VA0002402
Modine Manufacturing VA0002771
Reynolds Metals - Bellwood VA0002861
Solite VA0003468
Aqualon (001, 002) VA0003492
Holly Foods Farms VA0004031
Norshipco - Berkely (007,8,9) VA0004383
Norshipco - Brambleton VA0004405
US Navy - Sewells Pt. (74,75) VA0004421
Georgia Bonded Fibers VA0004791
Norfolk Naval Shipyard VA0005215
Lynchburg Foundry VA0006262
Lynchburg VA0024970
Waynesboro VA0025151
Fort Eustis VA00252216
Narox (001,002) VA0050962
Collonas Shipyard (004) VA0053813
GE - Charlottesville VA0054507
Culpepper Wood Preserves VA0059145
Richmond STP VA0063177
Hopewell POTW VA0066630
South Fork Shenandoah River
South Fork Shenandoah River
South River
Indian Gap Run
Proctors Creek
James River
Cattail Creek
Chickahominy River
South Branch Elizabeth River
Elizabeth River
James River
Maury River
South Branch Elizabeth River
James River
James River
South River
James River
Shand Creek
East Branch Elizabeth River
Herring Branch
Jonas Run
James River
Gravelly Run
James River
James River
Potomac River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
James River
Potomac River
James River
James River
James River
James River
Rappahannock River
James River
James River
WEST VIRGINIA
No 304(1) facilities within the Chesapeake Bay basin.
B-4
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
APPENDIX C
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide
Toxics Reduction Strategy-
Commitments Matrix
C-1
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
C-2
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy-
Commitments Matrix
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
Toxics Assessment (TA)
TA-1 Support a program of directed re- Ongoing
search.
TA-2 Complete a basin wide survey of ex- 7/91
isting analytical capabilities.
TA-2.1 Develop the analytical capabilities 12/89
survey workplan.
TA-3 Develop a comprehensive listing of Ongoing
data needs for management and as-
sessment of toxics.
TA-3.1 Develop and update a complete set 7/89
of narrative descriptions of all on-
going toxics monitoring.
TA-3.2 Develop a listing of data needs, evalu- 12/89
ate utility of existing toxics moni-
toring, design and implementation
of new monitoring programs.
TA-4 Develop, support, and maintain a Ongoing
basinwide toxics database.
Ongoing. Joint NOAA/TSC funds supported
continuation of the Chesapeake Bay Toxics
Research Program in FY 1993. [CBEEC/
Rickards (804) 924-5965]
Completed 1/91. Copies of the survey
available upon request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 12/89. Copies of the workplan
available upon request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 1/93. Copies of the Toxics Re-
duction Strategy Reevaluation Report avail-
able upon request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 8/89. Copies of Chesapeake Bay
Basin Monitoring Program Atlas available
upon request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 1/93. Copies of the Toxics Re-
duction Strategy Reevaluation Report avail-
able upon request from EPA CBPO.
See specific commitments TA-4.1, TA-4.2
and TA-4.3 below.
TA-4.1 Develop a workplan for the basin- 7/89
wide toxics database.
Completed 7/91.
TA-4.2 Update and revise the data manage-
ment plans to include guidelines for
the format and submission of toxics
data.
12/89
Completed 9/91. Copies of the Chesapeake
Bay Program Data Management Plan avail-
able upon request from EPA CBPO.
TA-4.3 Complete development of the bas-
inwide toxics database.
7/90
Ongoing. Toxics data sets being acquired
according to priorities established by the
Toxics Subcommittee's Criteria and Stan-
dards workgroup. Data to support Toxics of
Concern Ranking System also being ac-
C-3
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
TA-5 Develop and maintain a basinwide
toxics loading inventory.
TA-5.1 Develop a workplan for the toxics
loading inventory.
TA-5.2 Complete development of the toxics
loading inventory.
TA-5.3 Review, expand and revise the tox-
ics loading inventory every two years.
T A-6 Develop and update a toxics of con-
cern list, maintain supporting ma-
trix information and utilize the list
to establish toxics.
Ongoing
12/89
12/90
12/92
Ongoing
quired. [TSC/LRSC Criteria and Standards
Workgroup/Garreis (410) 631-3618]
See specific commitments below.
Completed 12/89. Copies of the Basinwide
Toxics Loading Inventory Workplan avail-
able upon request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 1/94. Copies of the Basinwide
Toxics Loading and Release Inventory re-
port available upon request from EPA CBPO.
Ongoing. Inventory's point source loadings
updated with facility specific data 4/94; in-
ventory to be fully updated by 4/97. [TSC
Toxics Inventory Workgroup/ Velinsky (301)
984-1908]
See specific commitments TA-6.1 through
TA-6.4.
TA-6.1 Hold a public meeting to invite public 9/89
input on the toxics of concern
workplan.
TA-6.2 Complete the toxics of concern 12/89
workplan.
Completed 12/89.
Completed 1/90. Copies of the Toxics of
Concern workplan available upon request
from EPA CBPO.
TA-6.3 Develop an initial Toxics of Con- 3/90
cern list.
TA-6.4 Re view and re vise the toxics of con- 3/92
cern list every two years thereafter.
Completed 1/91. Copies of the Chesapeake
Bay Toxics of Concern report available upon
request from EPA CBPO.
Completed 3/92. Copies of the revisions to
the Chesapeake Bay Toxics of Concern List
available upon request from EPA CBPO.
The next update to the list is scheduled to be
completed by 9/94. [TSC/LRSC Criteria and
Standards Workgroup/Garreis (410) 631-
3618]
C-4
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
TA-7
TA-8
TA-9
Support and promote interdiscipli-
nary analysis and reporting of toxics
monitoring and research findings.
Convene a scientific workshop to
develop protocols for the use of bio-
logical indicators to monitor the ef-
fects of contaminants on living
resources in their habitats
Develop and implement a plan for
Baywide assessment and monitor-
ing of effects of toxics on living
resources within their natural habi-
tats.
Ongoing
7/89
12/89
Ongoing through the joint Toxics Subcom-
mittee/NOAA toxics research program and
STAC sponsored workshops and the litera-
ture synthesis papers process. [NOAA
CBEEC/Rickards (804)924-5965; STAC/
Randall (703) 231-6018].
Completed 7/89. Copies of the workshop
report is available upon request from EPA
CBPO.
Completed 1/90. Implementation ongoing
through the Chesapeake Bay Ambient Tox-
icity Assessment Program. Copies of the
reports from the first three years of the
program available upon request from EPA
CBPO.
Water Quality Standards and Habitat Requirements (WO)
WQ-1 Adopt necessary water quality stan- Ongoing*
dards during the upcoming triennial
reviews for 307(a) priority pollut-
ants in accordance with the Clean
Water Act.
WQ-2 Increase annual rate of national cri- Ongoing
teria publication.
WQ-3 Agree to a consistent definition for 7/89
the application of national freshwa-
ter and saltwater criteria and adviso-
ries within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
WQ-4 Place priority on developing national Ongoing
water quality criteria and advisories
for the Bay toxics of concern.
WQ-4.1 Submit to the EPA Office of Water, 3/90
Criteria and Standards Division, a
list of toxic compounds for priority
Completed.
See commitment WQ-4.1.
Completed 2/90. Copies of the consistent
definition agreement are available upon re-
quest from EPA CBPO.
See commitment WQ-4.1.
Completed 2/91.
C-5
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
consideration in development of
water quality criteria and advisories
every year.
WQ-5 Collectively review the EPA crite-
ria and advisories issued for the Bay
toxics of concern and consider their
adoption as standards.
WQ-6 Issue guidance on use of water qual-
ity standards to address nonpoint
sources of toxics.
Ongoing
12/89
Ongoing. [TSC/LRSC Criteria and Stan-
dards Workgroup/Garreis (420)631-3618]
No progress has been made on this commit-
ment.
WQ-7 Explore means to using more ge- Ongoing
neric approaches to regulating classes
of toxic substances and pesticides.
WQ-8 Use the information in the Habitat Ongoing
Requirements for Chesapeake Bay
Living Resources report as guidance
in toxics management programs.
No progress has been made on this commit-
ment.
Ongoing. Updated version of 1988 report
comparing state water quality standards and
living resource habitat requirements sched-
uled for completion 9/94. [TSC/LRSC Cri-
teria and Standards Workgroup/Garreis (410)
631-3618].
Pt Sources (PS)
PS-1 Develop and submit to EPA lists of 2/89*
waters impacted by toxics in accor-
dance to section 304(1) of the Clean
Water Act.
PS-2 Develop and implement toxics man- 12/89*
agement programs including the fol-
lowing components: schedule for
requiring toxics monitoring in pri-
ority discharger permits, consistent
testing, and requirements for initiat-
ing toxic reduction evaluations.
PS-3 Provide guidance for including the 1/90*
assessment control of concentrative
contaminants in surface water man-
agement programs.
Completed 2/89.
Ongoing. Priority dischargers have been
identified in MD, VA and PA. Consistent
criteria for defining acute/chronic toxicity
have been developed and approved by the
TSC as of 2/22/90. [TSC Toxics Inventory
Workgroup/Velinsky (301) 984-1908]
Ongoing. Draft guidance published 3/91.
No date for the publication of the final guid-
ance has been at this time. [EPA OW OST,
Feldpausch (202) 260-8149]
C-6
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
PS-4 Develop a workplan for conducting
a program to "fingerprint" effluent,
sediment and tissue samples at se-
lected point sources discharges.
PS-5 Develop workplan for conducting
toxicity studies selected point source
discharges.
PS-6 Incorporate chemical and biologi-
cal toxics monitoring requirements
in the permits of all priority dis-
chargers.
PS-7 Ensure all dischargers identified in
the 1989 304(1) lists are in compli-
ance with their individual control
strategies.
PS-8 Ensure all major dischargers not in-
cluded on the 1989 304(1) lists are
in compliance with their toxicity
reduction evaluations.
PS-9 Conduct timely and appropriate
enforcement action and spot checks
of self-monitored permittees.
PS-10 Continue development and imple-
mentation of the Permit Compli-
ance System for NPDES permits to
include archival of data.
7/90
7/90
7/91*
6/92*
7/96*
Ongoing"
Ongoing
Draft workplan developed 8/91; no further
progress has been made on this commit-
ment. [TSC Toxics Inventory Workgroup/
Velinsky (301) 984-1908]
Draft workplan developed 8/91; no further
progress has been made on this commit-
ment. [TSC Toxics Inventory Workgroup/
Velinsky (301) 984-1908]
See commitment PS-2 status.
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Henry
(215)597-8243; States]
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Henry
(215)597-8243; States]
Ongoing. EPA Region 3, Permit Enforce-
ment Branch, has taken the lead in develop-
ing the Chesapeake Bay compliance initiatives
designed to cut the number of significant
violators in half in fulfillment of Admin.
Reilly's increased enforcement commitment.
EPA staff have been meeting with the states
to develop and implement the strategy to
achieve this objective. [EPA Region 3/
Piotrowski (215) 597-9078; States]
Ongoing. EPA Region 3, Permits Enforce-
ment Branch, has committed to working
with the states to increase PCS use. [EPA
Region 3/Piotrowski (215)597-9078; States]
C-7
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
Pretreatment (PT)
PT-1 Inspect and audit those POTWs with Ongoing*
basis.
PT-2 Inspect selected categorical discharg- Ongoing*
ers annually and the remaining dis-
chargers at least once during the
term of the POTW permit.
PT-3 Take appropriate enforcement and Ongoing*
follow-up action against non-com-
plying POTWs.
PT-4 Investigate new candidate POTWs Ongoing*
for pretreatment program develop-
ment as necessary.
PT-5 Conduct sampling at priority POTWs Ongoing*
at least annually and at significant
dischargers when necessary.
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Lovell
(215)597-6279; States]
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Lovell
(215)597-6279; States]
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Lovell
(215)597-6279; States]
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Lovell
(215)597-6279; States]
Ongoing in all states. [EPA Region 3/Lovell
(215)597-6279; States]
Urban (UR)
UR-1 Develop consistent methodologies
for estimating loads/load delivery
calculations for developed urban
areas.
12/89
Completed 4/91. Copies of the report avail-
able upon request from EPA CBPO.
UR-2 Use the developed methodology to
quantify and characterize toxic loads
from urban areas.
12/90
Completed 4/91. Results incorporated into
the Basinwide Toxics Loading Inventory.
UR-3 Develop programs to regulate urban 12/89
stormwater discharges followingpro-
mulgation of EPA regulations.
Ongoing. Further action dependent on final
stormwater regulation promulgation. [EPA
Region 3; States]
Pesticides (PE)
PE-l Summarize and analyze baseline Ongoing*
demonstration watershed data rela-
tive to pesticides.
Completed 6/90.
C-8
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
PE-2 Complete a pesticide use survey of 12/89
the Chesapeake Bay basin and uti-
lize the findings to target Integrated
Pest Management programs.
PE-3 ReviewexistinglntegratedPestMan- 12/89
agement and sustainable agriculture
programs and develop alternatives
for their increased utilization.
PE-4 Implement necessary new/expanded 12/90
pesticide monitoring.
PE-5 Identify additional pesticide man- 12/91
agement programs.
PE-6 Review methods for improving co- Ongoing
ordination between the Toxics Sub-
stances Control Act process and the
information needed on aquatic tox-
icity for water quality programs. Ex-
plore development of a basinwide
and national toxic registry of chemi-
cals that are preferred for use due to
limited environmental impact.
Completed 5/91. Results incorporated into
the Basinwide Toxics Loading and Release
Inventory.
Ongoing. CBP funds being awarded annu-
ally enhancement of state IPM implementa-
tion. [TSC Pesticides Workgroup/Bingaman
(717) 772-5214]
Ongoing. Watershed based pesticide moni-
toring programs initiated in FY91. [TSC
Pesticides Workgroup Bingaman (717)772-
5214]
Ongoing. Being addressed through PE-3.
[TSC Pesticides Workgroup/Bingaman (717)
772-5214]
No progress has been made on this commit-
ment.
Air Deposition (AD)
AD-1 Make available pertinent atmospheric 12/89
deposition monitoring data to the
toxics data base and utilize the in-
formation redirect ongoing and fu-
ture monitoring network and
computer model to interpret the data.
AD-2 Continue national research efforts Ongoing
on atmospheric deposition in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin and develop
a national monitoring network and
computer model to interpret the data.
Completed 7/91.
Ongoing. Work underway through imple-
mentation of Great Waters section of Clean
Air Act Amendments. [Air Quality Coordi-
nation Group/Hicks (301) 713-0295].
C-9
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
AD-3
AD-4
AD-5
AD-6
Continue to build toxic emissions
inventories.
Take advantage of innovative tech-
nologies.
Support long-term research into the
mechanism of pollutant transfer
between air and water.
Ongoing*
Ongoing
Ongoing
Designate and maintain permanent
monitoring stations in the Bay to
measure long term trends in the at-
mospheric deposition of toxics.
Ongoing"
Ongoing in all the states. [States]
Ongoing in all the states. [States]
Ongoing. Bay wide atmospheric deposition
station network initiated summer 1990. Re-
search focused on this is funded through the
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program.
Additional research supported through imple-
mentation of Great Waters section of the
Clean Air Act Amendments. [Air Quality
Coordination Group/Hicks (301)713-0295].
Ongoing. Baywide atmospheric deposition
station network initiated in summer 1990.
[Air Quality Coordination Group/Hicks (301)
713-0295].
Solid and Hazardous Wastes (HW)
HW-1 Promote hazardous waste minimi- Ongoing*
zation by conducting information
exchange and public education ac-
tivities and setting reduction targets
where appropriate.
HW-2 Comply with the Superfund Amend- Ongoing*
ments and Reauthorization Act
104(k) capacity assurance certifica-
tion requirements.
HW-3 Develop and initiate an inspection 10/89*
program for RCRA facilities within
the Bay watershed.
HW-4 Comply with the Superfund Amend- Ongoing*
ments and Reauthorization Act
104(k) capacity assurance certifica-
tion requirements.
Ongoing in the states. [EPA Region 3; States]
Ongoing in the states. [EPA Region 3; States]
Ongoing in the states. [EPARegion3; States]
Ongoing in the states. [EPA Region 3; States]
C-10
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
HW-5 Coordinate SARA title III reporting Ongoing*
requirements with the Federal Fa-
cilities in the Bay basin.
HW-6 Prioritize site cleanups for solid and Ongoing*
hazardous waste sites where there is
likely impacts on living resources.
Ongoing. Work underway at EPA Head-
quarters.
Ongoing in the states and at EPA Region 3.
Contaminated Sediments (CS)
CS-1
CS-2
CS-3
Design and implement a long-term
sediment monitoring program.
Promote technology transfer of in-
formation on sediment toxicity test-
ing to scientific and regulatory
communities.
Implement toxicity testing of sedi-
ments within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed.
12/89
Ongoing
Ongoing
Completed 12/92. Copies of the Chesa-
peake Contaminated Sediments Critical Is-
sue Forum proceedings available upon request
through EPA CBPO.
Ongoing. Two year estuarine sediment bio-
assay method development program com-
pleted. Copies of resultant report available
upon request through EPA CBPO. EPA Head-
quarters funding a national effort to develop
standardized protocols. [EPA CBPO/Batiuk
(410) 267-5700]
Ongoing through Chesapeake Bay Ambient
Toxicity Assessment Program. [TSC/Regions
of Concern Workgroup/Kennedy (804) 762-
4312.
CS-4 Develop a Chesapeake Bay specific
sediment quality
12/91
CS-5 Incorporate appropriate sediment Ongoing
protocols into the toxics manage-
ment programs.
CS-6 Complete a study of the feasibility
of developing a Superfund type pro-
gram from contaminated sediments.
12/90
See commitment CS-3.
Action dependent on completion of CS-2,
CS-3 and CS-4. [States]
Ongoing. EPA Office of Superfund is cur-
rently working with EPA Office of Water/
Office of Science and Technology to field
test sediment criteria (under development)
in defining Superfund sites and cleanup levels.
[EPA OW OST/Zarba (202)260-1326]
C-11
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
Strategy Implementation (SI)
SI-1 Establish an ad hoc panel to develop
a strategy plan.
1/89
Completed 5/89. Copies of the report are
available upon request through EPA CBPO.
SI-2 Develop a strategy implementation 7/89
action plan.
SI-3 Develop and begin implementing a 12/89
plan to increase program coordina-
tion to address cross-media impacts
of toxics.
Completed 1/90.
Completed 1/90.
SI-4
SI-5
SI-6
SI-7
Coordinate toxic reduction initia- Ongoing
lives with the basin's federal facili-
ties and the Program's federal
agencies.
Complete the design of a system for 12/89
measuring progress under the basin-
wide strategy
Produce a Basinwide Toxics Re- 12/90
duction Strategy Progress Report 12/92
every other year.
Reevaluate the Basinwide Toxics
Reduction Strategy.
12/92
Ongoing through the Federal Agencies Com-
mittee. [FAC/Matuszeski (410)267-0061]
Completed 12/92. Copies available upon
request through EPA CBPO.
Completed 9/94. Progress described in the
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Re-
evaluation report.
Completed 9/94. Results described in the
Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Re-
evaluation Report. Toxics Research Strat-
egy Recommendations
Toxics Research Strategy Recommendations
Lib Research to develop an environmental
risk assessment protocol for use in the
Basinwide Toxics Strategy.
I.2b Research focused on improving effec-
tiveness of environmental risk assess-
ment protocols.
NOAA Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Committee 1993 RFP
targets research focused on toxic impacts on the Bay's trophic dynam-
ics necessary to support ecological risk assessment protocol develop-
ment for the Bay. Further work on framing out an ecological risk
assessment protocol is needed. [CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965]
NOAA Environmental Effects Committee 1993 RFP targets research
focused on toxic impacts on the Bay's trophic dynamics necessary to
support ecological risk assessment protocol development for the Bay.
[CBEEC/ Rickards (804) 924-5965]
C-12
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
II. 1 b Research to determine proper nonpoint
source sampling techniques.
II.2b Research to estimate relative magni-
tudes inputs of toxics to the Chesa-
peake Bay.
II.3b Research to determine appropriate
mechanism to couple analytical data
systems and exchange of data between
laboratories.
II.4b Research to develop techniques to mini-
mize application of chemicals to agri-
cultural and urban lands.
Ill.lb Research to determine processes con-
trolling consolidation and area.
III.2b Research to determine extent and rates
of sediment mixing by in this area.
III.3b Research to determine importance of
non-benthic organisms in fate and trans-
port of toxics.
III.4b Research to determine constants and
coefficients of toxics among various
Bay system components.
Ill.Sb Research to determine appropriate
chemical markers for monitoring trans-
port and distribution of toxics.
Nonpoint Source Subcommittee investigating research status and needs
[NPSC/Funk (717) 787-5259]
Atmospheric deposition of toxics to be monitored at a coordinated 3
station network with emphasis on sampling methods refinement. Survey
of Bay wide fall toxics loadings initiated in 1990 to quantify loads and
develop toxic load estimation techniques. [Air Quality Coordination
Group/ Hicks (301) 713-0684]
Specific research needs identified through the basinwide analytical
capabilities survey. See commitment TA-2.1.
[NPSC/Funk (717) 787-5259]
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program is supporting work in this
[NOAA CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965] sediments.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program is supporting work in this
[NOAA CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965] benthic organisms.
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program is supporting work in this
in this area. [NOAA CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965]
Chesapeake Bay Toxics Research Program is supporting work in this
in this area. [NOAA CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965]
Research underway at a number of Bay research institutions. [STAC/
Randall (703) 231-6018]
III.6b Research to determine aerobic and Chesapeake Bay Toxics research Program is supporting [NOAACBEEC/
anaerobic biodegradation kinetics. Work Rickards (804) 924-5965]
in this area.
IV. Ib Research to prepare a critical summary
of knowledge concerning implications
of toxics in the Bay.
Work in progress through STAC sponsored literature synthesis pro-
cess. [STAC/Randall (703) 231-6018]
C-13
-------
Chesapeake Bay Basinwide Toxics Reduction Strategy Reevaluation Report
TOXICS REDUCTION STRATEGY
COMMITMENT
IMPLEMENTATION
DATE
STATUS
IV.2b Research to determine the effective-
ness of various toxicity testing alterna-
tives for population, community and
ecosystem effects.
IV.3b Research to construct a tiered toxicity
testing approach within the Basinwide
Strategy framework.
IV.4b Research to evaluate effectiveness of
various biomarker assays in determin-
ing chemical stress.
IV.Sb Research to determine realistic toxicity
exposure regimes and appropriate spe-
cies.
Through the Ambient Toxicity Assessment Pilot Study, various water
column and sediment bioassay techniques and biomarker tests were
field tested for sensitivity to detect ambient toxicity. The EPA Envi-
ronmental Monitoring and Assessment Program's Virginian Province
Pilot Program also conducting field tests. [TSC Regions of Concern
Workgroup/ Kennedy (804) 762-4312]
Through the Ambient Toxicity Assessment Pilot Study, various water
column and sediment bioassay techniques and biomarker tests are
being field tested for sensitivity to detect ambient toxicity. [TSC
Regions of Concern Workgroup/Kennedy (804) 762-4312]
The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry has com-
piled a descriptive compendium of existing biomarker tests. Chesa-
peake Toxics Research Program has supported work in this area.
[NOAA CBEEC/Rickards (804) 924-5965]
Through the Ambient Toxicity Assessment Pilot Study, various water
column and sediment bioassay techniques and biomarker tests will be
field tested for sensitivity to detect ambient toxicity. [TSC Regions of
Concern Workgroup/Kennedy (804) 762-4312]
NOTES The lead contact for each commitment is the first name listed at the end of the status description. A phone number
is also provided.
The dates with an asterisk (*) indicate commitments that are regulatory mandates.
The bold dates in brackets under the Implementation Date column are the revised dates for completion of the
respective commitments.
KEY CBEEC - Chesapeake Bay Environmental Effects Committee 778
CBPO - Chesapeake Bay Program Office
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
CSC - Computer Sciences Corporation
EPA ERL-Newport - EPA Environmental Research Laboratory, Newport, Oregon
EPA OW OST - EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology
FAC - Federal Agencies Committee
LRSC - Living Resources Subcommittee
STAC - Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
TSC - Toxics Subcommittee
C-14
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |