Survey of U.S. and Great Lakes States
Toxic Reduction Programs, Laws
and Database Inventory
Report Prepared for the Workgroup on Parties Implementation,
Science Advisory Board of the
International Joint Commission
September 16, 1994
Prepared by:
Denise Scheberle, Ph.D.
Mary Buttke
Kimberly Boggiatto
EPA 950-R-94-018
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
I. Introduction 1
II. Methodology 2
III. Findings 4
IV. Recommendations 12
Federal Laws and Programs Related to Toxic Substances Reduction 15
I. Clean Water Act (CWA) 15
II. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) 26
III. Great Lakes Critical Programs Act 26
IV. Toxics Reduction Agreement of Great Lakes Governors 28
V. Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 29
VI. Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments 1990 30
VII. Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation and Liability Act 33
VIII. Toxic Substances Control Act 35
Other Programs and Data Systems 38
I. Programs Related to Contaminated Sediments 38
II. Programs Related to Wellhead Protection 39
III. Programs Related to Air Toxics 41
IV. Networking and other Programs 42
Issues of Interjurisdictional Cooperation and Data 45
I. Groups/Issues of Data Compatibility 45
II. Perceptions About Intergovernmental Cooperation 46
State Programs Dealing With Toxic Substances Reductions 50
I. Illinois 50
II. Indiana 55
III. Michigan 60
IV. Pennsylvania 68
V. Ohio 73
VI. New York 80
VII. Minnesota 88
VIII. Wisconsin 93
References 98
Contacts 104
Appendices 115
-------
Executive Summary
I. Introduction:
Scientists, state and federal officials, members of the International Joint
Commission (IJC), and residents in the Great Lakes region have long been concerned
about toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Programs at local, state, regional, federal
and international levels exist with stated goals of reducing toxics loading into the
Great Lakes. According to state water quality reports issued in 1992, toxic
contamination is the most prevalent and persistent water pollution problem in the
Great Lakes. The eight Great Lakes states have issued advisories to restrict
consumption of fish caught along their shorelines, due to unsafe levels of mercury,
PCBs, pesticides and dioxin. Virtually all of the waters along the Great Lakes
shoreline fail to fully support overall designated uses.
Despite this concern and the subsequent creation of numerous programs, a
comprehensive toxic substances control strategy has not yet emerged, and little is
known about the success of toxic reduction efforts. Insufficient or unavailable data
about programmatic success hampers the ability to effectively plan for the future.
In 1993, the IJC Science Advisory Board (SAB) attempted to inventory the
type of toxics reduction programs and the kind of data being collected in these
programs throughout the Great Lakes region. The SAB sent a letter requesting
information from all jurisdictions (the eight Great Lakes states, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Environment Canada, but few
jurisdictions responded to the SAB. This led the SAB to the conclusion that a more
determined effort was needed to survey jurisdictions.
This report reflects the systematic effort of the researchers to inventory the
number of programs, the kind of data, future toxic reduction strategies and the
perceptions of agency officials within the eight Great Lakes states, regional offices of
the EPA and EPA Headquarters. This report does not attempt to be a comprehensive
cataloging of all of the databases and programs. Rather, it represents a beginning
attempt to identify the majority of important programs and data collection efforts that
are currently underway.
-------
II. Methodology
In order to gather information about the kind of data collected, the sufficiency
of existing data in establishing a toxics reduction strategy, and the ability to access the
data within and across jurisdictions, as well as perceptions about programmatic
success and interjurisdictional cooperation, phone interviews were conducted with
state, regional and national officials involved in various toxics reduction programs.
State officials in all eight Great Lakes states were contacted by phone and in writing.
One additional on-site interview was conducted in Ohio.
To facilitate the data collection process, a cover letter describing the project, a
letter of support from the IJC, and list of interview questions was sent to state
program directors and EPA regional staff prior to the telephone contact. The survey
instrument appears as Appendix A to this report. Follow-up interviews were used to
supplement information provided during the first call, and individuals working in site-
specific or program specific areas were also called.
The initial effort was expanded to include officials in different media programs
(air, sediments, groundwater) and officials in other organizations, including special
task forces and oversight boards. In all, 84 people were contacted in preparing this
report. Many of the people who provided information are listed at the end of this
report. In addition, Section 305(b) reports and other documents were used to
supplement information gathered during the survey. A reference section appears at
the end of the report.
The focus of the research was to identify and briefly describe major programs
and databases. Thus, the report represents more of a cataloging effort than an in-
depth discussion of specific programs. When available, comments about the
usefulness of various databases or individual programs were included, but most of the
research effort is descriptive, rather than analytical.
While attempts were made to be comprehensive, it is likely that all programs
have not been identified. The researchers did not find any single repository of this
information. Instead, programs are often housed in different departments, divisions
or other organizational entities. Also, it is possible that the individuals contacted
within each major department may not have been aware of other programs, even
those in the department.
The scope of the project did not allow for a similar investigation of other
federal agencies, most notably the United State Geological Survey (USGS), the United
States Corps of Engineers, or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A cursory
review of the USGS databases is contained in the body of this report. However, these
agencies do have programs that address water quality directly or indirectly, and
should be contacted in future reports. Also, no comprehensive attempt was made to
-------
identify efforts by various local or regional groups, such as municipal or county
governments or those associated with the 43 Areas of Concern.
-------
III. Findings:
Major findings from the research are identified in the sections below.
A. Large number of programs
The process of describing programs and activities at the state, regional and
federal level revealed an almost dizzying array of activity. More data is being
collected, more programs are underway and more people seem to be involved in
water quality issues than in previous years. Most officials contacted believed that the
programmatic activities were adequate, and saw no need for new initiatives.
An encouraging sign is the increasing inclusion of water quality issues in
programs outside traditional water offices. The recently released U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) report to Congress on the deposition of air pollutants to the
great waters of the United States is a formal recognition of the need to integrate
efforts across programs in order to more effectively address toxic substances and
other pollutants entering the Great Lakes system.
Similarly, state officials are concerned about the state of the Great Lakes and
identified a number of programmatic actions at the state level that address water
quality. Most officials believe that their states are doing more to address water
quality issues now than in previous years, and point to water quality improvements.
Perhaps most encouraging is the recognition of state and federal officials of the
need to work more cooperatively to achieve water quality goals and to share data.
One notable national effort is the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality, an intergovernmental, interagency group established to address problems
associated with water quality data collection, storage and reporting. This national
group is described in the body of this report.
Other cooperative efforts that were discovered tend to be local or regional in
nature. The Lake Michigan LaMP is an example of a diverse group working
cooperatively to address toxic substances loading in Lake Michigan.
However, the research reveals that despite the array of programs and data
collection activities by federal and state agencies, problems exist. A few of the
problems are described below, but the main message delivered by officials in all
levels of government is this: the ability to make comprehensive assessments of
ambient water quality, and identify the relative contribution made by various sources
does not exist. At best, with considerable effort on the part of the analyst, data can
suggest relative contributions and the status of water quality.
-------
This presents a challenge for both policy makers and agency officials. Policy
makers may be concerned that large investments of fiscal and human resources are
made by state and federal agencies in the acquisition of water quality information, yet
the contribution of the investment in ascertaining national or even regional trends in
water quality is not as great as it could be. This concern may hamper the ability of
state and federal agencies to implement programs, because causal connections are not
related to "hard" data and "sound" science.
Agency staff, concerned citizens and partners to the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement, however, may be concerned that progress in restoring the Great
Lakes system will occur more slowly because of limits in using data that is collected
and because policy makers may be reluctant to move forward with programs absent
more information.
B. Little cross-media comparison of data
State program staff acknowledge that little cross-media comparison is done
relating to sources of toxic loadings. EPA staff agree that much more could be done
to use the data more effectively between programs, both at the state and federal level.
The recognition of the need to utilize data collected under air, water,
hazardous waste and other programs is not a new one. The need for data integration
is a key concern identified by staff in EPA regional and headquarters offices, in the
Lake Michigan LaMP forum, by staff at the Great Lakes Commission, and by several
state officials. It is increasingly important as decision-makers attempt to determine
the relative importance of toxic substances loadings from multiple sources.
The central issue, as revealed by our interviews, is the difficulty of using data
to make a holistic assessment of water quality. At the present time, it is extremely
difficult to crosswalk between datasets and come up with conclusions about water
quality. As suggested by one EPA official, attempts to integrate information from
data sources in order to determine water quality for the Great Lakes would be an
"exercise in futility."
For example, conclusions about the overall relative atmospheric loadings for
the Great Lakes under the Great Waters program are not possible given the type of
data available. Current data are limited to chemical-specific and site-specific
investigations. Neither is it possible to identify with certainty the major sources of
atmospheric deposition of toxics, because of the large distances of transference
involved and incomplete data of point source dischargers. Data relative to airborne
toxics is primarily limited to localized case studies, and the same is true for other
databases.
-------
Contacts with EPA staff revealed a number of programs that are directed
toward improving the data collection, both to increase uniformity among jurisdictions
and to increase the kind of data collected. An example of this effort is the 305(b)
consistency workgroup established by EPA hi 1992 to increase reporting uniformity of
states submitting water quality information in complying with the Clean Water Act.
Additionally, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) has looked at data
collected in different programs as part of the Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort.
One report, however, identified a decline in efforts to conduct ecosystem
research:
"There has been a significant decline in basic ecological research
specific to the Great Lakes over the past several years. At the same
time, whole lake monitoring is largely absent. Cost-effective, reliable
management of the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the
Great Lakes requires a common understanding and broad agreement as
to the importance of an "ecosystem approach." ...Future research and
monitoring programs will need to incorporate greater emphasis on
critically important inter-relationships among physical, chemical and
biological components." (Rogers and Heidtke, 1993:14)
C. Limited information on non-point source toxic pollution
Despite the recognition hi the 1987 protocol of the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement of the need for more emphasis on toxics contributions from nonpoint
sources, sediments and groundwater, comprehensive data is not available.
For example, data sets collected by statutory authority under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act contain compliance information and may be limited to certain types
of substances. Little homogeneity exists between data sets. Moreover, little
comparison between programs currently is done at the federal or state level.
Most importantly, data collection efforts have been geared principally toward
point source or industrial compliance rather than non-point sources. Data collection
functions as an administrative tracking system, rather than a system designed to
understand the results of toxic discharges. Databases such as the Permit Compliance
System (PCS) do track effluent concentrations, but the effluents tracked are based on
permit requirements. Thus, critical pollutants may not be included in the PCS
information.
In some cases, state and federal agencies are just beginning to assess the
contributions of non-point sources to toxics loadings. For example, determining
-------
ground water quality at the wellhead is a recent state activity that is just beginning.
Some states do not have wellhead protection programs in place, despite Congressional
mandate, much less have data from which to make determinations about non-point
source contributions to the ground water.
D. Variations in programs and data collection among states and federal
agencies
States differ in the number of programs, the kind of data collected, and the use
of databases. Our research found that states exhibit different levels of interest in and
attention to both programmatic requirements and data collection. For example, not all
Great Lake states have established a wellhead protection program. When we queried
state officials about the reasons for the lack of programmatic activity, some officials
identified the lack of adequate resources to implement the program; others did not
view the program as a high priority. Still other officials pointed to the lack of
administrative support for programmatic efforts. For various reasons, then, states are
not equally involved in implementing programs.
Nor do all states collect data with the same diligence or to the same extent.
For example, all Great Lake states submit data required under section 305(b) of the
Clean Water Act. However, states have different data collection techniques and
employ different systems to manage various databases. This is apparent when one
reviews the 305(b) reports for the Great Lakes states, which vary greatly in detail and
timeliness. New York, for example, is the only state that has submitted a 1994
305(b) report as of September 1, 1994. Moreover, states vary in data collection
efforts, in sampling parameters, and in choice of reporting methods and focus.
Field data and monitoring data submitted by industries under permit
requirements are collected for different reasons. A number of chemicals in the Great
Lakes are not included in the data collection effort, due to a focus on a few
pollutants of concern (PCBs, for example).
Variations in state involvement, data gathering and implementation efforts
suggest the need for greater coordination and communication among state, federal and
other partners in the Great Lakes system.
E. Difficulty in using or accessing data
Several states and EPA officials commented on the difficulty of accessing data.
To date, there is no single clearinghouse for accessing all data related to the Great
Lakes system. Indeed, simply discovering the various datasets housed in the EPA
presents a challenge. The EPA has recognized the need to facilitate access and is
working on a menu-driven, front-end PC system called "Gateway" that would allow
-------
individuals to access many of the major EPA datasets. In some instances, data is not
available except in a report format.
The Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN) has the potential to increase the
accessibility of data about the Great Lakes via the Internet system. Since its inception
in 1993, GLIN has been increasingly used by academicians, researchers, EPA and
state officials. Several persons interviewed identified GLIN as a potentially powerful
source of information and way to connect with other researchers.
However, the success of GLIN is dependent upon the ability of persons to
access it. Only a few officials contacted commented that they used GLIN on a
regular basis. GLIN's success as a networking tool will also depend upon the quality
of information that is available, and the effort of all persons collecting and reporting
data to make that material accessible through GLIN. Thus, the posting of information
on GLIN by all agencies will contribute to the usefulness of GLIN as a tool.
As troubling as the issue of access, however, is the ability of people other than
the database managers to use the databases. STORET, a water quality database,
requires training in order to manipulate the reporting fields. Few people inside the
EPA work with the raw data; most data retrievals are done by contractors. Similar
problems exist with other databases. In short, many of the datasets that exist are
idiosyncratic and require either the help of a database manager or the dedication of
substantial amounts of tune to learn how to retrieve information.
F. Problems in assessing trends
Despite voluminous amounts of data, very little historical information is
available on basin-wide ecosystem conditions in the Great Lakes. Although extensive
investigations of localized problems and conditions in select parts of the Great Lakes
system have occurred, efforts to incorporate such information within an integrative
framework are relatively rare. Our research suggests that officials and academics
judge data as often fragmented, incomplete and lacking a temporal or spatial
perspective within the context of a basin-wide evaluation.
Many of the data collection efforts have changed substantially over the years,
both in terms of type of data collected and in the way data is collected. For example,
the Section 305(b) reports submitted by states reveals different data collection
methodologies over time. The early 305(b) reports (circa 1974) attempted to
characterize water quality in just a few waterways. Few monitoring data were
available even for these selected waters, and water quality criteria existed for only
handful of pollutants.
Attempts to monitor more recent trends, using the last few 305(b) reports also
proves difficult, according to persons at the EPA and state agencies. Some officials
8
-------
attribute the difficulty in trend analysis to an increasing number of waters assessed,
changing standards for measuring attainment, and a recent focus on understanding
bioaccumulative effects, resuspension of toxics and alternative sources of toxics
loadings.
Some national databases, such as the Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory,
change every year as new chemicals are added to the reporting list and new facilities
are required to report their emissions. While the additional information is useful in
understanding the sources of toxic releases to the environment, constantly changing
datasets make it difficult to establish a historical baseline.
The major water quality database utility, the STOrage and RETreival system
(STORET), can be a powerful analytical tool for selected areas where sampling
stations and collection techniques have remained constant over time. However, the
data in STORET are only as useful as the monitoring plans that were used to collect
these data. The reliability of the data is dependent on the level of care employed by
the agencies in the process of sampling, laboratory analysis and data entry. Thus,
wide variations may exist relative to the comparability, quality and quantity of water
data.
One EPA official commented, "how do we ever get to an understanding of if
and how conditions are improving if the baselines keep changing?"
G. Difficulty in using existing data for mass balance or ecosystem analysis
In addition to problems with the data noted above, many officials commented
that data collection activities generally are not amenable for use in mass balance or
ecosystem studies (Harris, 1994; Rodgers and Heidtke, 1993). First, data are
collected for different purposes: data collected are most often collected by state staff
to meet reporting requirements under various environmental laws. Second, data is
often collected in areas of concern, or "hot spots", rather than to establish lakewide
characteristics. Also noted was the paucity of direct observations of water column
data for many of over 300 chemicals known to be in the Great Lakes system.
Also noted was the difficulty in accessing databases in a timely fashion. Data
bases are often inaccessible to the general Great Lakes research community for
prolonged periods due to proprietary rights and/or difficulties in finding or accessing
specific data files.
Finally, several persons commented on what they perceive to be insufficient
research attention and data collection efforts on understanding ecological processes
related to toxic substance exposures (ie., understanding the ecological significance of
various toxics).
-------
H. Lack of a Great Lakes vision
Our research led us to many dedicated people who are working toward the
goal of improving water quality. However, what did not seem to be apparent was an
institutions sense of the "bigger picture." Many persons viewed themselves as
working in the air program, or the water program, but not necessarily working
toward the restoration of the Great Lakes system. There was little sense of the way
hi which their activities "fit" into the larger picture. Since programs, and therefore,
personnel, are segmented by media (air, water, hazardous waste), one would expect
this perception. It does suggest, however, that the goals of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement may not be communicated widely enough across program lines.
The research has prompted a larger question regarding intergovernmental
cooperation. Namely, what is the optimal organizational structure for multi-media
work? How do we bridge the gap when regulatory structures are designed with
single-media requirements? Undoubtedly, state and federal officials are implementing
the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the hazardous waste laws to the best of
their abilities. Nonetheless, the single media focus has produced results that are
counter to an ecosystem approach to toxic pollutant control. Interviews with federal
and state officials suggest that limited resources are less of a problem than the lack of
coordination between programs and jurisdictions. Thus, the challenge becomes one of
tying the appropriate pieces of diverse yet important programs, unique yet necessary
databases, together.
It is interesting to note that most of the integrated work accomplished so far
has been through the LaMP program, RAPs, or site-specific projects. It remains to
be seen how successful a multi-media effort with the objective of defining toxic
reduction for the entire Great Lakes system will be.
I. Lack of quality control in some databases
In addition to the issues described above, data may be unreliable. Databases
such as STORET accept data with little internal error-checking. Data quality is
dependent upon the dedication of the people collecting and entering data hi the
database. Error checking in STORET is limited to range checking for extreme
values. Even with the best data collection efforts, however, methods vary among
states and among federal agencies. Therefore, datasets may not be comparable and
the researcher must contact the original investigator that produced the data to
determine the extent to which the data are quality controlled.
10
-------
Recognition of this issue has prompted the remodernization of STORET and of
the USGS database, the National Water Information System. EPA officials believe
that the new system will provide greater quality assurance, because it will have more
documentation about the way data were collected. However, historical data will still
have quality control problems.
11
-------
IV. Recommendations:
Although the research represents only an initial attempt at understanding toxic
substances reduction efforts at the federal and state levels, a few recommendations
seem apparent from the findings. These recommendations, based on the research,
should be considered as preliminary ones. Continued research would refine or
perhaps alter this list.
A. Continue and expand efforts to increase interjurisdictional cooperation
One finding from this research is that it is difficult to use the databases that
exist to describe trends in water quality, relative toxic substances contribution of point
and non-point sources, groundwater quality or the contribution of toxic substances
loading from air or sediments. In order to be more effective, interjurisdictional
cooperation and collaboration should increase. Ideally, Congress can recognize
interjurisdictional needs in statutory language that establishes and funds an
interjurisdictional unit. Absent congressional support, interjurisdictional cooperation
must come as a result of a shared vision by policy makers, agency staff and interested
others.
The research has identified a few groups that are dedicated to the goal of
interjurisdictional collaboration in data collection. The most notable national group is
the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM). It appears
that the ITFM has established some important foundations for working cooperatively
and for increasing the quality and consistency in agency data collection efforts.
However, the task force is a temporary body with no statutory authority. Given the
difficulty of using existing databases, it is important that the dialog and the structure
established by the ITFM continue.
The Great Lakes National Program Office through the Great Lakes Toxics
Reduction Effort is another entity that may facilitate interagency or interjurisdictional
cooperation. The Toxic Reduction Effort has already crossed media lines, with staff
integrating water, air and hazardous waste programs. The suggested formation of a
Great Lakes Executive Council to serve as a coordinating body between the EPA and
the Great Lake states may promote collaborative efforts at data collection.
Interjurisdictional cooperation should not only limited to national efforts.
Interagency cooperation between programs within a state is important. Many state
officials that we contacted in media specific programs were only marginally
acquainted with monitoring efforts in other media programs.
Even so, the existence of bureaucratic structures will not guarantee
improvements in programmatic activity or data management, collection, consistency
or methodologies. In fact, additional bureaucratic units may make the goal of
12
-------
cooperation more difficult by adding additional entities or clearance points. Every
effort must be made to streamline the process and facilitate cooperative efforts, even
at the potential expense of non-essential, but traditional activities.
This suggests that policy-makers concerned about the Great Lakes should
encourage creative use of the data that exist, but also encourage collaborative, multi-
jurisdictional programs that leverage scarce resources to accomplish the goal of
healthier ecosystems. This encouragement from policy-makers should include
incentives to build and maintain cooperative working relationships among and between
jurisdictional units.
B. Expand networking and data sharing opportunities
In an ideal world, a single repository would house all datasets and provide
information about and access to appropriate databases. However, the ideal situation
appears to be a distant hope rather than a present reality. Given that, it is important
that the people that are involved in improving water quality be connected in ways that
will facility collaboration and communication. The GLIN and other efforts are
potentially appealing. However, networking only works when people use the system.
People will use the system when they are trained and when the system provides
meaningful information. Thus, agency administrators should support efforts by staff
to seek training and resources in order to effectively use GLIN and other networks.
Because the EPA is responsible for many important databases and is working
on facilitating the use of data, the agency plays a crucial networking role. The EPA
should continue and increase its outreach effort to state, local and other officials.
Making data systems more user-friendly, improving data collection efforts and
increasing collaboration are all tasks that appropriately begin with the EPA.
C. Support efforts at increasing data consistency, quality and usefulness
Improving water quality in an era of fiscal constraints at the federal and state
level is a daunting task. Economic considerations are involved in decisions about the
extent to which agencies can "study the problem." Fiscal austerity, coupled with
increasingly complex water quality issues, make effective data collection efforts even
more crucial.
However, databases currently under a variety of programs are not amenable to
being user-friendly decision-making tools. Comprehensive databases in water,
hazardous waste and air regulatory programs are often designed for compliance
monitoring, not for strategic planning. Because data are collected principally for
administrative purposes, they are of limited value for future planning. Thus, the
challenge becomes one of making the data more useful and designing data collection
to serve more than just a single administrative purpose.
13
-------
In the short term, it may be that the task is too enormous at the national level,
or even for the Great Lakes system taken as a whole. However, it seems possible
that multi-purpose data collection can begin at the watershed level. State, federal and
local officials can collaborate on collecting information of mutual interest, which may
include cost sharing of sampling efforts and analyses, such that each agency receives
more detailed information than either could afford operating alone.
Collaboration on a smaller scale also provides opportunities for agency
officials to compare sampling methodologies and gain a greater understanding of the
databases of the partner agency or state or federal unit. The ITFM pilot project
described in the following section, as well as the Green Bay mass balance study,
illustrate the benefit of multiple agency partnerships in data collection.
D. Focus and leverage efforts
Given the increasing likelihood of tight state and federal budgets, the need to
work cooperatively, by coordinating programmatic efforts across and among programs
is important. Two suggestions are offered: First, program directors and executives
should look for ways to avoid duplicating efforts and encourage collaborative ones.
Second, reporting under the various federal-state cooperative agreements should be
streamlined and made more flexible when feasible, to allow officials to focus on water
quality concerns. Many state officials perceive their role in addressing toxic
substances to be hampered by what they feel are overly-burdensome reporting
activities required by the EPA.
E. Continue research of existing databases and programs
The research represents only a beginning. Much more needs to be done in
order to better understand the constraints and opportunities associated with
implementing the Great Lakes goals. Suggested areas for future research include in-
depth research within states by specific programs; continued research on data
comparability and limitations; research into the organizational, resource and/or
political factors that shape policy implementation in both federal and state agencies.
14
-------
Major Federal Laws and Programs
Related to Toxic Substances Reduction
This section provides a brief description of the laws and programs identified in
the research that address toxic substances reduction. An attempt was made to offer
the most pertinent information, rather than to describe each law or program in detail.
Data collection efforts, including some analysis of the databases within each program
are also described. Programs that involve the IJC are either briefly mentioned or
excluded from this section.
I. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Pub. L. No. 92-500) and
subsequent amendments, especially the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. No. 95-
217)
A. Provisions
The cornerstone of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is Section 301, which
establishes a broad prohibition against "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"
except in compliance with the act's permit requirements, effluent limitations and other
enumerated provisions. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) is the permitting system for point source dischargers established under
Section 402.
In addition to this permitting system for point sources, the CWA also requires
EPA to promulgate effluent limitations for new point sources, and to develop water
quality criteria for toxic pollutant. States which have approved programs assume
authority over the permitting system, and develop water quality standards for water
bodies within their borders.
B. Data gathering
As required by Section 305(b) of the CWA, states submit biennial water
quality assessment reports to the EPA. In turn, those reports are compiled and are
the basis of the National Water Quality Inventory reports submitted to Congress. The
most recent report was published in March, 1994, and reports information from the
state's 1992 305(b) reports (state data is for the 1990-1991 reporting period).
Section 305(b) requires that the states assess their water quality for attainment
of the "fishable and swimmable" goals of the CWA and report the results to the EPA.
States measure attainment of the CWA goals by determining how well their waters
support their designated beneficial uses. States assign one of five levels of use
support categories to each of their waterbodies (fully supporting, threatened, partially
supporting, not supporting or not attainable). If possible, states determine the level of
15
-------
use support by comparing monitoring data with numeric criteria. If monitoring data
are not available, states may use qualitative information.
1. Specifics on the 305(b) reporting process
The 305(b) process is an essential aspect of the nation's water pollution control
effort, according to the EPA. The agency identifies this process as a principal
element in managing water quality programs more effectively.
The EPA produces a biennial guidance document for state preparation of the
305(b) reports. The most recent guidance was published in May, 1993 and will serve
for the 1994/1995 reporting period. In addition to providing the reporting template for
states to follow, the guidance document establishes goals for each reporting cycle.
The goals for the 1994/1995 cycle are to expand the use of biological integrity
reporting; improve the consistency of the information states report under the 305(b)
program; and, improve data quality and utility.
Interviews with EPA staff suggest that progress is being made in increasing
consistency in the 305(b) reporting process. The EPA established a 305(b)
consistency workgroup to improve the consistency of water quality reporting. The
group, meeting first in 1990, again in 1992, and May, 1994, recommended several
changes in the reporting requirements. Among the most notable revisions for the
1994 305(b) report include adding the reporting of new ground water indicators to
allow states to track trends in ground water quality, and expanding the guidance for
making aquatic life use support decisions with biological data.
The deadline for submitting the 1994 305(b) reports was April 1, 1994.
However, according to our research, only one state (New York) had finalized its 1994
report as of July 15, 1994.
2. 1994 305(b) contents
In addition to an executive summary and narrative description of a state's
water quality trends, the 305 (b) guidance requires that the following information be
reported:
A. Surface water assessment
1. Surface water monitoring program
States must describe their surface water monitoring programs, including the
basic information on monitoring design (number of stations, parameters, frequency of
measurements, objectives of the monitoring). Any intensive surveys, including basin-
specific programs should be reported. Toxics monitoring programs, as well as
16
-------
biological monitoring programs and fish tissue, sediment and shellfish programs
should be included as part of the surface water assessment.
States establish monitoring programs for their own assessments and to comply
with the 305(b) reporting requirements. EPA's Basic Water Monitoring Program
(1978) distinguishes four types of water quality monitoring: 1) ambient monitoring;
2) intensive surveys; 3) effluent monitoring and 4) biological monitoring.
2. Assessment methodology and summary data
States should provide information on the data-collection methods used, data
sources (monitoring or evaluative data), and identification of organizational units that
make decisions about designated uses. The decision to assign waterbodies to different
use support categories should be explained. States should also explain any biases
within the report. For example, many states monitor areas of concern more closely
than other areas, which results in a small percentage of total waters assessed.
3. Water quality summary
States must submit summary statistics on designate use support and suspected
causes of impairment for each type of waterbody (rivers, lakes, coastal waters and the
Great Lakes).
4. Section 303(d) waters
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify, establish a priority
ranking, and develop TMDLs for waters that do not achieve or are not expected to
achieve water quality standards after the implementation of required controls. As
mentioned earlier, the WBS has been updated to facilitate state reporting of 303(d)
information.
5. Rivers and streams water quality assessment
This was created as a new chapter for the 1994 reports, but no additional
reports are required.
States report summaries of designated use support in rivers and streams in two
tables: a table combining uses into an overall assessment; and, a table listing
individual designated uses.
17
-------
6. Lakes water quality assessment
a. summary statistics
States report summary statistics in tables that are similar to those created for
rivers and streams. Additional information is supplied on the relative assessment of
non-point and point sources contributions for lakes which do not fully support
designated uses.
b. the Clean Lakes Program
Section 314(a)(4) establishes a grant program for states that have significant
public lakes. States report biennially to EPA regional Clean Lakes Coordinators to
determine eligibility for Clean Lakes funding. States may enter into cooperative
agreements to conduct "lake water quality assessments." Lake water quality
assessments determine the trophic status of significant publicly owned lakes by trophic
class (dystrophic, oligotrophic, mesotrophic, eutrophic, hypertrophic) and by area.
States also report various lake rehabilitation techniques, including in-lake treatments
and watershed treatments.
If not reported in public health, aquatic life concerns, toxic effects on lakes are
reported within this section. Lake specific information may be submitted on a
computer disk or as a hard-copy appendix to the 305(b) report.
7. Estuary and Coastal assessment
States should report on Great Lakes case studies, as well as information on
eutrophication, habitat modification, and any changes in living resources in the Great
Lakes coastline.
Data of particular interest include data collected under the National Coastal
Monitoring Act of 1992, which established the basis for a comprehensive national
monitoring programs for coastal ecosystems. Any activities under the Great Lake
Program are reported in this section.
8. Wetlands assessment
B. Ground water assessment
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs
States are required to complete two tables for ground water under Section
305(b) reporting requirements. The first identifies major sources of ground water
18
-------
contamination by using a qualitative ranking; the second identifies major ground water
contaminants, as well as a list of contaminants that the state monitors.
Additionally, the state must submit the number of MCL exceedances for
ground water-based or partial ground water-supplied public water systems. This
includes a reporting of the number of systems that have local Wellhead Protection
Programs in place.
This is an emerging area for data collection, and more needs to be done in
gathering information about the quality of ground water. For example, most data
reports on MCLs of treated, rather than raw water. Thus, MCL data alone do not
represent the true quality of the ground water. Also, MCL exceedances are not
measured for noncommunity water systems, nor are data usually available for specific
wellheads or wellfields.
C. Water pollution control programs
1. Point source polluters
2. Non-point source polluters
3. Cost-benefit assessment
4. Specific state concerns or recommendations
C. Databases available under the CWA
Following is a description of database systems used in implementing the CWA.
For a more complete list of federal databases that may be useful in analyzing water
quality and environmental effects of pollutants in waterbodies, refer to Appendix B:
1. The Waterbody System:
To improve data consistency and usefulness, simplify preparation of the state
reports under the CWA, and provide a management tool for states, EPA developed a
computerized data system, the Waterbody System (WBS), to manage the waterbody-
specific portion of the 305(b) information.
An updated version of the WBS was provided to states in 1993 for the 1994
reporting period. The new version (WBS version 3.1) modifies the WBS to track
303(d)/total maximum daily loads (TMDL) lists as well as 305(b) assessments.
19
-------
States transmit their WBS datasets in electronic form to the EPA National and
Regional WBS Coordinators. The WBS dataset differs from other databases in that
the WBS does not contain raw data. The WBS contains use support assessment
information resulting from an analysis of raw monitoring data from the states. Thus,
while WBS is a national database system, it reports only assessment data that states
provide in order to complete the tables required by the Section 305(b) guidelines.
State staff entering data on the WBS report that the data is inconsistent, and
that this inconsistency exists not only among states, but also within state reporting
districts. Persons who gather the data have different ways of assessing it, and
therefore, may arrive at different conclusions. Although a consistency workgroup
was formed in 1990, at least some state officials remain skeptical about the possibility
of consistent reporting among Great Lakes states.
Not all Great Lakes states use the WBS. Wisconsin and Ohio report all state
information on WBS, but Michigan uses WBS to report only its lakes data. Indiana,
Minnesota and New York use their own database system.
2. The STORET System:
The STORET System is a computerized database utility maintained by the
EPA for the STOrage and RETreival of parametric data pertaining to the quality of
the waterways within the United States. It is a national database that predates the
CWA. States, as well as federal agencies, enter raw data into the STORET system
by agency code. The material can be retrieved by the state or federal agency and
used to determine baselines for water quality. The repository for STORET is in the
EPA's National Computer Center in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina,
although the data is available by remote access.
STORET's two largest component systems are the Water Quality System
(WQS) (which manages the Water Quality File) and the BIOS Field Survey System.
The WQS parameters are organized into categories such as organic, pesticides or
metals and contains geographic data elements about sample sites, as well as data on
physical characteristics and chemical constituents of the water and soil. The BIOS
serves as EPA's national biological information management system. It contains data
on the distribution, abundance and physical condition of aquatic organisms.
STORET is an old data system that contains a vast amount of water quality
data. It was built in 1965 to be used on a mainframe computer, and has not
undergone major revisions. The system has some limits. One limitation is the
number of chemicals that are measured. For any given location, STORET data may
not include critical pollutants. For example, only metals and PCB data were available
20
-------
for the Lake Michigan Basin. There were no ambient stream data for other LaMP
pollutants of concern found within the Lake Michigan STORE! (Graettinger, 1994).
Additionally, it is not accurate to characterize STORET as a database that
yields definitive information about water quality. The data in STORET are collected
and stored by agencies for individual purposes. State and other agencies are not
required under any regulatory structure to produce particular datasets (number of
samples, location of samples, etc.) States determine the location of the sampling
stations, and may choose to take more samples at an area of concern and less in other
locations.
While useful in monitoring changes in that particular area, the data become
less useful in determining changes in the whole waterbody. Many of the data
collected and input into the STORET system are project specific. Persons interviewed
cautioned against the use of intensive survey data in STORET for purposes other than
the original survey. Intensive survey data is often collected with a purpose other than
monitoring general water quality. For example, a station may be set up to monitor
for bacterial pollution. The purpose, in turn, determines the location of the station
(ie., relatively close to the source of the suspected problem). Similarly, stations
established to monitor for dissolved oxygen are likely to take measurements more
frequently during the critical low-flow summer months and at dawn (USEPA,
Manager's Guide). In short, absent data collection requirements for the inputting
agencies, STORET does little to guarantee that the data is measuring trends in water
quality.
The reliability of STORET data depends upon the diligence of the agency
which conducts the sampling, laboratory analysis and data entry. The EPA has little
control over this process, with the exception of limited error range checking (highest
and lowest acceptable values) for a number of frequently used parameter codes.
Using the STORET data is also complicated because of the organization of the
current system. The data is hard to use outside of the original purpose for which it
was collected. A data set may not include data quality objectives, error ranges
around the data points, or documentation necessary for other individuals to use the
data. States are not required to report the reason for the sampling. Thus, the
purpose of the sampling is often omitted in the documentation, but may have
implications for the database. For example, samples collected with a broad screening
objective may be different from samples collected for use in an enforcement effort.
Finally, while accessing the system is relatively easy, requiring an agency code
to use the data, manipulating the database is difficult. Several officials interviewed
stated that understanding the database enough to use it would require training. Thus,
STORET is not "user-friendly" (King, 1994; Stroebel, 1994). Most current STORET
retrievals are done by contractors that are skilled in using the STORET system.
21
-------
STORET is undergoing a five-year modernization project which, in part, is
designed to make the system more amenable to use. A prototype of the new
STORET should be ready in September, 1994, and the system is expected to be fully
accessible by June, 1997 (King, 1994). A pilot of the prototype is underway in
conjunction with the Lake Michigan mass balance project, and seems to be working
well (Stroebel, 1994).
However, the new system demands more of the person inputting the data. In
order to address the documentation problems associated with the current STORET
system, more information is required at the time of data entry. This more intensive
front-end requirement could reduce the amount of data being entered into the new
STORET system. However, the usability of the data will increase.
Currently, no plans exist to integrate the existing data on STORET into the
new system, because of the difficulty of reconciling the old data under the new data
entry requirements.
Although beyond the scope of this report, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
is a source for additional water quality data. The USGS maintains a water quality
monitoring network, which includes stations located to assess the water quality of the
nation's streams, as well as relatively pristine basins. USGS data is routinely entered
into STORET. The USGS flow data file, an independent file in the STORET system,
is reported to be "widely used" and "helpful" in reviewing regional monitoring
programs (USEPA, Manager's Guide).
3. Permits Compliance System (PCS):
The PCS database is a database for the NPDES. This system tracks
administrative and effluent data for industries and municipal facilities permitted under
NPDES. Thus, the PCS database system has a primarily purpose of tracking the
compliance of permitted point sources under the CWA. The PCS database is separate
from the WBS assessment data or the STORET raw data, and is separately managed
by the Water Division permitting staff.
PCS stores information regarding a facility's location, its industrial category,
requirements under the NPDES, the date of issuance of the permit, and a facility's
reporting requirements. Because monitoring of effluent is required of the point
source, the PCS data can provide a general picture of point source loadings.
PCS data, like STORET data, is stored on the EPA mainframe computer.
Each EPA regional office has a database manager, usually one for STORET and one
for PCS.
22
-------
For any facility, three potential reporting methods exist: a facility may report
an average concentration value and average flow value; a facility may report an
average quantity (a daily/monthly load value for a specific parameter); or, if no
average quantity or concentration data exists, then the monthly high daily maximum
concentration value is used with the average flow value.
Some limitations of PCS were identified in the research. One limitation
related to the purpose of the monitoring. The facility is required to monitor and
report only those pollutants identified under the NPDES permit, permits which may
not include monitoring requirements for all toxic substances. For example, most
facilities in the Great Lakes do not have regular monitoring requirements for the
LaMP critical pollutants (Graettinger, 1994).
Periodic, supplemental permit requirements occurring during permit issuance
or re-issuance may address this issue. More information may be required of point
sources, such as scanning for priority pollutants. However, historic information about
the contribution of that point source will not be available.
Additionally, the PCS database does not provide information about combined
sewer overflows, and has little data about point source pretreatment of effluent going
into sewer systems. The NPDES permit reporting requirements apply only to the
publicly owned treatment work (POTW). The POTW monitors the water leaving the
facility, and may not be able to determine the source of toxic substances entering the
system for treatment.
Finally, the PCS system, as a compliance and enforcement tool, does not track
non-point sources of toxic substances and other pollutants into any water body.
The PCS database, because of the self-reporting requirement of effluent by
point sources, contains a great deal of information about the contribution of point
source effluent into a waterbody. Because of limitations described above, PCS does
not capture a complete picture of water quality or toxic loading in the Great Lakes.
Storm water
The 1987 amendments to the CWA, Section 402, require EPA to establish a
comprehensive, two-phase approach for controlling storm water discharges. In Phase
I, the CWA required EPA to develop NPDES permit application requirements for
large (over 250,000 population) and medium (100,000 to 250,000 population) sized
municipal storm sewer systems, as well as storm water discharges associated with
industrial activity.
23
-------
D. Implementation responsibility
States with programs approved by the EPA have implementation responsibility.
However, the EPA retains authority to veto permits, set water quality criteria, and
enforce the act. The EPA also establishes the reporting parameters for compliance
under Section 305(b).
Regional offices of the EPA have oversight for the states within their region.
Region 5 coordinates the CWA with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and
Wisconsin. Region 2 oversees New York's program; Region 3 oversees the
Pennsylvania program.
Additionally, the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) was created
in 1978 to oversee the U.S. obligations under the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement. GLNPO's unique charge to restore ecological health to the Great Lakes
basin was statutorily recognized in the CWA 1987 amendments. GLNPO uses a
variety of authorities in fulfilling its duties, including federal environmental protection
statutes such as the CWA, CERCLA and RCRA, and the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement.
GLNPO conducts surveillance activities, including sampling of water, fish
tissues, and sediment. GLNPO also monitors air deposition through the Great Lakes
Atmospheric Deposition (GLAD) program. GLAD has sampled for airborne toxic
pollutants since 1988.
E. Analysis
Analysis of the success of the CWA twenty years after implementation is
beyond the scope of this project. However, as congressional debates about
reauthorizing the CWA continue, a few observations related to toxic substances
control are pertinent.
First, concern about toxic pollutants continues to be expressed. One element
of President Clinton's Clean Water Initiative, which was sent to Congress for
consideration as part of CWA reauthorization, includes greater authority for the EPA
to act in establishing numeric criteria for water quality and effluent limits on point
sources, especially for bioaccumulative pollutants.
This concern appears warranted. The National Water Quality Inventory
released in 1994 demonstrates that even the interim goals of the 1972 CWA are not
being met in a significant portion of U.S. waters, despite significant reductions in
releases of toxic and conventional pollutants by point sources. The EPA estimates
that almost 200 million pounds of toxic industrial pollutants were released into surface
24
-------
waters in 1990, with another 450 million pounds released into public sewers (US
EPA, 1994d).
Second, relatively little has been done to stem the tide of polluted runoff from
urban and rural nonpoint sources or to achieve storm water control in urban areas.
Much of the debate focuses on the relative role between state and EPA officials.
State officials argue for greater flexibility and more funding, particularly in watershed
and nonpoint source management.
Third, state officials are concerned that federal funds may not be available for
the Revolving Loan Fund for municipal wastewater treatment projects. The
uncertainty of federal appropriations has prompted some states, like Illinois, to not
include matching state monies in FY 1995 budgets.
Finally, wide variations exist in reporting, data collection and monitoring
activities of state governments. This complicates the ability to assess the status of
U.S. waterbodies. The national 305(b) Consistency Workgroup was created to
address this point.
25
-------
II. The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The United States and Canada signed the first Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement in 1972. The agreement identified conventional pollutant problems in the
Great Lakes basin and established bilateral commitments for cleaning up the lakes.
Amendments in 1978 changed the focus to toxic contaminants by identifying problems
and establishing obligations for cleanup. In 1983, a supplement to the agreement
targeted the amount of phosphorous entering the Great Lakes and establish reduction
plans.
Major changes in the agreement occurred in 1987, with a protocol that
required more emphasis on toxics from non-point, airborne, sediment and
groundwater sources. Under the agreement, the United States and Canada adopted
the principle of "virtual elimination" of persistent toxic substances to the Great Lakes.
The GLWQA also calls for the development of a LaMP for critical pollutants
for each of the Great Lakes. The purpose of a LaMP is to reduce both loading and
ambient levels of critical pollutants in order to restore beneficial uses of the Lake
waters.
III. The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act of 1990
Public Law 101-596
A. Provisions
The Great Lakes Critical Programs Act is, in part, a codification of the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative (GLI) that began in 1989. In that year, the Council of
Great Lakes Governors unanimously agreed to participate in the GLI. The U.S.
Congress, in passing the Act, incorporated a schedule for completion of GLI activities
and mandated the promulgation of water quality standards.
Congress also mandated specific deadlines for implementation of the Lake
Michigan LaMP, which included submitting a proposed plan to the IJC for review by
January, 1993. A final LaMP for Lake Michigan was required to be published and
implementation started by January 1, 1994. However, according to persons working
on the LaMP, EPA approval of the final LaMP has not yet been received, and
implementation will not begin until 1995.
In the Act, Congress directed the EPA to propose and publish water quality
guidance for the Great Lakes. The proposed guidance establishes minimum water
quality criteria and sets forth anti-degradation policies and procedures for waters
within the jurisdiction of the Great Lakes states. When finalized, the guidance and
the GLI will become part of a comprehensive approach to protecting the Great Lakes.
26
-------
By developing a regional program with common water quality criteria, the GLI
seeks to address two recognized weaknesses of existing U.S. programs (principally
under the Clean Water Act). First, existing programs do not adequately take into
account the adverse effects of persistent toxic chemicals. Second, the GLI addresses
the consistency problem among the Great Lakes states with respect to the
implementation of water quality programs, particularly related to the permitting of
industrial discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).
The last public meeting was held April 26, 1994. Final guidance is due March
13, 1995. States will have 2 years in which to adopt Water Quality Standards
consistent with the Guidance.
The GLI, however, has been criticized for its high cost to point source and its
failure to address non-point sources. All Great Lakes governors have criticized the
GLI, and the EPA has subsequently redesigned the second phase of the program.
The Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort (GLTRE) has been created with the
goal of achieving additional reductions in the generation and release of toxic
pollutants into the Great Lakes system. GLTRE emphasizes non-point sources and
pollution prevention, including air deposition, CSO/urban runoff, sediments, spills
and waste storage sites.
The product of the GLTRE, as suggested by the project manager, will be a
"menu of regulatory and voluntary recommendations and actions to focus current
program activities, foster cross-media cooperation, and use and improve existing tools
to achieve greater toxic pollutant reductions (McLeod, 1994)."
B. Lake Michigan LaMP
Congress further emphasized the importance of the LaMP process for Lake
Michigan by establishing a specific schedule for LaMP development in Section 101 of
the Act. The final LaMP was due by January 1, 1994; however, members of the
Lake Michigan LaMP forum believe that final EPA approval will not be given until
1995. Implementation would begin sometime after that date.
C. Data gathering and programmatic activity
GLNPO has coordinated the Lake Michigan LaMP, the GLAD, the mass
balance study, and the development of the Water Quality Guidance, the sediments
inventory, and other programs. See Appendix C for a description of on-going
programs.
27
-------
D. Implementation responsibility
Responsibility for implementation has been delegated to GLNPO. GLNPO, in
turn, has called for the creation of the Great Lakes Executive Council, which would
replace the U.S. Policy Committee. The Council would serve as the central
coordinating body and would oversee the implementation of the 5 year strategy
(Grundler, 1994).
£. Analysis
According to conversations with GLNPO staff, their review of data collection
systems by various programs led to the rather "dismal" conclusion that the data
doesn't exist to tie actions to improvements. While toxic loadings into the Great
Lakes system appears to have diminished over time, little data is available to conclude
that certain programmatic actions or regulatory requirements have caused the
reduction. The additional concern relates to the inability to assess relative
contributions of toxic pollutants by various pathways (air, sediments, groundwater,
etc.).
IV. Toxics Reduction Agreement of the Great Lakes Governors
A. Provisions
The eight governors of the Great Lakes states signed a 1986 Toxic Substances
Control Agreement which initiated more than 30 actions to control toxic substances in
the Great Lakes. The agreement was designed to ensure state cooperation toward
quantifying the loadings of toxic substances originating from all sources. A further
purpose was to develop environmental and economically sound toxic control programs
(Great Lakes Commission, 1993).
The agreement emphasizes cooperation and coordination among all Great
Lakes states to effective regulate and control toxic substances. Significant activities
include the development and implementation of RAPs, assisting EPA in the
development of the lakewide management plans (LaMPs).
B. Data collection
Conversation with a representative from the Council of Great Lakes Governors
revealed no systematic data collection effort for toxic pollutants into the Great Lakes.
The current effort of the Council relating to data management is to encourage states to
connect with each other through Internet. In this way, information could be shared
between states.
28
-------
C. Implementation responsibility
Responsibility for implementing the Agreement rests with individual states.
D. Analysis
The Toxic Reduction Agreement of the Great Lakes Governors is a policy
statement that represents the states' mutual interest in improving the water quality of
the Great Lakes. As such, any data collection efforts are likely to occur outside of
the Agreement.
It's interesting to note, however, that two RAP coordinators and one EPA
official believed that the Council was a repository for toxics data.
V. Safe Drinking Water Act
A. Provisions
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has two principal purposes. First, to
ensure that water from public water supplies is safe to drink. Second, to prevent the
contamination of ground water. The SDWA requires states to develop and implement
Wellhead Protection Programs that will prevent the contamination of the surface and
subsurface area that surround wells that supply drinking water to public water
systems. The 1986 Amendments to the SDWA established the Wellhead Protection
Program (WHPP). WHPP required states to designate Wellhead protection areas and
identify all potential man-made sources of contaminants within the wellhead area.
States with approved programs receive federal grants to assist them. States without
approved programs receive no wellhead protection monies from the federal
government, but otherwise cannot be compelled to comply.
The SDWA is not the only act that seeks to protect ground water. Both RCRA
and CERCLA were designed to remediate groundwater contamination, and the CWA
addresses public water systems as part of the 305(b) reporting requirements.
B. Data collection
No easily accessible source of information quantifies current levels of
contaminants in drinking water. No trend data is available, except for records of
waterborne disease outbreaks from the Centers for Disease Control.
Public drinking water supplies are required to monitor for chemical
contaminants and pathogens, generally in the form of quarterly reports. This
information is available on the Federal Reporting Data System. No attempt was made
29
-------
to look at this database, however, no individual contacted was able to identify any
systematic attempt at evaluating the data.
C. Implementation responsibility
Responsibility for implementing the SDWA is delegated to states with
approved programs. States, in turn, monitor community and non-community public
water systems for compliance with the National Primary Drinking Water Standards
(NPDWRs).
D. Analysis
The SDWA is up for reauthorization this year. Local governments have
lobbied hard against reauthorization because they perceive the SDWA as an under-
funded program that will ultimately cost local governments. Most onerous are the
uniform set of standards that are imposed on all public water systems, regardless of
the likelihood of the contaminant being in the water supply.
VI. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
A. Provisions
1. The Great Waters Program
The most pertinent part of the Clean Air Act is section 112(m), referred to as
the Great Waters Program. Under section 112(m), Congress directed the EPA, in
cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to
evaluate the atmospheric deposition of 189 hazardous air pollutants to the Great
Lakes, Lake Champlain, Chesapeake Bay and costal waters. As part of their
evaluation, the EPA is to monitor atmospheric depositions, investigate sources and
deposition rates, conduct research to improve monitoring capabilities and to determine
relative loadings. Section 112(m) also requires that EPA establish atmospheric
deposition monitoring networks in the Great Waters. The EPA was to report to
Congress every two years, beginning in 1993.
EPA's first report to Congress was issued in May, 1994. In that report, the
EPA focused on mercury and 14 other pollutants of concern (all of which are also
included on the list of pollutants for the GLI). EPA argued that while conditions in
the Great Lakes have improved compared to a few decades ago, the ecosystem is far
from fully recovered. Moreover, significant portions of toxic loadings into the Great
Lakes are coming from the atmosphere.
Great Lakes monitoring included five master/regional background states (one
per lake), which collected wet and dry toxic deposition samples. Monitoring began in
30
-------
1992. Complementary stationary stations and ship-based intensive collection efforts
are being undertaken for toxic loading and mass-balance work in Lake Michigan,
1993-1996.
It is difficult to draw trend data because little reliable information about toxic
chemical concentrations exist prior to 1980. Moreover, understanding of the extent to
which atmospheric deposition contributes to overall exposure is limited because data
is limited or not available. Data is limited for many chemicals, and most
understanding about relative loading comes from case-study, pollutant specific
research, such as the Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study of mercury.
The Lake Michigan Urban Air Toxics Study (LMUATS) was released this
year, and provides insight on the levels and behavior of atmospheric mercury in the
southern Lake Michigan Basin. The study, conducted in 1991, was a month-long
study of ambient mercury levels at three locations. The findings indicate that most
dry deposition estimates for mercury have probably underestimated the contribution of
air deposition to the Great Lakes.
Additionally, the ability to establish the particular contribution of various point
sources is extremely limited, for many reasons. First, complete emissions data from
major industrial point sources is not available for all toxic pollutants. Second,
airborne pollutants can travel great distances (witness the acid rain phenomenon),
even across other water bodies before deposition on soil or water. Finally, airborne
pollutants may be indirectly deposited, complicating the ability to allocate
contributions among point sources.
2. Federal Operating Permit Program
Title V of the CAA mandates EPA to develop guidance and minimum
requirements for a federally enforceable operating permit program for air pollution
sources that may be administered by state or local air pollution agencies. Major
sources, defined generally as a source that emits 100 tons per year of any pollutant or
10 tons per year of hazardous air pollutants, must obtain permits to continue
operations. Minor sources may be temporarily or permanently exempted from the
program, as long as they stay below the threshold emission.
EPA promulgated regulations for state permit programs in 1992; states were to
submit program plans by 1993. Federal guidelines require sources to submit permit
applications by November 15, 1995. Some states, including Wisconsin, have set
earlier deadlines.
Major sources must report accurate emissions data, including a complete list of
facility emissions sources, and certification of compliance. Title V is intended to be
31
-------
an all inclusive identification of federally enforceable requirements under the CAA.
Permits may be issued for up to five years.
Like the PCS, the operating permit program has the potential to establish a
comprehensive emissions database.
3. Hazardous Air Pollutants
Title III of the CAA contains provisions for controlling hazardous air
pollutants. Congress designated 189 chemicals and chemical categories under the
title, and deadlines were set for establishing maximum available control technologies.
A major source emits 10 tons per year of a single hazardous air pollutant, or 25 tons
per year of a combination of hazardous air pollutants.
Changes in Title III are predicted to be more successful in addressing the
emissions of air toxics than previously, primarily because Congress identified 189
chemicals and changed from a health-based to a technology-based standard.
B. Data Collection
1. Great Waters program
The 1994 report demonstrates that much more information is needed to fully
understand relative toxic loadings from atmospheric deposition. Current
understanding is limited by a lack of data for many chemicals, undetermined flows
into and out of waterbodies for many pathways and insufficient monitoring data
(USEPA, 1994c). As stated in the report:
"a complete and comprehensive inventory of the locations of particular
sources and the amounts of individual toxic pollutants that each source
emits to the air is lacking. This basic source characterization
information is needed to predict the transport of toxic air pollutants
from sources to the Great Waters and also to apportion existing air
pollution levels." (USEPA, 1994c:58)
Only a few case studies, such as the Baker et al. (1993) study of PCBs in the
Great Lakes contain enough information to draw reasonable conclusions about relative
loadings. Moreover, not enough is known about the cycling of toxic substances
between air, water, soil and biota.
Identifying sources of air deposition is also problematic, because sources must
first be characterized by type of chemical, location and emission rates, and then the
relative contribution of different sources to the air pollution levels at a given location
32
-------
(ie. over a waterbody) must be determined. Source apportionment is made more
complex because of ever-changing weather conditions.
Thus, both the lack of scientific knowledge and sufficient data sets hamper the
ability to understand the contribution that air toxics make to poor water quality.
2. Permit compliance (state implementation plans)
States are responsible for attaining ambient air levels for seven criteria
pollutants. States determine acceptable emission levels for industries in order to
achieve the national ambient air quality standards. Thus, point source requirements
and monitoring data varies among states.
3. Permit compliance (Title V)
C. Implementation responsibility
Like the CWA, the EPA has responsibility for establishing standards and
running the program. States with approved State Implementation Plans may receive
delegated authority.
D. Analysis
The CAA amendments of 1990 move the United States toward a more
comprehensive control of air pollution. With the Great Waters Program, Congress
formally recognized the major effect that air pollutants have on water quality. Title V
will produce a new comprehensive national database for major sources.
The New Source Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants program has been
improved to allow the EPA to set emission limitations for 189 hazardous pollutants,
based on technology-based rather than health-based criteria. This approach is
generally acknowledged to be a vast improvement over the previous program in
establishing emissions limits for a wide group of hazardous pollutants.
VII. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) and Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
A. Provisions
CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund, governs the clean-up of
abandoned hazardous waste sites and the emergency response to hazardous spills.
CERCLA requires the EPA to identify and rank sites for clean-up; identify potentially
33
-------
responsible parties; develop a feasibility study; and approve remediation at the site.
Monitoring after remediation may be in place for several decades.
The most hazardous sites (as scored from the Hazardous Ranking System) are
placed on the National Priority List. Once listed, the site is eligible for Superfund
monies. Remedial actions must be in accordance with the National Contingency Plan.
Potentially responsible parties are held joint and severally liable for remediation and
investigation costs.
B. Data Collection
Two databases exist that are potentially useful for determining toxic loadings
into the Great Lakes. The first is the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI was
established as part of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(1986), specifically referred to as the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA). Section 313 of EPCRA requires companies that employ 10 or
more employees, are within the Standard Industrial Classification codes 20-39, and
manufacture or process over 25,000 pounds of 300 designated chemicals or use over
10,000 pounds of the listed chemicals to report releases of chemicals into the
environment by media every year. They are also required to report off-site transfers
of the chemicals and efforts at reducing chemical use. Reporting requirements are
comprehensive, and included requirements to report releases to storm water, publicly
owned treatment works, landfills and surface impoundments, and accidental spills.
Reports are due by July 1 every year for the previous calendar year.
The EPA then compiles the self-reported release data submitted by
manufacturers into the TRI, making the TRI the only cross-media national database on
chemical releases. Thus, TRI provides a somewhat comprehensive overview of toxic
chemical pollution from manufacturers in the United States, serving as a public
"report card" for the industrial community.
The TRI was identified by state and federal officials as a potentially useful
database for establishing some baseline conditions. However, Region V EPA
voiced concern that the number of substances reported on the TRI be expanded. Most
importantly, concern was expressed to lower the threshold reporting requirements for
toxics that bioaccumulate. Other concerns include reducing the threshold reporting
requirement and including companies from other Standard Industrial Classification
codes.
The TRI is available on high-density diskettes or CD-ROM and contains
several hundred megabytes of data. Both menu and command-line searches are
possible on the CD-ROM version. The TRI is also accessible on-line, through the
Right-to-Know Network (RTK-NET).
34
-------
A second source for determining the contribution of toxic pollutants from
hazardous waste sites is the monitoring data required before, during and after
remediation of a Superfund site.
Use of these data sets is underway. One example is the effort by the Office of
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention to prepare GIS maps of Superfund
and TRI sites in an eight county region as part of the Southeast Michigan
Demonstration Project.
A study of loadings from Superfund sites into the Great Lakes is underway, as
part of the contaminated sediments activities described below.
C. Implementation responsibility
EPA is charged with implementing CERCLA. States may be given authority
for clean-up of sites within their borders, and must be willing to contribute 10 percent
of clean-up costs covered by Superfund monies.
The EPCRA required states to develop emergency response plans for
hazardous releases, and also established state TRI coordinators. The Great Lakes
states vary in the location of the TRI contacts: Ohio houses the TRI in the air
pollution control office; Illinois in the Office of Chemical Safety; Indiana and
Minnesota in the Emergency Response Commission; Michigan and Wisconsin in the
Department of Natural Resources; New York in the Bureau of Spill Prevention; and
Pennsylvania in the Bureau of Right to Know. Contacts with these officials revealed
different levels of interest in the use of TRI data to determine toxic loadings from
point sources.
D. Analysis
CERCLA is up for reauthorization in 1994. Major emphasis for reform rests
with the joint, several, retroactive liability scheme that has prompted numerous
litigation actions, not only by potentially responsible parties, but also by insurance
companies. Passage of a substantially altered CERCLA is expected. The TRI
continues to expand as more companies comply with EPCRA reporting requirements.
However, no information was available about the inclusion of additional toxic
substances on the list.
VIII. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
A. Provisions
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Pub. L. No. 94-469, was enacted
in 1976. Title I of TSCA authorizes the EPA to regulate or prohibit the manufacture,
35
-------
distribution, or use of chemical substances that pose unreasonable risks to human
health or the environment. Unlike other federal environmental laws that regulate
chemical risks after a substance is used, the major objective of TSCA is to
characterize and understand the risks associated with chemical substances before they
are introduced into commerce.
The authority of the EPA to require testing of new and existing chemicals or
to regulate the production of chemicals is not absolute. EPA is required to balance
the economic and social benefits of a chemical against any identified health risks and
regulate only those chemicals which pose an "unreasonable" risk of harm to human
health or the environment.
Manufacturers wanting to introduce or import a new chemical or propose a
significant new use for a listed chemical are required under Section 5 to submit a
premanufacture notice (PMN) to the EPA Administrator. The PMN contains
information about anticipated categories of use, production amounts, and employee
exposure to the chemical. The PMN must also contain any testing data that examines
adverse health or environmental effects of the chemical, either conducted by the
manufacturer or by other parties. The EPA has 90 days to review the PMN, at which
time the chemical substance is listed, the manufacturer is required to submit additional
information, or the EPA initiates administrative action to regulate, limit or ban the
substance.
While manufacturers must submit testing data in their possession, they are not
required to perform long-term toxicity or other tests as part of the PMN review unless
the EPA has issued a testing rule for the chemical under Section 4. Testing rules are
required when chemicals are designated by the Interagency Testing Committee (a
multi-agency committee established under Section 4) for priority consideration.
If the results of testing, PMN review, or screening of the inventory of
existing chemicals provides evidence that the chemical presents an unreasonable risk
to human health or the environment, the EPA may impose a variety of restraints on
the marketing of the chemical under Section 6, including absolute bans, production
limits, and restrictions on the use or concentration of the chemical. As of 1992, only
six chemical substances including asbestos, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, and
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) had been regulated under this section. PCB was the
only chemical targeted for regulation specifically in TSCA.
Certain chemicals are exempted from TSCA. Most notable are pesticides,
which are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act,
and food additives, drugs and cosmetics, which are subject to the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act and are thus excluded from TSCA jurisdiction.
36
-------
B. Data collection
TSCA requires the EPA to compile and maintain the TSCA Inventory, a list of
chemical substances manufactured or processed for commercial purposes in the United
States. Some 55,000 chemicals were listed on the original inventory; the list is
updated to add new chemicals which have successfully undergone the review process
described below.
Given the purpose of the project, the TSCA inventory was not reviewed.
C. Implementation responsibility
Implementation responsibility rests with the EPA.
D. Analysis
Despite its name, TSCA has limited applicability for providing authority to
reduce toxics in the Great Lakes. This is because of the "balancing" nature of the
statute, which requires the consideration of economic costs prior to limiting the
manufacture of a chemical substance. The EPA is also required to take the "least
burdensome" regulatory action in protecting human health against unreasonable risk.
To date, the EPA has issued regulations under TSCA to control only nine chemicals
during the last 17 years (U.S. GAO, 1994).
Moreover, the EPA has assessed the risk of only 2 percent of chemicals
currently in use in the United States, largely because of limited resources available to
conduct risk assessments. Extensive use of TSCA to control toxic substances is not
likely, given TSCA's requirement to first deal with chemical risks under other
environmental laws.
The exception is TSCA's authority over PCBs. The regulations to phase out
the manufacture of PCBs were specifically required under TSCA. PCB spills that
occur after the effective date of TSCA regulations (1978) are subject to TSCA
disposal rules. The EPA's ban on the manufacture of asbestos was overturned by a
federal court in 1991 as violating the "least burdensome" requirement in TSCA.
Finally, reporting requirements under TSCA do not result in a valuable
database for two reasons. First, much of the data cannot be disseminated because
industry claims that confidentiality is necessary to protect trade secrets. A 1992 study
found that more than 90 percent of the PMN notices contained some information
claimed as confidential. Second, manufacturers are only required to report health
data that suggests a chemical present a substantial risk to human health or the
environment. Thus, the burden is on the EPA to require more information.
37
-------
Other Programs and Data Systems
I. Programs related to contaminated sediments
A. The Assessment and Remediation of Contaminated Sediments
(ARCS)
The 1987 amendments to the CWA in section 118(c)(3) authorized GLNPO to
coordinate and conduct a 5 year study and demonstration project on assessment and
treatment methods for toxic pollutants in in-place contaminated bottom sediments.
The Great Lakes Critical Program Act extended ARCS by one year. Five areas of
concern (AOCs) have been designated as priority demonstration projects: Saginaw
Bay, Michigan; Sheboygan Harbor, Wisconsin; Grand Calumet River/ Indiana
Harbor, Indiana; Ashtabula River, Ohio; and Buffalo River, New York.
B. National Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy
Ten different federal statutes provide authority for EPA to control or remediate
contaminated sediments, although no single law exclusively addresses sediments. The
Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy was developed to streamline decisions
made about dealing with sediments, and to more effectively leverage environmental
authorities. Until recently, legal authorities under CERCLA (described above) for
sites on the National Priorities List and navigational dredging activity by the Corps of
Engineers (not addressed) have been the most commonly employed approaches for
remediating contaminated sediments.
Other statutory authorities include Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, which requires owners of hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities to take corrective action if contaminated sediments are present on-
or off-site. Section 309 of the CWA authorizes EPA to take civil action for
discharges in violation of permit limits, and EPA has used this authority to seek
sediment remediation.
The EPA and state agencies are attempted to move beyond these narrow
statutory authorities by establishing a comprehensive national program. These efforts
are most prominent in the Great Lakes region, as states and EPA regional offices
attempt to respond to toxic substances in sediments affecting the Great Lakes system
(Zar, 1994).
A National Contaminant Sediment Management Strategy was finalized hi
August, 1994. The strategy is a comprehensive, multi-media document dealing with
all of the contaminated sediment programs under EPA auspices. Pertinent parts of the
strategy include the following: assessment; prevention and source control;
remediation and enforcement activity; sediment dredging and dredged material
38
-------
management; research and demonstration projects; and, outreach to the public, state
and federal agencies.
The Water Resources Development Act of 1992 established a National
Contaminated Sediments Task Force, and required the EPA to prepare a biennial
inventory of national contaminated sediment sites.
1. Assessment:
The assessment portion includes the development of sediment criteria and
standard sediment testing methods, including sediment toxicity tests. Five proposed
sediment criteria were published in the Federal Register for comment on January 18,
1994. The EPA plans to develop standard chronic toxicity test protocols and toxicity
identification methods by FY 1996 (EPA, 1994d). The establishment of sediment
criteria should prompt additional data collection and eventually assist in determining
the contribution of contaminated sediments into the Great Lakes watersheds. Efforts
to inventory contaminated sediment sites and sources are underway; EPA Region 5
has completed a partial inventory available through EPA's Nonpoint Source Bulletin
Board.
The Sediment Inventory database stores data for several hundred contaminated
sites in EPA Region 5, and a national database inventory is being created. No written
information is available about the Sediment Inventory database, but information
should be available in Region 5 by the end of 1994 (Zar, 1994). EPA is considering
a nationwide sediment monitoring program and "intends to assure that sediment
databases developed by the Agency at the regional and national levels are
compatible." (Zar, 1994)
2. Sediment remediation in the Great Lakes system
Many of the AOCs identified by the IJC have contaminated sediment
problems. For some AOCs, contaminated sediments are a major focus. Sites where
contaminated sediments have proved significant include: Waukegan Harbor (Illinois);
Indiana Harbor Canal and Grand Calumet River (Indiana); Sheboygan Harbor
(Wisconsin); Manistique River and Harbor (Michigan); and the Ashtabula River
(Ohio).
Regulatory approaches to address cleanup of contaminated sediments have
improved recently, as state and federal officials combine authorities under Superfund,
the CAA, the CWA and other laws. Moreover, the EPA has increased its use of
supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) as a negotiating tool with companies
seeking to reduce environmental fines (Meyer, 1994). Consent decrees may require
dredging of contaminated sediments in lieu of civil penalties. Thus, while regulatory
and technical constraints are still associated with contaminated sediment cleanup,
39
-------
multi-enforcement authorities and the use of SEPs provide some additional leverage in
prompting cleanup activities.
II. Programs related to wellhead protection
The Wellhead Protection Program was established by Section 1428 of the Safe
Drinking Water Amendments (SDWA) of 1986. The purpose of the program is to
prevent contaminants from entering the area of land around public water supply
well(s). The program is based on the concept that the development and application of
land-use controls and other preventative management measures can protect ground
water.
Under the Act, states are required to develop and submit Wellhead Protection
Programs to EPA. EPA then reviews the program for completeness and consistency.
As of July 1, 1994, 34 states and territories have received approval of their programs
from EPA. Out of the eight Great Lakes states, 5 have approved programs: Illinois,
Michigan, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin. Indiana and Minnesota are submitting
final programs to the EPA in FY 1995; Pennsylvania is submitting its program in FY
1994.
The Wellhead Protection Program is preventative in nature, unlike other
environmental programs which are regulatory. There are several elements in
developing a wellhead protection for a community according to a Wellhead Protection
pamphlet published by WDNR (PUBL-WR-303 92) and a Wellhead Protection
Program Fact Sheet published by US EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water. They include:
1. Summary and purpose of the program should be included to provide a
discussion of how the WHP goal will be achieved.
2. Designation of responsibilities to develop and implement the program among
state agencies, local governments, and public water suppliers.
3. Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas. WHPAs based on all reasonably
available hydrogeologic information on ground water flow, recharge and
discharge, and other information that the state feels necessary to properly
determine the wellhead protection areas.
4. Identification of Sources of Contaminants within each WHPA, including all
man-made sources that may have adverse effects on public health.
40
-------
5. Development of Management Approaches to protect ground water well from
contaminants including zoning restrictions and other ordinances and programs
to minimize the chances of future contamination.
6. Contingency Planning for the provision of alternate drinking water supplies in
the event of well or wellfield contamination.
7. New Water Supply Source Protection from contamination in the area of new
public water supply wells.
8. Provisions for public participation in the development of a state's program.
According to Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, the Wellhead
Protection Area (WHPA) would encompass the entire recharge area for the well.
Often times, however, the entire recharge area for a well is too large to be managed
effectively, so a smaller area around a well may be chosen. The WHPA is then
delineated so that the highest priority contaminant sources nearest to the well can be
addressed.
State officials identified wellhead protection as an important, but challenging
activity. New York, for example, has over 20,000 delineated wellhead protection
areas, but only 1,300 completed potential contaminated source inventories (New
York, 1994).
Wellhead protection programs are generally considered as part of a state's
Comprehensive Groundwater Protection Program. Between 1985 and 1991, all states
enacted groundwater programs, with varied degrees of mandated and voluntary
provisions.
III. Programs related to air toxics
Regional Air Pollutant Inventory Development System (RAPIDS)
It is generally accepted that air deposition is a large contributor of toxic
substances into the waters of the Great Lakes, but information concerning the
behavior and travel ability of toxic substances is scarce. Therefore, data are needed
in order to determine appropriate policy and legislative options for achieving water
quality standards. One tool in this process is RAPIDS.
RAPIDS is a computer program which is currently being piloted in three test
states in the Great Lakes basin: Wisconsin, Indiana and Illinois. The pilot is part of
the Southwest Lake Michigan Urban Areas Air Toxics Emission Inventory. RAPIDS
is an integrated system which takes data from various databases and tables and
produces an accurate emissions figure for a given source area. The system is still in
41
-------
its development stage, but when it is complete, all eight Great Lakes states and
possibly Ontario will participate in RAPIDS. RAPIDS software should be available
for all Great Lake States in 1995.
RAPIDS is able to determine, based on data such as emissions factors, the
amount and type of emission from various sources, from a single smokestack to the
entire Great Lakes states region (Naour, 1994). This information is used hi modelling
studies to determine how much of the emissions will contaminate the Great Lakes
through deposition. Other data can provide the total amount of toxic substances
polluting the Great Lakes each year. All of this information looked at as a whole can
show the contribution of air deposition to toxicant contamination, the amount of
deposition from the Great Lakes states and conversely the amount not coming from
them. When RAPIDS is fully implemented, all state RAPIDS will be combined to
create the Regional Emissions Inventory. In order to ensure that each state's data
were commensurable, there is a protocol document which accompanies the RAPIDS
program which provides for standardized data collection procedures.
RAPIDS is being coordinated through the Great Lakes Commission and
represents a response to the 1986 Toxic Substances Control Agreement. The
development of the Great Lakes Toxic Air Emissions Inventory Protocol includes
point, area and mobile sources for 25 (eventually 30) priority pollutants. The project
is proceeding with grants from the Great Lakes Protection Fund and the U.S. EPA.
Several persons contacted were enthusiastic about the potential of the RAPIDS
system.
FV. Networking and other programs
A. GLIN
The Great Lakes Commission, funded by a grant from Ameritech, has
established the Great Lakes Information Network (GLIN). According to the
Commission, GLIN is an electronic database that will allow state, regional and other
officials to access information about the Great Lakes system. Currently, there are no
interactive applications on GLIN and researchers cannot query databases. Most of the
information on the GLIN is limited to documents, summary reports, and some
educational material.
GLNPO is currently working on loading databases onto a dedicated UNIX
server. Estimates are that the ability to download databases for applications in a user-
friendly manner is still a few years away.
42
-------
Once this is accomplished, individuals can retrieve information from various
databases using the Internet. It is not clear how much raw data will be available
through GLIN, because that is dependent upon the data collection agencies. GLIN
began May, 1993.
B. Other Programs
1. The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP)
In 1988, EPA initiated EMAP to monitor ecological status and trends and to
develop methods for anticipating emerging problems before they reach crisis
proportions. The EMAP is being designed as a nationwide, interagency
environmental monitoring program that will focus on ecosystems around coastal
waters, forests, lakes and streams, wetlands and arid regions (deserts, grasslands and
rangelands).
EMAP conducts statistically bases annual surveys to measure indicators of the
condition of plants and animals, the quality of their surroundings, the presence of
pollutants. The program is intended to be a long-term monitoring and assessment
activity that will provide information on the condition of ecological resources.
2. Great Lakes International Surveillance Plan (GLISP)
The GLISP was established during the 1970s as a framework for monitoring
compliance with the objectives of the GLWQA.
3. USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
and National Water Information System
NAWQA is intended to be fully implemented by 1996 and designed to describe
the status and trends in water quality of large representative parts streams and
groundwater. NAWQA integrates water quality information at local, study-unit,
regional and national scales. The USGS reports that this database will be well-suited
to investigate nonpoint source contamination and define, on a regional basis, the
relative contributions of major contamination sources. Measurements include
inorganic and organic constituents in water sediment and biota. During 1992-1995,
pesticides, nutrients and sediments will be emphasized.
The NWIS is the database for data obtained from the NAWQA and other
USGS programs. NWIS data are available from state offices. NWIS, like STORET,
is currently undergoing remodernization to incorporate relational database
components.
43
-------
4. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National
Status and Trends Program
NOAA sponsors a number of scientific research programs, including the Sea
Grant Environmental Research Program. In addition to research, NOAA is involved
in monitoring programs. It established the National Status and Trends Program in
1984 to determine the status of U.S. estuarine and coastal waters, related to toxic
contaminants.
5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Contaminant Biomonitoring
Program (NCBP) and Biomonitoring of Environmental Status and Trends (BEST)
NCBP determines tissue residue levels in fish and birds nationwide. The fish
tissue part of the program consists of 110 stations at selected points along major rives
and in the Great Lakes. Fish tissue is analyzed for organic contaminants (pesticides
and industrial chemicals) and seven elements. Sampling has been conducted on a 2-4
year basis since the 1960's. The program is under revision.
The NCBP monitoring data for fish can be obtained through the National
Fisheries Contaminant Research Center in Columbus, Missouri.
BEST is a monitoring program currently being developed to determine trends
in contaminants and effects on natural resources. BEST monitoring data from pilot
efforts starting in 1993 can be obtained from the Division of Environmental
Contaminants in Arlington, Virginia.
44
-------
Interjurisdictional cooperation and data comparability
I. Groups
A. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water
Quality (ITFM)
In April, 1991, the EPA and the USGS initiated discussions about how to
resolve numerous problems associated with monitoring water quality in the United
States (USGS, 1994a). The discussions noted that federal, state, and local agencies
use a variety of procedures to collect, store and report data. Because procedures
varied, potential users of the information had no standard way to determine the
quality of information collected. Moreover, reliable data and a national collaboration
among jurisdictions was necessary to achieve water quality goals.
The outcome of these interagency discussions was an agreement to establish a
joint task force to study water quality monitoring in the United States (USGS, 1994a).
The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) was
established as part of the Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, the
advisory committee charged by the Office of Management and Budget to carry out the
Water Information Coordination Program. ITFM is chaired by the EPA, vice-chaired
by the USGS. Members include 10 federal agencies and 10 state, interstate and tribal
agencies. The 1994 report lists representatives from Wisconsin and Ohio as members
of the ITFM.
In 1992, the ITFM discussed the need for a nationwide, integrated, voluntary
monitoring strategy that would enhance the implementation of "defensible" water
quality programs and management decisions (USGS, 1994a:i). The ITFM
subsequently established eight interjurisdictional, interagency subgroups, including a
data management and information sharing task group, an environmental indicators
task group, a groundwater focus group and a data collection methods task group.
Because the goal of developing an integrated nationwide strategy for water
quality monitoring is closely aligned with the objective of this report, several
members of the ITFM were interviewed. The following is a brief description of
pertinent activities and programs of the ITFM:
1. The ITFM is operating under an OMB memorandum 92-01, not through
any statutory authority. Under the memorandum, the ITFM was created as a
temporary body for three years. Because it identified the long-term nature of the goal
of interjurisdictional cooperation in data collection, the ITFM recommended to
Congress that a permanent council be established to continue the work of the ITFM.
The ITFM further recommended that a Council on Methods and Data Comparability
45
-------
be established to support the development and maintenance of standards, training and
other technical assistance needed in agencies collecting water data.
However, to date, no congressional action has occurred to authorize either a
Council on Methods or a permanent task force, nor is it part of the Clean Water Act
reauthorization.
2. The ITFM recommends implementing a national strategy to coordinate the
monitoring activities of all federal and state water programs, not just those authorized
by the CWA. Standards and guidelines would be developed for data collection
techniques, site selection, environmental indicators, data management and information
sharing. These standards, then, could be voluntarily adopted by state and federal
agencies.
B. The Lake Michigan LaMP Forum subgroup
In August, the Lake Michigan LaMP participants held a forum to discuss the
goals of the LaMP as well as implementation challenges. One of the identified
challenges was the lack of timely, quality controlled, adequate data. A subgroup was
formed to determine what problems are associated with various databases and how
those problems could be addressed. A subsequent conference call outlined the
potential direction that would guide the subgroup. It is anticipated that RAPs within
the Lake Michigan area will be contacted to discuss the way that RAPs have used
data, and what RAP data needs are.
II. Perceptions of state and federal officials about interjurisdictional
cooperation
Nearly all U.S. environmental programs require the efforts of state, local and
federal governments. Sometimes, officials perceive a high degree of cooperation;
other times, officials see little cooperation between international, federal and state
agencies that have responsibility for implementing programs.
As part of our research, we asked questions about interjurisdictional
relationships (refer to Appendix A) and after some analysis we have the following
observations:
Most state and federal officials perceive that the current U.S. effort at toxics
reduction in the Great Lakes is only "somewhat successful." (See Table 1.) All
states agreed that improvements could be made to increase the rate of success of
federal/state efforts. When asked what could be done to improve intergovernmental
cooperation, state officials identified the need for better cooperation and
communication between state and federal agencies; the need for less federal control of
state program implementation; the need for greater flexibility hi determining
46
-------
programmatic activities. Also important, according to state officials, was the need for
better definition of the roles of various organizations and agencies involved in the
implementation process. Both federal and state officials identified the need for
greater consistency among state programs.
Levels of support for the following organizations were classified as: very
supportive, somewhat supportive, or not at all supportive (refer to Table 2). On the
whole, EPA Headquarters was viewed as somewhat supportive; EPA Regional Offices
were seen as more supportive; the EPA Great Lakes Office was generally credited
with the highest levels of support.
Some state and federal officials had little contact with the IJC, and did not
offer their perceptions. Those respondents acquainted with the IJC viewed the
organization as somewhat supportive, although one respondent felt the IJC was not
supportive. The public was typically perceived as somewhat supportive or not
supportive; the RAP Coordinators were mainly viewed as very supportive with a few
indicating somewhat supportive.
Interestingly, state administrators were viewed as only somewhat supportive of
the program. Several state officials felt that the administration was more concerned
with the budget than with toxics reduction.
Overall, responses reveal that state and federal officials see moderate support
within their own agencies; and less programmatic support from the public or EPA
Headquarters. Very few people who responded viewed organizations as not at all
supportive, which indicates that communication and cooperation is there, but perhaps
needs improvement to achieve the level of support that is desired.
When state officials were asked what changes could be made to improve toxic
reduction efforts, several respondents indicated the need for more consistency between
states and across media programs (i.e. air, water, sediment). Also identified was an
increased focus on air deposition and non-point sources of toxic substances. Many
state officials identified the need for increased funding, more public involvement.
Respondents were also asked about the quality of intergovernmental
relationships. Opinions about intergovernmental relationships can be categorized from
good to fair. Both federal and state respondents perceive some challenges that need
to be addressed, including: less federal control and better coordination between states,
more communication between federal and state organizations and better role
definition.
State officials' responses, in particular, indicate a lack of trust in
intergovernmental relationships. State officials feel that federal overseers should trust
them more in implementing programs. Some state officials noted that if EPA's role
47
-------
in the regulatory/implementation process was better coordinated, more would be
accomplished in terms of toxic substances reductions in the Great Lakes. State
officials also believe that federal agencies should allow them to implement these
programs as they see appropriate, with less federal control.
Federal officials, on the other hand, view the problem of intergovernmental
relationships as one of a lack of communication between the federal and states.
Several replies from federal officials stressed the point of having organizations (states,
regional and localities) be aware of what the other is doing to prevent duplication of
effort.
Although attempts are currently underway to improve communications,
apparently it is not sufficient or hasn't had enough time to be effective. Better
coordination of what other states are doing in terms of toxic substances reduction is
also needed to achieve the goal of consistency between the states.
48
-------
n=18
TABLE 1
Perceptions about the success of federal-state
efforts at toxic reductions in the Great Lakes
very
successful
2
somewhat
successful
14
not at all
successful |
2 1
TABLE 2
Perceptions about the level of support provided in
implementing toxic reductions/water quality programs
EPA
Headquarters
EPA Regional
Office
EPA Great
Lakes Office
IJC
State
Administrators
The Public
RAP
Coordinators
very
supportive
3
7
8
1
4
2
7
somewhat
supportive
7
5
4
6
7
7
3
not at all
supportive
3
1
0
1
0
3
0
49
-------
State Programs
The following section describes the eight Great Lakes states. The information
contained herein was taken from telephone interviews, surveys and written
documents, such as the 305 (b) reports. The inventory of programs and databases for
each state is therefore not a comprehensive listing for each state, but rather those that
were described to us during phone conversations or contained in state documents.
I. ILLINOIS
Executive Summary
The State of Illinois' water quality has improved greatly since the 1970's,
namely along the shore of Lake Michigan. Currently, phenols, arsenic and priority
oroganic compounds are major pollutants in Lake Michigan. Other major sources
include atmospheric deposition and contaminated sediments.
To help rectify these pollution problems, Illinois has implemented several
programs aimed at reducing toxic substances in Lake Michigan. They include the
Waukegan Harbor RAP, the Intensive Survey of the Waukegan River and a sediment
sampling program. A WHPP is also in place to address potential groundwater
contamination. Illinois EPA (IEPA) has ah" standards which involves issuing permits
and ensuring compliance through the permitting process.
Data are collected through water sampling, sediment sampling and fish flesh
sampling to determine toxic levels in water and for fish consumption advisories.
Data from these programs are entered into the STORET database and will
ultimately reach the Great Lakes Information Network. Reports are also generated
regarding specific studies and are available to the public.
Future programs relating to toxic reduction include Remote Sensory Imagery
to locate point and non-point sources of toxic substances such as air emission sources
and unknown landfills. Also, leaking sewer drains in the City of Waukegan will be
investigated, findings of Intensive Survey of the Waukegan River will be evaluated,
and fish flesh sampling for PCB's hi Waukegan Harbor will be collected to determine
the success of the clean-up efforts of the RAP.
The Water Pollution Control Program Plan for FY 1995 lists several planned
activities related to toxics reduction in Lake Michigan, including finalization of the
Waukegan Harbor Remedial Action Plan Phase II report; continued investigation of
stormwater sources in Lake County; continued work with GLNPO. Long-term
strategies to facilitate further toxic substances reductions are also under way. They
50
-------
include implementing the Great Lakes Initiative, the Great Lakes Toxics Reduction
Effort, a mass balance study, and supporting stricter standards for Great Lakes
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs).
Seven other agencies and six other interagency committees have regulatory or
advisory roles in toxic substances control. The IEPA hopes to increase efforts to
coordinate various programs within the state.
A. Programs
1. Water
Program: Sediment Sampling Program
Focus: contaminated sediments
Program Description: Ongoing investigation of suspected areas of contamination.
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IEPA
Program: Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
Focus: Waukegan Harbor
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: initiation date unavailable; clean-up commenced in 1992.
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
51
-------
Implementing Agency: IEPA
Program: Intensive Survey of Waukegan River
Focus: Waukegan River
Program Description: field sampling crew collected samples of water, sediments,
and biological conditions to determine the health of the river.
Year Initiated: June, 1994.
Program Duration: unavailable
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IEPA
Program: Wellhead Protection Program
Focus: protect and ensure safe drinking water supply
Program Description: IEPA is responsible for implementing the WHPP for
community water supply wells, while the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH)
is responsible for the non-community supply wells. There will also be a cooperative
source inventory management program between the state and water supplier to
complete the program.
Year Initiated: approved by U.S. EPA in 1991
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IEPA
52
-------
2. Air:
Program: Air Program
Focus: toxic air pollution
Program Description: Permits are issued for air emissions and compliance is
monitored. A study is also being conducted to characterize toxic air emissions -
especially those entering the Great Lakes. The results are currently being tabulated.
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IEPA - Bureau of Air
B. Future programs:
Programs include Remote Sensory Imagery to locate non-point sources,
evaluate findings of intensive survey of Waukegan River, pursue leaking sewer drains
in City of Waukegan, fish sampling for PCBs in Waukegan River to determine the
success of the RAP clean-up, and the Department of Conservation plans to do
beach/habitat restoration in the Illinois Beach State Park.
C. Data collection:
Data are collected through fish flesh sampling, sediment sampling, and water
sampling. All data are entered into the STORET database system. Ultimately all data
are to be entered into GLIN.
Fish flesh data are used for fish consumption advisories. Sediment data are used for
reporting in the 305 (b) report and for rating the quality of water bodies.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
No, but they are currently working towards this objective.
53
-------
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*plants
*air
*water
*humans
*fish
*mass balance
Are the data easily available?
According to state respondent, the data are available easily through STORET.
54
-------
II. INDIANA
Executive Summary
Major areas that contribute to toxic loading in Lake Michigan include
industrial and municipal point sources, combined sewer overflows, and agricultural
non-point sources.
Current programs in Indiana include: the RAP, LaMP, NPDES, Toxic
Pollution Prevention Program, Watershed Management Plans, an expanding air
program, and the Steel Industry Initiative which is a voluntary workgroup involving
the state and steel industry that explores pollution prevention opportunities for the
industry, such as dezincing.
Future water programs include the state's Wellhead Protection Program
(WHPP) which will be submitted to EPA in FY 1995 for approval. Indiana's Air
program will be expanding its monitoring and compliance efforts as well as its staff.
Also, an Agency Strategic Plan provides guidance to the Department concerning long-
term strategies for toxic substances reduction. One area targets Northwest Indiana
and the Great Lakes.
Data are collected for water programs through fish flesh sampling, to
determine toxic substance exposure levels, water testing, and sediment sampling. All
of the results from these surveys are entered into the STORET database system.
Also, reports are generated from these surveys and are available if requested. Air
data collection efforts include monitoring stations, grab samples and annual emissions
self reporting. Some types of air data are stored on the Aerometric Information
Retrieval System (AIRS), other types are stored on a number of state databases.
A. Programs:
1. Water
Program: Remedial Action Plan (RAP)
Focus: Restoration of beneficial uses of Indian Harbor/Grand Calumet River.
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: 1987
Program Duration: ongoing
55
-------
Number of Personnel: 2 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $150,000. 50/50 state-federal.
Implementing Agency: Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).
Program: Lakewide Area Management Plan (LaMP)
Focus: reduce loading of Critical Toxic Pollutants into Lake Michigan.
Program Description: refer to LaMP section
Year Initiated: 1987
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 1 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $70,000 - Federal Clean Water Act Funds.
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA - GLNPO
Program: Toxic Pollution Prevention Program
Focus: toxic emissions reduction
Program Description: A locally based program working with sewer districts,
encouraging them to work with industry and communities to reduce their toxic
discharges.
Year Initiated: 1992
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 1 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $70,000 - Federal Clean Water Act Funds
Implementing Agency: IDEM
56
-------
Program: Watershed Management Plans
Focus: overall watershed health
Program Description: Look at overall health of watersheds and identify and eliminate
pollutants. Includes all Great Lake watersheds; some are part of RAPs and some are
not.
Year Initiated: 1991-1993
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 0.5 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: 70,000 50/50 state/federal
Implementing Agency: IEPA
2. Air
Program: Title V Permitting Program
Focus: air emissions
Program Description: refer to CAA section
Year Initiated: 1994
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 2.5 (4 by end of 1994)
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IDEM
Program: Voluntary HAPs reporting
Focus: HAPs emissions
57
-------
Program Description: Companies are asked to report their emissions of 189 HAPs
on their annual report form along with their required reporting of criteria pollutants.
Year Initiated: 1994
Program Duration: until this reporting is required
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: IDEM
B. Future programs:
Indiana's WHPP will be submitted to EPA in FY 1995 for approval.
The Air Toxics program is in the process of changing its reporting
requirements to include the 189 HAPs. Also IDEM is expanding air monitoring
capabilities. Although IDEM's sediments position is presently vacant, I spoke with
Robert Tolpa at Region V about Indiana's developing sediment program. The
ongoing sediment sampling and remediation project for Northwest Indiana is being
directed by Region V. The region is estimated to contain between five and ten
million cubic yards of contaminated sediments. U.S. EPA plans for five million
cubic yards to be removed by the year 2020. The Army Corps of Engineers is
assisting in the project with the EPA. The City of Gary, LTV Steel, Inland Steel,
and United States Steel have all agreed as part of settlements with U.S. EPA to
cooperate in the project as well.
C. Long-term strategies:
Agency Strategic Plan: published document that provides guidance to the
Department. One area targets Northwest Indiana and the Great Lakes; all programs
must comply and adhere with this plan.
D. Data collection:
Data are collected through fish flesh samples, sediment analysis, and water
sampling and is entered into the STORET database system.
58
-------
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
Efforts are made to include all information in the Annual Pollution Prevention Report.
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*humans
*air
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
*mass balances (as part of LaMP)
Are data easily available?
State officials answered "no", but they are hiring a data management specialist to
better coordinate their data storage.
59
-------
IV. MICHIGAN
Executive Summary
Overall, water quality in Michigan has improved, but Michigan recognizes
several remaining water quality problems including, fish consumption advisories,
atmospheric deposition, contaminated sediments, and combined sewer overflows
(CSOs), as well as point and non-point source pollution. Although all of the above
cause problems, toxic contamination is mainly caused from air deposition, point
source discharges and contaminated sediments.
Michigan's goal is for all of their waters to be able to sustain certain
designated uses, including agriculture; public and industrial water supplies;
navigation; body contact recreation, and aquatic life and wildlife. The waters of
Michigan are coming closer to meeting this goal. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) recognizes that for the waters not yet meeting this goal further
reduction of contaminant loading is necessary for all remaining sources. They
specifically identify atmospheric deposition, CSO's and non-point sources as areas
where major efforts are needed.
Michigan believes that for then* water quality goals to be met several areas
must be addressed. Most importantly is public awareness of and support for water
quality issues and regulations. Other areas of importance are consistency in water
quality standards and treatment requirements between states, expanded pollution
prevention efforts, technological improvements, and funding for new programs.
The primary regulatory tool used in controlling surface water discharges is the
NPDES permit. Michigan operates on a five year reissuance cycle. Other current
programs which address toxic substances reduction include LaMPs, RAPs, the
Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) and the Industrial Pre-treatment Program.
Recently there was an Environmental Assistance Division created within MDNR
which includes a Pollution Prevention Section. This section is responsible for
coordinating pollution prevention efforts within the Department. The Department is
also interested hi developing ways to reduce their NPDES permit back log, initiating a
permit or surveillance fee and increasing their surveillance and monitoring
capabilities. Future plans at MDNR include revising the water quality standards to be
consistent with the GLI Guidance which is due out in March 1995.
Michigan also has an air program which addresses toxic emissions. Toxics
Rule 230-232 Act 348 requires new emissions sources to use Best Available
Technology (BAT) to control their emissions. Also MDNR, for the past three years,
has set up a state-of-the-art monitoring program funded through the Michigan Great
Lakes Protection Fund. The sampling has recently been completed and the analysis is
nearly complete; the data has been sent to the University of Michigan where
60
-------
modelling will be done. Michigan is also very involved with the development of
RAPIDS, and has been the lead state for the past eight years. They are not one of the
three test states for RAPIDS, but they are presently unofficially participating in it.
MDNR also participates in a Mercury Pollution Prevention Task Force and the Lake
Michigan Study.
MDNR took the lead a few years ago in developing the Michigan Groundwater
Protection Strategy and Implementation Plan. The Plan describes ground water
concerns, comprehensive actions for the protection of groundwater, and types of
activities that may cause contamination. The Plan takes an interagency approach
whereby state, county and local governments work together to manage groundwater
resources.
Water Quality data are collected through fish flesh sampling, sediment
sampling, water sampling (for conventional parameters and toxic substances), and
through biosurveys. This data are entered into the STORET database system. All
reports that are generated are sent to the U.S. EPA. Air data is collected through the
annual report form, which requires companies to report their emissions of criteria
pollutants, stack tests and fixed station monitoring. Data are entered into MDNR
databases and into RAPIDS.
A. Programs:
1. Water
Program: RAP
Focus: Restoration of beneficial uses of the following: Clinton River, Deer Lake/Carp
River Creek, Detroit River, Kalamazoo River, Manistique River, Menominee River,
Muskegon Lake, River Raisin, Rouge River, Saginaw River/Bay, St. Claire River, St.
Mary's River, Torch Lake, and White Lake.
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 13 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $780,000 (5% state funds)
Implementing Agency: MDNR
61
-------
Program: LaMP
Focus: reduce loadings of Critical Toxic Pollutants into Lakes Michigan, Superior
and Erie.
Program Description: refer to LaMP section
Year Initiated: Michigan: 1987, Superior: 1992, Erie: 1994
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 4 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $240,000 (5% state funds)
Implementing Agency: EPA
Program: NPDES
Focus: eliminate pollutant loading into the waters of Michigan.
Program Description: Issue permits to industrial, commercial and municipal, surface
water dischargers.
Year Initiated: 1972 (delegated to Michigan in 1973)
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 32 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $1,920,000 (60/40 federal-state funds)
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: Great Lakes Toxics Reduction Effort (GLTRE)
Focus: non-point source pollutants
Program Description: see the federal section
62
-------
Year Initiated: 1992
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 1 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $60,000 60/40 - Federal-State
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: Industrial Pre-Treatment Program
Focus: control the release of industrial pollutants into municipal sanitary sewer system
Program Description: the requirement to develop and implement the IPP is
established as a condition of the municipality's NPDES permit. Pollutants released in
industrial and commercial wastewater can negatively impact treatment plant's
performance, its work force as well as receiving water and sludge management
programs. For these reasons the municipality is required to develop and implement
this program.
Year Initiated: 1988
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 11 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $666,000 60/40 Federal-State
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program
Focus: contaminant levels in fish
Program Description: monitoring the levels of contaminants in fish to provide an
idea of the contaminant levels in the water.
Year Initiated: 1986
63
-------
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 1 FTE
$/Year Budgeted: $380,000 State Funds
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: Nonpoint Source Control Program
Focus: nonpoint source pollution
Program Description: The goal of the program is to evaluate the impacts of nonpoint
source pollution on the state's surface waters and to control these sources by
implementing an effective strategy. MDNR is responsible for coordinating efforts
among local, state and federal agencies. Also MDNR has prepared a nonpoint source
assessment report and a nonpoint source management plan which have been approved
by U.S. EPA. MDNR also provides technical assistance to local agencies,
particularly concerning Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: State Revolving Fund Program
Focus: water pollution
Program Description: Provide financial assistance, in the form of low-interest loans,
to municipalities to construct sewage collection and treatment facilities and for
nonpoint source pollution control projects. There is cooperation between this
Program and the Nonpoint Source Control Program. This program replaces the
Municipal Construction Grants Program.
64
-------
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MDNR
Program: Wellhead Protection Program
Focus: protect and ensure safe drinking water supply
Program Description: Michigan has a voluntary program for water suppliers: it is
voluntary to develop a WHPP. MDNR does offer incentives and technical assistance
to those who wish to develop a WHPP.
Year Initiated: approved by EPA in 1994
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MDNR
2. Air
Program: Toxics Rule 230-232 Act 348
Focus: air emissions
Program Description: new emissions sources must use Best Available Technology
(BAT) controls
Year Initiated: 1992
Program Duration: ongoing
65
-------
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MDNR
B. Future programs:
Revising water quality standards to be consistent with GLI Guidance which is
to be issued in March of 1995. The LaMP for Lake Erie is to be initiated. MDNR's
currently developing their Title V permitting program.
C. Long-term strategies:
Reduce NPDES permit backlog and development of a permit or surveillance
fee, and increase surveillance and monitoring capabilities.
D. Data collection:
Data are collected through fish flesh sampling, self-monitoring permits, water
sampling for conventional parameters as well as toxic substances and sediment
sampling.
U.S. EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS) is used to store information
about issued NPDES permits, such as discharge criteria and schedules as well as
summaries of discharge monitoring reports which are submitted by dischargers
monthly. A quarterly report is generated to track permittee compliance.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
State officials respond, "no", but the 305(b) report deals with toxic reductions in
water programs.
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*plants
*humans
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
66
-------
*mammals
*birds
*mass balances
*air
Are the data easily available?
unavailable
67
-------
III. PENNSYLVANIA
Executive Summary
Although Pennsylvania has a relatively small border on Lake Erie, they still
have programs which address toxic substances reduction. Current water programs to
address toxic substances reduction include the RAP, LaMP, 33/50, a Non-point
Source Toxics Reduction Program that works primarily with farmers through Best
Management Practices (BMPs), and a CSO Program implemented by the City of Erie.
PDER's air programs are in keeping with federal requirements. They have no
special programs which address toxic contamination of the Great Lakes and no data is
collected concerning toxics outside of the criteria pollutants. Pennsylvania indicated
that their staffing was not sufficient for them to participate in many non-mandatory
efforts with which they would like to be involved.
To ensure the programs are successful, various data are collected. These
include: water monitoring, which is done routinely, sediment sampling in Presque Isle
Bay, which was performed in May of 1994, and fish flesh sampling to provide fish
consumption advisories to the public if needed.
Data collected from these surveys are entered into the STORET database
system. The sediment data will be entered onto a state database, but currently the
data is being put into report form by a consulting firm. Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Regulation (PDER), also maintains its own databases where much of
the information is stored. Various reports regarding surveys can also be obtained by
contacting the appropriate person and department.
Future programs regarding toxic substances reduction include the Great
Printers Project, a Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) to be submitted in FY 1994
for EPA approval and other programs that stress pollution prevention and point source
reduction.
A. Programs:
1. Water
Program: Non-point Source Reduction
Focus: non-point source pollution
Program Description: Work with farmers to reduce non-toxic pollutants and soil
erosion through soil management practices. For example, contour farming is done to
68
-------
reduce run-off and soil erosion. The Program is under the Coastal Zone Management
Program.
Year Initiated: 1991-92.
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: PDER
Program: Clean Streams Law
Focus: municipal sewage overflow
Program Description: the state works with the City of Erie to eliminate CSOs.
Year Initiated: 1989
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: PDER
Program: RAP
Focus: restoration of beneficial uses in Presque Isle Bay.
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: 1990
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
69
-------
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: PDER
Program: Sediment program
Focus: in-place sediment contamination
Program Description: In May of 1994, PDER in cooperation with GLNPO, sampled
Presque Isle Bay's sediments with GLNPO's mudpuppy, a specially equipped
sediment sampling boat. A consulting firm is currently writing a report based on the
results of the sampling
Year Initiated: 1994
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: PDER
Program: LaMP
Focus: reduce loadings of Critical Toxic Pollutants into Lake Erie
Program Description: refer to LaMP section
Year Initiated: 1993
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA
70
-------
Program: 33/50 Program
Focus: toxic substances reduction
Program Description: A voluntary program for industries whereby, based on the
TRI by U.S. EPA, toxic substances are reduced by 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995.
Year Initiated: 1990
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA
B. Future programs:
Programs that will be considered are those that stress pollution prevention and
source reduction. Pennsylvania will also be submitting a WHPP to EPA in FY 1994
for approval.
C. Long-term strategies:
More Great Lakes strategies, pollution prevention/source reduction programs
and strategies to ensure the health of the Great Lakes.
D. Data collection:
Water monitoring is done routinely; sediment sampling, and fish flesh
sampling are also part of RAP. Some of the data are entered into the STORET
system and other data are entered into their own data bases within PDER. There are
numerous reports generated from the data that are collected.
Industries provide the data needed to determine whether they are in
compliance. Some of the programs are on a voluntary basis.
71
-------
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
substances reduction efforts across programs?
Officials respond that the Department brings all data together to understand
what is going on.
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*humans
*air
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
*plankton toxicity sampling (part of RAP)
Are the data easily available?
Officials respond that data can generally be obtained in paper format. People
can call and obtain copies of the reports they need.
72
-------
VI. OHIO
Executive Summary
Ohio has, for the past twelve years, had an intensive and integrated surface
water monitoring program which, as of 1992, allowed them to begin to evaluate the
effectiveness of their water pollution control efforts from the perspective of
environmental results. This evaluation will allow Ohio to focus their efforts on the
sources which are causing most of the pollution. Ohio is relying more on an
integrated ambient monitoring technique for load allocations and surface water
assessments rather than the previous reliance on dilution based techniques.
Monitoring is key to the success of these evaluation efforts, especially for
newer areas of interests including non-point source pollution, urban runoff,
unregulated hazardous waste-sites, as well as others. Ohio's monitoring efforts are
based on cost-effective biosurveys that integrate chemical, toxicological and physical
analysis with ecoregional biological criteria and habitat assessments. Ohio believes
that a high number of sampling sites is necessary for accurate detection of
impairments to surface water. This approach will ensure the most cost-effective
allocation of pollution abatement money.
Ohio EPA is committed to an integrated ecosystem approach to water
management. This is demonstrated by their focus on water resources management,
rather than just water quality and by their Five year Basin Approach to the NPDES
program. They believe this approach assures that there will be monitoring data
available to support water quality standards revisions and pollutant limits for the
reissuance of NPDES permits. They would also like to phase the remediation of
unregulated hazardous waste sites into the five year approach with the hope of
fostering a watershed approach by all programs within the Agency that effect surface
water management.
Water data are collected through intensive biological and chemical surveys,
including sediment sampling, and then entered into the STORET database system.
Various reports are also generated from these studies such as the 305 (b) report. The
reports can be obtained by contacting the appropriate division.
Ohio's air toxics program consists of Section 112 of the CAA and the TRI
program, but nothing above what is required by U.S. EPA. Data are collected for
criteria pollutants through annual report forms. Also Ohio collects MACT emissions
data through self-reporting by companies effected by MACT standards. These data
are entered into a Fox-Pro data base. Copies of this are available. Data are also
entered onto the TRI.
73
-------
Future programs and long-term strategies mentioned include the Virtual
Elimination Program and toxics reduction efforts that look at non-point sources.
A. Programs:
1. Water
Program: NPDES
Focus: eliminate pollutant loading into the waters of Ohio
Program Description: Permits are issued to industrial, commercial, and municipal
surface water dischargers.
Year Initiated: 1972 under the Clean Water Act
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: OEPA
Program: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Focus: discharges of toxic substances
Program Description: Program requires people who discharge toxic substances to
report how much they discharge to the state. In turn, the state then sends the
information to U.S. EPA.
Year Initiated: late 1980's.
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: OEPA
74
-------
Program: RAP
Focus: restore beneficial uses of the following: Maumee River, Black River,
Cuyahoga River, and Ashtabula River.
Year Initiated: 1985
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: OEPA
Program: LaMP
Focus: reduce loading of Critical Toxic Pollutants into Lake Erie. (The program is in
its early stages now).
Program Description: refer to LaMP section
Year Initiated: 1993
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA
Program: Ohio Toxics Reduction Strategy
Focus: limiting toxic substances discharged
Program Description: Guidance on how to incorporate limits on toxic substances in
NPDES permits. Associated with it is the Ohio Water Quality Standard Program.
75
-------
Year Initiated: 1988
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: OEPA
Program: Ohio Water Quality Standard Program
Focus: water pollution
Program Description: Establish standards and criteria for what is acceptable in their
water bodies.
Year Initiated: 1978
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: OEPA
Program: Pollution Prevention Program
Focus: toxic substances reduction
Program Description: A voluntary program that encourages industries in violation of
their NPDES permit to investigate other alternatives to reduce their toxic substances
discharges. For example, substitution of less harmful chemicals for those causing the
violation. The OEPA staff visits these industries and does an assessment of their
operation. They also serve as a clearing house - they give names of other contacts
that can help them reduce their toxic substances discharges.
Year Initiated: late 1980's
76
-------
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: OEPA
Program: Virtual Elimination Program
Focus: reduce toxic substances loading into Lake Erie
Program Description: Reduce mercury and PCB loadings into Lake Erie by working
with the companies that are discharging these toxic substances. Mainly concerned
with PCBs.
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: OEPA
Program: Wellhead Protection Program
Focus: protect and ensure safe drinking water supply
Program Description: Ohio has a voluntary program that is implemented at the local
level: each public water supplier can voluntarily develop a local WHPP. Ohio EPA
provides incentives and technical assistance to the water suppliers who wish to
develop WHPPs. Water suppliers must submit a plan to Ohio EPA for approval if
they choose to develop a WHPP.
Year Initiated: approved by EPA in 1992
Program Duration: ongoing
77
-------
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: Ohio EPA
B. Future programs:
The LaMP for Lake Erie should be operational by September, 1994.
C. Long-term strategies for toxic reductions:
Great Lakes Initiative, Virtual Elimination Program, and Great Lakes Toxics
Reduction Effort. With regards to the GLTRE, more data are needed about non-point
source contamination. Examples mentionned include sediment contamination,
atmospheric deposition, spills on Great Lakes, and loadings from leaking hazardous
waste sites.
D. Data collection:
Fish flesh sampling and sediment sampling are being currently implemented.
Data collected through intensive surveys are entered into the STORET database
system. Data are also in the 305(b) report and other reports. These reports also can
be obtained by request.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
Yes, they are moving towards the idea of multi-media permits. When they
review the information, they look at everything: biology, sediment, and hazardous
wastes, for example. Officials feel the state has not been very successful in
incorporating air emissions data into the "snapshot."
U.S. EPA receives all permit compliance under NPDES, and many of the
programs they implement are under the Clean Water Act and therefore are sent to
them. Data are in available through STORET.
78
-------
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*humans
*air
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
*mass balances (to some degree)
Are data easily available?
Yes, data are entered into the STORET database system and most of the data
is in report form; copies can be obtained if requested. Various reports are generated
that contain data particular to a specific area or river basin.
79
-------
VI. NEW YORK
Executive Summary
New York has made significant improvements in their water quality through
point source control methods. The main sources and causes of water quality
impairment are non-point sources of toxic and conventional pollutants - they account
for 96% of Great Lakes impairments. Some of pathways include acid precipitation,
agriculture run-off, urban run-off, and nutrients from municipal point sources.
New York is the only state to have completed its 1994 305(b) report. The
report is very extensive, and identifies a number of state priorities. New York has 6
RAPs, all but one are being implemented. Other programs under way to help solve
the water quality problems include: the Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan
(LOTMP), LaMP, RAP, the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP), Niagara River
Toxics Management Plan (NRTMP), and Erie County Amnesty Collection of
Agriculture Pesticides (Clean Sweep).
New York has an Integrated Compliance Strategy System to monitor and
enforce compliance for all permitted point sources under the Clean Water Act, and
violations which occur in any Department of Water program. Compliance statistics
for the most recent quarter are 91 percent for major municipal dischargers and 97
percent for major non-municipal dischargers.
New York has identified a number of special state concerns for 1995. Perhaps
the most significant is the decreased funding for water programs. Due to lack of
funding, New York is able to review less than 20 percent of NPDES permits, and
estimates that it is satisfactorily fulfilling mandates for less than half of its 37 legally
mandated water program elements (New York, 1994).
Data collected regarding these programs is done in a variety of ways but
unfortunately no further information was provided with regard to how the data is
collected. Most of the environmental quality data are entered into the STORET
database system.
Within the next year the Lake Erie LaMP will be implemented and all of the
above programs include long-term strategies.
80
-------
A. Water-based programs:
Program: LOTMP
Focus: toxic substances reduction in Lake Ontario
Program Description: Provide drinking water and fish that are safe for unlimited
human consumption, and that allows natural reproduction, within the ecosystem, of
the most sensitive native species, such as the bald eagle, osprey, and river otter.
Year Initiated: 1987
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: four: USEPA, Environment Canada (EC), New York State
Department of Environment Conservation (NYSDEC), and Ministry of Environment
and Energy (MOEE).
Program: LaMP
Focus: reduce loading of Critical Toxic Pollutants into Lake Ontario
Program Description: refer to LaMP section
Year Initiated: 1991
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA
81
-------
Program: RAP
Focus: 6 RAPs focus on restoration of beneficial uses of St. Lawrence River,
Oswego River, Rochester Embayment, Niagara River, Buffalo River, and Eighteen
Mile Creek.
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: St. Lawrence River at Massena - 1988; Oswego River - 1987;
Rochester Embayment - 1988; Niagara River - 1989; Buffalo River - 1987; Eighteen
Mile Creek - 1994.
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA
Program: NRTMP
Focus: reduce toxic substances loading into the Niagara River
Program Description: Through appropriate joint activities and separate agency
activities, toxic chemicals loadings into the Niagara River should be reduced.
Year Initiated: 1987
Program duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: U.S. EPA, EC, NYSDEC & MOEE
Program: NPDES
Focus: eliminate pollutant loading into the waters of New York
82
-------
Program Description: Issue permits to industrial, commercial and municipal, surface
water dischargers
Year Initiated: 1972
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: NYSDEC
Program: Clean Sweep
Focus: safe pesticide disposal
Program Description: Erie County provides farmers and agribusinesses the
opportunity to dispose of, in an environmentally sound manner, a variety of
agricultural production pesticides which no longer can be used legally or effectively in
current operations.
Year Initiated: 1993
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: Erie County Department of Environment and Planning
Program: Citizens Statewide Lake Assessment Program
Focus: preservation and restoration of all lakes, ponds and rivers throughout New
York State
Program Description: citizen volunteers are trained to collect water quality
information about the following chemical parameters: total phosphorus, nitrate-
nitrogen, true color, pH, specific conductance, and chlorophyll a. Field perception
surveys are also completed and cross-referenced against instantaneous water quality
83
-------
data collected to provide a linkage between public opinion and measured
eutrophication parameters. These linkages are being used to develop phosphorus
guidance values.
Year Initiated: 1986
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: a cooperative effort between NYSDEC & the Federation of
Lake Associations
Program: The Clean Lakes Program
Focus: restoration of beneficial uses of area lakes
Program Description: The program is broken down into two stages, Phase I and
Phase II. Phase I projects are diagnostic/feasibility studies to determine a lake's
quality, determine possible remedies to existing pollution problems and recommend a
feasible program to restore or preserve the quality of the lake. Applications to the
U.S. EPA for a Clean Lakes project must be made by the NYSDEC. The proposal to
conduct a Phase I or Phase II project can be submitted to the NYSDEC by any
government entity or public water body. The following is a summary of the
completed and ongoing Clean Lakes projects:
Demonstration Projects: Washington Park Lake and Buckingham Lake, City of
Albany ($46,500 Federal, $46,500 Local); Hampton Manor Lake, Town of East
Greenbush ($50,000 Federal, $50,000 Local); Steinmetz Lake, City of Schenectady
($36,680 Federal, $36,680 Local); Tivoli Lake, City of Albany ($202,645 Federal,
$202,645 Local); Central Park Pond, City of New York ($498,000 Federal, $498,000
Local); Scudeder's Pond, Village of Sea Cliff and Glen Cove, ($50,000 Federal,
$50,000 Local); Ann Lee Pond, Albany County ($98,246 Federal, $98,246 Local).
Completed Phase II Projects: Hyde Park Lake, Niagara County ($894,667 Federal,
$894,667 Local), Delaware Park Lake, City of Buffalo ($3,741,500 Federal,
$2,000,000 State); Lake Ronkonkoma, Suffolk County ($335,572 Federal, $335,572
Local), Iroquois Lake, City of Schenectady ($290,747 Federal, $240,000 State,
$50,747 Local); Irondequoit Bay, Monroe County ($329,743 Federal, $165,000 State,
$164,743 Local); Belmont Lake, NYSOPR&HP, Suffolk County ($290,000 Federal,
$290,000 State); Saratoga Lake, NYSDEC, Saratoga County ($339,241 Federal,
84
-------
$180,000 State, $159,241 Local); Van Cortlandt Park Lake, City of New York
($88,759 Federal, $88,759 Local)
Ongoing Phase I Projects: Lake Champlain, NYSDEC ($234,860 Federal, $100,654
State); Ostego Lake, SUNY Oneonta ($100,000 Federal, $50,000 Local); Chautauqua
Lake, Chautauqua County Planning Dept. ($100,000 Federal, $50,000 Local).
Ongoing Phase II Projects: Collins Lake, Village of Scotia ($221,821 Federal,
$110,000 State, $111,821 Local); Greenwood Lake, Greenwood Lake Watershed
Management District, Inc. ($369,000 Federal, $240,000 State, $129,600 Local); Lake
George, NYSDEC ($367,390 Federal, $367,390 State/Local).
Special Grants: Water Quality Assessment Grant, NYSDEC ($50,000 Federal,
$21,429 State); Onondaga Lake Management Conference, NYSDEC (FY94-
$1,750,000 Federal, $750,000 State); Lake Champlain Management Conference,
NYSDEC (Annual: approximately $2,000,000 EPA, $857,143 State, $250,000 USGS,
$200,000 NOAA, $200,000 National Park Service, $250,000 USFWS, $500,000
USDA); TMDL-Mini Grant for In-Lake Sedimentation Study ($15,000 Federal)
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: unavailable
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: see above
Implementing Agency: see above
Program: Wellhead Protection Program
Focus: protect and ensure safe drinking water supply
Program Description: New York State classifies all fresh groundwater as potential
sources of drinking water thereby giving the basis of the state's wellhead protection
and groundwater protection programs. The primary goals of the state's Wellhead
Protection Program are to encourage communities to implement a Wellhead Protection
Program, either through regulatory or nonregulatory measures. Local initiatives are
offered to help communities develop programs.
Year Initiated: 1990
85
-------
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: NYSDEC
2. Air
Program: Air toxics program
Focus: Ambient air quality
Description: Guidelines for control of toxic ambient air contaminants. Currently this
program is guidance, but it is used as if it was a regulation. The program is based on
MACT and health-based standards
Implementing Agency: NYSDEC
B. Future programs:
The Lake Erie LaMP will be implemented in the next year. NYSDEC is
currently developing a multi-media pollution prevention program to address pollution
problems comprehensively.
Onondaga Lake Management Conference is another program that is currently
in progress. The goal is to restore Onondaga Lake which is a source of pollution to
Lake Ontario.
C. Long-term strategies:
The Department indicated that the programs previously mentioned all had
long-term strategies.
D. Data collection:
The Division of Water conducts intensive studies of chemical and biological
water quality in each drainage basin on a 6 year cycle.
Water quality data for approximately 150 lakes throughout the state were also
collected by the U.S. EPA and USFWS through the EMAP-Surface Water and TIME
86
-------
programs (1991-1993), but these data have not been released for individual lakes. All
of the data were collected and analyzed using USEPA approved quality assurance-
quality control protocols.
All data were obtained from the original sources in computer compatible form
and were entered into a database using Microsoft EXCEL.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
Individuals within the state synthesize toxicant data to varying degrees as part of some
programs. EPA receives all reports associated with the Great Lakes toxics reductions
programs.
Data collected provides specific information about the following:
NYSDEC Division of Water programs address information mostly in water as
it relates to humans. Information regarding air, plants, benthic, fish, sediment,
mammals, birds, amphibians and mass balances are addressed by programs with the
Divisions of Air, Hazardous Substances, Fish and Wildlife and their Office of Multi-
media Pollution Prevention and the NYS Department of Health.
Are data easily available?
Most of the environmental quality data are readily available through STORET.
87
-------
VII. MINNESOTA
Executive Summary
Minnesota has some of the most pristine waterbodies in the country. Tourism
is heavy in the state because people enjoy the many recreational activities Minnesota
had to offer, thus greatly helping the economy.
Water programs that ensure the health of the waters include: the NPDES
permit program for storm water discharges, Citizen Lake Monitoring Program
(CLMP), which works with citizen volunteers and local governments who want to
participate in monitoring and protecting their local waters, Minnesota River
Assessment Project - a four year multi-agency comprehensive study of the Minnesota
River and its tributaries, Lake Assessment Program (LAP) - characterizes lake's
conditions and provides some basic information regarding the lake and its watershed,
Lake Superior Partnership - Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) formulated
this policy, which encourages cooperation among government, businesses, educational
institutions, community groups and citizens with the broad goal of eliminating the
discharge of pollutants to Lake Superior, and the RAP.
MPCA has begun to assess the St. Louis River and has sampled
Duluth/Superior Harbor. Currently all remediation of contaminated sediments is done
through RAPs or Superfund sites.
MPCA also has air programs to reduce toxics substances deposition. Along
with fulfilling federal requirements, Minnesota performs air toxics reviews on new
emissions source permits and has formed a Mercury Task Force. Air data are
collected through the annual emissions inventory report form for criteria pollutants
and at mercury deposition collection sites. Data are used to assess trends and to
decide how to proceed.
Future programs emphasize non-point source pollution and toxic pollution.
Also MPCA is in the process of developing a sediments management program to
address in-place toxic contamination. State officials recognize that monitoring
programs will need to become broader in order to fully assess pollution problems. A
multi-media approach will need to be implemented in order to provide the data that
are needed to make sound environmental decisions.
Minnesota will submit a final Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP) in FY
1995 for EPA approval.
88
-------
A. Programs
1. Water:
Program: NPDES permits
Focus: eliminate pollutant loadings into the waters of Minnesota
Program Description: Permits are issued to industrial, commercial, and municipal
surface water dischargers.
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MFC A
Program: RAP
Focus: restore beneficial uses of the St. Louis River
Program Description: refer to RAP section
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MPCA
Program: Lake Superior Bi-National Program
89
-------
Focus: zero discharge for persistent toxic pollutants
Program Description: The program has two parts: the zero discharge and zero
emission demonstration program and a broader program that includes development of
aLaMP.
Year Initiated: 1991
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: 1 FTE - coordinator; 1/2 time Great Lakes liaison; 1 FTE
monitoring coordinator (currently unfilled); and 1/2 time special study and 1/2 tune
supervisor.
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MPCA
Program: Lake Superior Partnership
Focus: zero discharge into Lake Superior
Program Description: A public-private initiative with the broad goals of eliminating
the discharge of toxic pollutants to Lake Superior through pollution prevention and
other methods. Emphasis is placed on encouraging cooperation among government,
educational institutions, businesses, community groups and citizens.
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: MPCA
90
-------
2. Air:
Program: Mercury Task Force
Focus: mercury deposition
Program Description: the Task Force recommends that pollution prevention,
incentive-based controls and regulatory standards all be used in addressing mercury
contamination of water. They released their first report titled "Strategies for
Reducing Mercury in Minnesota" in July 1994.
Year Initiated: 1992
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: MPCA
B. Future programs:
Programs to be implemented in the future include, the Great Lakes Initiative,
the Binational Program, and the WHPP.
C. Long-term strategies for toxic reductions:
Pollution prevention will be stressed in the future along with specific controls
and regulations with regards to toxic reduction efforts. Also MPCA plans to develop
a sediment management plan.
D. Data collection:
Nearly 100 fish samples were collected from Lake Superior from 1987-1989.
PCBs were detected in most samples and two of the species were found to have
exceeded the PCB levels guideline. These two species encompass 80% of the
recreational fish catch and consequently all of the Lake Superior shoreline length was
classed as "not supporting" fish consumption use.
91
-------
Routine monitoring is also conducted on tributaries nine months out of the
year. Special sampling is also done, such as Lake Superior fish sampling and
sediment studies in St. Louis Bay. Minnesota also used GLNPO's mudpuppy to
conduct sediment sampling. Sediment data is entered into STORET.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
Yes, for two programs: the Binational Program and the Lake Superior
Partnership.
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*plants
*humans
*air
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
*mammals
*birds
*amphibians
Are data easily available?
Data entered on STORET are easily available. Some permit data are available
on the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database for NPDES discharges.
92
-------
VIII. WISCONSIN
Executive Summary
Wisconsin's vast number of rivers, streams and lakes makes it a difficult job
for their Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to assess and monitor these
important resources. WDNR is developing a strategic plan, Water 2010, to guide the
state's water-related activities for the next 20 years.
Other water programs the state has implemented to ensure water quality
include: Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, RAPs,
LaMPs, CSO program, WPDES permits program, a Wellhead Protection Program
(WHPP), a Pollution Prevention Program and a Sediment Management and Remedial
Techniques (SMART) program.
Wisconsin also has an active air program to address toxic substances. Their
Air Pollution Control Regulation covers over 400 pollutants and the standards are
health based. Wisconsin also participates in the Lake Superior Pollution Prevention
Initiative, a Mercury Workgroup with EPA Region V and a Virtual Elimination
Project with GLNPO.
Over 5,000 surface water, sediment and tissue samples are analyzed for
WDNR every year by the University of Wisconsin. Contracts are also out to other
labs to run samples for substances that the University is not capable of doing. These
data are entered into the STORET database system. Air data are collected through
continuous emission monitors at power plants and annual emissions inventory reports.
Data are stored on their emissions inventory database, which is currently undergoing
a redesign and will be on RAPIDS. Air data are used for compliance and policy
analysis purposes.
Wisconsin's Air and Water divisions seem to be collaborating on Great Lakes
issues. Air and Water officials went to the Great Waters meeting at the beginning of
August together, they have created an e-mail distribution list to facilitate
communication and they hold joint unit meetings.
A. Programs:
1. Water
Program: Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program
Focus: reduce nonpoint source pollution
93
-------
Program Description: implement BMPs to reduce nonpoint sources of pollution.
The entire state must adhere to this program by the year 2000.
Year Initiated: about 1979
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: WDNR
Program: Wisconsin Wellhead Protection Program
Focus: protect and ensure safe drinking water supply
Program Description: WDNR is responsible for conducting the delineation and
source inventory for all existing public water supply wells although management of
the WHPA is the responsibility of both the state and water supplier.
Year Initiated: EPA approved in 1993
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: WDNR
Program: RAP
Focus: restoration of beneficial uses of the following: the Milwaukee Estuary, Lower
Green Bay/Fox River, Sheboygan River, St. Louis River/Duluth Superior Harbor.
Wisconsin also shares responsibility with Michigan for the Menominee River.
Minnesota has primary planning responsibility for the St. Louis/Duluth Harbor
Remedial Action Plan.
Program Description: refer to RAP section
94
-------
Year Initiated: Lower Green Bay/Fox River: 1985, Milwaukee Estuary: 1991,
Sheboygan River: 1990, Menominee River: 1990, and St. Louis/Duluth Harbor:
1992.
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: WDNR
Program: LaMP
Focus: reduce loading of critical toxic pollutants into Lake Michigan and Lake
Superior
Year Initiated: unavailable
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implementing Agency: WDNR
Program: NPDES
Focus: eliminate pollutant loadings into the waters of Wisconsin
Program Description: Permits are issued to industrial, commercial, and municipal
surface water dischargers.
Year Initiated: 1974
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
95
-------
Implemented Agency: WDNR
Program: SMART
Focus: in-place sediment contamination
Program Description: SMART'S goal is to identify and remediate all significant
sources of toxic contamination of the sediments in the state. The program takes a
voluntary approach to clean-up efforts. It ensures contaminated sediments are dealt
with in a consistent and uniform manner, establishes sediment criteria values,
develops sediment assessment guidance, and developed an inventory of approximately
75 priority sites with contaminated sediments and wetland soils. The SMART
program is involved with several demonstration projects and works with federal
programs such as Superfund to ensure contaminated sediment issues are incorporated
in remedial plans.
Year Initiated: approximately 1988
Program Duration: ongoing
Number of Personnel: unavailable
$/Year Budgeted: unavailable
Implemented Agency: WDNR
B. Future programs:
A Storm Water Program will be implemented and Lake Butte de More will
have a remediation implemented in the next year.
C. Long-term strategies:
Push for Storm Water Program, further implementation of sediment
remediation and the need for statewide funding for contaminated sediment sites. The
SMART program is also developing a long-term strategy which includes identifying
funding sources and cooperation with the business community for sediment
remediation.
96
-------
D. Data collection:
Data are collected through the SMART program and entered into the STORE!
database. Wastewater permitting is done and is entered on PCS. Ambient loading
network for major tributaries to the lakes - data are collected and monitored for flow
and selected toxics and tracking problem areas. The data are entered into the
STORET database system.
Data are also collected about fish and sediment contamination. A new
database is currently being developed to deal with just contaminated fish and
sediment. The Waterbodies System is also used to store data.
Air data are stored on the emissions inventory database, which is currently
being redesigned as well as on RAPIDS.
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic
reduction efforts across programs?
Yes, this is the goal of statewide coverage and Geographic Information System
(GIS) layers to put together a big picture of what exactly is out there.
Data collection provides specific information about the following:
*plants
*humans
*air
*water
*benthic
*fish
*sediment
*amphibians (available on STORET)
97
-------
REFERENCES
Adler, Robert W., J. C. Landman and D. M. Cameron. The Clean Water Act 20
years later. Island Press: Covelo, CA.
Baker, J. E., T. M. Church, S. J. Eisenreich, W. F. Fitzgerald,and J. R. Scudlark,
1993. Relative Atmospheric Loadings of Toxic Contaminants and Nitrogen to the
Great Waters.
County of Erie, 1994. Erie County. NY Clean Sweep Demonstration Project.
Department of Environment and Planning, Division of Environmental Compliance
Services, Buffalo, New York.
Environment Canada, U.S. EPA, Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and New
York State DEC. Lake Ontario Lakewide Management Plan. Workplan.
Foran, J. A., 1991. The Control of Discharges of Toxic Pollutants into the Great
Lakes and their Tributaries: Development of Benchmarks.
Graettinger, George. 1994. Load estimate development in support of Great Lakes
Lakewide management plans. Unpublished report.
Great Lakes Commission. Great Lakes Commission Advisor. Newsletters dated
January-February 1993 and May-June 1994.
Great Lakes Commission, 1993. Great Lakes Commission 1993-1994 Work Plan.
Approved at the 1993 Semi-Annual Meeting of the Great Lakes Commission.
Great Lakes Sea Grant Network, 1994. LAMPs: lakewide management plans for the
Great Lakes fact sheet series 2a-d.
Great Lakes Water Quality Board, 1991. Review and Evaluation of the Great Lakes
RAP Program 1991. Report to the International Joint Commission. ISBN 1-895085-
25-X.
Grundler, Christopher, Director of the GLNPO, correspondence dated June 22, 1994.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Illinois Water Quality Report 1988-
1989. Division of Water Pollution Control, Springfield, Illinois.
Illinois EPA, 1993. Water Quality in Illinois. 1990-1991. Bureau of Water.
Springfield, Illinois.
98
-------
Illinois EPA, 1994. Water Pollution Control Program Plan Fiscal Year 1995.
Division of Water Pollution Control.
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Indiana 305 (b) Report 1990-91.
Office of Water Management, Indianapolis, Indiana.
International Joint Commission, United States and Canada, 1989. Great Lakes Water
Quality Agreement of 1978. Office of Consolidation.
International Joint Commission, 1992. Sixth Biennial Report on Great Lakes Water
Quality. Washington and Ottawa.
International Joint Commission, 1994a. Seventh Biennial Report on Great Lakes
Water Quality. Washington and Ottawa.
International Joint Commission, 1994b. Summary of Recommendations from
Commission Biennial Reports.
Keeler, G. J., J. M. Pacyna, T. F. Bidleman, and J. 0. Nriagu, 1993. Identification
of Sources Contributing to the Contamination of the Great Waters by Toxic
Compounds.
Lake Ontario Secretariat, 1993. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan. 1993
update. Volume 1.
Lake Ontario Secretariat, 1993. Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan: 1993 update
Volume 2.
Lake Superior Binational Program, 1993a. Ecosystem Principles and Objectives for
Lake Superior Discussion Paper. State of the Lake Superior Basin Reporting Series
Volume IV. Superior Work Group.
Lake Superior Pollution Prevention Team, 1993b. Lake Superior Pollution
Prevention Strategy.
Lake Superior Binational Program, 1993c. State of the Lake Superior Basin
Reporting Series. Volume II: Draft Stage 1 Lakewide Management Plan. Superior
Work Group.
Lake Superior Binational Program, 1993d. Appendices Lake Superior Binational
Program Lakewide Management Plan.
McLeod, Barbara, Project Manager, Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort,
memorandum dated July 1, 1994.
99
-------
Medaglia, III, T. J. and D. F. Mitchell, 1993. The Impact of the Great Lakes Water
Quality Initiative. Journal of Environmental Law & Practice.
Meyer, Stephen. 1994. "Extra environ cleanup deals increasing as penalty tool."
Environmental Compliance Alert. August 25.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1992. Water Quality and Pollution
Control in Michigan. Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, Michigan.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan's Surface Water Quality
Division Program Plan for Fiscal Year 1994. Surface Water Quality Division.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Water Quality: Water Years 1990-
199.1. Division of Water Quality, Assessment and Planning Section, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 1994. Strategies For Mercury Control In
Minnesota. Mercury Task Force, St. Paul, Minnesota.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1991. Draft New York
State Air Guide - 1 Guidelines for the Control of Toxic Ambient air Contaminants.
Division of Air Resources.
New York State DEC. New York State Wellhead Protection Program: Biennial
Report October 1991 to September 1993. Division of Water, Albany, New York.
New York State DEC, 1994a. New York State Water Quality 1994 305(b). Quality
Evaluation Section, Bureau of Monitoring & Assessment, Division of Water, Albany,
New York.
New York State DEC, 1994b. Snapshot of New York State's Waters January. 1994.
Niagara River Secretariat, 1993. The Niagara River Toxics Management Plan.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency Policy For Implementing Chemical Specific Water Quality Based Effluent
Limits And Whole Effluent Toxicitv Controls in NPDES Permits.
Ohio EPA. Understanding Ohio's Surface Water Quality Standards.
Ohio EPA. Citizens Guide to Understanding Ohio's Surface Water Quality
Standards.
100
-------
Ohio EPA, 1992a. Ohio Water Resource Inventory. Volume 1. Division of Water
Quality Planning and Assessment Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus, Ohio.
Ohio EPA, 1992b. Ohio Water Resource Inventory: Executive Summary. Division
of Water Quality Planning and Assessment Ecological Assessment Section, Columbus,
Ohio.
Ohio EPA, 1994. Presentation on The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative by Ava
Hottman, Assistant Chief Division of Surface Water.
Rodgers, Paul and Thomas Heidtke, 1993. Great Lakes Environmental Assessment.
Report prepared for the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement. Limno-Tech, Inc.: Ann Arbor, MI.
Sadek, M., 1994. A Selection of Federal and Provincial Programs Examining Toxic
Substances and Their Fate in the Environment.
Stage 2 RAP Workshop Steering Committee, 1991. Remedial Action Plans: Content
and Key Issues. Romulus, Michigan.
Swain, W., T. Colborn, C. Bason, R. Howarth, L. Lamey, B. Palmer, and D.
Swackhamer, 1992. Exposure and Effects of Airborne Contamination for the Great
Lakes Waters Program Report.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. Five Year Program Strategy for the
Great Lakes National Program Office. FY 1989-1993. Great Lakes National Program
Office.
U.S. EPA, 1992a. STORET: Beginner's booklet. Documentation for using the
STORET database.
U.S. EPA, 1992b. Wellhead Protection Program Fact Sheet. Office of Ground Water
and Drinking Water.
U.S. EPA, 1992c. Final Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program
Guidance. Office of the Administrator. EPA 100-R-93-001.
U.S. EPA, 1993a. Strategic Directions For The Midwest Environment 1995-1999.
Region V, Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. EPA, 1993b. Revised Draft Lake Michigan Lakewide Management Plan for
Toxic Pollutants.
U.S. EPA, 1994a. Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort Status Report. GLNPO.
101
-------
U.S. EPA, 1994b. Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters. First Report to
Congress. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EPA-453/R-93-055.
U.S. EPA, 1994c. Letter with draft of proposed changes to the Great Lakes
Architecture dated June 22, 1994. GLNPO.
U.S. EPA 1994d. National Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy.
U.S. EPA. Fact Sheet Wellhead Protection Program. Office of Ground water and
Drinking Water.
U.S. EPA. STORE!: The water quality information system.
U.S. EPA. The EPA Great Waters Program: An Introduction to the Issues and the
Ecosystem. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
U.S. EPA. Manager's guide to STORET. Unpublished document.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993. Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes
System. Comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994. Toxic Substances Control Act - EPA's
Limited Progress in Regulating Toxic Chemicals. Statement of Peter F. Guerrero,
Director, Environmental Protection Issues, Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division. GAO/T-RCED-94-212.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1992. Ambient water quality monitoring in the United
States: First year Review, Evaluation and Recommendations. Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. December.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1994a. Water quality monitoring in the United States. 1993
Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. January.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1994b. Water quality monitoring in the United States:
technical appendixes. 1993 Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. Airborne Contaminants and the Great
Lakes.
University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. Contaminated Sediments in the Great
Lakes.
102
-------
Weaver, L., 1993. Toxics and the Great Lakes. Prepared for the Great Lakes
Science Advisory Board's Workgroup on Parties Implementation.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1991. The Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan Summary. Publ-WR-243 91.
Wisconsin DNR, 1992. Wisconsin Water Quality Assessment Report to Congress.
Madison, Wisconsin. Publ-WR254-92 REV.
Wisconsin DNR, 1993a. A Guide for Conducting Potential Contaminant Source
Inventories for Wellhead Protection. Madison, Wisconsin. Publ WR 325-92.
Wisconsin DNR, 1993b. Determining Wellhead Protection Area Boundaries - An
Introduction. Madison, Wisconsin. Publ WR313-92.
Wisconsin DNR, 1994a. Draft 1994 Wisconsin Water Quality Report to Congress.
Chapter 5.
Wisconsin DNR, 1994b. "First year report of the Wisconsin Water Resources
Coordination Project." Report prepared by Gail Epping.
Yarborough, C. J., 1985. Multi-Institutional Management: The Green Bay
Experience. Report to the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board.
Zar, Howard. 1994. "Regulatory strategies for remediation of contaminated
sediments." Paper presented at the ASTM Symposium on Dredging, Remediation and
Containment of Contaminated Sediments. Montreal: June 23-24, 1994
103
-------
Contacts
EPA, REGIONAL AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCY CONTACTS
Rita Bair
Wellhead Protection Coordinator
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-2406
Rick Balla
US EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-2513
Mary Beleski
National 305 (b) Coordinator
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7060
Bonnie Bouman
Great Lakes Commission
313-665-9135
Ruby Boyd
TPJ
202-260-8387
Joyce Boyd
US EPA
STORET/other databases
202-260-2489
Mark Breederland
IJC
313-226-2170
104
-------
Jack Clifford
National WBS Coordinator
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3667
Tom Crane
Great Lakes Commission
313-665-9135
Fouad Dababneh, Engineer
Environmental Science Division
STORET/WBS Coordinator
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-3944
Jeffrey Edstrom
Council of Great Lakes Governors
Jeff Gagler
WQS-16J
Region 5
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
(312) 886-6679
George Graettinger
GIS Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-5266
Kenneth Gunter
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-9076
105
-------
Marilyn Jupp
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-5882
Chuck Kanetski
US EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 11907
(215) 597-8176
Bob King
US EPA
STORET
202-260-7028
Gary Kohlhepp,
Acting Lake Michigan LaMP Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604
312-886-4680
Dori Laposta
Wellhead Protection Coordinator
US EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212) 264-4124
Clyde Marion
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-5966
Melissa McCollough
U.S. EPA
Research Triangle Park
(919) 541-5646
106
-------
Barbara McLeod
Project Manager
Great Lakes Toxics Reduction Effort
U.S. EPA, Region V W-15-J
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
312-886-3718
Steve Newburg-Rinn, Chief
TRI Information Management Branch
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
202-260-3757
Bob Overly
James River Corporation
414-433-6177
Robert Peppin
TMDL Coordinator
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 886-1505
Chuck Sapp
US EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 11907
(215) 597-9096
Dave Stoltenberg
US EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-5784
Phil Stroebel
STORET
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
107
-------
312-353-7996
Amy Vasu
Environmental Health Scientist
Pollutant Assessment Branch
MD-13
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
(919) 541-0107
Howard Zar
Contaminated Sediments
GLNPO
312-886-1491
US EPA
STORE! User Assistance
1-800-424-9067
STATE AND LOCAL AGENCY CONTACTS
Mike Brooks
Chief of Air Toxics Program Development
IDEM
(317) 233-5686
Kelly Burch
Great Lakes Coord.
PDER
(814) 332-6945
Marty Burkholder
Air Management Specialist
P.O. Box 7921
(AM/7)
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-7718
William Busch
Great Lakes Program Coordinator
Division Water Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
(217) 782-3397
108
-------
Orlando Cabrera
Air Management Specialist
WDNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-2466
Tom Cullen
Chief of Combustion Section
Division of Air Resources
NYSDEC
(518) 457-7688
Dave Dabertin
Director
N.W. Regional Office
IDEM
504 N. Broadway/Rm. 418
Gary, IN
(219) 881-6712 FAX: 6745
Steve Davis
Lake Michigan Specialist
Illinois DNR
(219) 874-8316
Richard Draper
Great Lakes Program Coordinator
NYSDEC
Division of Water
Chief G.L. & Groundwater
50 Wolfe Rd./Rm. 301
Albany, NY 12233-3501
(518) 457-7463 Fax: 485-7786
Lloyd Eagan
Air Management Supervisor
WDNR
(608) 267-0574
Gail Epping
WI DNR Pilot Study
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality
608-267-0555
109
-------
Natalie Farber
RAP Coordinator
Ohio EPA
WaterMark DR.
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 644-2143
Joanne Foy
Air Division
MDNR
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 44087
517 335-6973
Brian Fredickson
RAP Coordinator
MPCA
Duluth Gov't Serv. Center
Rm 704, 302 W. 2nd St.
Duluth, MN 55802
(218) 723-4660
Sandy Gau
Constituent Relation Advisor/
Environmental Affairs
Governors Office/Wisconsin
(608) 266-1212
Jim Grant
Chief of Great Lakes
Environmental Assessment Div.
Surface Water Quality Div.
MDNR
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 44087
(517) 335-4121
Vicki Harris
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Dan Helwig
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
110
-------
(612) 296-7215
Greg Hill
Great Lakes Program Coordinator
WDNR/Water Policy & Planning
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-9352 Fax: 2800
Marvin Hora
Great Lakes Program Coordinator
Minnesota Pollution Control
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-8005 Fax: 297-8683
Paul Johnson
Chief of Groundwater
IDEM
504 N. Broadway
Gary, IN
(317) 233-4166
Paul Koval
Supervisor of the Air Toxics Unit
OEPA
(614) 644-3615
Julie Letterhos
OHEPA-WQPA
WaterMark Dr.
P.O. Box 1049
Columbus, OH 43266-0149
(614) 644-3020 Fax: 2329
Lee Liebenstein
WDNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI
(608) 266-0164
Carri Lohse-Hanson
MN Binational Program Coord.
MN Pollution Control Agency
111
-------
520 Lafayette Rd.
St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
(612) 296-9134
Jack McGrogan
Air Pollution Control Engineer
PDER
(717) 787-9257
Paula Mclntire
Great Lakes Commission
Argus II Building
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI
(313) 665-9135
Tracy Mehand
MDNR
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 44087
(517) 335-4056
Jo Mercurio
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
608-267-2452
Bob Mosher
Manager of Water Standards Unit
IEPA
(217) 782-3362
Hank Naour
Technical Support Unit Mgr
Bureau of Air
IEPA
2200 Churchill Rd.
Springfield, IL 62794-9276
Eric Niguard
Environmental Specialist
OEPA
(614) 644-2153
112
-------
Jay Payton
Program and Planning Analyst
Bureau of Water Resources
101 S. Webster St.
Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
Richard Powers
Great Lakes Program Coordinator
MDNR
Surface Water/Quality Division
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, MI 44087
(517) 335-4175 Fax: 373-9958
Carol Ratza
Communications Program Manager
Great Lakes Commission
Argus II Building
400 Fourth St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-4816
(313) 665-9135
Jim Rozakis
Asst. Dir. in N.W. Region
PDER
1012 Water St.
Meadville, PA 16335
(814) 332-6945 Fax: 6831
Bob Schacht
Deputy Great Lakes Coord.
IEPA
1701 S. First Ave.
6th Floor
Maywood, IL 00153
(708) 338-7900
Mary Schubauer-Berigan
Senior Pollution Control Specialist
MPCA
(218) 723-4837
113
-------
Joy Taylor
Division of Air
MDNR
(517) 335-6974
Carol league, STORE! database manager
WIDNR
608-267-7659
Lisa Thorvig
Air Quality Division Manager
MPCA
(612) 296-7331
Meg Turville-Heitz
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
608-266-0152
114
-------
Appendix A
Research Survey on Toxic Reduction Efforts for the Great Lakes
As mentioned in the attached letter, this questionnaire is designed to help gather
information about the various efforts underway (or planned) by states in the Great Lakes
region to reduce toxics, as well as to gain a greater understanding about how data is
collected. The questions below approximate the questions that we would like to ask you
over the phone. We appreciate your review of these questions, and your cooperation in the
research effort.
Name Office
Agency Title
Phone Fax
A. Policy Initiatives/ Programs/ Regulations for Toxic Control:
What current programs do you know of that are currently underway for controlling
and/or reducing toxics into the Great Lakes?
What programs do you foresee being implemented within the next year?
What long-term strategies are planned to facilitate further toxic reductions?
-------
B. Please describe each program that you have information about, according to the
following questions:
What is the focus of each program?
What is the date each program was initiated?
Is the program ongoing, or is there a statutory or regulatory endpoint?
What is the annual budget for each program? What is the state contribution? What is
the federal contribution? Are there other funding sources for the program?
How many personnel are involved in each program?
Which governmental unit has primary responsibility for implementing each program?
-------
C. Data Collection
How is data about toxics collected?
Does the state attempt to gather all of the data together to get a snapshot of toxic reduction
efforts across programs?
What reporting is sent to the EPA? To other federal agencies? To other regional or
international offices?
What degree of specificity is undertaken in each program? For example, does the data
collected provide information about toxic exposures/levels in the following categories:
plants
humans
air
water
benthics
fish
sediment
mammals
birds
amphibians
mass balances
other (name)
-------
Is the data easily available? ( For example, is it collected in the same form across various
programs?) Is it available on disk or paper copy?
D. Can you give me names of other individuals that can help me better understand the
toxic reduction effort in the Great Lakes states?
Contact Title
Agency Phone
E. Can you send me information (reports, etc.) that will help me understand your state's
programs?
-------
F. Intergovernmental relationships in Great Lakes clean up efforts:
Nearly all U.S. environmental programs require the efforts of state, local and federal
governments. Sometimes, officials perceive a high degree of cooperation; other times,
officials see little cooperation between international, federal and state agencies that have
responsibility for implementing programs.
As part of a separate study, we are doing research to characterize the perceptions that
officials involved in various Great Lakes programs have about agency relationships. The
information that you provide in the following questions will not be attributed to you
personally, or to your agency. Rather, the data will be aggregated to reflect a general
sentiment, to the extent such perceptions are common across programs.
1. In your opinion, how successful has the federal-state effort been at toxic reductions in
the Great Lakes?
2. What improvements, if any, could be made?
3. How would you characterize the level of support the following organizations provide to
you as you implement toxics reductions/ water quality programs? Would you say that the
organizations below are very supportive, somewhat supportive, or not at all supportive?
EPA Headquarters?
EPA Regional Office?
-------
EPA Great Lakes Office?
The International Joint Commission?
State administrators?
The public?
RAP coordinators?
4. If you could change one thing about the way the program is being implemented, what
would it be?
5. If you could change one thing about the intergovernmental relationship, what would it
be and why?
6. What else should I know about your program, the toxic reduction efforts in the state or
Great Lakes region, or the intergovernmental implementation efforts?
Thanks so much for your time. We would be happy to send you a copy of our report when
it's completed. If you would like a copy, please indicate your interest and make sure we
have your correct address.
6
-------
Appendix B
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305{b) ASSESSMENTS
APPENDIX D
DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
The main purpose of this appendix is to identify Federal data sources that
may be useful for assessing use support in State waterbodies, including
sources that may not be commonly used by State water quality agencies.
The sources discussed below are Federal and nongovernmental data sources;
States will find additional data available from such State agencies as fish and
wildlife agencies, State planning offices, departments of health, etc.
D.1 EPA Databases
Table D-1 lists EPA databases that may prove useful for assessing use
support in State waterbodies. States can access each of these systems
through EPA's National Computer Center mainframe computer. The national
date systems in Table D-1 vary in data completeness and data quality; a
State should evaluate such characteristics for their data before a system is
used for assessing use support. The most complete and reliable national
cata systems tend to be those in which the State regularly updates
information (e.g., STORET, the WBS, and the Permit Compliance System
(PCS) in many States), and for which rigorous quality assurance features
have been incorporated (e.g., ODES). Most of the information in Table D-1
is taken from the Office of Water Environmental and Program Information
Compendium FY92, EPA 800-B92-001.
EPA's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division will distribute
Version 3.1 of the WBS shortly after issuing these Guidelines. EPA
specifically designed the WBS to store use support assessments for
individual waterbodies and generate summary information requested in this
guidance. The WBS differs from other databases in that the WBS does not
contain raw data. Instead, the WBS contains use support assessment
information resulting from analysis of the raw monitoring data from the
States.
D.2 Other Data Sources
Table D-2 lists sources of information available from Federal agencies and
other organizations outside EPA. Many of these sources are readily available
but may not be used by State water quality programs. Many State water
D-1
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
quality agencies rely on a combination of EPA data systems and their own
systems for acquiring water quality data. Reliable data on rural sources are
especially difficult to obtain in many States. The best information often
comes from State departments of agriculture, which compile county
statistics annually and make them available relatively quickly (e.g., data on
crop and livestock production). Data on crop cover, agricultural BMPs, and
animal units are typically available only as county summaries, although hard
copy files and maps showing exact locations may be available at the Soil
and Water Conservation District level.
Data collected and analyzed by agencies of the U.S. Department of the
Interior (DOI) may be of special interest to State water quality agencies.
Several DOI programs as listed in Table D-2. The Water Resources Division
of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) coordinates USGS databases through
its National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX) Program Office. For more
information, contact the local NAWDEX Assistance Center in the appropriate
USGS Water Resources District Office, or call Dr. James S. Burton, Chief of
the national NAWDEX Program Office, at (703) 648-5684.
The DOI's Fish and Wildlife Service has many relevant monitoring and
assessment programs including the National Wetlands Inventory, the
National Contaminant Biomonitoring Program, the Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status and Trends (BEST) Program, and the National Irrigation
Water Quality Program. Table D-2 gives brief descriptions and contacts.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, through its National
Status and Trends Program, assesses the levels of 70 organic chemicals and
trace elements in bottom-dwelling fish, sediments and mollusks at more than
300 sites throughout the United States. Table D-2 presents some major
components of the Program and contacts.
D-2
-------
APPENDIX D; DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data Systems Containing Water Information
Data System
Waterbody System
(WBS) EPA. Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds (OWOW)
Reach File
EPA, OWOW
STORET Water Quality
System
EPA, OWOW
STORET Biological
System (BIOS)
EPA, OWOW
Ocean Data Evaluation
System (ODES)
EPA, OWOW
Current Fish
Consumption Advisories
and Bans
EPA, Office of Science
and Technology (OST)
Clean Lakes System
EPA, OWOW
:t:Vfe{!;;Description
Database of
assessment
information drawn
from CWA 305(b)
activities
Hydrologic
georeferencing and
routing system based
on USGS digital line
graph traces
Data analysis tool for
chemical monitoring
data from surface and
groundwater sites.
Also capabilities to
store sediment and
fish tissue data
A special component
of STORET for storing
information on
biological
assessments
Database and analysis
system for marine
and near coastal
monitoring
information
National database of
fish/shellfish
consumption
advisories and bans
from State 305(b)
reports and other
sources
Data analysis system
for significant publicly
owned lakes under
CWA Section 31 4
program
Primary Function ;;|
Provides waterbody-
specrfic information on
pollution causes and
sources, use
impairments, and status
of TMDL development
Can integrate many
databases having
locational information on
water quality conditions
or pollutant causes
Major source of raw
ambient data for water
quality assessments
Simplifies storage and
analysis of biological data
or metrics, with links to
other EPA data files
Permit tracking system
for NPDES discharges to
oceans and estuaries and
for ocean dumping
programs
Identifies waterbodies,
species affected by
advisories and bans and
the problem pollutants
Provides data integration
using number of EPA
data files with mapping
capabilities using the
Reach File
••.:X:>*Contact :i
John Clifford,
OWOW
(202) 260-3667
John Clifford,
OWOW
(202) 260-3667
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Jeff Bigler,
OST
(202)260-1305
Susan Ratcliffe,
OWOW
(202) 260-5404
D-3
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data System* Containing Water Information
Data System
Permit Compliance
System (PCS)
EPA, Office of
Wastewater
Enforcement and
Compliance (OWEC)
Industrial Facilities
Discharge File (IFD)
EPA, Office of Water
Facility Index Systems
(FINDS)
EPA, Office of
Information Resources
Management
Toxic Chemical Release
Inventory System
(TRIS)
EPA. Office of
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Drinking Water Supply
File (DWS)
EPA, OWOW
Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS)
EPA, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking
Water (OGWDW)
Gage File
EPA, OWOW
Description
Locations and
discharge
characteristics for
about 7,100 major
and 56,300 minor
NPDES facilities
Information for about
120,000 NPDES
dischargers; also
Superfund sites
Basic information on
over 300,000
facilities regulated by
EPA
Database of
estimated and
measured releases by
industries of about
300 toxic chemicals
to all environmental
media
Information on 7,650
public and community
surface water
supplies
Information about
public supplies
Information on some
36,000 stream gage
locations
Primary Function
Compliance status
tracking system for major
dischargers
Locations, flows and
receiving waterbodies,
for industrial discharges
and POTWs
Starting point for finding
regulated facilities in a
given area where more
detailed information
available through other
data systems like PCS,
TRIS, AIRS, or RCRA
Inventory of toxic
chemical releases with
references to receiving
waters and methods of
waste treatment
Data on waterbody, flow,
and locations of mainly
surface water intakes
Detailed data on
compliance with Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements including
monitoring
Summaries of mean
annual and critical low
flows and other data
collected. Sites indexed
to Reach File
• "Contact
Dela Ng,
OWEC
(202)260-8313
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Joe Anderson,
OIRM
(703) 557-3091
Ruby Boyd,
OPTS
(202) 260-8387
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Larry Weiner,
OGWDW
(202) 260-2799
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
D-4
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305{b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-1. EPA Data System* Containing Water Information
Data System
City and County Files
EPA, OWOW
Dam File
EPA, OWOW
USGS Land Use and
Data Analysis (LUDA)
Database
EPA, Office of
Information Resources
Management (0!RM)
Geographic Resources
Information and Data
System (GRIDS)
EPA, OIRM
Description
Location information
and census data for
53,000 municipalities
and all counties
Information on
locations of 68,000
damsites and
associated reservoirs
USGS database of
land use from the
1 970s; available
through GRIDS on
NCC
A repository for major
GIS data layers along
with a selection of
GIS applications on
the EPA NCC
mainframe
Primary Function ••!:
Background data with
lists of streams for each
city, census population,
county land/water area
(coastal counties)
Information on
ownership, uses of
reservoir, size, and
stream reach
Contains locations of
approximately 40 land
use types for entire
United States
Provides access to major
GIS products from the
USGS, Census Bureau
and EPA
':£:?$Contact :
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert King,
OWOW
(202) 260-7028
Robert Pease,
OIRM
(703) 557-3018
Robert Pease,
OIRM
(703) 551-3018
D-5
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Water Data Storage and
Retrieval System
(WATSTORE)
DOI, USGS, Water
Resources Division
National Rivers
Inventory,
DOi, National Park
Service
National Wetlands
Inventory,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act Regional
Concept Plans,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
National Contaminant
Biomonitoring Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Description
Database of water
quality data collected
at 5,000 stations and
peak flow and daily
flow data collected at
8,000 stations.
List of over 1 ,500
river segments
(approximately
63,000 miles).
Computerized
mapping scheme for
entire United States.
Descriptions of
priority wetland sites
according to value
and function prepared
by each of the 7 FWS
regional offices.
Based mainly on
State SCORP reports.
Fish and bird tissue
samples collected
between 1965 and
1 988 for chlorinated
pesticides, PCBs, and
metals
Primary Functions
Store data collected by
USGS, as well as
cooperating agencies in
DOI and the Corps of
Engineers; good source of
ground-water data.
Identifies waters with
potential for National
Wild and Scenic Rivers
status.
Shows locations of
vegetative community
types using a FWS
classification scheme.
To prioritize Federal and
State efforts related to
the Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986
to promote acquisition or
other protection
measures for major
wetland tracts.
Fish monitoring done to
evaluate the effects of
toxicants at 1 1 0
freshwater sites in
specific watersheds and
the Great Lakes.
Contacts {
Dr. James S.
Burton, Chief
USGS Water
Resources
Division,
NAWDEX
Program Office
(703) 648-5684
Bern Collins
(202) 343-3765
OR
Tracy Miller
National Park
Service
(202) 343-3663
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(202) 358-2201
David Dall
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
(202) 358-2201
Branch Chief,
Field Research,
National Fisher-
ies Research
Center
(314) 875-5399
D-6
-------
APPENDIX O: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
-Data System
Description
Primary Functions
Contacts
National Irrigation Water
Quality Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Physical, chemical
and biological data
collected at about
200 areas consisting
of about 600
projects.
To identify and address
irrigation-induced
contamination on DOI
irrigation and drainage
facilities. National Wildlife
Refuges, and other
wildlife management
areas.
Chief, Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Biomonitoring of
Environmental Status
and Trends (BEST)
Program,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Data collection to
address effects on
migratory birds,
endangered species,
anadromous fish,
certain marine mam-
mals, and habitats.
Pilot projects through
1995; full implemen-
tation in 1996.
Monitor and assess
environmental
contamination effects to
fish and wildlife and their
habitats, on and off
National Wildlife Refuges.
Chief, Division of
Environmental
Contaminants
(703) 358-2148
Multi-State Fish and
Wildlife Information
Systems Project,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Database of life
history, habitat
needs, and
environmental
tolerances for inland
and marine fish and
wildlife.
Central database to
facilitate review of
permits, regulatory
requirements, and
ecological preservation
restoration programs.
or
Rick Bennett
(703)358-1718
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
OR
Andy Loftus
(202) 898-0770
Sport Fishing
Institute
National Gap Analysis
Project,
DOI, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Application of CIS
technology to
prioritize habitat
protection needs for
specific fish or
wildlife species and
for overall species
protection.
Provides way to identify
habitat protection needs
based on identification of
"gaps" when comparing
existing protected areas
with regional habitat
distributions.
Dr. Ted LaRoe
(703)358-2171
DOI, Fish and
Wildlife Service
D-7
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305{b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
System
Description
Primary Functions
.Contacts
Rivers and Trails
Conservation
Assistance Program,
DOI, National Park
Service
Program supports
development and
updates to Statewide
river inventories or
evaluation of
particular river
corridors or
greenways.
Supports Federal and
State scenic river
programs and a variety of
greenway and open
space protection
initiatives. • ' •
Samuel Stokes
(202) 343-3779
DOI, National
Park Service
American Rivers
Outstanding Rivers List
Database on 15,000
river segments
possessing
outstanding scenic,
recreational and
ecological attributes.
Assembles information
from National Park
Service river surveys,
Northwest Power
Planning Council's
Protected Areas Program,
Nature Conservancy
Priority Aquatic Sites and
other major sources.
Susie Wilkins
(202) 547-6900
Outstanding
Rivers List
Recreation Information
Management System,
USDA, Forest Service
Database of
recreational facilities
and areas in National
Forest System.
Contains data on types of
recreation, visitor days,
and participation by
activity.
USDA, Forest
Service
(202)205-1706
Biological and
Conservation Data
System,
The Nature
Conservancy
Listing by States of
rare species and key
habitat areas.
For identifying waters
important for rare plant
and animal species
protection.
The Nature
Conservancy
(703) 841-8781
National Water Quality
Technology
Development Staff,
USDA, Soil
Conservation Service
Four regional centers
provide database,
modeling, and CIS
technology assistance
to promote former
President Bush's
Water Quality
Initiative, the Farm
Bill, and other
programs.
Will provide convenient
access to soil survey data
and a variety of models
(e.g., AGNPS) for use
with GIS systems to
support USDA HUA
projects and similar
initiatives.
Jackie Diggs
USDA, Soil
Conservation
Service
(202)720-0136
D-8
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
Data System
Description
Primary Functions
Contacts
Benthic Surveillance
Project,
National Status and
Trends Program,
Department of
Commerce. NOAA
Sampling at 79
estuarine sites for
PCBs, PAHs, chlori-
nated pesticides,
butyitins, sewage
tracers, and trace
elements.
Determine concentrations
of toxic chemicals in
sediments and bottom-
dwelling fish.
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301)713-3028
Mussel! Watch Project,
National Status and
Trends Program,
NOAA
Mussells and oysters
collected annually at
about 240 sites and
analyzed for same
parameters as the
Benthic Surveillance
Project.
To determine concentra-
tions of toxic chemicals
in mussels and similar
bivalve mollusks as
"sentinel organisms" in
environmental
monitoring.
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301)713-3028
Coastal Contamination
Assessments,
National Status and
Trends Program,
NOAA
Quick-reference
reports for Long
Island Sound, Gulf of
Maine, Hudson-Rari-
tan area, Narragan-
sett Bay, and
Buzzards Bay reports
done or underway.
To identify potential
toxicant problems and
compare local levels of
contamination with
national-scale results.
NS&T Program
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301)713-3028
National Estuarine
Inventory and Strategic
Assessment Program,
NOAA
Source of
demographic,
economic, and natural
resource information
for 102 Estuarine
Drainage Areas.
Provide data to support
NOAA initiatives related
to the Sea Grant and
Coastal Zone
Management Programs.
John P. Tolson
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301)713-3000
National Shellfish
Register,
NOAA
Tracks status of
shellfish harvesting
areas by State at 5-
year intervals (most
recent data is from
1990).
Detect trends in shellfish
growing waters and the
abundance of shellfish
resources.
Maureen Warren
National Ocean
Service, NOAA
(301) 713-3000
D-9
-------
APPENDIX D: DATA SOURCES FOR 305(b) ASSESSMENTS
Table D-2. Other Useful Data Sources
•;.::4C;-;aData'Syst8in -<
Decennial Census
Department of
Commerce, Bureau of
the Census
Description
Major source of
information with
county-level
resolution dealing
with population,
agriculture, mining,
etc.
Primary functions .
Available in digitized form
and, in conjunction with
USGS, in a variety of
new map forms. Census
of agriculture often
provides best available
data on crop, livestock,
and land use patterns.
•Contacts
Charles D. Jones
(301) 763-5180
D-10
-------
Amjendix C
Great Lakes Toxic Reduction Effort
rotection Ajencv. 3eqion 5. Water Division
"PATHWAYS" TRACK UPDATE: Air Deposition, Waste Sites, Spills, Sediments,
CSO/Storm Water
AIR DEPOSITION
"Great Waters Report" Issued
The First Report to Congress on "Deposition of Air Pollutants to the Great Waters" (Great
Waters Report) was issued on May 20, 1994. The Great Waters include the Great Lakes,
Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, and coastal waters. The Report was mandated under
Section 11 2(m) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It contains a useful
compilation of up-to-date information on deposition of pollutants to the Great Waters,
current actions to control the release of these pollutants, recommendations for additional
research to increase our knowledge, and recommendations for actions to further reduce air
deposition.
A public meeting on the Great Waters Report and what it means to the Great Lakes will be
held on Tuesday, August 2, 1994, at the Region 5 offices in Chicago, 77 West Jackson
(Metcalfe Building), Room 331. You may have already received an invitation signed by
Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 5, dated June 3, 1994. The
purpose of the meeting is to provide an opportunity to review this important Report with
several of its authors, to ask questions, and to provide comments that will help guide
implementation of the recommendations and the preparation of future reports. The
meeting is designed for the general public, environmental and business community, local
units of government, Great Lakes States, Tribes, and other interested parties.
The eight Great Lakes States, Tribes, and EPA Regions 2, 3 and 5 are engaged in a multi-
media program dialogue on the Report.
To receive a copy of the Great Waters Report, call the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards at (919) 541-5648. Copies will be available at the August public meeting.
(Barbara McLeod/(312) 886-3718)
Mercury Reduction Workgroup
A priority of the Region 5 Air and Radiation Division is to "reduce air toxics emissions to
protect public health and to reduce deposition to the Great Lakes." Consistent with that
priority, the Air and Radiation Division has established the Great Lakes States Mercury
Workgroup. Based on a list of action items generated in November, 1993, the group
works on joint actions to continue to reduce mercury releases.
(Barbara McLeod/(31 2)886-3718 or Angela Bandemehr/(31 2)886-6858)
Medical Waste Mercury Reduction Project
One of the action items of the Mercury Workgroup is to increase awareness and voluntary
actions to reduce the use of mercury-containing products. The GLTRE is working with the
-------
Terrene Institute, Great Lakes States, and other interested persons, to form partnerships
and promote awareness among hospitals, medical trade associations, and medical
equipment suppliers of the human health and environmental risks associated with mercury.
It is estimated that medical waste incineration nationwide contributes 65 tons of mercury
per year to the atmosphere. Informational materials created will appeal to the medical
community to use safe alternatives to mercury-containing products; if safe substitutes are
unavailable, to recycle; and, finally, to properly dispose of mercury-containing medical
wastes. (Christine Urban/(312) 886-7783, or Barbara McLeod/(312)886-3718))
• Combined Sewer Overflow (CS01/STORM WATER/URBAN RUNOFF
Permit Quality Action Team (PQAT) Recommendations
representatives of State and Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit Programs. The PQAT is recommending actions to State Water Program
Directors and the Region 5 Water Director for reducing toxic chemical loads. The group is
looking at pilot activities which emphasize BCCs in implementing the requirements of the
Final National CSO Strategy; targeting pollution prevention, pretreatment, and public notice
to promote public awareness of BCCs. Treatment technology demonstrations that build on
existing projects, such as the Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration project are also
recommended. After review by the State and Regional Water Directors, activities will be
incorporated into the CSO/Storm Water/Runoff Issue Paper. (Christine Urban/ (312)886-
7783 or Peter Swenson/(312)886-0236)
Cross Program Coordination
In coordination with the "Environmental Technology Initiative" (U.S. EPA Headquarters),
we are providing input to a project to improve analytical detection capability for toxic
pollutants, and identify barriers to innovative technologies in the NPDES program. The
project is part of the President's initiative to break down barriers to innovation in
environmental technology development.
Several possibilities for coordination with the Nonpoint Source Program have been
identified: summarize research on best management practices (BMPs) most effective for
removing toxic chemicals from runoff; identifying gaps in knowledge of toxic chemical
removal efficiencies of BMPs; compare to BMPs currently required by the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization; provide technical transfer to the State Coastal Zone Management
Programs to encourage appropriate BMPs for toxic chemical removal; and, pilot technology
(including BMPs) demonstration projects in AOCs with known BCC contamination.
(Christine Urban/(312) 886-7783)
Saginaw Bay BCC Inventory Workpian Approved
GLTRE has approved a workplan for Michigan DNR to complete an inventory of BCCs from
diffuse sources to Saginaw Bay. Products will include recommendations on mathematical
models for quantifying BCC loads to the Bay and a prototype monitoring plan exploring a
range of monitoring options and associated costs. The first meeting of the advisory
committee is planned for mid-July, 1994. The GLTRE will be working closely with the
Status Report July 1994
-------
Region 5 Nonpoint Source Program, and State and Federal agencies on the advisory
committee. (Christine Urban/(31 2)886-7783)
• SEDIMENTS
Great Lakes Sediment Task Force
A Great Lakes Sediment Task Force Meeting (Sediment Contacts for the Great Lakes
States, Regions, and Tribes) was held on February 2, 1994. Working groups were
established on Sediment Quality Criteria (SQC), consistent Cleanup Goals, and Data
Management.
Sediment Quality Criteria Working Group
The SQC working group issued consensus comments on the proposed "Sediment Quality
Criteria for the Protection of Benthic Organisms" (59 Fed. Reg. No.11, at 2652). Key
among the comments are the need for the States and EPA Regions to be involved in
drafting the "User's Guide" for the SQC, and that SQC are badly needed for chemicals that
are the subject of regulatory and remediation efforts in the Great Lakes: PCBs, mercury,
heavy metals, and PAHs. (Howard Zar/(312) 886-1491)
Cleanup Goals Working Group
The Cleanup Goals workgroup adopted the following goal: "To develop an appropriate
model approach for developing technically sound sediment cleanup goals for contaminated
sediment sites in the Great Lakes Basin." Draft "decision trees," user-friendly tools that
project managers/decision-makers could use at Great Lakes sites, are under development
for total PCBs, heavy metals, mercury, PAHs, and dioxin. (Bonnie Eleder/(312) 886-4885)
Data Management Working Group
The Data Management working group is concerned with improving the Great Lakes
sediment database and making it available in a consistent format useful to environmental
managers, and contributing to the National Sediment Inventory.
(Ken Klewin/(312) 886-4679)
Sediment Focus Group/National Contaminated Sediment Strategy
At the request of the Region 5 Water Directors, a letter requesting persons to participate in
a Basin-wide sediment "focus group" was sent to the Basin Waste/Water Directors in May.
The purpose of the focus group is to identify elements of a "model" sediment management
program, and barriers to timely and effective cleanups. Focus group members have been
nominated by all Great Lakes States and Regions. The National Contaminated Sediment
Strategy is expected to be released by the end of August, 1994. Release of this
document will serve as a point of departure for the focus group. It is our intention to
schedule a meeting of the focus group, and, if there is public interest, a public meeting, as
soon as copies of this document are available for distribution. (Barbara McLeod/(312)
886-3718; Howard 2ar/(312) 886-1491)
Status Report July 1994
-------
Study to Estimate Regional Loads to the Upper Great Lakes
U.S. EPA Region 5 has an Interagency Agreement with the Michigan and Wisconsin
District offices of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to develop a method to prioritize
Great Lakes tributaries for remediation on the basis of their potential to contribute
sediment-derived contaminants to the Lakes. The study will provide an empirical method
that should yield a realistic comparison of potential loadings for those tributaries for which
data are available.
The USGS has done preliminary work on the study based on predicted suspended
sediment loadings during floods. A final report summarizing the methods and results will
be published by the end of 1994. (Christine Urban/1312) 886-7783; Ken Klewin/(312)
886-4679)
* SPILLS
Lakes Spills Symposium Proceedings Available
GLTRE hosted the Great Lakes Spills Symposium March 15-17, 1994, on transportation,
handling, and short-term storage related spills. Over 100 people participated in the 3-day
conference, which included presentations on spill prevention, improving response and
remediation activities, and identifying regulatory gaps and overlaps. Small facilitated
breakout group discussions were held to give participants an opportunity to explore various
issues in greater detail. Proceedings are being mailed to participants and invitees this
month. (Laura Flynn/(312) 886-3718)
Cooperative Efforts with the Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Spills Symposium participants identified contingency planning as an area that needed
considerable overhaul. Some of issues identified include: often burdensome and
duplicative notification of spills; mandated contingency plans which don't reflect needs of
the companies; and too much emphasis on paperwork, rather than on pollution prevention
and primary and secondary containment measures.
Staff from GLTRE and the EPA Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
(OCEPP), have met to discuss opportunities for cooperative ventures between OCEPP and
GLTRE to address these concerns. OCEPP is conducting interviews with companies across
the nation to determine how contingency planning under the Agency's many
environmental mandates can be improved. (Bill Finan, OCEPP (202) 260-0030)
Chemical Spills Protection Initiative Demonstration Project in Southeast Michigan (SEMI)
A project to assess the viability of a Great Lakes Chemical Spills Protection Initiative
demonstration project Southeast Michigan is underway. The objective of the project is to
encourage a public/private dialog in chemical spill prevention practices and to make those
practices known to industry sectors that handle Great Lakes Critical Pollutants. (Barbara
McLeod/(31 2) 886-3718)
Shallow Injection Well Project in SEMI
An effort is also underway to bring in a groundwater component to the Chemical Spill
Status Report July 1994
-------
Protection Initiative demonstration project in SEMI, through the involvement of the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Although discussions are in the very early
stages, the UIC program is interested in the possibility of conducting a shallow injection
well (Class V) outreach and well closure program in SEMI. (Laura Flynn/(312) 886-3718)
Great Lakes Area Computerized Inventory for Emergency Response (GLACIER)
The Great Lakes Commissions' Emergency Preparedness Task Force, in cooperation with
the Region 5 Regional Response Team, is preparing a computerized inventory of public and
private sector oil and hazardous materials spill response equipment, supplies, services and
related resources. Information collected through survey or electronic transfer will be
placed into a computerized bulletin board that can be accessed from any personal
computer with a communications setup. For more information, contact: Tom Crane,
Great Lakes Commission, (313) 665-9135; Ken Schultz, Ohio EPA (614) 644-2081.
UPCOMING SPILLS-RELATED EVENTS AND MEETINGS
July 20-21, 1994: 6th Annual NASTTPO Conference
The National Association of SARA Title III Program Officials (NASTTPO) is hosting their
6th annual conference at the Radisson Hotel in Denver, Colorado. For more information
contact: Paula McKinney, NASTTPO, at (512) 834-6600.
Sept. 12, 1994: CANUSLAK '94 Exercise on Lake Erie
The September 12, 1994, Canada-U.S. Lake (CANUSLAK) Exercise '94 is being co-
sponsored by the U.S. and Canadian Coast Guards. It will involve the simulated collision
of an oil tanker and chemical carrier on Lake Erie. For more information, contact: Lew
Meyers, Ohio EMA, at (614) 793-3013.
Sept. 19-21, 1994: 18th Annual Inland Spills Conference
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the Spill Control Association of America
(SCAA) are hosting this year's Inland Spills Conference on September 19-21, 1994, at the
Radisson North Hotel in Columbus, Ohio. For more information, contact Ken Schultz, Ohio
EPA, at (614) 644-2260.
Oct. 31 - Nov. 3, 1994: International Hazardous Material Spills Conference
The 1994 International Hazardous Materials Spills Conference will be held October 31 -
November 3, 1994, at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Buffalo, New York. For more
information, contact: Sarah Bauer, at (202) 260-8247.
* WASTE STORAGE SITES
Information Collection
Several activities are underway in the Waste Management Division to assemble basic
information needed to address this pathway:
The Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is evaluating the impact of
Status Report
-------
RCRA hazardous waste constituents to the Great Lakes Basin. Data will is being analyzed
to identify sites where there may be large contributions of BCCs to the Great Lakes.
A study of loadings from Superfund sites in the Great Lakes Basin is also underway.
"iDCEPP is preparing CIS maps of Superfund and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites for
eight county region in the Southeast Michigan Initiative (SEMI) area. If successful, data on
RCRA may be added, and/or project may be expanded to entire U.S. side of Great Lakes
Basin.
v
lhjsJnformation will be used to identify activities to reduce the volume and toxicity of
pollutants generated at identified facilities and sites. (Barbara McLeod/(312) 886-3718)
Issue Papers
Issue Papers for each pathway will be completed by October 1, 1994. The Issue Papers
will be distributed for public comment to persons nominated for the public participation
group who expressed interest in a particular pathway, in advance of the December public
meeting.
"VIRTUAL ELIMINATION" TRACK
Project Update
The Virtual Elimination project seeks to identify government actions or signals that provide
an impetus for companies and individuals to reduce their use of certain target chemicals.
We are in the process of reviewing the sources and uses of mercury and PCBs in the Great
Lakes Basin and documenting the State and Federal regulations that govern each.
This analysis will be used to generate ideas on what "gaps" exist in the current regulatory
and non-regulatory structure. The analysis will be completed in time for the next Virtual
Elimination meeting which will be held in September in Chicago. (Elizabeth LaPIante,
GLNPO/(312) 353-2694)
"LAKE MICHIGAN ENHANCED MONITORING PROGRAM" TRACK
Lake Michigan Mass Balance Sampling Underway
This is a collaborative project involving USEPA, the four Lake Michigan States, and other
Federal Agencies. The goal is to determine the relative loadings of several Lake Michigan
Critical Pollutants from major tributaries, and to evaluate the relative pollutant loadings
from water and air sources. These data will allow agencies to better target load reduction
actions on those sources that contribute the largest amounts of Critical Pollutants and
pose the greatest risk.
Status Report ., July 1994
-------
Tributary monitoring began in April, 1994. Atmospheric deposition monitoring, open-
water, sediment, and biota sampling and anaiysis began m March, 1994. (Gary
Kohlhepp/(312) 886-4680)
+ STRUCTURE
A draft document entitled "The Great Lakes Architecture: Integrating the Ecosystem
Management Approach Across the Basin" that describes a proposed Basin-wide
Federal/State/Tribal/Local/Stakeholder committee and public paracipation structure is under
review by the U. S. parties to the Binational Executive Comm.ttee. (Mark E!ster/(312)
886-3857)
OTHER MULTIMEDIA ACTIVITIES EMPHASIZING BCCs
P&sticidfis
Region 5 Regional Administrator Valdas Adamkus has requested USEPA Assistant
Administrator for Pollution Prevention and Toxic Substances Dr. Lynn Goldman to conduct
a scientific review of the pesticides lindane and methoxychlor, the only two pest.c.des on
the BCCist that are in current use in the United States. (Barbara McLeod/(312) 886-
3718; Frank Anscombe/(312) 353-0201)
Federal Register Proposal for Disposal of Mercury-Containing Fluorescent Lamps
The Office of Management and Budget is expected to approve, m early July, co-proposal
language for publication in the Federal Register. The co-proposals, or alternatives on
which the Agency will take comment, are: 1) exempting fluorescent lamps from the
requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for hazardous waste
management; or, 2) including fluorescent lamps in the Universal Waste Rule, designed m
part to facilitate recycling by streamlining regulations. Publ.cat.on m the Federal Register
will offer the opportunity for interested parties to communicate opinions on the alternative
proposals to the Agency. (Christine Urban/(3l2) 88O-//HJ)
Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
The public comment period has closed on the Agency s proposal to expand the TRL
Region 5 is interested in including the full list of chemicals known as GLCPs and BCCs in
the Great Lakes on the TRI; lowering the reporting thresholds for those that bioaccumulate
and are of concern in small amounts; and capturing the full range of sources of BCCs, m
order to achieve full and accurate reporting of these toxics. Many comments were
received on these issues. The majority were in support of additional reporting of BCCs.
The Agency is preparing responses to comments. The final rule ,s expected in Fail of
1994. (Barbara McLeod/(312) 886-3718)
User-Friendly Fact Sheets on BCCs Complete Internal Review
EPA staff have recently completed a review of information to be me uded ,n the User-
Friendly Factsheets" on the BCCs. The difficult task of translating this wealth of
technical information into "Plain English" will bo completed as soon as resources are
available. (Laura Flynn/(312) 886-0180)
July 1994
epor U g Environmtfuai Protection Agency
Region 5 Library
77 W. Jackson Blvd. (PL-16J)
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
-------
8
Monitoring and Modeling Workshop for Great Lakes States
A workshop is being planned for November 1994 to provide training to States in modeling
and monitoring techniques for toxic chemicals. The workshop will support the goal of
building the capacity of States to assess and reduce toxic loadings within their
jurisdictions. We are consulting with State Nonpoint Source Programs to determine the
areas where States may need the most training. (Christine Urban/(31 2)886-7783)
Voluntary PCS Phasedown Project
Region 5 EPA has a project underway to reduce risks from PCBs by asking all PCB users in
Region 5 (utility, industrial, and commercial) to voluntarily remove and properly dispose of
their PCB-containing equipment in five years. Removal includes physically removing the
units, retrofilling, and detoxification. As a first step, the Region has met with the 13
largest utilities in the Region 5 portion of the Great Lakes Basin. The Region requested of
the utilities-and has received some initial response regarding-information on phasedown
programs currently underway and details regarding future participation in this initiative.
(Phyllis Reed/(312) 886-6018)
Lake Erie Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) Update
A draft concept paper describing a commonly understood, consensus-based approach for
the Lake Erie LaMP is currently under development. USEPA and Environment Canada have
been serving as co-leads for the initial planning phases. In the U.S., Ohio is the lead State,
with participation from Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New York State. In Canada, the
Province of Ontario and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are participating.
The concept paper should be available for public review in August, 1994. (Francine
Norling/(312) 886-0271 or Jeanette Collins/(312) 886-0149)
Status Report July 1994
------- |